There is a rather bizarre case involving a 20-year-old man, Deshon Marman, who entered a plane wearing baggy pants and failed to pull up his pants fast enough for a US Airways pilot who had him arrested at San Francisco International Airport.
Marman is described as a football star at University of New Mexico who was traveling to a friend’s funeral.
He reportedly said that he first refused a demand to pull up his pants upon entering the plane because his hands were full but did ultimately pull up his pants when he reached his seat.
If so, it was not fast enough for the pilot who ordered the plane evacuated and performed a “citizen arrest.”
He was charged with trespassing, battery and resisting arrest.
Notably, there is no published dress code for US Airways and it is not clear how any arrest could be made for baggy pants. This has been a long controversy over efforts to criminalize baggy pants. The trespass charge would appear based on the theory that the pilot wanted him to leave and he did not leave fast enough. There is no explanation of the battery charge. He could not have been a threat since we have seen how baggy pants frustrate crime.
Police admit that he was not threatening anyone. Spokesman Sgt. Michael Rodriguez stated “[h]e was not threatening anybody directly, but being on board an aircraft and being disruptive to the aircraft crew interferes with their duties and that could be a safety factor.”
Police are now also holding Marman on an outstanding warrant on possession of marijuana.
I personally find this style perfectly moronic, but I fail to see the grounds for such an arrest unless the person is being charged with public exposure.
Source: NBC
pete:
“i’m scottish on my mothers side but according to my brother, who ran down that side of the family tree, we left scotland by way of ireland in the early 1700′s.”
what did you think of the book by James Web on the Scotts-Irish?
Arthur, I did not address your example in your posting that begins “I see that most posters have not read my posts on this subject.”. I read that line and responded in the affirmative to having read your previous postings (which I did) and went on without having read the rest of your posting. I was then called away and have just checked my newsgroups prior to going to bed and have read the rest of your posting.
Your statement of an encounter wherein you sent someone for a second screening was interesting. You acted in a professional manner based on passenger discomfort regarding another passenger. What would you have said to someone that had baggy pants and already pulled them up and could you have not done that while he was in his seat?
I ask that because I’m actually interested and because on several threads on this blawg incidents have been posted regarding behaviour by adolescents and young people up to the age of about 23-25 where actual, obvious law-breaking is involved or zero-tolerance policies have been involved. One of the things that science has been able to tell us lately is that the specific portion of the brain that inhibits risky behaviour and formulating decisions based on an action/consequences equation, isn’t fully formed until about the age of 24, it doesn’t even get a good growth spurt until the teen years.
Consequently many discussions have been about balancing the seriousness of the offense, the context of the behavior and who among the parties the burden of actually ‘being the adult’ might fall legally or should fall ethically. (I tell you this because I don’t think I’ve seen your nom de plume before so I don’t know if you read the blawg or not.) I generally expect school principals, teachers, police, judges, and officials over the age of 25 to be adults and comport themselves accordingly. I expect kids to do stupid stuff and not think too far ahead. There is an element of that in my assessment of the particular circumstances of this matter.
Anon: ” I guess it all depends on how YOU relate to authority.”
—–
LOL, you’re right about that. I respect authority a lot less today than I once did and I’m not the one that change the dynamic of that relationship. I am though a live and let live kind of person trained to examine situations for subtext. To keep my own clients from playing me as well as the opposer from playing me. I also generally follow orders and understand the ramifications of a law well written and explicit v. broad and filled with discretion. We will just have to agree to disagree.
O S
as much as i love flying i haven’t flown since early 01. if getting on an aircraft takes more time than the flight, why bother.
i’m scottish on my mothers side but according to my brother, who ran down that side of the family tree, we left scotland by way of ireland in the early 1700’s. must still be in my blood though because i do like the sound of bagpipes.
Pete:
I have not flown since 9-11, and will not unless an absolute necessity. I do not do sardine seating very well. However, if I do have to fly commercial, I am strongly tempted to wear my dress kilt. And go Regimental of course. I am an officer of one of the Highland Clans so that is quite appropriate. Let them search me. At my age, don’t confuse me with somebody who cares and I might enjoy the “attention.”
O S
I know my use of martial law was hyperbole, it was intentional. There is a world of difference between Captain Sullenbergers order to assume crash positions and a flight crew members dislike of a young mans style of clothing. If a pilot decides traditional arab garb is a hindrance to quickly exiting the aircraft can he ban them? (hyperbole again, i know)
what’s the difference between a scotsman in traditional garb and a cute fellow in a plaid skirt?
the sheep
This is from the US Airways contract of carriage. I await the special kind of people we call lawyers to state that pajamas that fall down around your knees are appropriate clothing:
“3.0 ACCEPTANCE OF CUSTOMERS
3.1 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT
US Airways may refuse to transport, or remove from any flight, any passenger for the following reasons:
…
6. Any passenger who may pose a threat to the comfort and/or safety of other passengers or employees
including (but not limited to) passengers who:
…
Are over the age of five (5) and barefoot, or otherwise inappropriately clothed, unless
required for medical reasons;
…
Attempt to interfere with any crewmember in the pursuit of their duties;”
There’s a long list of passenger rights that I think we should fight over.
1 TSA groping
2 Tracking each and every flight anyone takes within the borders of the US
3 Bogus fees tacked onto tickets so that no one can price compare flights
4 Passenger Bill of Rights so that passengers aren’t kept on ramp in an unhygienic, cramped, boring, unhealthy environment
…
negative Avogadro’s number: protect some arrogant douchebag grown up adult athlete’s right to dress in pajamas
lotta it seems that you did NOT read my posts because I told about a case where I DID order a person who had done nothing wrong at all off the plane. Not only that, but I told him to bring his carry on, which is NOT a good sign. He was let back on with an explanation, apology, and free drinks. From my personal experience I have had cops show up and while they did have business to conduct, it was also a social visit too. I guess it all depends on how YOU relate to authority.
“I am frankly amazed that a goodly number of people on this thread are happy to hand over so much power to some boarding agent. ”
Nah, you’re still wrong.
Has nothing to do with 9/11 and I have my own personal anecdote to show that.
In 1983, I was almost tossed off an American Airlines flight, before I even got on, for, and I swear this was my crime, asking the boarding agent what time it was. (Because the jackass had been serially lying to everyone about how delayed the flight was.)
Has nothing to do with 9/11.
That gate douche was a douche.
But yes, onboard an aircraft, you need to do what the crew asks. Period. Sorry you can’t figure that one out.
Could it have been de-escalated? Well, first, where some proper clothes when going around in public. Two, when they are falling down around your pants, learn how to apologize and not be so arrogant. Three when the man comes by to oppress you, don’t give him the opportunity then and call your lawyer later on.
Yes, it certainly could have de-escalated and we have deshon for playing his god given role as jackass to primarily thank for the escalation in the first place.
And yes, I’m glad his ass was tossed off the airplane, serves him right for being a douchebag arrogant jackass who wears pajamas in public.
LK, if a guy wearing four stripes on his sleeve ever asks you to step outside and you do not comply, there is no question about the outcome. You WILL exit the aircraft (or ship). Whether you do it on your own or in handcuffs is up to you. If you go voluntarily, there is a good chance you will be allowed to continue on your way, depending on the attitude you display. Kind of like a lawyer in the courtroom pushing the judge too far. You can be contrite or spend the weekend in jail.
Arthur, I read your postings and the law, I don’t think that is the actual issue save for being an over broad law that can and has been interpreted to cover just about anything anyone wants it to including petty disagreements that come down to a passenger not jumping when told to. Actually, that makes it a bad law IMO.
Regarding this specific case, from what I have read and seen of it the pilot came on the scene after the passenger was in his seat. The passenger told the pilot ‘it’s taken care of.’ The pilot then wanted the passenger to follow him outside.
There are only two reasons for that: to lecture the passenger as if he were a child or to get him off the plane and not allow him to return. Anything other than that doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s like the cops showing up at your house- it’s not a social visit, ever. If a pilot wants you to step off the plane you just aren’t getting back on. It may be projection on my part though I think it’s a logical projection.
FFLEO, I think you are correct. Unless he succeeds in pissing off the investigators, he will get a lecture, a small fine to cover costs and some community service. He did not represent a real threat to the crew, such as the drunk who tried to open a door in flight. He did cause a delay to the flight, and that will be taken into consideration.
While I think the captain was correct, I think a prosecutor or magistrate should be lenient with the kid when considering all of the circumstances regarding his age, his state of mind regarding the funeral, et cetera. I think a strong admonishment followed by a reasonable probationary period is fair enough.
It occurs to me that if this were the 18th Century, the kid would have risked being keelhauled or hung from the yardarm. If he were really lucky and the Captain were in a good mood, he might have gotten off light by spending the trip in the ship’s brig. Those old Captains did not play.
Raff, did you read my explanation?
As for the rules, they pre-date 9-11, not by years, but by centuries. This is nothing new. When I was a kid, I occasionally read of a passenger being arrested for not following instructions or giving crew a hard time. In the usual course of things, the Captain is not called until the problem has escalated to a point where the flight crew needs an intervention. The Captain tried to get him to come out of the plane on the flightway to have a discussion. He disobeyed that order. That was what got him arrested. No flight crew can tolerate a passenger who refuses to comply with an instruction, whether that person understands the reason for it or not. Had he come out of the plane, the Captain would have explained to him the way was wearing his trousers presented a safety hazard in case the plane had to be evacuated. Does anyone reading this really want to be behind someone with their pants down around their thighs if the aircraft is on fire? The guy in the Speedo wearing boots would NOT present a safety hazard, nor would the fellow in a kilt. Even a Nun in a habit has more freedom of movement than a guy wearing his pants like hobble shackles.
The arrest was under 49 U.S.C. § 46504. Whether you obey the instructions of a Captain, either of an aircraft or a ship, is not negotiable. It has been that way for millennia. What will probably happen is that he will get a fine and be put on some kind of probation. It could be worse. This will be treated as a misdemeanor unless he chooses to escalate it further.
Mike Spindell wrote:
“Taking it back to an era we both know about for purposes of illustration: If I wear a chartreuse Zoot Suit, does anyone have the right to tell me I can’t fly?”
____________
Well Mike, my older buddy, I think I would personally break LE rules/regulations regarding not being authorized to conduct a warrantless arrest for a crime not committed in my presence and view without a full and proper on scene investigation.
I mean, come on man, a *Chartreuse* anything is a terrible crime against all humanity and nature. That is why Avocados must be outlawed. Besides, the word chartreuse is a crime against proper orthography.
I could go on-and-on about that horrid color but I am getting queasy just thinking about it.
Judge, throw the book at that guy in the chartreuse Zoot Suit and I’ll pay that 10-spot gamblin’ debt I owe you! Then, ship him out to Sheriff Joe Arpaio for something more acceptable in the pink color scheme of incarcerated leisurewear.
Arthur,
I did read your post. I don’t deny that the law states that these civilians have this unique authority. I am just suggesting that it is excessive and in this case unnecessary. What danger to the passengers do baggies pants present? None, in my humble opinion.
I see that most posters have not read my posts on this subject. The FACT is that this kid was NOT arrested for a dress code violation. The captain told him to come outside the aircraft and talk to him. He refused to follow that order and as a result he was arrested. THAT is the problem. I had to order a young man outside one time because another person was concerned about him and his carry on luggage. I called TSA, he had done nothing wrong, he got a secondary screening, was cleared, and got back on board with my explanation and apology for the inconvenience. I also ordered the F?As to give him free drinks as compensation, so he was a happy customer at the end of the flight. Had he refused my order, I would have had him arrested.
When you buy your ticket it also has a seat assignment on it, but there are times when for safety, load weight and balance, you must change your seat. If you refuse the order to take another seat, you WILL also be arrested.
As a matter of fact and law, you DO have to follow all lawful orders given by flight crew members and you do NOT have any discretion as to when and how you comply. That comes with your ticket too by the way. If you do not like public transportation, you can drive and wear and do whatever your heart desires.
“they’re” sb “their”.