No Warrant, No Data: Alaska Airlines Faces Blowback For Telling Staff Not To Hand Passenger Info To Law Enforcement On Demand

Live and Let’s Fly highlights an Alaska Airlines poster reminding employees to follow company procedures before releasing information in response to requests by law enforcement. That’s being called out online as ‘obstruction’ of justice by people who do not know what obstruction of justice means. Alaska is doing exactly what we should all want them to do (although they should really go farther).

Frontline employees are reminded that they aren’t authorized to release information on their own “Notify your supervisor immediately” –

NEW: This was sent to me by an @AlaskaAir employee. A company poster instructs employees not to comply with federal authorities.

Hey @realDonaldTrump, @DHSgov Alaska Airlines is openly obstructing federal law enforcement operations. I think it’s time to see what federal funds… pic.twitter.com/lWCaAwGuVX

— David Medina (@davidmedinapdx) November 30, 2025

In fact, this poster has been in use for several months and is not in fact new. But it’s being mocked as “if you see something, say nothing” along with hysterical stuff about Alaska protecting “drug running and sex trafficking customers.”

Here’s What Obstruction Of Justice Actually Is

At the federal level, “obstruction of justice” isn’t one crime, it’s a family of statutes (18 U.S.C. ch. 73) covering things like:

• Interfering with the due administration of justice in a pending judicial proceeding
  
• Tampering with witnesses, victims, or informants, or otherwise corruptly obstructing an official proceeding
  
• Destroying or concealing evidence, or corruptly persuading others to do so.

Usually there has to be a real proceeding or formal process (court case, grand jury, agency proceeding, or at least an ‘official proceeding’ as defined in the statute). Investigations are not themselves “proceedings” for the purposes of these statutes.

There also needs to be a corrupt intent to impede, influence, or frustrate that process. That suggests violence, threats, deception, destroying evidence, pressuring witnesses, and the like.

Simply not volunteering information you’re not legally required to give is not obstruction. There has to be a legal duty plus a corrupt effort to thwart it.

Alaska Is Telling Employees To Follow Procedure, Not Subvert It

The poster says that if law enforcement or a government official asks for passenger information, don’t comply on the spot. Ask for a subpoena or warrant. Loop in a supervisor. For non-urgent requests, involve legal.

In other words, disclosure should follw valid legal process. There’s no refusal to follow valid legal process. They are directing employees to follow the law and company policy, not to lie, delete data, or hide witnesses.

Legally, a private company has no general duty to give police whatever they ask for informally. Insisting on a warrant is exactly how the process framework is supposed to work when the government wants private data.

This Is What We All Want Alaska To Do

Police and federal agencies are not entitled to everything they ask for just because they asked. That’s why we have warrants, subpoenas, and judges.

Alaska’s privacy policy says they are committed to protecting personal information and describes controlled circumstances for sharing it. A free-for-all “tell any cop whatever they want” approach would contradict what they’re telling customers.

And it protects employees from being bullied or freelancing. A gate or reservations agent shouldn’t have to decide on the fly whether some badge-flashing person is legit or whether the request is lawful. “Company policy: I need legal process, and I must call my supervisor” is a shield for front-line staff.

It also creates a clean, auditable trail. Requiring written legal process means there’s documentation of what was requested, why, and what was provided. That protects passengers (who can challenge abuses later); the airline (that it acted lawfully and consistently); as well as law enforcement (better chain of custody of evidence, lower risk of suppression).

It is 100% standard practice in industries with sensitive data. Apple says government or private entities must follow applicable laws and that Apple’s legal team reviews requests to ensure a valid legal basis. Microsoft says they require a subpoena for non-content, and a warrant for content – and that they object to improper requests. (Indeed, this is how you know if the request is valid in the first place!)

What else is Alaska supposed to do, given their legal obligations in state privacy laws and international data regimes (remember, Alaska is a global carrier now)?

I remember when conservatives – just last year when Joe Biden was president! – beleived in ‘limited government’ and ‘rule of law’ requiring a judge to sign off on searches.

• This also makes it harder for officials to use corporate databases for personal vendettas or fishing expeditions.

• Fewer uncontrolled ad hoc disclosures mean fewer copies of your data floating around in random evidence lockers.

• If Alaska (and others) simply handed over whatever a badge-holder asked for, you get informal, unlogged fishing expeditions. An officer could ask, “Print every upcoming reservation for X surname” or “Who’s booked on this flight to D.C. tomorrow?” with no paper trail and no judge.

• Journalists, activists, political opponents, or just “people who look wrong” could have their travel scrutinized. It’s mass surveillance by shortcut. And it’s easy to imagine local officers routinely querying flights for “known troublemakers,” ex-partners, or racial/religious groups during moments of local hysteria.

Honestly, I wish Alaska would go farther. Where legally permissible, I’d want them to give me notice when my data is requested so I could seek an order to quash! They’re not going to do this, but it’s the expectation that I put into every contract’s confidentiality language that I review in daily work.