TSA Reportedly Strip Search a Grandmother
Jun 10, 2019, 10:40 am
#16
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Didn't TSA finally admit that it did require one of the elderly women it searched to remove her pants? And what's the status of the case about the Muslim woman in Boston last year who claims TSA forced her to how them her sanitary napkin? (Allegedly, the same thing happened to another woman in Boston just a short while after the first incident - IIRC.)
Perhaps TSA classifies dropping your pants or pulling up your skirt or opening your shirt to be "adjusting" your clothes, but not "removing" your clothes. Which means that if a TSO orders you to drop your pants, that's not a strip search, since the garment is not actually removed, it's only adjusted to provide views of what lies beneath it.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is...
Jun 10, 2019, 7:14 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Hm, I think I see TSA's loophole here.
Perhaps TSA classifies dropping your pants or pulling up your skirt or opening your shirt to be "adjusting" your clothes, but not "removing" your clothes. Which means that if a TSO orders you to drop your pants, that's not a strip search, since the garment is not actually removed, it's only adjusted to provide views of what lies beneath it.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is...
Perhaps TSA classifies dropping your pants or pulling up your skirt or opening your shirt to be "adjusting" your clothes, but not "removing" your clothes. Which means that if a TSO orders you to drop your pants, that's not a strip search, since the garment is not actually removed, it's only adjusted to provide views of what lies beneath it.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is...
Jun 10, 2019, 7:58 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
TSA can't be accused of creating writings that have clear meaning. I think we all know that TSA will never publicly acknowledge its screeners violating policy. TSA can deny in public while throwing the full weight of the government against this grandmother knowing going to a jury trial is a remote possibility. Not only is the cost of justice prohibitive but salaried government lawyers can draw out the process for years. Will be interesting watching this case go forward.
Jun 11, 2019, 4:15 am
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Once a person or party has violated the very personal space of someone’s genital area or made a viewing spectacle of such invasive voyeurism, it becomes easier and more likely for the person or party to repeat the violations which they have gotten away with before and attempt to do so to more people. It’s a pattern of behavior with the TSA, and so the victims are certainly way more than those who dare to go public with being humiliated and subjugated by the TSA in ways that wouldn’t be tolerated or ignored if two high school bullies did this TSA thing to some random new female student at school and it made the news.
Jun 12, 2019, 5:22 pm
#20
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
TSA can't be accused of creating writings that have clear meaning. I think we all know that TSA will never publicly acknowledge its screeners violating policy. TSA can deny in public while throwing the full weight of the government against this grandmother knowing going to a jury trial is a remote possibility. Not only is the cost of justice prohibitive but salaried government lawyers can draw out the process for years. Will be interesting watching this case go forward.
Aug 19, 2019, 6:24 am
#22
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
TSA has filed its response, a motion to dismiss (PDF). Corbett (FT @Affection) has a summary on his blog.
Key part he highlights:
Yay for no understanding of consent!
Key part he highlights:
These allegations amount to no more than indignities, annoyances, and petty oppressions. Even if it was subjectively “embarrassing,” “disturbing,” “humiliating,” and “offensive,” for Plaintiff to lower her clothing and show the feminine hygiene product she was wearing, the intrusion on her privacy was no more severe than what could be routinely experienced in a women’s locker room, where states of partial undress and feminine hygiene products are subject to observation by other members of the same gender.
Aug 19, 2019, 7:20 am
#23
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
TSA has filed its response, a motion to dismiss (PDF). Corbett (FT @Affection) has a summary on his blog.
Key part he highlights:
Yay for no understanding of consent!
Key part he highlights:
These allegations amount to no more than indignities, annoyances, and petty oppressions. Even if it was subjectively “embarrassing,” “disturbing,” “humiliating,” and “offensive,” for Plaintiff to lower her clothing and show the feminine hygiene product she was wearing, the intrusion on her privacy was no more severe than what could be routinely experienced in a women’s locker room, where states of partial undress and feminine hygiene products are subject to observation by other members of the same gender.
Aug 19, 2019, 9:48 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Seems TSA is not standing behind the old tired line of never requiring a person to remove/open clothing. Indicates to me that strip searches have and do happen regardless of what has been stated by TSA.
I do {not} use feminine hygiene products but I can't think of anything more indignant or embarrassing than having to display such product in use. Whoever wrote the quote in the motion to dismiss failed Humanity 101.
I sincerely hope that the judge tosses that response back in the face of the government lawyers, whoever they may be.
I do {not} use feminine hygiene products but I can't think of anything more indignant or embarrassing than having to display such product in use. Whoever wrote the quote in the motion to dismiss failed Humanity 101.
I sincerely hope that the judge tosses that response back in the face of the government lawyers, whoever they may be.
Last edited by Boggie Dog; Aug 19, 2019 at 11:32 am Reason: Correction
Aug 19, 2019, 10:31 am
#25
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Rachael F. Zintgraff
OBA No. 31597
Assistant United States Attorney
<address, phone, fax, & email>
OBA No. 31597
Assistant United States Attorney
<address, phone, fax, & email>
Aug 21, 2019, 8:02 am
#26
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Jon / Mengert has filed an opposition to TSA's motion to substitute under the Westfall Act (which said basically "the individual defendants work for us, we think they did it in the course of their job, therefore the only the US can be liable and not the individuals").
See attached. (It'll be in my public Google Drive folder eventually, but I'm having some issues w/ sync.)
The opposition says basically "no, they can't be substituted, and we want to still sue them as individuals, because under Oklahoma law intentional infliction of emotional distress can never be within the scope of employment, and it was in bad faith too".
I'll withhold personal comment about the legal aspects of this one.
See attached. (It'll be in my public Google Drive folder eventually, but I'm having some issues w/ sync.)
The opposition says basically "no, they can't be substituted, and we want to still sue them as individuals, because under Oklahoma law intentional infliction of emotional distress can never be within the scope of employment, and it was in bad faith too".
I'll withhold personal comment about the legal aspects of this one.
Aug 21, 2019, 1:39 pm
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,670
From the perspective of a female who has spent plenty of time in locker rooms around the country, the female attorney who says women viewing other women's 'hygiene products' in locker rooms is normal or common is a liar and I seriously doubt that you are going to find any woman anywhere who is going to tell you they've seen anything like this.
It's no more likely than it probably is to see men wearing incontinence products in the locker room.
It's no more likely than it probably is to see men wearing incontinence products in the locker room.
Aug 24, 2019, 9:29 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Jon / Mengert has filed an opposition to TSA's motion to substitute under the Westfall Act (which said basically "the individual defendants work for us, we think they did it in the course of their job, therefore the only the US can be liable and not the individuals").
See attached. (It'll be in my public Google Drive folder eventually, but I'm having some issues w/ sync.)
The opposition says basically "no, they can't be substituted, and we want to still sue them as individuals, because under Oklahoma law intentional infliction of emotional distress can never be within the scope of employment, and it was in bad faith too".
I'll withhold personal comment about the legal aspects of this one.
See attached. (It'll be in my public Google Drive folder eventually, but I'm having some issues w/ sync.)
The opposition says basically "no, they can't be substituted, and we want to still sue them as individuals, because under Oklahoma law intentional infliction of emotional distress can never be within the scope of employment, and it was in bad faith too".
I'll withhold personal comment about the legal aspects of this one.
Aug 25, 2019, 8:17 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Not a lawyer but I can't see any legal standard that would find Strip Searches conducted by non-law enforcement individuals to be acceptable. Even then Strip Searches have some stringent safeguards to protect citizens.