What began as a petty theft ended up exposing a bigger problem at the airport: United Express agents refusing to help police identify a suspect unless officers first obtained a warrant.

United Express Agents Refuse To Identify Exit-Row Clip Thief Without A Warrant

A United Express E175 aircraft arrived in Idaho Falls (IDA) from Denver (DEN). A post-flight check revealed that the exit-row escape-rope carabiner was missing, which made the jet unairworthy for its next flight. Police were called and a flight attendant identified the passenger suspected of stealing the part (just his name). Officers sought help at the gate to further identify the passenger seen handling the exit-row hardware. But agents declined to assist “without a warrant.” Police later located him curbside, recovered the clip from his pocket, and a confrontation followed that ended with pepper spray and an arrest.

It Started With Alcohol…

• During the short IDA-DEN light, witness accounts indicated a passenger had moved to the exit row, asked for alcohol, and manipulated the escape-rope assembly during the flight.
• After arrival, crew discovered the exit-row carabiner was missing, grounding the aircraft until the part could be accounted for and the system inspected.
• Police boarded the aircraft, where a flight attendant identified the passenger by name and seat.
• At the gate, United Express agents refused to confirm the suspect’s identity or provide info of the man he was traveling with “without a warrant,” despite the airline being the apparent victim of a theft affecting airworthiness and the airline calling the police in the first place!
• Police found the man and confronted him, finding the missing clip in his pocket
• The encounter escalated, pepper spray was deployed, and the passenger was arrested.
• The man faces potential jail time and both state and federal charges.

Here is the police bodycam video:

The incident happened on September 28th, 2024, but police bodycam footage was just released last weekend.

Was A Warrant Really Required?

The interesting part of this story is that the United gate agent declined to help the police officer find the culprit (if you watched the video above, you’ll see the policeman is visibly miffed). So was a warrant required?

Short answer: likely not. A warrant is generally reserved for searches where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy…the gate agent asking for a warrant was like calling the cops when you home was broken into and then asking the cops for a warrant when they show up to investigate. Airline reservation and manifest records are business records. This data can be shared voluntarily with law enforcement, especially when the company itself is the victim of a crime that occurred on its aircraft or on its premises.

Airlines often adopt internal policies that require a subpoena or warrant before releasing documents or bulk data, but that reflects policy choice, not a universal legal requirement. Here, the agent could have take a victim-witness role and cooperated in real time, while still asking investigators to follow up with United’s policy if more info was needed.

Could officers have pursued a subpoena or court order via telephone? Yes, and agencies do that routinely. But not in cases like this: demanding a warrant was stupid.

CONCLUSION

The stolen clip grounded a United jet and triggered a police response. The aviation safety piece is obvious. The troubling part is what happened at the counter. United Express agents turned officers away with a blanket warrant demand when a measured, lawful path to immediate cooperation existed. I find the agent’s actions indefensible. United should align frontline training with both safety imperatives and lawful cooperation so that the next time a crime threatens airworthiness, employees help solve the problem rather than slow it down.

Hat Tip: @N830MH/Flyertalk