Originally Posted by
petaluma1
TSA expects/requires you to speak when you cannot do so. TSA also tells people to remove braces and casts on injured body parts and then tells those people to walk through the MMW. (Or to get up out of a wheelchair and walk like Lazarus.)
As you probably know,
both parts of that
happened to me. However, that's covered in two separate lawsuits (in D. Mass. and W.D. Wash. respectively). Unless I can relate it to the SFO incident or the liquids policy, I can't get discovery about it yet.
intimidated by the false belief that screeners (sorry, Sai, I refuse to call them "officers") have some kind of legal authority to arrest them if they refuse.
(I only suggest calling them "investigatory officers", not "officer" unqualified. "Screeners" also works.)
And, again, this happened to me. 2nd link above. STSO explicitly threatened to have me removed because I said I was neither willing nor able to go through AIT, and had my bags (which were post-xray) returned to me. I interpreted it as a very clear threat made under color of state law (e.g. for disturbing the peace or other generic pseudo-crime),
even though I know that nobody in TSA (except TSIs & FAMs, who are cops) has any authority to do so. A threat is a threat, even if there is no lawful basis for it.
I kinda have
everything covered when it comes to things the TSA can do to someone. I've been the target of pretty much all of it.
However, in
this lawsuit, discovery has to be related to the facts of
this case.
(It bears noting, however, that TSM David Smith, aka the "star" of the SFO video, listed his title as "TSM/Behavior Detection". So to my view, SPOT related stuff is on the table as discoverable, since it might have influenced his decisions to take action against me.)