ICE agent’s sneaky defense fails; flight crew interference convicted

(DALLAS, TEXAS, UNITED STATES) A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer for flight crew interference after he secretly took upskirt photos and videos of a flight attendant during a November 2023 flight from Dallas to Miami, according to court records.

The ICE agent, identified as Billy Olvera, was on duty escorting a detainee when he used his phone to capture 43 images and videos of the attendant, labeled A.G. in filings. The media focused on her legs, feet, and attempts to film under her skirt without her knowledge. The court rejected his claim that being “sneaky” meant no crime occurred.

Charges, Statute, and Legal Standard

Olvera was charged under 49 U.S.C. § 46504, a federal law that makes it a crime to assault, intimidate, or interfere with flight crew members and attendants — including attempts — if it affects their ability to perform their duties.

• The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the statute does not require proof of intent to intimidate or interfere.
• Instead, the government must show that the defendant knowingly engaged in actions that resulted in interference with a crew member’s duties.
• The panel found that the flight attendant’s distress and distraction, as described in testimony, demonstrated clear interference with her ability to work.

“The law does not hinge on whether a person meant to disrupt,” the court explained. The decisive question is whether the conduct, done knowingly, actually interfered with crew duties.

Facts and Evidence Presented

Court documents describe how the incident unfolded:

• While handling the detainee transfer, Olvera positioned his phone at suspicious angles that alerted the flight attendant.
• The attendant noticed and became concerned she was being filmed.
• A fellow crew member quietly recorded Olvera’s actions to preserve evidence.
• When the plane landed in Miami, law enforcement met the aircraft.
• A search of Olvera’s phone found 43 photos and videos, consistent with the attendant’s account — and central to the prosecution’s case.

Defense and Appeals Court Response

The defense argued:

• Because Olvera acted secretly, he did not intend to threaten, scare, or block the flight attendant from doing her job.
• The lawyer claimed Olvera thought he was undetected and therefore could not have known he was causing distress.

The appeals court disagreed:

• The government did not need to prove Olvera intended to intimidate or block duties — only that he knowingly took actions that caused interference.
• The surreptitious nature of the recordings did not shield him from liability; the relevant factor was the effect on the attendant.

Sentencing and Broader Implications

• Olvera faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
• Sentencing is set for August 16, 2024.

This case spotlights how courts interpret the federal interference statute where conduct involves sexual harassment or voyeurism onboard an aircraft. While many jurisdictions separately criminalize upskirt photography, the appeals court applied the federal interference law because the behavior affected the crew’s ability to perform duties during flight.

Why This Ruling Matters

• The court focused on the impact of conduct on the crew, not the offender’s belief about being caught.
• Concealment does not erase harm; covert behavior can still constitute criminal interference when it disrupts a crew member’s duties.
• For flight attendants and crew, the ruling reinforces that misconduct can threaten safety by consuming attention, causing fear, and forcing changes in how staff move through the cabin.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, prosecutors may use the federal interference statute when crew harassment occurs in flight, even if a state voyeurism law would also apply. Key considerations include:

• The venue (in-flight setting)
• The link between the conduct and crew duties
• The resulting interference with safety or service tasks

Ethical and Safety Context

• Secretly taking intimate images without consent is a violation of dignity and privacy.
• Such acts are often experienced as violent in effect — humiliating and deeply disruptive.
• In a confined environment like an airplane, where flight attendants are responsible for safety checks, passenger management, and emergency readiness, this behavior increases risk to safety.

Privacy and dignity protections apply even in semi-public spaces like airplanes. Covert upskirt photography is widely seen as sexual harassment and, in many places, a criminal act. The fact that it is done secretly often makes it more serious, not less.

Practical Takeaways for Aviation Personnel

• Reporting processes and evidence preservation can be decisive — e.g., a co-worker’s quick recording played a vital role here.
• The ruling affirms that harassment aboard aircraft can be treated as more than a “private wrong”; it can be prosecuted as interference with crew duties and safety.
• For government officers traveling with detainees (including any ICE agent), being on duty does not create an exemption from professional conduct standards.

Statutory Reference

The relevant statute, 49 U.S.C. § 46504, covers assault, intimidation, or interference with flight crew members and attendants — including attempts — when these actions affect their ability to perform duties. The statute does not require proof of intent to interfere; it requires that the person knowingly engaged in conduct that resulted in interference.

For the official statute text, see the U.S. Code maintained by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel:
49 U.S.C. § 46504.

Conclusion

The appeals court’s decision underscores that the law protects crew members’ ability to focus on safety and service without harassment or inappropriate conduct. When misconduct aboard a plane causes distress or distraction, the effect on crew duties — not the perpetrator’s secretive intent — controls criminal liability.

This case will likely be reviewed by airline compliance teams, union leaders, and in-flight security trainers as an example of how federal law addresses harassment that impairs crew performance.