Prepare for closer inspection
Sep 30, 2004 | 12:38 pm
#61
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MKE, formerly the closest FT-er to LAX
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by eyecue
You have a good reference. However there is no injury attempted or otherwise in order to support a tort. If you suffer from embarrassment then you may request a private screening to avoid that tort. The consent is posted at all out checkpoints. It is implied that when you enter the metal detector that you are allowing your person and property to be searched.
To review:
ASSAULT "I'm gonna poke you with my HHMD wand."
BATTERY TSA pokes you with the HHMD wand.
The legal question then becomes whether the person has evinced consent, or whether TSA has privilege. Shopkeepers have privilege to tackle or otherwise restrain shoplifters, for instance. LEOs, of course, are able to physically handle persons. So, we're back to square one with the questions of how far consent goes, and how far TSA may go in its screening procedures.
Sep 30, 2004 | 12:57 pm
#62
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,017
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
The other important factor in your particular incident, GradGirl, is intent. If you think you can prove that the screener <i>intended</i> to touch you in that area with the wand, then you would perhaps have a case. But, if the touching was accidental, you would not have met the requisite intent.
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
But the previous poster is also correct. Implied consent (or explicit consent for that matter) has limits. If the TSA asks you to take your pants off, it is reasonable to conclude that this is beyond the reach of the implied consent. The legal question then becomes less one of whether TSA can make you take your pants off, but one of whether TSA can deny your right to fly for not granting that consent. That's where we get into the sticky "right to travel" issues I'm researching.