How did they stop you from leaving?

The more enlightened jurisdictions recognize that it doesn't have to be "arousal" or "sexual gratification" for sexual assault or rape.

It's rarely about "sex." It's about the power trip.

What part of, "TSOs cannot detain you," do you not understand? TSOs have zero law enforcement powers. They're glorified mall cops. A TSO can shout, "Stop right there!", and you're well within your rights to shout, "Eat my shorts!", back at him as you walk away.

I can't say definitively that airports don't have plain-clothes LEOs running around, but I can point out that in all the TSA incident videos out there that were escalated to the LEO level, the only plain-clothes personnel there were high-level TSA supervisors. The LEOs were all in uniform.

Making a U-turn before a DUI checkpoint is called probable cause. Being told by a TSO that they would be touching your breasts/resistance and deciding you'd rather drive than go through with that is called protecting yourself.

If the $11k fine was ever, ever going to be leveled against anyone, it would have been dropped on the "don't touch my junk" guy. He made a public mockery of the TSA, its agents, and its new body scanners.

The TSA will never levy the $11k fine. Never. I can see the story on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News now: a young-ish woman standing behind a podium crying about what the TSA tried to do to her, then an anchor voice-over kicks in and says that she was fined $11,000 because she refused to let an airport security screener touch her genitals.

Full Congressional hearing and TSA public approval rankings below 40% overnight. Even Pistole and Napolitano aren't that dumb.

So is leaving the security checkpoint after a body scanner alert; it is consistent with a test run by a terrorist.

TSOs do not have the training to determine probable cause or the right to detain. If someone wants to flip the one-striper the bird and walk away, the best the TSO could do is run after them and hope some LEO gives enough of a crap to pursue (they don't).

I have observed that many posters who are indignant that they were selected for/channelled into/were asked for their name or denied some presumed privlilege have to state somewhere in their post that
"they look nothing like a terrorist" and also state that they are "caucasian" or "very white" as is the case of the OP here.

I would like to know if you feel that this it is alright for these idignities to be done to people who in your minds "look like a terrorist" whatever that may be....

The TSA idiot who stands on the other side of the backscatter/Xray machine usually stops people who are not white on some pretext or the other and subjects them to a pat down or finds an excuse to touch them in some way before they can leave the area. That person, like the OP, unfortunately has no recourse but to subject themselves to the pat down because they have "to complete the screening process".

Also, I have observed, the TSA idiot does not usually subject african american persons to this because that might lead to a charge of .....

In my experience, the idiot will refuse to:
1) let you see the scanner image that shows the anomaly (so that you can make sure there is NO LINT in that pocket next time)
2) to let you go through the scanner again (to validate the alleged anomaly)

and they will lie to their supervisor about your attitude and behavior (which was fine until TSA idiot suddenly stuck their hand in your face and began touching your before saying anything to you.

Even though I have NOTHING in my pockets, wear light clothing, and only have the the plastic buttons that fasten my shirt, pants, and button down collar (!) when I go through the X-ray/Backscatter machine, I am always stopped usually in a very rude manner by the idiot who wants to do an additional screen.

The supervisor will always support the idiot and the LEO will support the supervisor. This is almost guaranteed to happen and surprise, surprise if 2 or 3 LEOs do not gang up on you afterwards.

These are the facts for people who are not white and who are not black.

So please bear this in mind when you become idignant about your treatment, or get snarky and mispronounce or refuse to pronounce your name for the name game.

Signing off as "disgusted that more Caucasian people do not write their Congressmen to change these draconian laws"....

That said, I do feel for the OP for what they experienced.

Do a search in these forums on Aukai, which is what your link is about. That ruling is about a baggage/carry-on search, not about them feeling your genitals. Often1 suffers from the same misconception quite possibly spouting the company line there.

ZERO (0) terrorists have been caught with the scanners. ZERO (0) terrorist, have ever been caught by TSA. On the other hand, you have a 60% to 75% false positive rate with the scanners.

On this basis, your statement fails the reasonable test. At least at DUI checkpoints, a drunk or two is occasionally found.

Unwillingness to get groped all over your body as a result of these faulty-to-the-point-of-uselessness machines most certainly does not indicate a test run. It indicates that person getting flagged unjustly does not want to be molested. Rep Cissna of Alaska didn't want her chest massaged. Senator Paul didn't want TSA clerk hands in his groin and over his buttocks. Good for them. I notice that no fine was ever sent.

Lots of misinformation here (no offense intended to the posters - legal stuff is complicated).

1. It is okay to make a U-turn at a drunk driving stop (at least in California and certain other states). In fact, they are REQUIRED to have an "escape route" as part of the check point, and they can't use someone's choice to "opt out" as reason to stop them.

2. TSA employees, as private citizens, have the right to hold and detain someone who they suspect of a crime (but, in most states, it needs to be a felony). HOWEVER, as a matter of DHS policy, TSA employees are *not* allowed to arrest, etc.

3. As noted by some posters, sexual assault type crimes just about always (I don't know of an exception, but I have heard there are some, I would appreciate a post of details) require a desire to obtain sexual gratification. Indeed, if you touch someone else on the elbow (an example of a non-typical sexual portion of the body), with the intent to obtain sexual gratification, then it is a sexual assault, at least in California.

It's also consistent with a very modest, religious, conservative woman who had never been touched in those places before getting married. Or anyone who believes we shouldn't let TSA touch children on their genitals while telling them it's "bad touch". Or pretty much anyone else who doesn't see terrorists under every rock.

I will do that, although I'm not sure that's correct. Everything I've read says, "search" which seems to imply of baggage and person. The meth was in his pocket, after all.

Except they aren't detaining you as a private citizen, they're detaining you as a DHS employee. Not sure how that changes thing, but...

By the way, they never informed me of what kind of crime they were suspecting me of. I am still confused on that bit. The three striper told me before the patdown that sweat "usually sets off the machines" - which makes sense considering where we live and I had numerous indications under my arms. So really - were they were accusing me of not dealing with 80% humidity well or something? Because it's clear they knew I wasn't hiding a bomb.

ETA: luv2fly1st, I already explained a little bit about why my race matters. If they cite general airport security as the issue, fine. But they don't. They ALWAYS cite 9/11. And how many elite frequent flyer white women who've undergone CBP and TSA background checks were involved in that? Besides the emotional part, my biggest issue with TSA is their compete unwillingness to implement any kind of risk-based system. Ok, I suppose PreCheck is just that, but dang, how does it help me when I get expedited security at every other airport but my tiny little home one? That's not a full risk-based program, it's an attempt to mollify the public.

Also, technically, doesn't the decision by the 9th circuit only apply within the 9th circuit pending a Supreme Court decision (or rulings by other circuits to the same effect)? If the OP is in Dallas, isn't it possible that the standard is different there and based on different case law?

As to the OP's situation, I'd probably have turned around and started walking. If the cops had already shown up I'd have asked if they planned to arrest me for turning around and quietly walking away and, assuming they answered in the negative, I'd have turned and walked away.

Finally, as I understand it, there are things that even LEOs will tell you "you have to do" in order to intimidate you into doing them, but if you refuse and don't give them another reason to arrest you they won't do because they have no legal basis for doing them. So the TSA can have a rule saying you cannot leave the checkpoint but I don't see much of a mechanism of enforcement. Civil penalties (issued after the fact) or not, I see not one thing that allows them to force you to do anything if your intentions are to not fly.

Problem is, *I* called the cops over because I didn't want to be taken into a room with the TSO's without someone at least partially neutral watching (plus it left the TSO's with not much to threaten me with). I suppose I should have asked the LEO if he'd arrest me if he walked off, but I think he was so annoyed at the whole charade that he may have. Or at least scared the crap out of me by marching me out of the terminal just to release me outside the view of the checkpoint.

Also, I was through the scanner, so to walk away I'd have had to head towards the true secure area, and that's not something I was willing to do since it wasn't my intent.

Dunno. <redacted> because I got arrested leaving a checkpoint, ya know? That's the only reason I for the most part play along.

Once the LEO�s step in its their ball game. TSA cannot do much more than they already have with the exception of refusing you access to the sterile area. That means no flight.

TSA must complete screening on your carry-on property, no way to avoid that, but your person is a different matter. You can withdraw permission for the screening of your person but there will be consequences. A LEO call at the very least. There are other possibilities, some of which have already been mentioned.

Typically when a passenger refuses screening they are escorted back to the public side by a TSO or law enforcement if called. And honestly, we don�t really care what class of flyer you are. Plat, gold, whatever, none of our business and does not change anything we do.

LEO�s are LEO�s, not TSA. They don�t know our procedures any more than we know theirs. If a LEO had been called then a supervisor was already involved, and they are the experts on TSA procedure, not the LEO.

One pass through the AIT is all that they are supposed to allow. Sorry, procedures. As for consenting, you consent to such each and every time you have intimate relations with another person. And there are places in this country where you CAN legally consent to being murdered. Physician assisted suicide.

Screening is not sexual assault, and you consent to it when you present yourself for screening. No one has forced you to undergo screening, no arm twisting, no gun to your head. It�s your choice. There are signs all over the airport and announcements over the airport PA system all the time advising you of the possibility of screening, which gives you advanced notice and the opportunity to turn around and leave the property prior to any such screening. That is how TSA meets its obligation to �due diligence� under the administrative search doctrine.

Fair enough, but I'll point out I mentioned my status only to make everyone aware that I am 100% successful at expedited screening through PreCheck.

But now my question becomes, why did everything you just said NOT happen to me? Why was I not allowed to be escorted back to the non-secure side? Why did they insist I must complete the screening on my person?

Further, since I was told I set the scanner off because I was sweating, what on earth was the TSO patting me down for? They all but told me it was a false positive, so I can only assume I was sexually assaulted as retaliation for creating a scene. Don't even lie and say that doesn't happen.

ETA: By the way, consenting to sex with my husband is different than consenting under duress to a woman rubbing her hands on my labia and mons pubis. Oh...I'm sorry, did those terms make you uncomfortable?

I wish I had an answer for you, but I was not there so I cant speak for what the concerns may have been. BTW, how do you like the PreCheck system? We are slated to get it soon at my airport and I have not heard from a regular human what they think of it.

Sweating? Really? I don�t work with the scanners myself, but nothing I have read on them says anything about sweat causing an anomaly. Was this an ATR system or one of the older systems where there is someone in a booth somewhere reviewing the image?

As for retaliation, as I have said before (and I believe you have not read), when you hear hoof-beats think horses, not zebras. Retaliatory screenings honestly do happen, but nowhere near as often as most in this venue would claim. If there was an anomaly then there was an anomaly, and it needed to be cleared, hence the pat-down. Only after the pat-down can cause be determined, until then it�s just an anomaly. Not a false-positive, just an anomaly, which is what the systems are designed to detect.

You are correct, but screening is not sex, nor assault, and when you ask for the screening by presenting yourself for it willingly then it is not unlawful.