repost: 1st amendment lawsuit against TSA by passenger
Jan 28, 2013, 8:12 pm
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,321
repost: 1st amendment lawsuit against TSA by passenger
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...taliation.html
What happened the passenger that TSA is violated of 1st amendment constitution rights. When he went through TSA checkpoint, and TSA gave him a patdown. They touching him. It's unacceptable! He violated of his civil rights against TSA. After his judge is dropped all charges against him.
What happened the passenger that TSA is violated of 1st amendment constitution rights. When he went through TSA checkpoint, and TSA gave him a patdown. They touching him. It's unacceptable! He violated of his civil rights against TSA. After his judge is dropped all charges against him.
Jan 28, 2013, 9:23 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 31,007
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...taliation.html
What happened the passenger that TSA is violated of 1st amendment constitution rights. When he went through TSA checkpoint, and TSA gave him a patdown. They touching him. It's unacceptable! He violated of his civil rights against TSA. After his judge is dropped all charges against him.
What happened the passenger that TSA is violated of 1st amendment constitution rights. When he went through TSA checkpoint, and TSA gave him a patdown. They touching him. It's unacceptable! He violated of his civil rights against TSA. After his judge is dropped all charges against him.
- It has nothing to do with a touching him being unacceptable.
- Charges against him weren't dropped - prosecutors never pursued any case so there are no "all charges" to drop.
- The ruling is related to a freedom of speech suit he filed, and the judges merely refused to overturn a lower court ruling, allowing the case to proceed.
The TSA wanted to avoid the trial, claiming immunity. The panel disagreed and will allow the trial to be conducted. That's all.
Jan 29, 2013, 6:21 am
#3
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
"[W]hile some may consider plaintiff Aaron Tobey’s conduct to be cute or even funny in retrospect, it was no laughing matter at the time," Wilkinson said. The judge said that had Tobey's protest taken place anywhere other than at a security screening point, "we would have a much different case."
Tobey's behavior, Wilkinson said, "diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect."
TSA officials, the judge said, "responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey—and the distraction he was creating—from the scene." Wilkinson called the majority decision "not only unwise, but also profoundly unfair."
It's a shame that this scumbag of of a judge probably is not subject to retention/removal votes as is the case in some States. He would be better on the bench in a country like Syria or North Korea.
Tobey's behavior, Wilkinson said, "diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect."
TSA officials, the judge said, "responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey—and the distraction he was creating—from the scene." Wilkinson called the majority decision "not only unwise, but also profoundly unfair."
It's a shame that this scumbag of of a judge probably is not subject to retention/removal votes as is the case in some States. He would be better on the bench in a country like Syria or North Korea.
Jan 29, 2013, 7:31 am
#4
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Tobey's behavior, Wilkinson said, "diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect."
Are TSA workers so inept that they cannot handle screening exceptions without each one being a "dangerous" distraction?
Don't answer - rhetorical, of course they are
.
Jan 29, 2013, 8:00 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Tobey's behavior, Wilkinson said, "diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect."
"Whether TSA screening procedures are too intrusive and demeaning is surely a debate worth having, and Tobey may well have something of value to contribute to it," the judge said. "But TSA agents also perform what is indubitably a vital function, and it is sometimes necessary to make small sacrifices to achieve greater gains or, as in this case, to avoid catastrophic loss."
Mike
Jan 31, 2013, 10:05 am
#6
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Yeah, just in case there was a terrorist hangin' around, waiting for some guy to get nekkid.
...
Well, at least he got the first half of that sentence right. I'm still curious, though, as to the the indubitably vital function, other than providing a massage to stressed-out travelers. As to the small sacrifices, apparently he means the First and Fourth Amendments. Well, one and four are small numbers.
...
Well, at least he got the first half of that sentence right. I'm still curious, though, as to the the indubitably vital function, other than providing a massage to stressed-out travelers. As to the small sacrifices, apparently he means the First and Fourth Amendments. Well, one and four are small numbers.
I seriously doubt the risk of encountering a criminal or a terrorist is any higher at a TSA checkpoint than at many public places in many cities. In fact, it's certainly lower. A key lesson needs to be that the TSA checkpoint is not a special place.
Real LEOs doing their real job are at much more risk to personal safety and arguably deserve some amount of leeway. But they wouldn't get away with this crap. Look at the case as if they guy had been "distracting" LEOs by taking off his shirt and having writing on his chest in a public place. Haven't courts consistently rules that speaking/expressing in the presence of a LEO is not a crime, even if rude and obnoxious, unless it is actually interfering with their work?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a charge of disturbing the peace could not be made for disturbing the LEO's peace, since the LEO had "no peace to disturb." It had to be other bystanders who were being disturbed.
Why do TSA screeners deserve more protection than real LEOs?
Jan 31, 2013, 12:26 pm
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
Jan 31, 2013, 12:34 pm
#9
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 150
LEOs on scene would be acting under the authority of CRAC http://www.flyrichmond.com/index.php...sion-statement
Jul 15, 2013, 7:58 pm
#10
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,685
Unique Settlement
Perhaps all airports need to have their employees accept this kind of counseling and retraining:
Airport protester’s lawsuit against RIC settled
The Associated Press 07/11/2013 12:08 AM
A lawsuit filed by a man who was arrested after stripping to his running shorts at a Richmond International Airport checkpoint to protest security procedures has been settled.
Aaron Tobey of Charlottesville had claimed airport police and Transportation Security Administration officers violated his free-speech rights. Tobey was detained in December 2010 after partially disrobing to display the text of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment on his chest. The amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
The Rutherford Institute, which represented Tobey, said Wednesday that the settlement reached last month called for Richmond airport police to take part in a two-hour training course on the First and Fourth amendment rights of passengers and others, using materials provided by the institute’s attorneys. Airport officials also agreed to review rules affecting free speech.
Airport spokesman Troy Bell said the training for the police force of fewer than 40 officers already has been completed.
“Whether it is construed as different, unusual or bizarre, nondisruptive expressive protest — which is what Aaron Tobey engaged in — is at the core of protected First Amendment speech,” said John W. Whitehead, executive director of the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute. “Frankly, the nation would be better served if all government officials were required to undertake a training course on what it means to respect the constitutional rights of the citizenry.”
A federal judge in Richmond in August 2011 dismissed most of the constitutional claims raised by Tobey. A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the complaint in January.
The settlement “included no financial exchange,” according to a statement released by the airport Wednesday.
Airport protester’s lawsuit against RIC settled
The Associated Press 07/11/2013 12:08 AM
A lawsuit filed by a man who was arrested after stripping to his running shorts at a Richmond International Airport checkpoint to protest security procedures has been settled.
Aaron Tobey of Charlottesville had claimed airport police and Transportation Security Administration officers violated his free-speech rights. Tobey was detained in December 2010 after partially disrobing to display the text of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment on his chest. The amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
The Rutherford Institute, which represented Tobey, said Wednesday that the settlement reached last month called for Richmond airport police to take part in a two-hour training course on the First and Fourth amendment rights of passengers and others, using materials provided by the institute’s attorneys. Airport officials also agreed to review rules affecting free speech.
Airport spokesman Troy Bell said the training for the police force of fewer than 40 officers already has been completed.
“Whether it is construed as different, unusual or bizarre, nondisruptive expressive protest — which is what Aaron Tobey engaged in — is at the core of protected First Amendment speech,” said John W. Whitehead, executive director of the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute. “Frankly, the nation would be better served if all government officials were required to undertake a training course on what it means to respect the constitutional rights of the citizenry.”
A federal judge in Richmond in August 2011 dismissed most of the constitutional claims raised by Tobey. A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the complaint in January.
The settlement “included no financial exchange,” according to a statement released by the airport Wednesday.
Jul 16, 2013, 1:45 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Added to the list of un-Americans who can take a flying leap, J. Harvie Wilkinson III: "Whether TSA screening procedures are too intrusive and demeaning is surely a debate worth having, and Tobey may well have something of value to contribute to it," the judge said. "But TSA agents also perform what is indubitably a vital function, and it is sometimes necessary to make small sacrifices to achieve greater gains or, as in this case, to avoid catastrophic loss."
"The settlement “included no financial exchange,” according to a statement released by the airport Wednesday."
Wrong. I'm quite certain the re-trainees were compensated for the two hours.
"The settlement “included no financial exchange,” according to a statement released by the airport Wednesday."
Wrong. I'm quite certain the re-trainees were compensated for the two hours.
Jul 17, 2013, 8:53 am
#12
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 574
"... it is sometimes necessary to make small sacrifices to achieve greater gains"
Sacrificing First Amendment Rights is a small sacrifice?
Damn. You learn something new every day.
I'm glad we have highly educated judges to clarify this sort of thing.
Sacrificing First Amendment Rights is a small sacrifice?
Damn. You learn something new every day.
I'm glad we have highly educated judges to clarify this sort of thing.