chollie

Not only was there the uncertainty about getting on another flight, there was the cost of buying new plane tickets at walk-up prices vs. the cost of two bus tickets or rail tickets or a rental car with added one-way charges.

In his shoes, I wouldn't have tried getting on another flight either. When my nitro pills were confiscated, the supervisor warned me that a report was being made and I was in very serious trouble if I ever got caught trying to take nitro pills through again. You might wonder (as did I) if TSA would actually flag my record somehow so that my first offense would pop up every time I bought a ticket. I didn't know, but I also didn't dare take the chance. For all this pax knew, the supervisor could put out an area-wide alert to TSA to be on the watch for him attempting to circumvent security.

I don't believe for a minute that the poster giving the pax advice is a current TSA employee - if s/he is, it won't be for long. I imagine Blogger Bob and company are trying to identify the source to retaliate right now.

Loren Pechtel

Employees can't be held liable for damage caused by normal business operations.

petaluma1

Even if they violate the rules of their employer?

Boggie Dog

If a screener doesn't follow procedure is it "normal business operations"? I think the tide may be changing on that front.

An individual screener is being sued for using excessive force during screening. Immunity has been denied by the court.

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea....ldnt-able-sue/

Quote:

TSA Hit a Man in the Groin During Screening Then Argued He Shouldn’t Be Able to Sue

chollie

I'd like to be in court on the day the judge/prosecutor asks TSA to explain what the rules are about gropes - you know, how do they know when a screener has crossed a line?

First, TSA will likely try to play the SOP SSI card.

If the judge refuses to believe that discussing the details of TSA's genital manipulations will jeopardize national security or closes the court room, TSA might have to provide an answer.

I'd like to be there when TSA tells the court that all screeners have 'screener discretion' on whether or not to chop genitals or just fondle them. TSA can explain the legal construct that is 'final say'.

Perhaps TSA will argue that the screener can't violate the rules because he has the 'final say' on what the rules are at any given point in time.

Clearly, TSA is bent on wasting my taxpayer's $ going to court to deny that a screener assaulted a pax at the checkpoint. This case really sends a loud clear message about the direction the new leadership intends to take.

TWA884

I wouldn't quite characterize it as the "tide may be changing."

The judge in that case was very careful to note that permitting that lawsuit to proceed was an exception to the rule.

Take a look at Professor Eugene Volokh's article - Court okays lawsuit for damages based on allegedly excessive airport checkpoint search - and, if you have the time, the Fedral District Court opinion itself (Linlor v. Polson).

petaluma1

It could be a start and precedent setting. There is Angela Rye who was genital chopped on video as she was being punished for questioning TSA; she might have a chance of success, depending on how this case goes forward.

Boggie Dog

I had read both Courts opinion and the article by Volokh earlier this month. I'm not claiming that the tide has changed but that the tide may be changing. I'm hoping that this decision will be viewed by other jurist who will act in a similar vein.

I would be delighted if this is just the first of actions favoring an individual over government. In my opinion courts should decide close questions in favor of citizens but I know that's not how the courts currently work.

petaluma1

Cross-reference:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/28699700-post596.html

mauve

TSA told him there would be "consequences" if he tried another airport.

Under the circumstances, it's reasonable to believe that they meant arrest and criminal charges. Yes, it's probably an empty threat, but when the Feds are involved it generally feels safer not to gamble.

chollie

The screeners who were involved in this incident have all had a two-week vacay at the 'academy', courtesy of the taxpayers, within the last year.

If I ever have the misfortune of wanting to fly when I have a cast on my foot and TSA insists I remove the cast (new interpretation of the rules), I will comply. However, unlike some folks, I won't try to hop and balance - I am not that steady. I will lower myself to the floor and push myself along. I will make eye contact with every pax I can as I crawl through the WMD.

I will comply!

Boggie Dog

Might be worth an arrest to demonstrate the stupidity of TSA.

petaluma1

Speaking of dishonest, does TSA teach this at the training academy:

petaluma1

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/28727143-post601.html

petaluma1

Today I came across this twitter thread started several days ago by a woman praising TSA at SFO for getting her through the checkpoint with two cats.

Note that @ASKTSA was, at best, misleading in their response to the OP and was called out on that.


Apparently, one has to open the tweet to read the entire thread.