Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

TSA wants to get more intimate when doing passenger pat downs.

TSA wants to get more intimate when doing passenger pat downs.

Closed Thread

Old Jul 13, 17, 3:55 pm
  #556  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,961
Originally Posted by studentff View Post
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federa...0013/357297/70

I think this is it, and I have no subscriptions.

Congrats to the plaintiff and good luck. If I read this right and especially if he has any additional success, risk of screeners being sued individually might deter the sort of abuses that we hear about so often.
I wish such motions carried more weight--the TSA is basically saying it has no defense against the misconduct, thus it seems to me that the judge should be able to find for the plaintiff without more legal dancing. There's no way the system would be that sensible, though!
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jul 14, 17, 2:14 pm
  #557  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,325
Amy Van Dyken-Rouen is being mistreated again:

Hey @flylaxairport UR @tsa is beyond RUDE!! Waited over 10 min for a female assist, then she was as SLOW as she could. Almost missed flight
This is her second report of mistreatment in a couple of weeks. I can't fathom why she continues to fly.

Further, many reports today of people being sexually assaulted because of medications/disabilities (female teen-age diabetic), film needing hand screening, paper IDs, and a whole range of other "crimes".
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Jul 14, 17, 4:24 pm
  #558  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,417
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
I see on page seven a mention of two FT members, past or present.
The Judge really takes the TSA's arguments apart in this ruling, in many locations.

"Strains credulity", cites statutes that are "simply inapplicable" to the case, striking people in the groin is not "necessary, or even desirable, to protect national security", and, "At no point does [TSA] address these relatively straightforward allegations", "[TSA]'s oratorical calisthenics appear calculated to avoid simple questions with obvious answers".

Guess that's what you get with googlin' Francine in charge of the legal department.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Jul 14, 17, 5:11 pm
  #559  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 15,379
Originally Posted by nachtnebel View Post
The Judge really takes the TSA's arguments apart in this ruling, in many locations.

"Strains credulity", cites statutes that are "simply inapplicable" to the case, striking people in the groin is not "necessary, or even desirable, to protect national security", and, "At no point does [TSA] address these relatively straightforward allegations", "[TSA]'s oratorical calisthenics appear calculated to avoid simple questions with obvious answers".

Guess that's what you get with googlin' Francine in charge of the legal department.
Think these yahoo government lawyers were from the Justice Department.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jul 23, 17, 7:28 pm
  #560  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 11,321
Moderator's Note:

Recent posts discussing screening of transgender individuals were moved to the following thread:
Flying while Transgender
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
TWA884 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 17, 6:02 pm
  #561  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: AA EXP, Enterprise PLT, Marriott Gold
Posts: 579
I will say to me it's ridiculous how much they feel you to see if they can find something. My friend's gf has an insulin pump so she has to get patted down, they ran their hands on her butt cheek a good 4-5 times, not a crevice or something that can kind of hide something, literally her butt cheek. I am not suggesting the TSA worker was getting her rocks off but it seemed ridiculously excessive... if it's not clear after a passover or two that there is nothing there, I do not see how you have a job.
SpinOn2 is offline  
Old Jul 25, 17, 6:11 am
  #562  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,141
Originally Posted by SpinOn2 View Post
I am not suggesting the TSA worker was getting her rocks off but it seemed ridiculously excessive... if it's not clear after a passover or two that there is nothing there, I do not see how you have a job.
That's why it's called sexual assault.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jul 31, 17, 6:04 pm
  #563  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 12
Bivens claim approved -- proceeding to trial !

Hi Jon and all Flyertalk folks,
Defendant's motion to dismiss was DENIED -- I'm heading to trial (or dueling summary judgement claims). I read in-depth from Jon Corbett's and many other's cases, as well as the appeals, and structured my arguments accordingly, so I stand on the shoulders of many heroes who have taught me methods to achieve what I've succeeded at (so far). My first amended complaint was very specific, well-founded, and thoroughly researched (by me) beforehand.

Believe me, I know this isn't a done deal, but we may be witnessing new precedent in the making! Kinda cool, eh? This doesn't open the door for wild lawsuits against the TSA! This is a very, very specific and egregious case (gratuitous force forcefully striking me, inappropriately, during a pat-down), but it's important that someone stand up for our Constitutional rights.

Thanks for everyone's interest, and I'll let you know what happens next.

Capt. JL


Originally Posted by Affection View Post
Capt.,

Jon Corbett here. As a non-attorney I can't give you legal advice... I'm just a lowly 3rd Year law student who has sued the TSA 5 times including petitions to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for 3 of them. So the below is merely my observations based on my experiences and should not be construed as legal advice.

I've read your complaint and I expect your complaint to be dismissed for a variety of reasons. I encourage you to seek counsel if you'd like to proceed, because you may have a case, but it is very much not an easy one to make, and, respectfully, you're not making it. Please don't get me wrong: I believe your story and I very much hope you prevail. It's just not, in my legally unqualified opinion, happening based on your current filings.

Good luck,

--Jon
iflyfast is offline  
Old Jul 31, 17, 6:29 pm
  #564  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by iflyfast View Post
Hi Jon and all Flyertalk folks,
Defendant's motion to dismiss was DENIED -- I'm heading to trial (or dueling summary judgement claims). I read in-depth from Jon Corbett's and many other's cases, as well as the appeals, and structured my arguments accordingly, so I stand on the shoulders of many heroes who have taught me methods to achieve what I've succeeded at (so far). My first amended complaint was very specific, well-founded, and thoroughly researched (by me) beforehand.

Believe me, I know this isn't a done deal, but we may be witnessing new precedent in the making! Kinda cool, eh? This doesn't open the door for wild lawsuits against the TSA! This is a very, very specific and egregious case (gratuitous force forcefully striking me, inappropriately, during a pat-down), but it's important that someone stand up for our Constitutional rights.

Thanks for everyone's interest, and I'll let you know what happens next.

Capt. JL
Unfortunately, TSA does similar things to passengers every day. The Angela Rye video is one example.
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Jul 31, 17, 8:10 pm
  #565  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 15,379
Originally Posted by iflyfast View Post
Hi Jon and all Flyertalk folks,
Defendant's motion to dismiss was DENIED -- I'm heading to trial (or dueling summary judgement claims). I read in-depth from Jon Corbett's and many other's cases, as well as the appeals, and structured my arguments accordingly, so I stand on the shoulders of many heroes who have taught me methods to achieve what I've succeeded at (so far). My first amended complaint was very specific, well-founded, and thoroughly researched (by me) beforehand.

Believe me, I know this isn't a done deal, but we may be witnessing new precedent in the making! Kinda cool, eh? This doesn't open the door for wild lawsuits against the TSA! This is a very, very specific and egregious case (gratuitous force forcefully striking me, inappropriately, during a pat-down), but it's important that someone stand up for our Constitutional rights.

Thanks for everyone's interest, and I'll let you know what happens next.

Capt. JL
I read your filing when you first posted. As I recall your complaint is against the individual screener for exceeding screening guidelines by giving you a chop to the genitals. Yet TSA decided to get involved claiming screeners are immune from prosecution. I hope I have the basics right and I also hope you kick some proverbial hiney.

Good luck!
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 2, 17, 5:40 pm
  #566  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 12
News media picking up the story ...

Thanks for the good luck! (Again, this is a very specific situation, and I'm not being cavalier in my assumptions, at all.)

Here's a link from a law blog in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...kpoint-search/
iflyfast is offline  
Old Aug 3, 17, 1:53 pm
  #567  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,417
Originally Posted by iflyfast View Post
Thanks for the good luck! (Again, this is a very specific situation, and I'm not being cavalier in my assumptions, at all.)

Here's a link from a law blog in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...kpoint-search/
Btw, that link is to the Volokh Conspiracy site at the washington post. A great site for legal issues of the day, featuring articles written by practicing lawyers/law professors for other lawyers.

Used to be free, alas, now locked behind a pay wall after you view a limited number of articles.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Aug 3, 17, 2:17 pm
  #568  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by nachtnebel View Post
Btw, that link is to the Volokh Conspiracy site at the washington post. A great site for legal issues of the day, featuring articles written by practicing lawyers/law professors for other lawyers.

Used to be free, alas, now locked behind a pay wall after you view a limited number of articles.
But it's easy to get around the paywall if you are willing to invest a small amount of time.
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Aug 3, 17, 2:20 pm
  #569  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by iflyfast View Post
Thanks for the good luck! (Again, this is a very specific situation, and I'm not being cavalier in my assumptions, at all.)

Here's a link from a law blog in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...kpoint-search/
From the link:

“that contact with Plaintiff’s genitals, if any at all, was incidental and occurred through the course of a typical security pat-down.”
So TSA is essentially denying that they deliberately touch the genitals, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Aug 3, 17, 2:36 pm
  #570  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,417
Originally Posted by petaluma1 View Post
From the link:



So TSA is essentially denying that they deliberately touch the genitals, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That they don't deliberately touch genitals is clearly false, even though TSA plays the semantic game of calling them "resistance". If this goes to trial, the clerk would be in the position of pointing fingers at TSA procedures for exactly this.

Could be interesting.
nachtnebel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread