warning before groping?
 

I recently flew american airlines from BOS to ORD and back, on weekdays. It was my first experience with the "non-ionizing" radiation machine, which is just pure luck I guess. BOTH ways, I was casually groped by our favorite agents while standing in the sideways-foot-prints after the scan. Neither time did they say anything first.

In BOS, I just suddenly felt the invasive and disgusting reality of someone else squeezing my head and neck from the back and heard, "just checking your ponytail". That was so awful (stranger touching me with used gloves - ick!! and no warning - double ick!!) that in ORD on the way back, I took out my hairtie and went through all loose to try to avoid whatever paranoid issues they might have with ponytails.

I faced the other way that time (to watch my bag) and saw an agent approaching with zombie hands outstretched, so I shouted, "stop! if you're going to touch me, please use new gloves"...which she did, admittedly without bad attitude, but also without saying what she was doing - and she proceeded to pat my sides rather intimately and then walk away, presumably satisfied.

Shouldn't they tell me what parts they will touch, give me a chance for the private room, etc.? It was so invasive! This is now the third time I've been groped. I'm feeling like they should offer a ring. But seriously - I just feel totally degraded.

--LG

eta: p.s. when I was groped the first time on a different trip, the agent announced what she was going to touch ahead of each touching.

Sounds like the mind-numbing repetitions of post ATR anomalies to be resolved (false positives) are having an effect on the screeners. I agree... to be groped w/o warning is creepy! Explanations and clean gloves if requested should be mandatory EVERY single time anomalies are resolved by a "hands on" method. If these simple actions "take too much time" due to the high rate of false positives, then stop using the faulty technology as a primary screening method!

Technically you were assaulted as you were touched without permission.

Why go through the scanner if you're going to get groped anyway?

Also, both ORD and BOS use backscatter scanners which, contrary to your opinion, are ionizing radiation machines. You received unnecessary, unregulated doses of ionizing radiation. You were viewed naked. And then you were assaulted.

Sorry about your luck.

That's ridiculous. She never said Stop, don't touch me! So it is not assault.

I get the pat down every time and hate hearing the long "this is what is going to happen" speech but they I insist on giving it every time and they ALWAYS put on fresh gloves right in front of me.

I hate this as much as anyone, wish there was a way around it all, but geez I fly 200+ segments a year, get a patdown every week (twice)and never once had a bad experience with TSA. I know they are doing what they are told to do and if you treat them with respect for their jobs, they will do the same.

That being said, there are many that arson a power trip and many instances of inappropriate behavior and they should be disciplined, but many are just doing their jobs.

Um...no. If someone grabs me from behind, a stranger no less, then it's totally not consensual. (Seriously? Think about what you're implying in a general sense. We weren't on a date with other snuggly stuff happening and then I forgot to say "stop" ;) ... this is more akin to a stranger coming up behind you in an alleyway) You can bet that if I had seen the person coming, I'd have said "stop, don't touch me!"

But @barbell I don't get the hostility. It's not my opinion per se, but my perhaps mistaken education, about what kind of radiation. I'm 100% prepared to believe that it was dangerous and mis-represented to me by the TSA, but I'm sure the guy told me that it was "non-ionizing" (my skepticism was trying to show in the quotation marks).

Anyway, yes, it was a very yucky and disturbing feeling!!

I don't actually think they are "just doing their jobs" - I think that's a cowardly write-off to excuse all kinds of abuses of our civil rights, for no appreciable security gain.

But if they're going to be doing ponytail-gropes, there's totally zero excuse for sneaking up on someone and grabbing them without (1) making eye contact, (2) donning fresh gloves, and (3) asking/telling what you plan to touch. Still assault-like, but then it's at least upfront.

Which leads me to think: do you think they didn't glove/announce/look-me-in-the-eye because they want it to be more powerful and rape-like, and LESS upfront? Triple yuck.

--LG

Incorrect. She gave no indication, in advance of the touching, that she consented. She also had no knowledge of how long the unwanted touching would last. It may have ended by the time she realized what was happening. At that point, "Stop, don't touch me!" would have been useless, right?

(Or, are you suggesting that she should have said "Stop, don't touch me!" even after the unwanted touching ended? "Assault" does not require that the victim do or say a certain something.)

I disagree. It is a requirement of their jobs that they treat us with disrespect.

See above.

No hostility intended. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

My anger is directed at the agency and the abusers who lied to you, not at you.

Thank you!! That's ok. :) Believe me, I think plenty of hostility is merited, just directed at the TSA.

--Leah

You do understand how ridiculous that statement is, don't you? That gives every man in America a "free shot" or grope of a woman anywhere any time. One free feel before they utter an objection.

Fortunately, the legal statutes on this are not written that way. Clerks who touch you this way are opening themselves up to charges and lawsuits.

Citation for this?

"Just doing what they're told" ceased to be a valid defense at Nuremberg.

And why should I treat someone with "respect" for doing a useless, pointless, and invasive "job" simply because a bunch of sheep believe that the agency is doing something useful and necessary? I respect neither the "job" nor anyone willing to actually do it, let alone be proud of it.

Think about this. If I came up behind you on the sidewalk and grabbed you <anatomy>, is it ok because you didn't tell me to stop or bad because you didn't give permission?

+1

I've had my hair checked before, but rather than touching me, they had me lift up my ponytail. Sorry your TSA agents weren't as courteous.

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.

I've been opting out if I can't get through a metal detector, but my observation traveling with my mom going through the AIT is the same as the OP. I have been with her six times, and only once did she "alarm." In that case, the groper just reached out and started patting her hair and her necklace. She wasn't expecting it and wasn't warned -- I saw her startle and recoil slightly. (Some people might caption her expression as "What the heck???") When she asked what had caused the problem, the screener said "It's your hair."

It's not so much that one affirmatively consents to a battery. It is more that one implies that in these circumstances that a touching is permitted, therefore taking it out of the definition of battery as an "unpermmitted" touching. A court would very likely instruct a jury that entering a checkpoint implies permission for a touching strictly within the scope and limits of promulgated TSA procedures so long as those procedures are conveyed to the passenger. "That's probably one of the reasons for the "I am now going to rub your resistance..." spiel required of TSAs. If you want to drive the TSA bat-dung crazy, file a small claims suit against the TSA for such a battery. They will plead implied consent as an affirmative defense, and they have the burden of proof for such a defense, which means they would have to divulge all the secret squirrel stuff in order to prove that the touching was within the scope of those procedures. Oh, and name the individual clerk as a defendant. He then has to risk prison (for disclosing SSI) to defend himself, which should make for a lot of sleepless nights, and a destroyed credit rating when he loses. Apparently, the TSA has now joined the rape apologists at Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and Domino's Pizza (a/k/a Bain Capital) in deciding that "No means yes'"

Disclosure of SSI would result in a civil, and not criminal, penalty... at least from my readings of the FARs, and even the TSA's own web pages.

I believe that disclosure of truly classified material (secret, top-secret, etc) is handled as a criminal matter.

I would infer touching without consent as a physically defensible incident.

And yet so many of the TSA clerks are convinced that they can be imprisoned for it...

Interesting. I'm sure that they could lose their job (as it's part of their employment contract, to not disclose SSI?), and that they could be fined adminstratively (yet would they appeal it until it reached a civl court?), yet I suspect it's more of a way to imply to the pax the "importance" of SSI. Yet hey... behavior can be interesting to observe.

If it was really that important, they wouldn't let passengers know it was that important...nor would they be discussing it with passengers, as happened to me last month.

Well, our favorite goons have replied, completely devoid of content ;)

...
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the rude behavior you experienced from a Transportation Security Officer (TSO).

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regrets any unprofessional treatment you may have experienced. TSA seeks to provide a high level of security and customer service to all passengers who pass through our screening checkpoints. Every person and item must be screened before entering the secured area, and the way the screening is conducted is important. Our policies and procedures focus on ensuring that all passengers are treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy.

Please be advised that a passenger can always request to speak with the Supervisory Transportation Security Officer at the checkpoint to address any complaint regarding screening procedures. Additionally, a passenger may register a concern or complaint with security through the TSA Customer Service Manager at each airport. The “Talk to TSA” section of the TSA Web site (https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/talktotsa/) offers passengers the ability to send complaints directly to the Customer Service Manager by clicking on the map and selecting the correct airport.

Because your complaint concerns an incident that occurred at a specific airport we have forwarded a copy of your letter to the appropriate Customer Service Manager.

We hope this information is helpful.

TSA Contact Center
....

If you're consenting it's, by definition, not battery. In the United States a generic definition of battery is "the use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact." Therefore, if you've consented you do not find such conduct offensive. Take a person punching another for example. If you were to walk up to me and punch me in the face and I found that harmful or offensive it would be battery. However, if we were in a boxing ring and we were both consenting, it was not illegal, harmful or offensive then it would not be.

Regarding implied consent, I'd have to say that knowingly entering the screening area would be considered implied consent. You don't HAVE to give consent, but if you don't you don't pass through the area and you don't fly. Same same with the explosive residue swabs. Once when I was asked if it was ok for them to do the test I asked "What if I say no?" The response was "That's within your rights but if you choose to exercise those rights you can't pass beyond this point."

Yeah... RIGHT...

One gives implied consent at the airport checkpoint to reasonable, non invasive searches such as to your luggage and carry-on belongings.

However, AFTER you enter the checkpoint, you still have a choice to make wrt the various strip-search machines, whether to enter them or take the patdown, or withdraw from the checkpoint. That is, just showing up there does not give some sort of blanket consent that you cannot withdraw, and this is indeed reflected in the procedures. That is why there is a detailed description of what will be touched and how in the opt-out rubdown ("patdown") You have the option to withdraw.

There is no point in this process where you irrevocably give permission to the blue gloved wonders to lay hands on you however and whenever they wish. They have to ask in the patdown and in the private hut resolution rubdowns. They must ask permission to touch you at any time.

None of the alerts causing physical touch, such as scanner alerts or ETD swabs are remotely close to constituting probable or reasonable cause because of their extremely high false positive rates.

The whole "implied consent" opens an addition can of worms, with "informed consent." I know this is an issue typically discussed around medical communities, but it can also apply here. I have yet to see a posted notice while approaching a checkpoint that says "we may grope and grab you at random without any warning or explanation." To the FF and non-FF alike, they may be giving implied consent for NoS, luggage screening, or even opting out for the massage (patdown), but any time a TSO has molested me I have given explicit consent (saying "opt-out") and been informed prior (sensative areas with back of my hand).

One simply does not have the ability to consent to something they are unaware of, implied or explicit.