Robb,Wouldn't it be better for your attorney to send the letter or go through him. The airlines will probably laugh this off if it comes directly from you.Brent

Hi Brent,My attorney is a good buddy of mine, so I have not officially hired him or any attorney for that matter. I would not hire an attorney over something as mundane as having my camara film confiscated. After the incident occcurred, I went to check out the official policy and have found thus far that there appears to be no such policy. At that point, I contacted by buddy. I still plan on writing a letter to Delta with his and other input and will post it when it is finished. We aviation buffs and flightsimmers have rights too!

I do wish you ALL the best. What I meant to say was, don't be disappointed when you receive the usual canned response:"Dear Sir, Thank you for your interest in XXXX Airlines. Customer satisfaction is very important to us and we will forward your letter to our Customer Service Department. Thank you for your feedback."That will probably be the last you will hear from them. You did the right thing by complying with their demands. One thing I have learned is to keep my mouth shut, don't ask questions and do whatever they tell you to do. Brent

Are you going to have the same attitude when they cart your family of to a concentration camp for security purposes. Let's wake up and not surrender our rights in the face of a hysterical out of control government.

LMAO RobbieI clicked on on that link and I saw the picture but I did not know what it's supposed to be..i just looked at it trying to figure out what you were trying to say...lol Then i moved the mouse to close the pic because i had no clue what you were trying to say, then i discovered the err..scope :-hahNice oneMike

Post another link to a nude show, and you won't be posting here again.

Well, yes....ummmmm, ah...And for the rest of you who were able to provide positive comments and constructive criticism, thanks a lot! The letters are in the mail, and we will just have wait to see what Delta does.Robb

If it was a public owned airport it doesnt matter if you are in front or back of the security checkpoint.I am one who would have told her to take a flying leap off a high bridge and dont pack a chute.I hope you got this reps first and last name and employee badge ##. I think the way I would have handled this situation would have been for her to escort you to a public posting at the checkpoint or at the concourse and asked her to show you the policy posted there. Then when you could not be shown this policy ask to speak with their supervisor and ask them to present you with this policy.If they could not show you a policy I would have then said to them I cannot not comply...unfortunaly you had you rights violated, I had the same thing at a public city sponsered event where Ricky Nelson was performing..the city police ask me to stop photgraphing Nelson and wanted me to turnover my film, the minute I asked them to show me where I gave up my rights to photograph Nelson they back down fast.I think that the one poster is correct...give your lawyer freind $20.00 and a nice dinner and have him draft the letter to Delta..with respect they wont take you serious.Unfortunatly it seems as though by default the terrorist were able to paste another sucsessful hit on their scoreboard.Regaurds

Hi there,being on publicly owned property does not necessarily give you 'carte blanche' to do as you please (within the law, of course). Although KDCA is owned and managed by the MWAA, a public body, they are well within their rights to ask any person on their premises to provide a reasonable explanation for their presence, for example. They may also impose a code of conduct relating to various activities, such as taking pictures. Although in this case it would not appear as if such a ban had been imposed by the airport authority, the airlines may well have proprietary rights at their gates (Actually, this is more than likely, as it greatly reduces MWAA's liabilities). In this case, the airline's position is akin to that of a pub landlord (who may well rent his premises), who has proprietary rights in regards to his business premises - i.e. he can refuse to serve someone without having to give a reason, he can ban or allow certain activities, and impose many other requirements as he (or she) sees fit (demanding shirts and shoes to be worn is quite popular). Most likely (depending on their agreement with the MWAA), the airline is in a similar position. As to the expectation of privacy - this would apply to members of the public (i.e. customers), but not to requests made by the proprietor.Cheers,Gosta. http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpgP.S.: $20 is a bit low, it had better be a very good dinner...

>>P.S.: $20 is a bit low, it had better be a very good dinner...<<

>Im a cheapskate with highprice culinary taste.;).Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

I did not get her name. I was standing there in front of the glass after I had just gotten a sweet shot of that 737. I was proud of myself too. At that point, the woman approached me. There were, what seemed to be 100s of people looking at the event. I felt like I was about two feet tall. At the time, I just assumed she was correct, so I handed it over. I figured that I had missed something and that there was such a ruling.In retrospect, with the information that I have now, I would have called her on it. At the time, however, the last thing I wanted was to escorted over to a couple of 8th grade educated security guards who would have embarrassed me further.I believe the woman who checked me was a supervisor because she went from one gate to another rather than sticking around at one gate.My buddy lives in DC and works for the GAO and is a former DOJ attorney who specialized in freedom of information laws on the govenrments side while at the DOJ. So, he knows a certain amount about laws regulating what kinds of information that has to become public vs. information that must remain private, at least from the govenments perspective.If Delta refuses to be specific about such information as to why photographs are not allowed, then I will check with him to write up a letter. The letters I wrote are already in the mail.The bottom line is that if you were taking photos at DCA and I walked up to you and grabbed you roll of film and ran off, I would be breaking the law. What Delta did was similar.Anyway, they had better respond with something.

>The bottom line is that if you were taking photos at DCA and I walked up to you and grabbed you roll of film and ran off, I would be breaking the law.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Gosta, In the United States, private citizens do not have the legal authority to seize anything from anyone even if the event in question occurs on private property. Only law enforcement personnel or other legally designated public officials (i.e. Military Police, Court Officers) who are acting in accordance with specific statutory regulations or Executive Department directives can take such action. Delta Airlines employees are not commissioned law enforcement officers and have been given no seizure authority in statutory law. Delta Airlines can post "rules" forbiding photography or even refuse to allow cameras on their property, but they cannot seize private property. The most they could do is refuse to allow you on their aircraft and ask you to leave.David FreedFederal Law Enforcement Officer (USDA)

Hey Gotsa,Your statement was so impressive, I proposed it to my attorney friend who made the following comment via email:As to the first argument, I agree - just based on general legal notions - that the owner of a premises may regulate conduct there. That would include a prohibition on taking pictures. Also, this would hold true even if the plane were in full view. I think the whole thing is determined by whether the gate area -- where you were standing -- is owned by the airline or by the airport authority. In general, the rights to regulate free expression (First Amendment to the Consitution) are much more limited in the case of a governmental entity such as the airport authority. Free expression does include picture taking. Under general notions of Constitutional law, the airport authority would have to justify the prohibiton on something like a safety concern or crowd management. Otherwise, you are freely engaging in your right to take pictures and the airline can do nothing about it because you are not on their property and their plane is in full view from a public area. By contrast, if they own the gate area, the First Amendment would not apply and they may impose any restrictions they deem fit -- regardless of how arbitrary.