Since it has been a discussion point in several recent TS/S threads, and I feel that the information should be helpful to some of our members, I am starting this thread on QI.

Some of our TSO members have stated, definitively, that QI will always protect them. Some of us have stated, in rebuttal, that QI is subject to adverse determinations by a court. Here is an article about a very recent case in point as a starting point of reference for why QI should not be considered so automatic by our TSO members.

Yes, I realize this does not deal with TSA, and the original case is not transportation related. However, it is proof that QI can be denied by a court.

In my experience, which is not definitive, QI can be denied in cases where the government employee exceeds their authority or deviates from established agency procedure in a manner that rises to negligence. The definition of any of the above is determined by the court.

For example, if the agency says "you shall not drive a government vehicle for 8 hours after consuming alcohol", the employee drinks and then responds to a work call-out in a company vehicle and causes a bodily injury accident. The court may hold that QI did not apply to the case as the employee violated established procedure.

It is my opinion (and only my opinion) that one reason that TSA will not disclose the SOP (keeps it SSI) is to avoid lawsuits against screeners and/or the agency since a plaintiff is not entitled to know the procedure. If that is the case, it is contrary to established rules for classification of information, but those rules are merely speed bumps for determined government actors.

I agree that QI can be denied by a court, but the case you cited only shows that it can be denied if the people who should have claimed it were dumb enough not to do so!

I'm not sure how that would help them. Indeed if a screener's defense rested on following SOP and the TSA refused to admit SOP, I would think that would invalidate the defense (in a civil action, but not a criminal one).

I would suspect that the TSA would come in and claim that the screener was following SOP, that SOP was SSI, and request that the court dismiss the case as the complaint is only actionable against the agency. I think it would require gross negligence that is patently obvious to be beyond SOP (a screener deliberately ripping a person's clothes off in front of everyone) for the TSA to not make that kind of argument.

There was a really good decision about 10 years ago that unfortunately was vacated by the actions of a corrupt Idaho prosecutor.

When Lon Horiuchi was charged with manslaughter for assassinating Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge fiasco, the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case could continue under Idaho criminal law. The U.S. opted not to appeal further. It was removed to the U.S. District Court in Boise but was being handled as an Idaho criminal prosecution.

Unfortunately, the prosecutor lost her bid for reelection. Her replacement not only dropped the criminal charges but moved to vacate the landmark 9th Circuit opinion. Of course the U.S. did not oppose that motion. Shortly thereafter, the new prosecutor was disbarred for forging a notary signature on a document.

To add insult to injury, the next person to handle Boundary County's legal affairs on a temporary basis was then Deputy Idaho Attorney General Ron Howen, who as a U.S. attorney prosecuting the original Ruby Ridge criminal trials several years earlier had been fined by U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge for manufacturing physical evidence purportedly from the crime scene.

Bottom line is that there appear to be limits to federal immunity, but the case law is not (yet) well established.