Originally Posted by 4nsicdoc

It's not so much that one affirmatively consents to a battery. It is more that one implies that in these circumstances that a touching is permitted, therefore taking it out of the definition of battery as an "unpermmitted" touching. A court would very likely instruct a jury that entering a checkpoint implies permission for a touching strictly within the scope and limits of promulgated TSA procedures so long as those procedures are conveyed to the passenger. "That's probably one of the reasons for the "I am now going to rub your resistance..." spiel required of TSAs. If you want to drive the TSA bat-dung crazy, file a small claims suit against the TSA for such a battery. They will plead implied consent as an affirmative defense, and they have the burden of proof for such a defense, which means they would have to divulge all the secret squirrel stuff in order to prove that the touching was within the scope of those procedures. Oh, and name the individual clerk as a defendant. He then has to risk prison (for disclosing SSI) to defend himself, which should make for a lot of sleepless nights, and a destroyed credit rating when he loses. Apparently, the TSA has now joined the rape apologists at Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and Domino's Pizza (a/k/a Bain Capital) in deciding that "No means yes'"