barbell

This is the most galling aspect of the entire TSA Circus.

TSA does everything it can to flip whatever happens back on the passenger who has been singled out.

TSA creates onerous, false, ineffective, and even dangerous screening policies. Many of them are secret, and in spite of the inability to know the rules, passengers are expected to follow these secret orders perfectly, exactly, and with the correct amount of obsequious submission.

And when we don't?

TSA blows a gasket, shuts down the checkpoint, creates work for its own self, calls the police, and then blames the passenger for the whole darn thing. The TSA "people" involved will do everything they can to get the police to charge the wronged party on some bogus charge (see also Stacey Armato, see also Andrea Abbott, see also Yukari Miyamae, see also John Tyner, I also speak from personal experience). When the police oblige, as in this case (see also Phil Mocek, see also Andrea Abbott, see also Yukari Miyamae) TSA throws up its hands, "Oh, our poor, poor Officers. They're just trying to keep you safe! Don't you understand! We fondle you for your safety! Your safety! You were treated with dignity and respect. You are also a liar."

And when the local cops fail them, they levy a fine. They coerce a self-incriminating testimony (in violation of Amendment the 5th) by threatening an $11,000 fine under color of authority. They then levy some ridiculous fine for "creating a disruption" (see also John Brennan).

It's the ultimate double jeopardy.

You either are charged and booked at the local level, or you are fined at the federal level. It's the most ridiculous racket ever created. It's like dealing with a mob made up of a bunch of ignorant cry babies.

RichardKenner

I'm pretty sure you'd "get away with it" in any state. While courts have repeatedly denied First Amendment protection for merely being nude (e.g., on a beach), if the nudity is part of an expressive conduct with a meaningful linkage to what's being protested (which is the case here), there's no question that it's protected speech.

chollie

I'm very surprised they didn't hang 'disturbing the peace' plus 'non-physical resisting arrest' charges on him. I wonder if TSA will now levy an administrative fine for 'interfering with the screening process'.

RichardKenner

In Oregon, the standard is "An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person" (and, yes, a nude woman does not expose her genitals). However, I don't think that's the issue here because a person being nude at an airport for a reason unrelated to a protest would almost certainly be found by the court to hold the requisite intent.

As to the later poster who asked about disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025 is very specific as to what conduct is illegal and what happened wasn't among that list.

sbagdon

The behavior that will change is on the part of the arresting LEO organization (who won't arrest "offenders"), and the prosecuting office (who won't charge them). I don't see this changing the behavior pattern of the TSA (they can still refuse to execute the pat-down, or require a "private" location).

chollie

This is the irony.

If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?

If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????

Boggie Dog

You already know that TSA procedures have nothing to do with security.

spd476

That reminds me of this one:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...ident-fll.html

She had to put clothes back on so she could be patted down.

tanja

It all comes down to that the naked body is an indicent exposure according to TSA.

But TSA'S patdown is to me indicent patdown.

mikeef

The human body is 60%+ liquid. By being naked, the passenger had easier access to those liquids.

Mike

FatherAbraham

"disordely conduct" in my opinion is an unConstitutional charge as it is vague and over board. What is disorderly? No one knows except the 800lb gorilla who will use disorderly as a means to unnecessarily the situation into a resisting arrest.

I was please to find out the man was found not guilty. Trumped up charges all around on that guy.

Trumped up charges are used to instill fear in the general public in order to coerce compliance with issue the general public is opposed too.

RichardKenner

That depends on the state. If you read the Oregon statute, you'll find that it's not in the least vague or overbroad. On the other hand, the one in Florida is and has been held to be so by the courts.

essxjay

Too right. Nude bike-riding has lost a good deal of shock power here in Portland. Amused tolerance seems to be the way us locals (including LEOs) view it.

medic51vrf

Like others have said, there was never any chance of a conviction on the Indecent Exposure charge. The elements of the crime, which have to be met in order to secure a conviction, simply weren't there.

Regarding the Disorderly Conduct charge, it's still pretty weak. The only thing that may, and it's a BIG may, have gotten him is:

(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:

(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority; OR
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.

I think any lawyer would be able to tear apart either of these two arguments but I also think another good lawyer may have been able to convince "a group of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty" that those elements have been met.

I'm actually surprised that the DA (or DPP or whatever they have in Oregon) even filed on this one....

MichaelEl2

They had to. Once the 'subjects' start an uprising it must be suppressed.