This can't be good

[wnbubbleboy]

Jury orders Southwest Airlines to pay Virginia men $9 million

PHOENIX A jury in Phoenix today ordered Southwest Airlines to pay nine (M) million dollars to two former bail agents -- who mistakenly were arrested.

Thomas Hudgins and Leroy DeVore, both from Richmond, Virginia, made plans in 1999 to fly to Arizona to arrest a fugitive.

Both showed identification to employees of Dallas-based Southwest and a letter explaining their jobs. The men were given permission to take two handguns and a stun gun in their carry-on luggage.

But government policy only allowed for federal or law enforcement employees to carry weapons.

When the plane landed, the men were arrested.

Defense attorney Richard Gerry says the airline initially refused to turn over documents from its own investigation unless the men released Southwest of any liability.

Charges of carrying concealed weapons eventually were dismissed.

Southwest says it disagrees with the verdict and is reviewing its legal options.


Eye Crumba! If it's true pay the men and FIRE the counsel that F'd this up. It's the right thing to do.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

Jury orders Southwest Airlines to pay Virginia men $9 million

PHOENIX A jury in Phoenix today ordered Southwest Airlines to pay nine (M) million dollars to two former bail agents -- who mistakenly were arrested.

Thomas Hudgins and Leroy DeVore, both from Richmond, Virginia, made plans in 1999 to fly to Arizona to arrest a fugitive.

Both showed identification to employees of Dallas-based Southwest and a letter explaining their jobs. The men were given permission to take two handguns and a stun gun in their carry-on luggage.

But government policy only allowed for federal or law enforcement employees to carry weapons.

When the plane landed, the men were arrested.

Defense attorney Richard Gerry says the airline initially refused to turn over documents from its own investigation unless the men released Southwest of any liability.

Charges of carrying concealed weapons eventually were dismissed.

Southwest says it disagrees with the verdict and is reviewing its legal options.
Eye Crumba! If it's true pay the men and FIRE the counsel that F'd this up. It's the right thing to do.

Not being familiar with this, do 'Bail Agents' have arresting power? Curious here.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Not being familiar with this, do 'Bail Agents' have arresting power? Curious here.

I am guessing "Bail Agents" may be a fancy name for "Bounty Hunters". In any either case though if somebody had given them the "OK" to fly the screw up should be on us not them.

For example, in my job I ship Hazardous Materials. If I screw up I am subject to personal fines even though I am acting as an agent for the company. If this material was grossly mishandled (ie Sabertech) then I should be responsible.
More than likely though if it were a screw up on my part it would be in "good faith". Maybe a misunderstanding of shipping proceedures on my part and the company would pay the fine and my penance would be I would have go to a second refresher class for shipping regulations.

After all, when I sign WNbubbleboy to the shipping papers I am really acting on behalf of Southwest Airlines.

Now, with all this being said, if somebody screwed (maybe from a customer service angle trying to make it easier on these guys) up and let these guys on, say it, learn from it, don't do it again. How hard can that be?

 

[QA4Jet-A]

I am guessing "Bail Agents" may be a fancy name for "Bounty Hunters". In any either case though if somebody had given them the "OK" to fly the screw up should be on us not them.

For example, in my job I ship Hazardous Materials. If I screw up I am subject to personal fines even though I am acting as an agent for the company. If this material was grossly mishandled (ie Sabertech) then I should be responsible.
More than likely though if it were a screw up on my part it would be in "good faith". Maybe a misunderstanding of shipping proceedures on my part and the company would pay the fine and my penance would be I would have go to a second refresher class for shipping regulations.

After all, when I sign WNbubbleboy to the shipping papers I am really acting on behalf of Southwest Airlines.

Now, with all this being said, if somebody screwed (maybe from a customer service angle trying to make it easier on these guys) up and let these guys on, say it, learn from it, don't do it again. How hard can that be?

I totally agree with you, especially on the 'sabretech' issue, which we still feel the pain for. What gets me is, if they were let on board, how did someone get a tip to arrest them when they arrived at their desination? Seems to me that, once cleared for boarding, there should not have been a further issue. If there was, which obviously was the case, why isn't the person who cleared them being held responsible? Or is this being investigated deeper?

 

[alonso66]

I totally agree with you, especially on the 'sabretech' issue, which we still feel the pain for. What gets me is, if they were let on board, how did someone get a tip to arrest them when they arrived at their desination? Seems to me that, once cleared for boarding, there should not have been a further issue. If there was, which obviously was the case, why isn't the person who cleared them being held responsible? Or is this being investigated deeper?

While the ticket counter agent may have been at fault here, the question that also must be asked is why they were allowed to clear the security check point . Shouldnt the TSA have verified they were authorised to travel as armed passengers as well ?

I know the check in agent is responsible for ensuring that the passengers presenting themselves are allowed to travel armed by checking their credentials , but this should have been caught at the check point as well.

This also happened in 1999 and the rules may have changed since then , but currently only State or Federal Law enforcement are allowed to travel armed, not bail agents or private security people etc.

Quick edit : TSA didnt exist in 1999 either, my bad ! Anyone have an archive copy of the 1999 regulations ?

 

[wnbubbleboy]

According to the two men, their attorneys and court records, on Sept. 11, 1999, Devore and Hudgins checked in at the airport in Baltimore for a flight to Phoenix.

They had been hired by a bail bondsman to travel to Tucson and bring back a bail jumper facing drug and assault charges. Both men claim they called the airline to find out what they needed to do to transport their weapons. When they arrived at the airport, they offered to check their handguns in their luggage but were instead told to put them in their carry-on luggage.

They were erroneously issued signed authorization documents, which they showed as they passed through security and as they boarded the plane. Such authorizations are supposed to be issued only to certain law enforcement officers, not to bail enforcement agents, as bounty hunters are called.

During trial, attorney Craig Gillespie said, the pilot told the court that he had even left the cockpit to ask a Southwest worker in the terminal about the authorization. Then he took off with Devore and Hudgins aboard.

One of the airline personnel had misread the name of the bounty hunters' company, H&D, as HUD and told the pilot that the two men worked for the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Near the end of the flight, one of the flight attendants realized that the men were bounty hunters after a conversation with Devore. And although the crew apparently determined they were not a threat, they were not law enforcement officers.

So the pilot radioed ahead to tell the tower that there were two armed men on the plane who were not authorized to carry weapons. And he asked that the police meet the flight.

Devore and Hudgins were arrested and spent the weekend in the Madison Street Jail. The next Monday they appeared before a federal judge who granted them a conditional release.

They asked if they could finish the job they had come to do, and the judge said yes, so long as they were back in court the next morning.

Devore and Hudgins rented a car, but their guns and handcuffs had been taken, so they stopped at an auto-parts store to buy heavy-duty plastic ties to use as restraining devices.

They drove to Tucson, where their bail jumper was staying with his mother, kept the house under surveillance all night long, then knocked on the door before daylight. The fugitive's mother answered the door and led them to the bedroom where he was sleeping.

"We had him in cuffs before he was fully awake," Devore said.

Then they hurried back to Phoenix and hired a private investigator to watch the fugitive.



Both men were charged with carrying a concealed weapon on an aircraft, which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. And although documents entered as evidence showed that Devore and Hudgins did not misrepresent who they were and that Southwest employees had violated policies in allowing them to take the guns on the plane, it took prosecutors about five months to drop charges.

Story from the Arizona Republic

 

[mga707]

According to the two men, their attorneys and court records, on Sept. 11 (!), 1999, Devore and Hudgins checked in at the airport in Baltimore for a flight to Phoenix.
[/b]

Now THAT is just downright eerie!

 

[Flying Photog]

IMO, they had no need to carry the weapons on board because they were not providing security for the aircraft. They could have (and should have) checked the weapons under the plane, which WN does allow.

 

[WNrforlife]

According to the two men, their attorneys and court records, on Sept. 11, 1999, Devore and Hudgins checked in at the airport in Baltimore for a flight to Phoenix.

They had been hired by a bail bondsman to travel to Tucson and bring back a bail jumper facing drug and assault charges. Both men claim they called the airline to find out what they needed to do to transport their weapons. When they arrived at the airport, they offered to check their handguns in their luggage but were instead told to put them in their carry-on luggage.

They were erroneously issued signed authorization documents, which they showed as they passed through security and as they boarded the plane. Such authorizations are supposed to be issued only to certain law enforcement officers, not to bail enforcement agents, as bounty hunters are called.

During trial, attorney Craig Gillespie said, the pilot told the court that he had even left the cockpit to ask a Southwest worker in the terminal about the authorization. Then he took off with Devore and Hudgins aboard.

One of the airline personnel had misread the name of the bounty hunters' company, H&D, as HUD and told the pilot that the two men worked for the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Near the end of the flight, one of the flight attendants realized that the men were bounty hunters after a conversation with Devore. And although the crew apparently determined they were not a threat, they were not law enforcement officers.

So the pilot radioed ahead to tell the tower that there were two armed men on the plane who were not authorized to carry weapons. And he asked that the police meet the flight.

Devore and Hudgins were arrested and spent the weekend in the Madison Street Jail. The next Monday they appeared before a federal judge who granted them a conditional release.

They asked if they could finish the job they had come to do, and the judge said yes, so long as they were back in court the next morning.

Devore and Hudgins rented a car, but their guns and handcuffs had been taken, so they stopped at an auto-parts store to buy heavy-duty plastic ties to use as restraining devices.

They drove to Tucson, where their bail jumper was staying with his mother, kept the house under surveillance all night long, then knocked on the door before daylight. The fugitive's mother answered the door and led them to the bedroom where he was sleeping.

"We had him in cuffs before he was fully awake," Devore said.

Then they hurried back to Phoenix and hired a private investigator to watch the fugitive.
Both men were charged with carrying a concealed weapon on an aircraft, which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. And although documents entered as evidence showed that Devore and Hudgins did not misrepresent who they were and that Southwest employees had violated policies in allowing them to take the guns on the plane, it took prosecutors about five months to drop charges.

Story from the Arizona Republic

Wow, I guess we really f'd up big time on this one. Oh well, live & learn as I always say. Move on - it's water under the bridge. No use crying over spilt milk.

 

[hobbes]

YEP you sure did bucko. Now tell Herb to get his checkbook out and shut his pie hole.

Airlines have no trouble reaching into the flying public's wallet when we make a booking error so it seems to me turnabout is fair play.

Heck 9 Mil just means a few less commercials on the football game.

I doubt they'll see this type of money. I believe there's a limit on damages such as this in most states. In Texas, I think it's limited to $750,00. And in any case, most airlines are insured for damages such as this.

One note, Piney - as far as reaching into the public's wallet when they make a booking error, Southwest is the LEAST punitive in that area. We don't charge those lovely $100 "change fees," and even in the worst-case scenario, our full fares are considerably lower than most airlines. So if that's your reasoning for us shutting up and paying $9 million, it's weak at best. You're pointing at the wrong airline.

Granted, a mistake was made, and it sounds as though it were done by a customer service agent who just made an honest mistake - bail enforcement agent sounds quite different than "bounty hunter." However, I do have to say that most people who have concealed carry licenses are generally well-aware of the rules regarding where you can and can't carry guns. They said that they both called the airline and were told what to do, but they never said what that answer was? Then, when they got to the gate, they "offered" to check them, but that shouldn't have ever been a question: they should have insisted on checking them. What I find is strange that three separate WN employees all gave them the wrong information...so this story implies. If you have a license to carry concealed weapons, and you are a professional bounty hunter, you should know the rules. You should also know that a bounty hunter does not equal a law enforcement officer.

Not to wipe WN clean of their responsibility, but it sounds like mistakes were made on both sides. It also sounds like the press didn't gather all the facts prior to writing the story.

 

[LCC_#1]

IMO, they had no need to carry the weapons on board because they were not providing security for the aircraft. They could have (and should have) checked the weapons under the plane, which WN does allow.

Then the secret service, FBI, or any OTHER law enforcement agency should do the same. The only people on the aircraft there to provide security for the a/c are FAMS and any armed pilot. Beleive me, I have flown into DCA with up to 10 individuals with guns. Those other individuals have no need to carry their weapon