Originally Posted by
doober
We CAN back out of the screening process. John Tyner refused to be bombarded with x-rays and refused the pat down. Sharon Cissna went through WBI and was pulled aside for a pat down after her body scars "alarmed." The difference between their experiences is that Tyner was threatened with the alleged $11,000 fine and Cissna was not. It would appear that something changed between the time Tyner backed out and when Cissna did.
The dim-bunnies at the TSA apparently realized that forcing a person to choose between a 4th amendment violation or an 8th amendment violation would get challenged in court in short order.
It's the first time they've ever shown a glimmer of common sense. Be thankful.
It was backing down over the fine that first made me suspect the TSA was keen to keep scope n' grope away from the courts for as long as possible.
I'm no lawyer, but I postulate that if they'd tried to collect the fine through legal means, they'd be challenged in court over the 4th/8th amendment dilemma, and a judge would get to consider whether the grope n' scope was a 4th amendment violation and the fine was an 8th amendment violation. (It's been determined through prior case law that forcing a citizen to choose between two violations of his/her constitutional rights is unconstitutional.)
So if they ever try to collect the fine, we'll get the scope n' grope before a judge, and it's game over. (My unprofessional opinion.) The TSA will never try to collect the fine. You're absolutely safe from that. (My unprofessional opinion.)
You really need a professional opinion on this, but don't take a TSA apologist's word on it, "lawyer" or not. Lawyers are exceptional word-smiths. A lawyer determined to confuse you will likely succeed, and the TSA is definitely in league with the father of lies.