So my wife made a scene at JFK the other week when she refused to go through the nude-o-scope and demanded a private screening (personally, I think the nude-o-scopes are silly, but it's not worth the hassle to protest at the checkpoint). They basically threw the book at her, combing through her luggage, having her talk to the police, asking her for her phone number (she gave it to them), and even having a TSA agent get on board the plane to recheck her ID.

What is likely to happen to her in the future when she travels? Do they maintain a list of "difficult" pax subject to extra security due to her protest, or does she get a "clean slate" every time she travels? She is obviously no terrorist threat, just a "threat" to object to nude-o-scopes.

I have opted out more times than I can count now and I have never been asked for personal information. I do not doubt that some have, but not me. The recording of the data was more likely to the scene making, as you describe it, than the opt out.

IMO, never, ever do a private screening. What they do to me they can do in public. They look infinitely worse doing it that I do getting it.

It might be more telling if we had the details of the the scene she made in additional to the response. It sounds like the response was overboard, as it often is, but context would help.

I don't know about a list being kept but what kind of "scene" did your wife make as while it is wrong and the TSA publicly states they don't do retaliatory screenings, it sure looks like your wife had one. As to giving a TSO personal information, that is a flat out NO as if a pax presents a valid I/D and said I/d matches to the information on a pax BP, the picture in the I/D matches that of the face of the pax standing directly in front of the TSO and the TSO has determined (while using their overpriced $1.98 black light) that the I/d is valid, then the pax is allowed to proceed into the physical screening part of the checkpoint. A pax can opt-out as it their right and stated by the TSA and as long as they are deemed to be clear of any prohibited items, they are allowed to proceed into the secure area-that's it-end of story. As to the TSO following your wife onto the plane to "re-check her I/D" , imho, that's bordering on harassment no matter what SSI B/S the TSA will say regarding "they needed to follow-up"

She protested vigorously to the nude-o-scopes. I've told her to just calmly request the opt-out procedures. She agreed that this is what she'll do in the future. I just hope she isn't somehow "blacklisted" -- since we travel a lot and I'm not looking to spend a lot of unpredictable extra time at the check points (I know I almost missed a flight once when their machine thought I had "residue" of some sort in my contact lens solution).

I assume if you calmly ask for the alternative screening, it will generally only add a few minutes to your journey?

My way: Firmly and in a quiet even tone, "I opt out and I need to see my belongings."

I'm usually on my way to the gate in under 10 minutes even with a usually necessary bag check.

Don't forget, even if you take the scan, there is a significant possibility that one will get an anomaly that needs to be resolved and will get a pat down, albeit a regional one, anyway.

You are correct in asking how big of a "scene" she created. If the police were involved, it is safe to say it was a big scene, or at least one of the STSOs thought so. Of course, that is subjective.

everything else that happened tells me they are sending her info to regulatory, and regulatory will decide whether or not to send her a fine (again, depending upon how big a scene). That was most likely the purpose of going on the plane to look at the identification - more than likely a STSO wanted to confirm a name or address on the identification (which they should have gotten right at the checkpoint - just my opinion). So the "follow-up" was not harassment, I do not think.

What authority does the TSA have to fine a pax? And for what?

"Scene" is a bad term. It can mean anything from being rude to actually violating rules. We still don't have cold hard facts of who said what and when. I can say that if real LEO's actually responded at JFK and actually spoke with OP's wife, it's a lot more serious than "bad attitude."

The issue here isn't even necessarily what records TSA kept, but what records the LEO (which agency?) made and kept.

If TSA does propose a fine (note, use of the word "propose"), then OP's wife can contest the facts if they are wrong.

In the meantime, "scenes" don't get anybody anywhere.

Yes, TSA has the legal authority to fine people. This is well discussed and well known. They can fine people for various reasons. The regulatory part of TSA does so. As to what happened in this case, we simply do not know.

You are correct, "scene" is a bad term. But it is what the OP provided to us. As to what only happened, at this site, without more information, we can only guess what was said. However, having seen and been involved in various similar instances, I can confidently state that I believe the passengers information was being sent to regulatory. Now regulatory does what they wish; they do not take instructions from STSOs/TSMs. They can chose not to fine someone. If the OP provides more information, we may be able to speculate a bit more.

Agreed but for the following scenarios......

If the pax says "I opt out" and the TSO insists that the pax must go thru the NoS. The pax repeats "I opt out" and the TSO insists that the pax must go thru the NoS. Once the pax says "I opt out", it's a done deal and the TSO must comply with the pax opting out. If the TSO persists and gives the pax a D-Y-W-T-F-T, then what?

If the pax tells the TSO to f*ck off (with provocation as in the above example) is that a fineable offense? How about without provocation? Can words be considered "interfering with the screening process"?.

Agreed on all points.

Oh, I didn't say I agree that the pax should be fined, I just stated that based upon my experience of what was actually happening. Or specifically, that was what a STSO or TSM was going to attempt to do...

And no, that specific example is NOT a fineable offense. And no, that example is not interfering with the screening process.

But as I stated above we simply do not have enough info to state one way or the other as to what EXACTLY the OPs wife did. I can only tell you from the description it appeared they were gathering his wife's info - not to make a list, but to send it to regulatory to fine her. However, if shes not fined, she will never know, I don't think (I could be wrong about that).

TSA, like most Federal agencies, can propose administrative sanctions such as fines. But, the pax need not agree to the proposal and has a right to a hearing in front of an administrative law judge and can then litigate in the Federal courts from there.

The sole purpose of the fine proposal is to let the target pax know what is being sought. It is the equivalent of saying, "we think that you violated the law and propose to settle the matter for $X."

If the target pax disputes the charges, all bets are off. If the pax prevails = $0. If the pax loses, fines can be a lot more.

That sounds suspiciously like a shakedown.

Why am I not surprised?

Except for the money the passenger spent in disputing the charges. The passenger loses money either way. The only question is who gets paid.