Flyer at SAN says no to grope, escorted from checkpoint by LEO, threatened with suit
Nov 13, 2010, 4:24 pm
#31
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
My understanding of a civil suit is that it can only be used to recoup damages, or punitive damages if the defendant is behaving maliciously or egregiously.
What damages could the blogger have possibly caused by refusing to undergo further screening? I certainly don't think his behavior could be construed as malicious or egregious when THEY ESCORTED HIM OUT OF SECURITY.
A fine up to $10,000? under what statute?
Keep going, TSA.
What damages could the blogger have possibly caused by refusing to undergo further screening? I certainly don't think his behavior could be construed as malicious or egregious when THEY ESCORTED HIM OUT OF SECURITY.
A fine up to $10,000? under what statute?
Keep going, TSA.
(a) No person may:
. . . .
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
. . . .
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
Last edited by Ellie M; Nov 13, 2010 at 5:02 pm Reason: pdf warning
Nov 13, 2010, 4:58 pm
#32
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: PBI
Programs: DL 2.8 MM/PM, AA MM/GLD, Marriott LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,746
Here is a link to the sanction guidelines.
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But revieiwng this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But revieiwng this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
Nov 13, 2010, 5:06 pm
#33
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Here is a link to the sanction guidelines.
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But revieiwng this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But revieiwng this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
Edit to add: penalties are up to $10k. The $1000-3000 is a guideline.
Nov 13, 2010, 5:06 pm
#34
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,967
Here is a link to the sanction guidelines.
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But revieiwng this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But revieiwng this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
Nov 13, 2010, 5:35 pm
#35
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
I was thinking the same thing - that they are preparing for November 24th and possibly trying to take proactive action in an attempt to encourage some opt outs to reconsider. Somehow I could see them twisting this story to their favour and if it does get to the media using it to deter Opt Out Day or at least to turn some viewers and readers against the opt outers.
(hint, no hour has been) They have lost the media, and much of America will be watching the show. If they over-react, it won't be seen the way the first Vietnam protests were seen. TSA is fighting a battle that pits it against the core values of mainstream America.
Last edited by IslandBased; Nov 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Nov 13, 2010, 5:46 pm
#37
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: IAD, and sometimes OMNI/PR. Currently: not far from IAD, but home will always be SAN (not far from the "touch my junk and I'll have you arrested" Memorial TSA Check Point) even if I'm not there so much these days.
Programs: UA, CO, Calcifer Award for Mad Haiku Skillz
Posts: 5,076
This is brilliant! "If you touch my junk I'm going to have you arrested." should be printed on the t-shirts made and put up for sale to raise funds for this guy's legal defense in the civil suit.
Nov 13, 2010, 5:50 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Nov 13, 2010, 5:52 pm
#39
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 309
I came here after seeing the blog via another source, and figured it would be discussed here.
I actually recall seeing signs at some airport (either DCA, IAD, ATL, PHL or some combination thereof) that states that once you enter the security area you're not allowed to leave until you comply with the security screening, or something to that affect. I forget what they claimed was the authority allowing this, or what the threatened penalties were.
Hopefully this 'rule' will be challenged in the courts soon. I am not a lawyer, but I am wondering at the constitutionality of it. I mean, I can see them agreeing that a private industry can make you comply with their screening policies to get into the terminal, but it just seems wrong to me that they can force you to comply to unknown policies just for walking into an area. Really? There has got to be a lawsuit eventually.
I also am wondering if this guy was preparing for the probability of some confrontation like this occurring, and that's why he had video and audio recording. If so, being prepared for the possibility would help him keep his cool and civility. I'm not saying this because I think there's anything wrong with this, I'm just thinking that it's probably not common to go through security while recording things.
Oh, and I've never seen any signs that say you CAN'T record. Seems like a person should be able to record anything in a public area, and I'm pretty sure this sort of thing has been challenged recently in regards to recording police officers in public areas.
I actually recall seeing signs at some airport (either DCA, IAD, ATL, PHL or some combination thereof) that states that once you enter the security area you're not allowed to leave until you comply with the security screening, or something to that affect. I forget what they claimed was the authority allowing this, or what the threatened penalties were.
Hopefully this 'rule' will be challenged in the courts soon. I am not a lawyer, but I am wondering at the constitutionality of it. I mean, I can see them agreeing that a private industry can make you comply with their screening policies to get into the terminal, but it just seems wrong to me that they can force you to comply to unknown policies just for walking into an area. Really? There has got to be a lawsuit eventually.
I also am wondering if this guy was preparing for the probability of some confrontation like this occurring, and that's why he had video and audio recording. If so, being prepared for the possibility would help him keep his cool and civility. I'm not saying this because I think there's anything wrong with this, I'm just thinking that it's probably not common to go through security while recording things.
Oh, and I've never seen any signs that say you CAN'T record. Seems like a person should be able to record anything in a public area, and I'm pretty sure this sort of thing has been challenged recently in regards to recording police officers in public areas.
Nov 13, 2010, 6:12 pm
#40
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 507
Another thing the vids taught/reminded me, that once past the ID checker, if asked again for ID, be willing to show it to any TSA that asks for it, but tell them IT DOES NOT LEAVE YOUR HANDS.
The easiest way to detain someone is to have them walk away with it, and go elsewhere.
The easiest way to detain someone is to have them walk away with it, and go elsewhere.
Nov 13, 2010, 6:14 pm
#41
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
$10k fine?
Nov 13, 2010, 6:21 pm
#43
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: IAD, and sometimes OMNI/PR. Currently: not far from IAD, but home will always be SAN (not far from the "touch my junk and I'll have you arrested" Memorial TSA Check Point) even if I'm not there so much these days.
Programs: UA, CO, Calcifer Award for Mad Haiku Skillz
Posts: 5,076
Here is a link to the sanction guidelines.
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But reviewing this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sancti..._7-15-2004.pdf
Aggravating factors" include "attitude of violater".
They sure cannot claim that in this case. But reviewing this list sure makes me wonder if they will try to trump up some reasons for sanctions on 11/24
(bolding mine)
Nov 13, 2010, 7:44 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
It's Kaptain Kangaroo from the word go!