I wonder what they were looking for. Particularly the second time, with the feeling me up on my sides. I wasn't wearing any metal (not even on my bra, sorry if TMI) and I had a form-fitting-ish T-shirt on over a knit pencil skirt.

Also, can they see things like if someone has, as I did (on my leg under my skirt) a surgical bandage or other non-metal lumpy thing? If they were going to be poking around, I would have expected that, instead.

I had hoped that the radiation would at least spare me the groping. Yes, as others have said, grrrr that I might as well have "opted out". At least then I would have seen them coming and had a chance to make eye contact and ask for clean gloves.

The radiation will not necessarily spare you the groping. There's all sorts of reasons that you might get handled up close and personal anyways no matter that you've been through the AIT as directed. What is even more troubling to me is that you would get handled on any part of your person w/o explanation or warning! Worse yet... expected to submit to this treatment without protest lest you be detained further!

Yes, we can all sit here and think about it all we want. I was asking if there is any legal precedent.

I kind of thought that was the definition of assault, that someone comes up and grabs/harms you without warning or permission (!) - especially if from the back.

Usually, when someone demands a citation of legal precedent, it is because they just got caught doing something so obviously and outrageously wrong that that is their only fallback position. And no, it is not the definition of assault. It is battery, the thing that assault threatens. Battery is defined as "an unpermitted touching" and not "a touching that you should have said no to but didn't because you didn't know it was coming." The as yet unsalted slugs working for the TSA are far too stupid to understand the distinction.

They were looking for a bomb, of course.

Oh, you weren't carrying one?

Then what are you complaining about? If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. They're only trying to keep everyone safe.

LOL! It would be a pretty nifty bomb to align perfectly under a short ponytail and/or thin knit clothes and give no sign on the scanner, but still be feel-able by that grope!

The thing is, I know you're kidding, but way too many people believe exactly that (if you have nothing to hide...) I wish more travellers with clout were demanding more personal bodily integrity and/or civil rights. Or that I had some idea of how to do so without the automatic assumption of guilt of some nefarious crime/intent. I also am not wild about being put on some "always grope because she asks questions" list. I hate being so paranoid about these meta-issues, too.

...and also @4nsicdoc - thx for the clarification. So battery, not assault. Eek. Yes, unsalted slugs.

hello 4nsicdoc, good to hear from you. I'm still puzzled by someone wanting to know which aspect of battery (I miscalled it assault) is illegal. I have to shake my head at these people. They're somehow immune from laws and basic human decency that every one else must respect. If no TSA clerk has ever been arrested for it, it must be legal and ok.

I was asking for a citation because I am not convinced that a court would agree with this argument. Is it still battery when it is done by a government official at an airport as part of a screening process?

I guess it's plausible that some court somewhere could find that we "imply consent" when we go into an airport. Most of us on FT just think that's disgusting and hope a more reasonable legal/Constitutional test would apply.

--LG

Ok - so I'm submitting this complaint to them:

"I went through the radiation machine. While standing and awaiting clearance to proceed, I was grabbed by behind by my ponytail, with no warning or communication by the agent who did so. I flinched, and she said, "just checking your hair". This was entirely unacceptable, because she did not approach/warn/inform me; she snuck up on me; she did not put on new gloves; she did not make eye contact before violating my bodily integrity by grabbing me."

...I will follow up here with replies if they come.

Don't.Hold.Your.Breath.

Good luck with that.

Consent to search and consent to assault/battery are two different things, IMO. You'll never convince me that I can legally consent to the latter two.

U.S. vs Davis: �[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.�

The TSA claims that passengers entering the airport give "consent" to actions that the TSA refuses to define.

If the "searchee" isn't aware of the ramifications and scope of the search to which they've granted "consent," then I don't believe "consent" has actually been granted.