mules

A woman in FL demonstrates the pat down she received and is charged with assault:
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florid...es-TSA-officer

Wally Bird

I hope this couple has deep enough pockets to take it to court.

If what person A (TSA) does to person B (pax) is not "assault" then if B does exactly the same to A it ought to follow that's not "assault" either. Yeah, I know they would lose but the negative publicity might be worth it.

United_727

Assault,to me,is punching . Sounds overly dramatic.

WillCAD

Which just goes to show that what we've been saying all along is true - these pat-downs, conducted by anyone else, under any other circumstances, constitute assault. In fact, since they involve unwanted touching of the genitalia and other private areas of the body, they may constitute sexual assault, depending the legal definition of sexual assault in a particular jurisdiction.

spd476

This probably is going to end badly for the passenger. If a TSA screener does this to a passenger, it's SOP, but if a passenger does it to the screener, then it's assault. Something doesn't seem right about that.

I've never been arrested or been in jail, but I have received invasive patdowns from the TSA. What is the difference between the patdown the police give versus the enhanced patdown the TSA gives? I can't imagine getting handcuffed and thrown in the back of a police car will get repeated genital contact as what I've experienced with the TSA. I figure going into prison would warrant a through patdown and the Supreme Court strip search decision complicates things. It seems to me that the TSA patdowns are more suited for prison than getting on a plane.

Ari

I find it interesting that she was charged with resisting an officer; I can only hope that it was from what happened after when the cops got there and isn't based on a TSA "officer".

nachtnebel

with the police, resisting means not going limp after the first baton blow to the head.

PresRDC

Assualt is defined as any unconsented to contact. It meets the legal defintion. What the TSA does is not assault because of the implied consent you give when entering the checkpoint.

Wally Bird

Nonsense add-on charge but extremely difficult to disprove. The cops know that so they always include it as a freebie for them.
Google informed consent. Since the TSA does not, in so many words, inform passengers that their crotch, butt or breasts will be "grabbed", "brushed", "patted" or whatever there is no implied consent to that degree.

Simply being searched does not convey the full import to uninformed passengers. A court would probably (make that be guaranteed to) support the TSA but I'd like to see the legal arguments publicized anyway.

nachtnebel

This should be obvious. If you ask me "Can I shake your hand" and I consent, that does not give you permission to jiggle my genitals. For proper consent, they need to identify specifically what parts will be touched and how.

And beyond this, they cannot ask the question legally in any case, even by spelling out the genital touching: Because you cannot practically refuse, it is under duress.

PresRDC

Unfortunately, that's not the law.

Wally Bird

What's not which law?

Chaos.Defined

don't worry... slap on the wrist at most... problem is... how many brave jokers are going to think they'll get away with making a point this way? Eventually things will escalate more than they should....
perhaps people should stick to stopping before the assault...

for fun
49 USC § 46503 - Interference with security screening personnel
An individual in an area within a commercial service airport in the United States who, by assaulting a Federal, airport, or air carrier employee who has security duties within the airport, interferes with the performance of the duties of the employee or lessens the ability of the employee to perform those duties, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. If the individual used a dangerous weapon in committing the assault or interference, the individual may be imprisoned for any term of years or life imprisonment.

MavSeven

Sounds like we should all do a modified "touch my junk and I'll have you arrested":

The TSA likes to claim that once you place your belongings on the belt, you can no longer withdraw from screening until they are done.

So, you go through security, and opt-out or something to get the pat down. When the groper explains that he is going to feel until he "meets resistance", you calmly inform him that you do not accept any contact with your genitals. No threats, just a refusal. Of course, they and all their superiors will coerce, threaten, harass, and intimidate you into giving consent. Don't budge.

If we do this enough, someone will be stupid enough to threaten someone with a fine. File lawsuit... ???.... profit.

Affection

If you're going to play lawyer on the Internet, please use Google so that your answer might have at least a chance of being sorta right.

Elements of Assault:

“An act intended to create”: The defendant must act with the intent to create the state of fear or danger in the victim. Accidental acts do not result in an act of assault

“a reasonable apprehension”: This means that the victim had a reasonable belief that they would be harmed by the defendant. The victim must perceive (apprehend) the defendant’s acts

“of imminent harm”: The victim must experience fear in response to a threat that is imminent, or immediately about to occur. Future threats, such as, “I will beat you up next week” do not result in assault charges. Also, the harm must present some sort of perceived physical danger to the victim, and so words by themselves generally do not constitute assault

“that is either harmful or offensive”: The defendant’s conduct must present either a physical threat or offensive behavior to the defendant. Thus, pretending to kick the victim may be an assault, as would be attempting to spit on the victim (offensive behavior)

--Jon