Section 107

Nope, read the filing. The plaintiffs are not complaining about the need for, nor that actual conduct of, the initial screening;. They are only complaining about the treatment they received by the police department and damages incurred by the family AFTER the interaction with the police department (although they conflate the PD's actions with those of TSA).

The plaintiffs are not complaining at all about the screening itself although they do posit that the girl became confused upon hearing the alarm of the machine and by the instructions of TSA staff but they are not stating the confusion is a cause of action.

Alarm resolution is definitely related to initial screening and is part of the overall process, but resolution is entirely separate and incidental to initial screening (walking through the machine). But now we are splitting hairs on something that doesn't really matter to the problem.

GUWonder

Alarm resolution is not entirely separate and incidental to initial screening. The initial screening is the entirety of the screening process at the primary screening checkpoint until the passenger is allowed to continue on to the gate area/plane. Alarm resolution at the primary screening checkpoint is part of the initial screening for those whose primary screening involves an alarm resolution.

Isn't DHS/TSA named in the complaint?

petaluma1

TSA is the first named Defendant.

GUWonder

Yes, and Cohen takes issue with TSA actions not being ADA compliant being the driver of this incident resulting in obvious bodily harm to Cohen.

TWA884

From the DOT website:

GUWonder

Perhaps the TSA wants to claim that the screening is not the same for all persons and their belongings when it involves an alarm or disability-assisting devices being subjected to screening prior to being allowed to boarding aircraft?

In practice, it's not the same for all persons regardless of disability.

Boggie Dog

If this young lady was so wrong in her actions then why were all of the charges thrown out?

I don't think anyone here has all of facts, knows what was said or tone of voice used, and we sure don't know what happened during the TSA screening that led up to the encounter by the police.

A problem that I think we all see far to often is that police use force when other methods would be as effective or more so. Controlling a person doesn't necessarily require having their face smashed into the floor but that seems to be the go to for far to many cops.

theddo

When the thread started it was said that the retarded girl was isolated by the TSA from her mom, who could otherwise have assisted her in any way necessary and more or less a TSO running and tackling her for the fun of it.

The video shows a Police officer talking - by all accounts calmly and without any threatening body language - to the girl while the mom due to her obesity is required to sit down (or whatever her problem is). Neither the TSA nor the PD makes any attempt and isolating the girl at that stage. It does, from the body language, not appear obvious that she is disabled and not on drugs (which would've been my assumption if someone acted weird in an airport, but that probably comes from spending way too much time in SF) or just irate.

Sound would've been nice, but we don't have that.

As have been pointed out repeatedly the person setting off the TSA alarm doesn't get to dictate the response to it.

I understand people are upset with their own interactions with the TSA, but those have absolutely nothing to do with how the police department handled this case, even if we got yet another description of padding necessary for flight.

Then the problem becomes well, we don't know what happened before, well we cannot hear them, well she was afraid. Doesn't matter. Her mom was her guarding and determined she was fit enough to fly without being escorted through the screening process, she set off an alarm and refused to cooperate with the screening. From the look of it the mom couldn't be bothered to help. The police officers tried to reason with her, and then it appears they determined she should leave the area and she got violent and resisted arrest.

Had I done so I would not have been merely pushed to the floor by one police officer. I would have had charges filed. Presumably due to the facts of this particular case nobody wanted to press charges, and doing so would have been a gigantic waste of tax payer's money.

Things that doesn't matter is what the tone of the officers voice was. She wasn't allowed to resist arrest or use force against him because he was mean or irritated. When I watch the movie I don't get the impression the officers had any plans to place her on the floor, it looks like he wanted to grab her to get her to follow along. She refused, and the rest is history.

That was a decision made in a split second, without knowing the girl or her mother and not knowing why she acted the way she did. I'm of the opinion she shouldn't be allowed on a plane ever again, as I have specified. I also think her mom should get some exercise. I also think it would be good to keep the comments about the police and the TSA to what the police and TSA actually did in this case - not how they usually grope you or assault random people for fun.

Obviously the police in the US get complaints for shooting armed criminals and I'm still unsure if they are still rioting because a hoodlum got shot with a stolen gun he allegedly pointed at the officer or not?

With that I have really nothing more to say. This thread is filled with preconceived notions about what the TSA did and didn't do based on how people want them to behave to conform to their opinions, and now when the TSA stayed out of it it is filling up with opinions regarding the police, based on how people want the police to have acted to conform to their opinions about the police department.

Now instead we are debating if the screening was ADA compliant, because all other arguments have lost their merit. I don't know if they are, but

So I'm going with that, too, being ......... That is it for me, because I really doubt anyone will care about what actually happened, or how the girls is doing, and will continue to use this case to further their agendas of police brutality and TSA incompetence.

Loren Pechtel

She's obviously impaired enough that establishing guilt would be hard if not impossible.

GUWonder

Where in this thread -- other than by you -- has it been said that a TSA employee did the running and tackling of the passenger for the fun of it? It sounds made up.

Who said that the mother's obesity or other health issue required her to sit down? It sounds made up, more made up than saying it is highly likely that the TSA told the accompanying passenger (i.e., the mother) to stay away and sit down -- something I've heard repeatedly when a member of my travel party dependent upon my assistance has set off an alarm at the screening checkpoints.

That isn't known to be entirely true. The URL-linked video footage is not the entire video footage and the verbal exchange matters too, no less so when the video footage released has no original audio component.

That is not all that clear. Setting off an alarm at the primary screening doesn't give the TSA or any other governmental party in the US an allowance to do anything and everything some governmental employee may fancy.


That is not the problem that resulted in this lawsuit. And the above paragraph's description is one that is based on little more (if even that) than pre-disposition built not upon a released video but upon perspective developed prior to the video release. Just saying.

If you were the face-planted passenger in every aspect, I doubt that there would be a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction in the relevant jurisdiction(s).


TSA methods that result in the brutalization of a passenger with a disability is at the core of this thread, from start to now. It's why the litigation on behalf of the passenger was moving forward while criminal prosecution against the passenger fell flat on its face.

TWA884

In most jurisdictions prosecutors will not file criminal charges unless they are confident that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant officer acted unlawfully.

GUWonder

Prosecutors don't like to develop their CV with a lot of lost cases, but the willingness to prosecute with a lower threshold of confidence in conviction has increased in many jurisdictions. And assignment for this change in the US can be found in the same kind of thing that gave us the TSA.

FliesWay2Much

Jury nullification sounds pretty good right about now....

TWA884

In the jurisdictions where I practice, the prosecutors' charging manuals specifically state that a case should not be filed unless the prosecutor determines that the circumstances and facts stated in the crime reports are sufficient to prove the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

GUWonder

Practices vs. published polices. The two are not entirely the same thing.

And when a more serious charge is not as likely to result in a conviction, prosecutors may pursue a less serious (or even somewhat otherwise unrelated) charge that is more likely to result in a conviction, as the purpose is sometimes as much or more about signaling or shutting down than equal justice for all under the law. The assignment for this kind of change in practice can be found in the same kind of thing that gave us the TSA.