Help with TSA litigation [consolidated thread]
Jan 12, 2016, 5:52 am
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
https://ogis.archives.gov/Assets/Tra...nce+Report.pdf
Apparently, I am one of only 10 people to sue the TSA since 2009. Mine was one of two cases active during 2014 (p. 8 of the OGIS report), and during FY2014 they spent $22,895 in litigation* (foia.gov/data.html). And I'm about to file another, which will probably also take a couple years before it's done.
So, looks like I'll be personally responsible for costing the TSA ~$50k just in FOIA litigation. Maybe double that. (Total cost for 9 of the 10 cases was $238k, so average $26.5k/case.)
In FY2014 they only had 11 full-time staff for FOIA processing.
Maybe increased litigation costs will convince them to spend more on obeying the law in the first place. :-)
* Not clear to me from the foia.gov data if that includes their direct costs, payouts in attorney's fees / costs to the winner, or both.
Apparently, I am one of only 10 people to sue the TSA since 2009. Mine was one of two cases active during 2014 (p. 8 of the OGIS report), and during FY2014 they spent $22,895 in litigation* (foia.gov/data.html). And I'm about to file another, which will probably also take a couple years before it's done.
So, looks like I'll be personally responsible for costing the TSA ~$50k just in FOIA litigation. Maybe double that. (Total cost for 9 of the 10 cases was $238k, so average $26.5k/case.)
In FY2014 they only had 11 full-time staff for FOIA processing.
Maybe increased litigation costs will convince them to spend more on obeying the law in the first place. :-)
* Not clear to me from the foia.gov data if that includes their direct costs, payouts in attorney's fees / costs to the winner, or both.
Jan 12, 2016, 6:04 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,162
The Statement of Work for the contracts are public domain documents and they can't withhold them -- legally at least.
Jan 12, 2016, 9:23 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
I'm not up to speed on government contracts but there should be a Request for Proposal which specifies the parameters of the desired equipment or service. Then a vendor proposes a solution that meets the Request and at a stated cost. I would like to know the exact specifications of current WBI.
Jan 13, 2016, 12:08 pm
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Jan 14, 2016, 8:54 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
Just another thought. With the recent announcement by TSA that some passengers will be required to undergo a WBI sceening that raises a question. Is there evidence that the Full Body Pat Down (FBPD) is ineffective? If the FBPD has been found to be ineffective then why is TSA still using it?
All documents relating to the effectiveness of FBPD, including documents that list FBPD failures and/or exceptions.
All documents relating to the effectiveness of FBPD, including documents that list FBPD failures and/or exceptions.
Last edited by Boggie Dog; Jan 14, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Jan 14, 2016, 12:18 pm
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
I'm finalizing the thing now, so if you have anything more, speak now or for a year hold your peace.
Jan 14, 2016, 12:53 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
I would like all rules that I have to comply with to be public but we both know that isn't going to happen.
Jan 14, 2016, 1:54 pm
#25
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Judge allowed that, but when I protested that they did not need another two months for something that had already been delayed two years, said he wanted to see it earlier if thy could, and would need a showing of good cause to grant further extension. So, that's slated for March 3 IIRC. I believe that is most of the SOPs. (See my FOIA link, in sig, for what I've gotten so far.)
It's also part of my new lawsuit (https://s.ai/tsa/legal/46110). They filed motion to be excused from having to file the record, I cross-moved to compel them to do so. "The record", in this case, means "every order ever issued under 49 USC 46110/46105 that affects Sai, individually or as a member of the traveling public". In other words, the entire body of their secret regulations.
It's fully briefed (read for yourself; the 4 docs are at the link) and waiting for an order from the court.
Jan 14, 2016, 9:46 pm
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
WANTED: Evidence of opt out offer post Dec 20 2015
Prior to Dec 20 when they changed the rule, TSA had signs at checkpoints saying that AIT is optional, and ran PA announcements saying the same.
I want evidence that this is still true, or of any change to it — i.e. photos or video of the signs and audio or video of the announcements, together with a sworn affidavit saying something like this:
TSA is trying to have it both ways, and if I can prove that, it goes to the fact that they are misleading / not informing the public, violating their own announced promises, etc.
The more airports, the better. Repeats at the same airport within not much time is not as helpful.
Ditto for anything saying that opt out might not be allowed.
I want evidence that this is still true, or of any change to it — i.e. photos or video of the signs and audio or video of the announcements, together with a sworn affidavit saying something like this:
I, Alice Smith, hereby swear as follows, under penalty of perjury, in accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 1746:
1. I flew through XYZ airport on [e.g. January 3, 2016], where I went through a TSA checkpoint.
2. I personally witnessed [describe - eg "a sign saying that AIT is optional", "an announcement saying that xyz", etc.].
3. The attached is an accurate recording of what I witnessed.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Smith
[ink signature]
[ink date]
[public contact information]
1. I flew through XYZ airport on [e.g. January 3, 2016], where I went through a TSA checkpoint.
2. I personally witnessed [describe - eg "a sign saying that AIT is optional", "an announcement saying that xyz", etc.].
3. The attached is an accurate recording of what I witnessed.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Smith
[ink signature]
[ink date]
[public contact information]
The more airports, the better. Repeats at the same airport within not much time is not as helpful.
Ditto for anything saying that opt out might not be allowed.
Jan 15, 2016, 1:16 pm
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Jan 15, 2016, 2:59 pm
#29
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
TSA finally responded to my March 2013 SFO complaint
… after two years of litigation, which I won.
Case page
Complaint & video
Opinion and order
TSA "manifestly failed to comply with its obligation" to respond to my SFO grievance, constituting "agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed". Opinion, p. 13. "Defendants’ 2.75-year delay in responding to [my] SFO complaint is “unreasonable”", and "[i]t is difficult to envision the “rule of reason” that would permit an agency routinely to delay the processing of administrative complaints by a factor of five times the timetable set out in the agency’s governing regulations". Id., p. 30.
Response
Naturally, they found that they did nothing wrong except maybe being unclear in their public communications.
TBD whether they timely respond to my administrative appeal, which I haven't yet written. (I doubt it.) I just received the response; it had looked like they might actually appeal the order.
ETA: They took 1,036 days to respond to my SFO complaint, 764 days to respond to my BOS complaint, & 114 days to respond to the BOS appeal.
By law, they have 180 days to respond to a complaint, and 30 days to respond to an appeal.
ETA 2: Here's my appeal.
I think it's also a reasonably concise summary of what I think is wrong with their response.
ETA 3: Their response, tl;dr: TSA admits that it did not follow its own policy as I read it, and "literal language of those documents could be read in that manner", but claims "that it is not an objectively reasonable understanding of TSA’s statements".
Why? Because they claim that somehow they are allowed to determine the amount "reasonably limited to the duration of travel" — and that "repacking the liquid, acquiring large bottles of liquid past the checkpoint, checking the liquid" would be reasonable "alternative accommodations".
Presumably, the unavoidable admission of fault is why they fought me in court for two years to not give me this document.
My appeal, tl;dr: My position is that TSA has no authority or capability to determine how much people "need" to bring with them, to limit it to how much is "needed", to require anyone to disclose medical info (such as the simple fact that an item is medical) about liquids that are not WEI, or to stop anyone at all from going through security with juice — even if they have no "medical need" and want to bring 5 gallons of it.
Case page
Complaint & video
Opinion and order
TSA "manifestly failed to comply with its obligation" to respond to my SFO grievance, constituting "agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed". Opinion, p. 13. "Defendants’ 2.75-year delay in responding to [my] SFO complaint is “unreasonable”", and "[i]t is difficult to envision the “rule of reason” that would permit an agency routinely to delay the processing of administrative complaints by a factor of five times the timetable set out in the agency’s governing regulations". Id., p. 30.
Response
Naturally, they found that they did nothing wrong except maybe being unclear in their public communications.
TBD whether they timely respond to my administrative appeal, which I haven't yet written. (I doubt it.) I just received the response; it had looked like they might actually appeal the order.
ETA: They took 1,036 days to respond to my SFO complaint, 764 days to respond to my BOS complaint, & 114 days to respond to the BOS appeal.
By law, they have 180 days to respond to a complaint, and 30 days to respond to an appeal.
ETA 2: Here's my appeal.
I think it's also a reasonably concise summary of what I think is wrong with their response.
ETA 3: Their response, tl;dr: TSA admits that it did not follow its own policy as I read it, and "literal language of those documents could be read in that manner", but claims "that it is not an objectively reasonable understanding of TSA’s statements".
Why? Because they claim that somehow they are allowed to determine the amount "reasonably limited to the duration of travel" — and that "repacking the liquid, acquiring large bottles of liquid past the checkpoint, checking the liquid" would be reasonable "alternative accommodations".
Presumably, the unavoidable admission of fault is why they fought me in court for two years to not give me this document.
My appeal, tl;dr: My position is that TSA has no authority or capability to determine how much people "need" to bring with them, to limit it to how much is "needed", to require anyone to disclose medical info (such as the simple fact that an item is medical) about liquids that are not WEI, or to stop anyone at all from going through security with juice — even if they have no "medical need" and want to bring 5 gallons of it.
Last edited by saizai; Jan 16, 2016 at 10:12 pm
