Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

FOIA Request Denied on Bikini Pat-Down Incident

FOIA Request Denied on Bikini Pat-Down Incident

Old Sep 3, 2013, 7:16 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 99
FOIA Request Denied on Bikini Pat-Down Incident

So, two and a half years ago my wife wore a bikini to the airport in case she was told to go through the nudie-scope. To make a long story short, she was told to go through the nudie-scope, removed a wrap dress and volunteered to walk through the metal detector with a bikini, arguments ensued amongst TSA agents, as well as with my wife, and eventually, in order to fly, TSA forced her to put her wrap dress on so they could pat down the same areas they just witnessed as bare skin. Clearly, there was no cause for the search as they had just witnessed her wearing next to nothing, and they patted the areas they saw were simply skin.

So, we requested the video under the FOIA. Two years later, TSA wrote us to say they have found the video, but the "video includes images that require protection under Exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA and TSA does not have the in-house capability to obscure or omit those images from the video. Therefore, the video you have requested is being withheld in full."

TSA then goes on to explain taht Exemption (b)(6) permits TSA to withhold identifying information that applies to a particular individual when the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and that they have determined that the "privacy interest in the identities of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information."

Bottom line, they are protecting the privacy of the TSA agents who violated her rights, isn't that ironic?

We have sixty days to file an appeal, which I plan to do... unbelievable...

Last edited by sobetraveler; Sep 3, 2013 at 4:03 pm
sobetraveler is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 8:18 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/Red Stick/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svs, AA PlatPro, WN RR, AZ/ITA Freccia, Hilton Diam, Bonvoy Gold, Hertz Prez, IHG
Posts: 3,529
I'm most shocked they actually said they found the video...
FlyingHoustonian is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 8:54 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 574
"require protection under Exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA "

Ahhh. I love the confusing, self-serving legalese syntax. I bet John Yoo wrote that crap.
So the images are top secret...probably TSA goons jacking off in the background.

Please post the documents online for posterity or no one will believe this stuff....

Last edited by yandosan; Sep 3, 2013 at 9:19 am
yandosan is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 9:11 am
  #4  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,882
Originally Posted by sobetraveler
TSA forced her to put her bikini on so they could pat down the same areas they just witnessed as bare skin.
They forced her to put her bikini on? What was she wearing when she removed the wrap dress? When did the bikini come off?
Dovster is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 9:26 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian
I'm most shocked they actually said they found the video...
Ahhhh, they just bought a copy on the TSA internal bootleg video store.
TheRoadie is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 9:58 am
  #6  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
FOIA permits the agency to pass on the costs of producing data. It's not often imposed on small non-commercial requests by individuals, but this might be the instance where, at the same time you appeal, you also seek reconsideration and expressly note that you are prepared to pay the exemption editing costs. You might also note this in your appeal as DHS appears to have jumped over that possibility.

You may find that reconsideration takes less time.

Needless to say, you do need to be willing to shell out the money.
Often1 is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 10:25 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,605
Originally Posted by sobetraveler
So, we requested the video under the FOIA. Two years later, TSA wrote us to say they have found the video, but the "video includes images that require protection under Exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA and TSA does not have the in-house capability to obscure or omit those images from the video. Therefore, the video you have requested is being withheld in full."
Have you checked youTube (other streaming services are available)
alanR is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 11:47 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,148
Originally Posted by alanR
Have you checked YouTube (other streaming services are available)
I'm almost certain I have seen at least one or two different YouTube videos of a woman going through the checkpoint wearing a bikini. It might already be out there. Regardless, making them go through the FOIA hassle is worth it.

One question for the OP: Did you request the video in the FOIA request or did your wife? It's a Privacy Act rather than a FOIA thing where, because the subject of the request is information about her, they will deny the request if anyone other than herself requests it. They could be claiming the exemption because you are requesting the video and not her.

Another approach in your appeal would be to ask for a review of your video and other similar checkpoint video that has been released. The TSA should have to show someone that there is a lot more "personal stuff" in your video than has been routinely released before. The precedence argument is quite appropriate. I wouldn't be prepared to pay for editing until you have done this step first.

Good luck and keep fighting the good fight.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 4:06 pm
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 99
good ideas, re: comparison, etc., thanks, i mistyped the original post, she was forced to put her wrap dress back on after they had all seen her standing in a bikini... then the female agent patted her down over her dress on areas everyone had just seen when she was standing around arguing in her bikini. e.g. after putting her dress back on, the female agent ran her hands up her legs. the pat down was actually not that invasive, it was just a power-play, forcing her to submit to being touched... it was totally stupid.

my wife filed the request in her name.
sobetraveler is offline  
Old Sep 3, 2013, 4:09 pm
  #10  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 99
yeah, plenty of tsa agents visible in this tsa released video... http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-rele...ngressman.html
sobetraveler is offline  
Old Sep 4, 2013, 8:46 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by sobetraveler
good ideas, re: comparison, etc., thanks, i mistyped the original post, she was forced to put her wrap dress back on after they had all seen her standing in a bikini... then the female agent patted her down over her dress on areas everyone had just seen when she was standing around arguing in her bikini. e.g. after putting her dress back on, the female agent ran her hands up her legs. the pat down was actually not that invasive, it was just a power-play, forcing her to submit to being touched... it was totally stupid.

my wife filed the request in her name.

Bolding mine: She did WHAT!?!?!?! That is a blatant violation of the SOP. If a woman is wearing a skirt or dress, the clerk (not "agent," not "officer") can only touch the clothed areas of the body and they are not supposed to touch bare skin. Perriod. The clerk should have instructed your wife to move one leg at a time forward so that the clerk could run her hands DOWN (not UP) the inner thighs. That is probably why DHS/TSA doesn't want to release that video.
What do you mean by "the pat down was actually not that invasive"??? If the clerk ran her hand up your wife's bare legs, that was a sexual assault in my book and much too invasive!
DeafBlonde is offline  
Old Sep 4, 2013, 4:53 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by DeafBlonde
...If the clerk ran her hand up your wife's bare legs, that was a sexual assault in my book and much too invasive!
IANAL, but would the definition of sexual harassment extend to TSA checkpoint gropes? Travelers and TSA screeners are not co-workers, but the power dynamics are there, there is a sort of business relationship, there is ongoing inappropriate contact in exchange for access to the secure area, and the experience is demonstrably traumatic for many of the people who are groped.
Schmurrr is offline  
Old Sep 4, 2013, 10:19 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,773
Sounds like the TSA refused to bare everything for some very skimpy reasons. Good luck getting a more revealing response with your appeal.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2013, 6:35 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by sobetraveler
TSA then goes on to explain taht Exemption (b)(6) permits TSA to withhold identifying information that applies to a particular individual when the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and that they have determined that the "privacy interest in the identities of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information."

Bottom line, they are protecting the privacy of the TSA agents who violated her rights, isn't that ironic?

We have sixty days to file an appeal, which I plan to do... unbelievable...
Jon Corbett's case was recently thrown out by the courts. One of his issues was:

Can the TSA hide the names and faces of its public-facing employees (and any local law enforcement coming to their aid) who are accused of misconduct?

You bet! Despite the fact that they all wore name tags and I could have legally taken photos of them, Judge Lenard feels that the public servants who illegally searched and detained me deserve privacy, and upheld the TSAs decision to redact their names from every document sent to me and to blur the entirety of every video sent to me. This is the same TSA that cares so much about privacy that they accidentally published a copy of my drivers license in court filings.
http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.co...foia-requests/
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2013, 7:43 am
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 99
Deafblond, nope, the agent ran her hands up her legs over her dress, but had just witnessed those same legs in the bikini, so it was a pointless search... it wasn't invasive because she didn't travel that far up her legs, it was more cursory and less invasive than usual. I imagine the agent thought it was stupid to do the search also as she had just been standing there looking at her in a bikini, but the head TSA agent ordered my wife to put on the dress so she could then be pat down over the same areas that were just bare skin. Totally stupid.
sobetraveler is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.