baglady

Plus1 was departing IAH tonight and opted out while avoiding the NOS. His swab alarmed and they told him that they needed to secondary his secondary. They advised him that had to be done in private. He told them he wished for it to be done in public. They got a supervisor and all four times he asked, he was told no, that it had to be done in private. The fourth time, he was told that if he wanted to fly tonight , he would have to do the private screening.

I've checked the TSA sight, done a search on here, basic google search, etc. and cannot find that the secondary after swab alarm MUST be done in private. If I've missed something, please guide me. If not, we'll go from here. He has the supervisors name/ID.

Thanks, in advance, for any help.

saulblum

At the very least I hope he demanded that a cop be present as a witness to the private screening.

average_passenger

Best of luck to you guys!!

Seriously, imagine if you were a teenaged girl or young college student traveling by yourself and this happened. If it were your daughter, would you want her to go in a room with strangers all by herself? Even if the strangers are all female, have you seen some of the manly looking female TSO's?

10mmAutoFan

To my knowledge, there is no requirement of a forced private screening. I suspect they were going to ask him to remove clothing for a visual inspection (true strip search). Something that I would never stand for as a condition to fly on a commercial aircraft.

My first request would be a re-swab and patch run on a different machine -- as those devices can require recalibration and suffer failure due to operator error. Was that even offered in this case?

average_passenger

hmm, do you interact much with the TSA? Whatever they say at the airport, you do. They don't care what their website says or what the law is, the TSO is always right at the airport, no matter what.

Smaug

Supposedly the difference is the patdown in private includes the rubbing of the groin and butt area several times. For some reason, TSA does not seem to want the rest of the public to witness it.

baglady

Yes, I believe that pretty much sums it up. I know his last opt out earlier this week at EWR, the TSO was very uncomfortable doing the groping in public. I suspect he thought he was too much of a man to be groping up another man in public . There was no removal of clothing involved tonight, though he said some extra groping was indeed involved. He was certain it was not necessary to do it in private; voiced it repeatedly; but after being told the fourth time by the sup it had to be done if he wanted to fly tonight, he gave in.

I truly appreciate everyone's prompt replies back.

10mmAutoFan

Yes, I interact with them weekly as I travel throughout the country. When their requests of me are too great -- I leave, rather than subject myself to sexual assault.

So far, I've only had to walk away from a screening check point after the process had begun once -- and that was at IND (I described it in another post). Usually, when confronted with facts - the supervisors back off of the intimidation game, and comply within their actual limits of "authority".

The courts have ruled that TSOs are not law enforcement officers, and may not search, seize, or detain. Your relationship and interaction with TSOs is one of a voluntary nature -- a consenual administrative search. You are completely free to stop the process walk away at any time. You may not get to fly that day, but you can gather your things and walk away.

Heaven help the local airport LEO that chooses to act outside his/her scope in response to emotional intimidation techniques of the TSA - and places me under arrest because of it. I'll win in court and the officer and department will be spending a lot of time in depositions and the insurance carrier for their law enforcement liability coverage will be writing a check.

My profession is that of a risk management, safety and security consultant to government entities. I work with law enforcement agencies throughout the US -- and although my role is to try to keep bad things from happening (protecting the LEOs from claims/lawsuits) to them, I will not hesitate to use my knowledge and legal resources (i.e. attorneys versed in law enforcement liability claims) to file an action under 42 USC 1983 if my civil rights are violated.

There are a bunch of under-trained LEOs in this country. My business partner and I have made a very good living by traveling around the country providing law enforcement liability seminars - trying to educate LEOs about 42 USC 1983, and the personal ramifications of violating it. It is only a matter of time before a successful case occurs with a TSO. Unlike the state and local LEOs - where their departments share in the liability through vicarious liability (negligent training, negligent supervision, etc.), the approach to the claims with the TSA will be that of suing the individual TSO, and their supervisors individually -- rather than the TSA as an agency. As a matter of fact, cases are currently in process in several jurisdictions.

average_passenger

I hope you didn't think I was trying to insult you!! I wish I had your knowledge. That's great that they stop being intimidating with you. There are groups of people that the TSA will continue to intimidate -groups such as elderly citizens, handicapped people, cute young girls, and children.

BTW, You say that you can stop the screening process at any time? What about the John Tyner (don't touch my junk) case?

10mmAutoFan

He was one of the first "test cases" that gained media notariety. It was instrumental (along with pressure from professional aviation associations) in the TSA abandoning their efforts to subject uniformed flight crew members to the "scope or grope" procedure.

Phil Mocek's case is another good example of the turning tide for the TSA:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...ocek_suing.php