Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
No, I'm not. For one thing, it's ambiguous: does it mean intentionally doing the act in question (as opposed to be being an accident) or does it mean intending to "delay, impede, or distract" the TSO? In the latter case, you have the problem that you can't know what's in the passenger's mind and so can't know why he or she took that action. As I pointed out in another setting (sexual assault), that's why we usually assume intent, rather than try to prove it.
If somebody's walking very slowly through a checkpoint, is it because they intend to slow down screening or because they sprained their ankle a few weeks before, felt something peculiar when they took their shoe off, and want to walk very gingerly to avoid reinjuring it?
If you ask somebody a question and they don't answer it, are they chosing not to answer it to assert their right to remain silent or are they not answering it for the purpose of impeding your duties?
State of mind enters into this with the four levels of culpability. Intentionally is one level and is an integral part of the formula as to whether or not some type of fine is levied. The act coupled with other things has a bearing on the outcome. I leave you with one final thought though. Traffic offenses do not require intent. You run a stop sign, you get a ticket. So it is probably a good thing that we are left wondering what the intent was OR alot more people would be looking at the prospect of getting a civil penalty for interfering with the screening process.