saizai

Right then.

Before getting to responses to comments in thread, some updates, basic facts, and observations from the video:


1. I've updated https://s.ai/tsa/cohen/ with filings in the lawsuit (Answer and MSJ) made by MIAPD and MSCAA, together with my summaries.

TSA has not yet responded to the lawsuit (nor filed an appearance).

No individual defendants are currently named. The defenses that MIAPD and MSCAA raised apply only to state agencies — not to individuals, nor (per Monell) to cities.

I don't know whether MSCAA/MIAPD comes under Monell type liability or not, nor whether it is correct (as MIAPD claims) that MIAPD is a department of MSCAA, rather than e.g. a department of Memphis PD.


2. The officers involved are MIA PD — not Memphis PD.

See e.g. the arrest warrant, linked at my site above.


3. I expect to get the video (obtained from TN) later today, and will post it there as well.

TSA has not yet responded to my federal FOIA.


4. The Commercial Appeal's video is at https://www.facebook.com/commerciala...4056864744864/

At 0:34, MIA PD arrive on scene. In my experience (I've had police called on me twice by TSA), it typically takes a few minutes for police to arrive. The video does not include any of the lead-up to this, e.g. to address claims in the complaint that Hannah was startled by the screening alarm or allegations of improper actions by TSA.

At 1:15-1:18, it looks like the mother is explaining something to the police about Hannah's deafness (e.g. miming hearing aids).

At 2:37-2:39, it looks like the TSA manager (black suit) may have touched her. Hard to tell because of camera angle.

At 2:40-2:41, it looks like the arresting MIA PD officer touched Hannah first, and which she resisted.

At 2:50-2:51, it looks like Hannah gets her right hand free and flails at the arresting officer, which triggers the takedown.

At 2:53, Hannah may have hit her head on the bench on the way down. It's obscured from this camera angle.

At 3:15-3:16, the non-arresting officer clearly orders the mother to go sit down.

The video ends with Hannah being led away under arrest. I don't see her mother in frame for that last portion. So we don't know what happened after the arrest.


Now then…

You cannot tell from the video whether or not she has the impairments listed in the complaint. All you can tell is that both mother and daughter are having a tense conversation with the police.

The video tells you nothing about whether or not, as alleged in the complaint (p. 2 Ά 11), Hannah has a disability that "substantially limits her ability to speak, walk, stand, see, hear, care for herself, learn and work, think, concentrate, and interact with others."

In self-defense, yes. Whether or not that is illegal depends on whether the arrest was legal to begin with.

The only basis for arrest would be TCA 39-17-305 (causing a disturbance) — her force came after they started using force on her — and it is not a crime to violate TSA policies (only a civil penalty).

So, was she "causing a disturbance" before the arrest enough to justify arrest? I don't think so, and the prosecutor apparently didn't think so either.

Please quote a false statement that I supposedly made.

I have been fairly careful to limit my statements to either opinions or observations of actual evidence available at the time. If anything, I was more generous than others as to the likelihood of TSA vs police involvement.

I don't think that a reasonable view of the situation is that Hannah was assaulting the officer. She was resisting the officer's attempt to grab her. There's a significant difference.

I also don't think that a reasonable view of the situation required the officer to use force in the first place. They could have done more to de-escalate the situation. Wanting to get it over with more quickly is not a justification for using force.

Is resisting a good idea? No. Resisting an officer, regardless of whether or not the arrest is legal (if it isn't, you have the legal right to resist), is almost universally a very bad idea in practice.

But also, we do not know her mental state at the time, who knew what, etc. Not things that can be observed from the video.

We have no video of the earlier part of the incident, so we don't know either way for that.

During the arrest, they were separated. We do not have video after the arrest.

Without audio, we do not know what who said to whom. The parties explicitly disagree about whether the mom tried to explain to her daughter's disabilities to them. (See complaint and answers/MSJs, on my site.)


You would not be able to see it on video if it existed. So this is not evidence either way.

That's absurd on two levels.

1. You don't know what was said before the arrest or what happened during the initial screening. You don't have detailed view of her face etc. So you don't know whether or not she had any visible indications.

2. You imply that anyone who resists force has a mental disorder. That's simply not true. It is a physical reflex to resist being grabbed.

She was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, an simple assault, and arraigned. All charges were dismissed, and the record was expunged.


In the US, essentially all "normal" crimes have a mens rea component. Generally, only regulatory violations are strict liability (no mens rea). It's a principle of criminal law.

Mens rea is not the same as mental capacity. Capacity is a defense that can implicate mens rea (if you didn't have the ability to intend to do something), but it's more of a public policy issue (we don't want to punish people who have no idea that what they did is wrong in the first place, even if they intended to do that thing).

More regular mens rea defenses are accident or lack of knowledge (for 'intentional' level), making reasonable best efforts (for 'negligence' level), etc.

Lack of capacity (aka insanity) is a very, very rare defense. Lack of the appropriate level of mens rea is very, very common.



FWIW, I requested it, but have not yet received it.


No longer true. See the ACLU case against (IIRC) Illinois about recording audio of police in public places, which was formerly forbidden by state law. That law was overturned by the court.

Conversations held in public places are generally not subject to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when random other people are within earshot. If it's a whispered conversation, or if it's in a private place, that might be different, but obviously not applicable here.

For whatever reason, TSA simply does not want to pay for audio recordings on their CCTV. Which is a pity; audio is often very much crucial to understanding what happened.

You don't know that. We don't see what happened earlier in the screening, what she was asked to do, what she refused, etc.

You don't know what she was ordered to do, so you don't know whether or not it was a lawful order.

Resisting subsequent arrest is entirely contingent on whether the previous police actions — including when the arresting officer started to apply force — were lawful.

It is perfectly legal (albeit unwise) to resist a non-lawful arrest (with the minimum level of force required to do so).


It is not lawful for police to use force to require someone to undergo additional screening. As above, violation of TSA regs is not a crime — it's a civil violation.

Whether or not it's lawful to get her out of the screening area depends on whether she was, legally speaking, causing a disturbance. Mere disagreement is not enough.

And the video shows no apparent disturbance on the part of the public — you can see multiple people pass by in all directions without being apparently bothered in any way.

Actually, that's a First and Fourth Amendment question. And as above, it's not a crime to refuse to comply with TSA regs, so it is not legal to use police force to punish someone for refusing to do so.

The police action has to be based on violation of completely independent state law (like causing a disturbance, trespassing, etc).

It's ambiguous on that point. p. 3, Ά 16 conflates TSA and MIA PD. We have no video of the incident before it got escalated to police, so we don't know what either of them did when it was just TSA.

Also, it's not mandatory to say you have a disability in advance (or at all) — especially if the disability is obvious, which the complaint does allege. p. 2 Ά 12, p. 3 Ά 15.

I think doing so would probably made it somewhat more likely to be avoided, but frankly I do not assign it a very high probability.


They do. See TSA's standard MOU re CCTV at https://s.ai/foia/#tsa for a detailed list of camera angles that TSA requires.


Not true. TSA (the manager in black suit) was still involved for most of that discussion when the police were present.

Not necessarily.


FWIW, I have at least one personal example that's very similar to part of what's alleged in the complaint:

I have really extreme light sensitivity, and sometimes equally extreme sound sensitivity as well. (By "extreme", I mean that fluorescent lighting is searingly painful to look at even with sunglasses.)

I don't explain this in advance. I am not required to by law, I like my privacy, and my symptoms are simply too numerous (and unusual) to explain every single time I interact with a screener, cop, etc etc.

Anyway, at a couple TSA checkpoints, I got very badly & painfully startled by a screening alarm going off on the traveler behind me while I was getting an opt-out patdown. My response to that is a very strong reflex — I cover my ears and eyes as much as possible, flinch away from the source of the sound/light, get very tense, and possibly start to hyperventilate (as it can be extremely painful etc). It's strong enough that I sometimes accidentally bruise myself in the process.

The last time I remember when that happened to me, TSA handled that part appropriately — they realized what was happening without my having to explain (because it was patently obvious from my reaction), asked the screener behind me to mute the thing or route people around so I wouldn't keep getting startled by the alarm, and finished the screening efficiently.

That, IMO, is a good example of TSA making reasonable accommodations for a non-visible disability that became very obvious when triggered.

(See? I am able to admit that TSA sometimes does things right.)


I can, however, very easily imagine a very, very different response — because in fact I've had it happen to me in other situations. (Some people seem to think that when if I flinch away from sound, the appropriate response is to start shouting at me, etc. ><)

We don't (yet) have video of what happened before the cops got called. We don't know how TSA reacted when Hannah reacted badly to the alarm. The complaint alleges that they acted wrongly.

I don't know whether or not that's true, but I do think it's entirely plausible.

If TSA aggravated Hannah's state rather than de-escalating it and trying to accommodate, as alleged, then they're partially responsible for what happened afterwards — and they're responsible for that part, which is an independent harm.

(Remember, the complaint alleges:
a) failure to accommodate the disability
b) negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress on both mother and daughter, and
c) physical injury and associated medical expenses.

If any of that happened before the cops came, it's actionable regardless of whether or not Hannah was at fault for what happened with the cops.)


I certainly have this, and I'm not ex-military. Mine's not a violent reaction as such — I don't lash out at others, but I have a very strong defensive reaction. (If you're between where my hand was and where my chest is when it happens, you might get "punched", hard, by the reflex contraction.)

I know people who have … different backgrounds than I do, for whom the reaction is more aggressive.

Pretty basic stuff: don't startle people, don't grab them, don't touch them without their consent.


(Excessive size removed.)

No. MIA PD. Not Memphis PD.

She reacted in self-defense. That's still unwise — but it is not the same thing as suddenly attacking a cop.

I would have no problem sharing a flight with her. Just leave her alone.

Put it the other way around: how do you feel about armed police officers whose way of dealing with a disabled person who doesn't appear to understand or cooperate, but has done nothing violent, is to suddenly use force? Who get too close to her throughout and aggravate her stress, rather than calming things down and resolving it nicely even if that takes a bit more time?

Not accurate. The complaint alleges that TSA failed to accommodate her disability.

That applies, at minimum, to the time between the alarm went off and before the cops got called — i.e. when they could have figured out some alternative way to do the screening that would have de-escalated, given the disability.

The complaint does not distinguish between initial screening and resolution when saying that the screening failed to accommodate. I don't think most people who aren't extensively familiar with TSA policies know the difference between initial and resolution screening, frankly.

Didn't notice the boot, but as I mention at the top of this post, the non-arresting officer clearly orders her to sit down after the arrest starts. (Which is appropriate at that point — he first ensures that the mother isn't a threat so he can help his partner. Whether the arrest was appropriate in the first place, and whether they paid attention to the mother explaining her daughter's disabilities, are entirely different questions.)