Lawsuit regarding the "enhanced" patdown process
#16
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Correct. Such as the pushback by the Texas congressman when he was hit in the genitals so hard he doubled up. All caught on video. No charges either way. I imagine the TSA clerk may have been retrained.
And, no, the TSA clerks are NOT free to do as they please in the search.
And, no, the TSA clerks are NOT free to do as they please in the search.
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,113
Was looking for this case and can't find it. Would you please post a link to the quote you posted. Thanks.
#18
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/court-okays-lawsuit-for-damages-based-on-allegedly-excessive-airport-checkpoint-search/?utm_term=.8448aa7c9540
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170712g65
Defendant nonetheless argues that "[e]ven if the Court were to conclude that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment, [Defendant] would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there was no law clearly establishing the specific degree of permissible intrusiveness of a security screening pat-down[.]...
Frankly, it strains credulity for Defendant to claim that a reasonable federal officer would be surprised to learn that gratuitously striking an individual in the groin while searching them violates the Fourth Amendment.
Frankly, it strains credulity for Defendant to claim that a reasonable federal officer would be surprised to learn that gratuitously striking an individual in the groin while searching them violates the Fourth Amendment.
Last edited by petaluma1; Aug 17, 2018 at 8:30 am
#19
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Maybe not for long. In your case, what the judge said in response to filings in Linlor v Polson:
It is, and has long been, crystal clear that “officers using unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force to seize a secured, unarmed citizen, do not act in an objectively reasonable manner and, thus, are not entitled to qualified immunity.” That is precisely what is alleged to have occurred here, and it makes little difference that it occurred in the course of an airport security screening.
#20
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
My misspellings were the reason you couldn't find it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/court-okays-lawsuit-for-damages-based-on-allegedly-excessive-airport-checkpoint-search/?utm_term=.8448aa7c9540
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170712g65
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/court-okays-lawsuit-for-damages-based-on-allegedly-excessive-airport-checkpoint-search/?utm_term=.8448aa7c9540
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170712g65
Defendant nonetheless argues that "[e]ven if the Court were to conclude that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment, [Defendant] would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there was no law clearly establishing the specific degree of permissible intrusiveness of a security screening pat-down[.]...
Frankly, it strains credulity for Defendant to claim that a reasonable federal officer would be surprised to learn that gratuitously striking an individual in the groin while searching them violates the Fourth Amendment.
Frankly, it strains credulity for Defendant to claim that a reasonable federal officer would be surprised to learn that gratuitously striking an individual in the groin while searching them violates the Fourth Amendment.
Since screeners are not law enforcement, the use of ANY physical force during the performance of their duties - other than justifiable self-defense if attacked - would immediately negate their so-called qualified immunity and constitute assault.
#21
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
If you read the document, you'll note that the Plaintiff had to effect a citizen's arrest of the screener because the police refused to do so, so don't count on any help from them.
Passengers who feel aggressively assaulted need to get the screener's name and get their Supervisory TSO (STSO) involved. The STSO is required by TSA rules to collect and retain ALL evidence and witnesses' names and contact information. But the passenger must demand it and be persistent.
Here are Sai's recommendations for requesting a litigation hold on CCTV coverage: https://tinyurl.com/y92ygv62
#22
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Passengers who feel aggressively assaulted need to get the screener's name and get their Supervisory TSO (STSO) involved.
The STSO is required by TSA rules to collect and retain ALL evidence and witnesses' names and contact information. But the passenger must demand it and be persistent.
FWIW, this is another reason why I very strongly recommend that you have video+audio recording running every single time you go through TSA checkpoint, in advance. If nothing happens, no worries, you can delete it. If something happens, you have evidence that otherwise would've been damn near impossible to get. CCTV has no audio, and TSA screeners will distort, omit key facts, or just lie outright in their written statements.
There's nothing better than hard evidence.
#23
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
FWIW, there's pretty much zero point in doing that. Citizen's arrest requires you to turn the arrestee over to the nearest cop or judge. If the cops nearby don't want to take them in the first place, all you've done is opened yourself up to more liability.
More specifically, write down absolutely everything that's on visible badges, the number of epaulettes, and get photos / video / audio if you can. (You have access to your phone after you're cleared. Use it.)
That part is not entirely true. Only applies if the STSO is filing an incident report, and you have no say in whether or not they do that. They have no obligation for witnesses. Remember, they claim in court that they are not authorized to investigate or seize evidence for anything. It's purely internal, and expect it to be 100% CYA.
FWIW, this is another reason why I very strongly recommend that you have video+audio recording running every single time you go through TSA checkpoint, in advance. If nothing happens, no worries, you can delete it. If something happens, you have evidence that otherwise would've been damn near impossible to get. CCTV has no audio, and TSA screeners will distort, omit key facts, or just lie outright in their written statements.
There's nothing better than hard evidence.
More specifically, write down absolutely everything that's on visible badges, the number of epaulettes, and get photos / video / audio if you can. (You have access to your phone after you're cleared. Use it.)
That part is not entirely true. Only applies if the STSO is filing an incident report, and you have no say in whether or not they do that. They have no obligation for witnesses. Remember, they claim in court that they are not authorized to investigate or seize evidence for anything. It's purely internal, and expect it to be 100% CYA.
FWIW, this is another reason why I very strongly recommend that you have video+audio recording running every single time you go through TSA checkpoint, in advance. If nothing happens, no worries, you can delete it. If something happens, you have evidence that otherwise would've been damn near impossible to get. CCTV has no audio, and TSA screeners will distort, omit key facts, or just lie outright in their written statements.
There's nothing better than hard evidence.
#25
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
b) You're talking about battery (an actual bad touch), not assault (a reasonable fear of bad touch).
c) Qualified immunity doesn't make something not assault, it just immunizes the assailant from negative consequences for it.
#26
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
a) No. Screening currently requires patdown. You consent to, or are warned of, that fact when you enter. Therefore they are allowed to do a patdown, even though any patdown at all necessarily involves touching you, which (without your consent) might otherwise be assault. Touch necessarily involves a minimal amount of physical force. The question in Linlor was what amount of force is consented to / noticed, required, and/or unreasonable.
b) You're talking about battery (an actual bad touch), not assault (a reasonable fear of bad touch).
c) Qualified immunity doesn't make something not assault, it just immunizes the assailant from negative consequences for it.
b) You're talking about battery (an actual bad touch), not assault (a reasonable fear of bad touch).
c) Qualified immunity doesn't make something not assault, it just immunizes the assailant from negative consequences for it.
#27
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
2. in the Linlor case TSA claimed: "…contact with Plaintiff's genitals, if any at all, was incidental and occurred through the course of a typical security pat-down"
therefore, any touching of the genitals should be considered battery and "relieve" TSA screeners who probe the genitals of any immunity.
1. The screeners, as individuals, would be immunized from torts like battery under the Westfall Act.
2. You can only sue the United States for the battery, under the FTCA, if 2680(h) applies, as above.
3. To sue under Bivens, you would need to show a constitutional tort was involved (e.g. a 4th Am. violation); even if they admitted it was battery, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it violates the constitution. And you'd also have to prove that it was "clearly established" as unlawful at the time they did it, which would be pretty much impossible to do, given that the patdown has so far been routinely upheld in courts. A reasonable screener would not currently know that the courts say that it's illegal, and therefore (again) they would get personal immunity, and your only recourse would be FTCA.
Just telling you what is, not what ought to be.