petaluma1

IIRC, the clerk at the checkpoint Chollie was transiting read the word "nitroglycerin" on the label and confiscated the pills on that basis, i.e., nitro is not allowed on a plane.

WillCAD

As I recall, the idiotic TSO didn't say, "Nitro is not allowed," but repeated several times, "No explosives. No exceptions." When Chollie called for a supervisor, the supe backed up the inconceivable stupidity of the TSO who actually believed that medical nitro is somehow an explosive, and backed up the confiscation.

I can't blame Chollie for not pursuing the matter further, possibly incurring the wrath of this spurious organization which might impact his livelihood, but I am incensed at the very idea that someone who literally believes the old wives tale that medical nitro can somehow magically be made to go boom is part of the organization tasked with keeping us safer from terrorists. This TSO's intelligence level, and that of the supe who backed him, barely registers on the IQ scale.

These are the same TSOs who allow cupcakes, but not cupcakes in jars, because the icing "conforms to the shape of the container".

These are the same TSOs who tried to steal Peter Mayhew's awesome lightsaber cane, using the flimsy excuse that it was a "replica weapon" (despite the fact that lightsabers do not exist!) Then later they were defended as being "uncertain" that the cane was permitted becausse it was big and heavy and was possibly a "dual use" device that could have been used as a bludgeon; a ridiculously pathetic excuse for blatant attempted theft.

These are the same TSOs who banned a teenage girl's purse with a raised, miniature image of a pistol on it, on the grounds that it's a "realistic replica" (which are prohibited solely to prevent people from using BB guns and rubber props to hijack a plane). Diabolical...

fpc552

http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/09/tsa-trav...ling-with.html

If you are convinced that the "Blogger Bob" post is insufficient at your local TSA checkpoint, contact TSA Cares before your flight and get an official OK.

If we really want to have a discussion about bad experiences with screening regarding medication, fine, let's start a new thread.

Back on the issue of this thread, I wonder where the OP has gone? I'm still waiting for the CCTV footage that clearly demonstrates that they are completely innocent of the behavior that TSA states is in the footage.

It appears that the OP decided to get cute with the TSA screeners and they weren't having any of it. They treated the OP as a potential security risk when their simple, reasonable questions were not answered. OP received secondary security screening as a result. OP is now claiming that his disability exempts him from the basic requirement to comply with the screening process and answer questions truthfully to the best of their ability. OP is asking us to give them money, ostensibly to fund a frivolous lawsuit against TSA to obtain relief for the harm TSA inflicted upon them by subjected them to secondary screening.

The onus is on the OP to provide evidence that they are not being frivolous and absurd.

Please don't sue me for libel.

Dr. HFH

Thank you. I feel the same way about the earlier scanners which were banned as a result of a lawsuit which alleged that they were too revealing. Isn't that the point? To make it harder to conceal something?

jkhuggins

By that logic, we should all be required to strip naked and be inspected before being allowed to board a commercial aircraft. After all, it would be even more difficult to conceal something in that situation, right?

The question is not whether or not such inspections help TSA keep weapons off an aircraft. The question is where one draws the line between security and privacy. Reasonable people can have reasonable differences regarding which procedures go 'too far'.

WillCAD

As a dyed-in-the-wool cynic, my first reaction whenever someone says that an authority figure, public servant, or public-facing employee (such as flight crews or fast food cashiers) are "rude" to them is to doubt their assertions, based on my personal experience that most people are selfish a-holes who treat anyone in a public-facing position like dirt and get miffed when such people have the audacity to not kiss their butts like indentured servants.

Given TSA's documented history of abuse, neglect, incompetence, and bullying behavior, however, in cases like this one, my instincts run the opposite way, unless something in the story smells fishy.

Nothing in Sai's story smells fishy to me.

However, you are absolutely correct that the onus is on him to produce proof of his allegations, at least in a court of law during his suit. I for one will be happy to reserve final judgement on this story until the c/p video is posted.

I have seen plenty of videos online of people going into the c/p with a confrontational attitude, spoiling for a fight, provoking the TSOs, and gleefully pointing out instances of TSO misconduct or poor performance. While, "the guy was being a jerk!" is absolutely no excuse for a TSO to retaliate against, persecute, or delay a traveler without a genuine security concern, I have little sympathy for those who deliberately provoke such incidents, nor those who unwittingly provoke such incidents by being insufferable and obnoxious.

All that being said, so far I believe Sai's side of the story and I doubt that the video will discredit him.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note, there is no reality in which TSO interrogation is "simple and reasonable." I resent being forced to show my papers, please and submit to any questioning by uniformed, badged, federal government employees who are presented as law enforcement when they are not, merely to exercise my Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of movement within my own damn country's borders.

As such, I will not answer ANY questions put to me by such an employee. I never "get cute", as you so euphemistically phrased it, but I also will not answer any questions. My name is on my ID, my destination and flight information are on my BP. I'm required to show the BP to gain entry into the sterile area and although I'm not legally required to show an ID document, I am required to verify my identity before entering, so I cut to the chase and show the ID document.

Anything beyond that can and will be used against me - even if I'm innocent of a crime, as Phil Mocek's case proved beyond a shadow of a doubt - so I say nothing. So far, I haven't had any problems, but I also don't have the special difficulties of Sai's neurological condition, or Peter Mayhew's bad knees, or a need to carry breast milk for a baby, or any of the other non-standard conditions that seem to freak out TSOs to the point of treating the general public like enemies of the state.

That's your opinion, and I disagree with it.

Secondary screening when there is reasonable cause to escalate is not necessarily a violation of one's rights. However, escalation to secondary with no cause, or for the purposes of retaliation, intimidation, or discrimination, IS a violation of the 4th Amendment, as it constitutes an UNreasonable search.

The argument that you can escape it by not flying, thus surrendering your Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of movement, is spurious at best. Give up one right or give up the other is not a genuine choice; there is no way to completely avoid having your rights violated, and choosing which of the rights you cherish more is very much like saying that it's your fault your kid is dead if the murderer asked you to choose which of your kids he'd kill.

Freedom and civil rights are sacred enough that tens of thousands of Americans have given their lives to secure and defend them in this country's history. Every time you take away freedom or abridge a right, you're flipping off all of those good people and the sacrifices they made.

Freedom isn't free. The price of freedom is RISK - risk that somewhere, sometime, someone will abuse their freedom and do harm to others. But taking away the freedom doesn't make you any safer. It only makes you less free.

If you don't want to take that risk, then don't live in a free society.

I for one will honor those people who gave their lives to protect my rights and freedoms, and live my life with those risks. If you're too scared of the big bwown Muswim boogie-man to do that, well, that's on you, not me. I suggest counseling to overcome your terrorphobia. In the meantime, I want to be able to get on a plane without being viewed naked, interrogated, bullied, or threatened by agents of my own government.

Randyk47

It's not up to me to question the OP's need for his juices so I take that at face value. Maybe I just missed it but I don't see where the OP offered up any documentation saying he medically required the juices. I do see his doctor's letter on his website but have to say that's a pretty vague document that basically says the OP needs "things and stuff" to manage his condition and probably doesn't meet the requirement of a valid prescription. If offered I can't honestly fault TSA for questioning the validity or how it might apply to the liquids the OP is carrying. Again, I'm not questioning the need for the liquids but have to wonder if there isn't some better way to document, like a valid or acceptable prescription or prescription like document, the requirement?

jkhuggins

And how is a TSO going to determine that a given document describing such a medical need is "valid"? TSOs have a hard enough time dealing with the validity of identity documents and boarding passes; now, you want them to read prescriptions?

And how, pray tell, does a passenger get a doctor's prescription for ordinary fruit juices that might be needed? Isn't a TSO going to question why a passenger has a prescription for a bottle of orange juice?

TSO's stated policy --- if followed --- is just fine. A liquid is medically necessary if the passenger says it is. Such items may be subject to additional screening. But the TSO doesn't get to say "you don't need this".

saizai

Correct. All of my symptoms are episodic; mutism is one of them. It happened to have been the case during my BOS travel (and the day before, FWIW).

Actually, yes I did. See my sworn affidavit #1 (paragraphs 38-39) and my motion for PSJ #7. And TSA admitted it. See their docs #23 & 43 p. 5 fn 3.

I had changed my name the year before. Some of my meds were still in my old name, so I carried my old passport in the bag containing them, in case I needed to prove they're mine. In any case it's irrelevant to TSA; a passport isn't a weapon.

I didn't answer their questions, and had neither any obligation or inclination to do so. (I told them I was mute. They then asked for medical details, details of where I'd been, etc, which are none of their business.)

I completely cooperated with the physical screening. I pointed things out for them when they asked. The only thing they claim I disobeyed, pre-secondary, was when I moved a few feet while waiting for the gropedown so that I could keep my bags in sight (per TSA policy).

I intend to. Just takes time for me to edit, and I've not had access to it for a while due to hardware issues.

And yes, I will be posting the full, unredacted (but annotated) 40 minute version simultaneously with a shortened tl;dw version.

Why cut it: because 40 minutes is too long for most people to watch, and most of it is them reading through all my stuff. Needs to be compressed for most people to watch it.

I was given secondary explicitly because I wasn't talking (literally) and because I had on a satirical t-shirt. Those are both constitutionally protected (in)actions, and it was discrimination on the basis of disability.

Mere expression of opinion is not a basis for defamation. I happen to support 1st amendment rights, including your right to think I'm [insert something insulting here].

That's true as far as it goes… but:
1. I shouldn't have been subjected to secondary because of my inability to speak. (Had there been a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for secondary screening, then fine. But there wasn't.)

2. The reasonable accommodation I asked for was access to my pen & paper, so I could communicate. Or an ASL interpreter. Instead, they tore away my paper as I was writing, in retaliation for my objecting to the search.

Fair enough. But as it happens, I'm broke, and suing the TSA is not free.

I don't actually read FT every day. I had to file several things this week, plus travel, plus personal issues.

There is no such requirement whatsoever. TSA has no authority to demand that you answer any question. Even cops don't (ever heard of Miranda rights?), and TSA aren't even cops.

The most TSA can do is refer you to secondary — and I was already in secondary when they were interrogating me.

I didn't. And frankly it's none of your, or their, business why exactly I have a medical need for juice.

(Also, you're conflating two different incidents. Juice didn't come up at BOS, only at SFO.)

Their job is to screen it. And at SFO, they actually did… and even after that wouldn't let me have it. They admitted fault on national TV, and then stalled for two years in actually responding to me. (They still haven't.)

1. There is no such requirement, per TSA's own medical liquids memo.

2. There is no such thing as a prescription for juice. It's not a controlled substance. And any piece of paper I happen to carry is pretty irrelevant to TSA's only job: security. Whether I have a piece of paper or not has no impact on whether my juice is juice or a bomb. (Hint: it's just juice.)

Randyk47

Saizai - Maybe I didn't write it right, I'm really not against you, just trying to think through the process and situation to make getting through security as easy and quick as possible.

Boggie Dog

A medical doctor can prescribe all manner of things other than controlled medicines.

The problem would be having TSA acknowledge the document. And I agree my medical history or needs are of no business of TSA's.

Boggie Dog

In the interest of full disclosure are you a DHS employee?

Carl Johnson

No, there's no better way. The TSA rules state that a liquid is a medical liquid if the passenger says it is. The fact that liquids aren't dangerous and the rule is stupid is irrelevant in this case. The real issue is, TSA clerks doing what they want and ignoring the rules. Why is this allowed to happen? Why weren't the TSA clerks that ignore the rules and harassed Sai summarily fired?

The TSA's rules say Sai's juices are medical liquids. Why wasn't the end of it? Why weren't the TSA clerks who said they knew the rules but were going to ignore them fired and arrested?

Carl Johnson

No TSA rules can be counted on to be followed; that's the problem. The problem in this case - the sole problem - is that the TSA clerks didn't follow the rules. Here's how it should have gone down:

Sai: This is a medical liquid

Clerk: OK

What questions were they entitled to ask him?

The problem is that TSA clerks don't get fired for misconduct. Fire every clerk that doesn't know what IDs are allowed and doesn't check, fire every clerk that ask for anything they aren't allowed to ask for, fire every clerk that initiates what appears to be a retaliatory screening.

I was at JFK terminal 1 in November, clerk asked for my passport, I presented my driver's license. Need your passport, why, need your passport, why, need your passport, why, called for supervisor, supervisor came over, got on the walkie-talkie to somebody (was HE also too dumb to know that an acceptable ID is an acceptable ID no matter where it's presented), made a few scribbles, handed the stuff back to me, and I went on my way.

That first clerk should have been fired for asking for ID she wasn't entitled to ask for.

Was I "deciding to get cute" with the clerk, or was she just being a lazy, stupid, slob?

saizai

FWIW, after I filed a formal complaint about SFO, and after I was on BoingBoing & TV about it, they retrained the entire SFO CAS staff. Since then, the above is exactly what's happened. At SFO.

I had repeat incidents elsewhere.

On my last flight (this month), out of JFK, the overhead announcement about liquids specifically mentioned juice. And they did exactly as above. I suspect that this is related to my litigation, but I'll find out. (I do have evidence that the SFO retaining was directly caused by BB & TV.)