Wally Bird

I imagine the TSA doesn't want passengers stripping naked at checkpoints whenever they feel like it.

Matter of fact, neither do I.

Just pay the fine and shut up; your 15 minutes are up.

Spiff

Absolutely not.

The Constitutionality of the TSA's SOP and its classification as SSI should both be determined in is case.

Boggie Dog

TSA claims this guy disrupted the screening process. So exactly what does that entail? Can TSA show exactly what activities that covers are is it just an overly vague claim that is not supported by any documentation?

Bottom line the guy alarmed the ETD and took immediate steps to prove he was not a security threat. That expedited the screening process and did not delay anything as claimed by TSA since he no longer needed a full body pat down to search for WEI.

I think the TSA screeners got PO'd because they didn't get to feel the guy up.

cbn42

Much as I want to feel otherwise, taking your clothes off in public is not acceptable anywhere (with designated exceptions). It is disruptive of just about anything, including security screening. "Disrupting the screening process" is rather vague, but this is one clear example of behavior that is disruptive.

This guy is giving a bad name to those of us who are legitimately standing up to TSA's abuses.

Wally Bird

They won't be.

If the Petition for Review is granted it will on the basis of the fine imposed by the TSA. Since he was acquitted of the criminal charge there's nothing else to review.

Administrative Law is neither something new nor unique to the TSA and I would be astounded if that concept is even up for discussion. It will come down to two questions:
Did Brennan disrupt or interfere with the screening process?
Was TSA within legal bounds during the administrative hearing?

There may be some to-and-fro about the definition (or lack thereof) of "interference" and I would certainly like to see that voided for vagueness. Can't see that happening nor anything else the TSA does being called into question.

You and others keep repeating that argument. I don't think it stands up at all and I expect the Appellate to agree.

(Always assuming the kangaroo court finds against him, which is likely a foregone conclusion. But...)Completely agree. For a change

Boggie Dog

There is no question that by removing his clothes the man showed that he had no weapons of any kind on his person. There is no argument about that fact.

TSA's claim that he disrupted the screening process could mean anything and likely does mean anything TSA wants it to mean on any given day.

TSA claim is to vague to have any reasonable meaning and the man did nothing but help prove he had no weapons.

studentff

?

Public nudity is apparently not illegal in Oregon or Portland. I don't recall seeing any signs at PDX or at any TSA checkpoint saying clothes are required (e.g., no shirt, no shoes, no service). There is no rule or policy published by TSA stating that passengers are required to wear a certain amount of clothing.

This guy's action is only disruptive to people who let themselves be disrupted. I personally don't want to see this guy naked, but there's a lot of things going on in public that I don't particularly want to see but have no grounds to prevent. I don't stop doing my job because one of them happens.

This case actually seems pretty important to me for one reason, though the kangaroo admin court will likely ignore it. The passenger apparently did not voilate state, local, or federal law. TSA refuses to publish complete exhaustive policies of what is required of passengers at the checkpoint. So how can we be expected to avoid random things they may consider "disruptive?" On the same note, most people don't know that TSA can "require" you to go into a private room with a closed door to complete screening. Until TSA is either disbanded or forced to publish exhaustive details of what is expected of passengers at checkpoint, we all are at risk for arbitrary action by TSA.

petaluma1

Others have asked: does that private room search exceed the scope of an administrative search which must be done in public?

Does that private room search, after a "positive" ETD screening, become a probable cause search?

Does the TSA have the authority to do a probable cause search or does such a search then become to responsibility of law enforcement?

SeriouslyLost

As many others have said, not in Portland. It's perfectly legal. It's going to be difficult to argue that a lawful activity or state/condition is in and of itself disruptive. If you argue that being naked is disruptive (in a State where it's lawful) then you have to accept that anything at all that causes another person/s to pause or stare is disruptive. Do you really want TSA fining people for being disruptive because, say, they're in a wheelchair or have a prosthetic limb visible? I don't think I want TSA to have that power.


Not at all. You're objecting to the nudity, but that's simply saying more about yourself than it is about the facts of the event: if you want to make the case that a person breaking no laws and complying with the screening instructions is still somehow "disruptive" then the terr\\\TSA have already won.

Wally Bird

In fact it is not.Brennan was charged with violating the city ordinance (above), not the State one which is worded differently viz:He was acquitted because the Judge accepted the defense that he stripped as a form of protest. The prosecution argument that protesting requires premeditation was not accepted.

None of which has any bearing on the TSA charge of interference.

So am I and I don't much care what you think that says about me; time and place for everything. An airport is not one of them and such antics simply reinforce the majority opinion that opponents of the TSA are, by and large, nutters.

SeriouslyLost

I stand corrected then.


Apparently it does have bearing given your statement below.

chollie

To each his own.

I find the sight of a TSO with his/her hands in a pax's pants or between the pax's legs profoundly unsettling - moreso than public nudity as a form of protest.

The former is not only visually offensive, it symbolizes a profound surrender of rights, dignity and respect that our government demands as a prerequisite for innocent pax to conditionally, temporarily 'prove' their innocence, because all pax are assumed guilty until proven conditionally, temporarily 'OK' each time they fly.

The latter - it's a rare occurrence indeed, and is a poignant symbol of the freedoms we have lost. It also (in this situation) points up the lack of true security at the checkpoint. Had the TSOs ignored his protest, processed him and sent him on his way (should have only taken seconds to 'visually' clear him - even if an ETD came back positive), the checkpoint would have been a more secure place. As it is, the TSOs, by their handling of the situation, and their desire to publicize it, have sent a clear message to evildoers of how easily the TSOs can be distracted from their mission.

The latter - the protester - also symbolizes someone who chooses to voluntarily surrender all dignity and privacy willingly as a prerequisite to flying. Isn't that exactly what TSA demands that we all do?

Orion

If the TSA agent became aroused the charge goes from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Spiff

For whom? The TSA employee? One can only hope...

buylowsellhigh

But we can't guarantee that the TSA agent won't be aroused, as we all know that it is illegal to make hiring decision based on sexual orientation