Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Question: Filing Charges?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 2, 2010 | 11:11 pm
  #16  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Originally Posted by youreadyfreddie
What kind of person, aside from qualified medical personnel, would WANT a job where part of their duties are to grope the genitals of strangers?
We have 63,000 sex offender registrants in California. Surely one of them might have an interest.
tom911 is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2010 | 11:22 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: IAD, and sometimes OMNI/PR. Currently: not far from IAD, but home will always be SAN (not far from the "touch my junk and I'll have you arrested" Memorial TSA Check Point) even if I'm not there so much these days.
Programs: UA, CO, Calcifer Award for Mad Haiku Skillz
Posts: 5,076
Originally Posted by eyecue
It is exremely difficult to prosecute or SUE any of TSA officials that are performing their assigned duty.
You will respect my authoritah!
youreadyfreddie is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2010 | 11:38 pm
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still PAL Premier Elite & Hilton Diamond
Posts: 25,429
Originally Posted by tom911
We have 63,000 sex offender registrants in California. Surely one of them might have an interest.
Well, let's help them find some new TSO's. Here are the sex offenders in the same zip code as LAX.

We could send them some used pizza boxes, with ads.
MikeMpls is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2010 | 11:47 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: the ATL
Programs: SM-GM ~ PC-PM ~ HGP-PM ~ SPG-GM
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
Well, let's help them find some new TSO's. Here are the sex offenders in the same zip code as LAX.

We could send them some used pizza boxes, with ads.

Or gas pump ad's

I am telling you its only a matter of time before they start recruiting straight from the half-way houses and prison/jail "trustee's"
username_unknown is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2010 | 11:56 pm
  #20  
Original Member
50 Countries Visited
5M
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,416
Originally Posted by harpodamann
You Do Not know what the HELL you are talking about.
Do you have any reason for saying this, other than being wrong?

The citation to the elements of the offense are relevant. And, as an individual, you can't file charges against anyone. You *can* arrest them. But you *can't* file charges. So, after you arrest them, you need to persuade a prosecutor (title varies depending on jurisdiction, etc.) to file charges. As much as I think this entire "security" scare is stupid, I am afraid that making a criminal arrest (on these particular grounds) is not likely to succeed.
sbrower is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 12:28 am
  #21  
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: AA Plat/1MM
Posts: 546
Originally Posted by sbrower
Do you have any reason for saying this, other than being wrong?

The citation to the elements of the offense are relevant. And, as an individual, you can't file charges against anyone. You *can* arrest them. But you *can't* file charges. So, after you arrest them, you need to persuade a prosecutor (title varies depending on jurisdiction, etc.) to file charges. As much as I think this entire "security" scare is stupid, I am afraid that making a criminal arrest (on these particular grounds) is not likely to succeed.
Two words: Civil Suit
VonS is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 1:17 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by VonS
Two words: Civil Suit
Your time and money.
tsadude1 is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 5:29 am
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,986
Originally Posted by planedude86
Why are your replies so unhelpful, subtextually saying "I know something you don't know!"

The more invasive alarm resolution frisk can be triggered by legitimate trace explosives. Military EOD personnel come to mind. Thankfully, you're not a lead or supervisor, so you won't be stroking people's penises for the alarm resolution pat-down. You are paid to serve the public, and enjoy taunting the very public that puts food on your table.
Actually I believe SATTSO told us in another thread that he was now a Lead TSO.

So he is one of the ones doing the stroking.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 5:46 am
  #24  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,725
Originally Posted by eyecue
It is exremely difficult to prosecute or SUE any of TSA officials that are performing their assigned duty.
But if you're willing to spend a few years in jail for the cause, it's quite easy to beat a grapist TSO like a red-headed step-child.

And in this political climate, the government might discover that their usual habit of stacking the jury in their favor won't be effective.

Idea for new tagline: "Have you made a TSO cry today?"
n4zhg is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 6:41 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
This has been discussed before (indeed multiple times before). What eyecue is standing behind is that some sort of intent for sexual gratification is a required element of most sex crimes. Although that's true, I pointed out a while ago that there are numerous examples of people being prosecuted for sex crimes (mostly involving being nude) that have similar intent requirements where there's no evidence of intent present. Because intent is basically in somebody's head, it can't be proven either way and is often assumed.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that the precise definition of sexual assault and/or sexual battery very much differ from state to state and are quite often not what you think they are. If you're going this route, it's critical to know the exact statute and how the terms in it have been interpreted by case law.

But if every element of the crime other than intent is met, I certainly think it reasonable to press charges.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 6:55 am
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,986
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
This has been discussed before (indeed multiple times before). What eyecue is standing behind is that some sort of intent for sexual gratification is a required element of most sex crimes. Although that's true, I pointed out a while ago that there are numerous examples of people being prosecuted for sex crimes (mostly involving being nude) that have similar intent requirements where there's no evidence of intent present. Because intent is basically in somebody's head, it can't be proven either way and is often assumed.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that the precise definition of sexual assault and/or sexual battery very much differ from state to state and are quite often not what you think they are. If you're going this route, it's critical to know the exact statute and how the terms in it have been interpreted by case law.

But if every element of the crime other than intent is met, I certainly think it reasonable to press charges.
I think I understand you points. Wouldn't intent be largely the victims perception of what events transpired if charges were being contemplated?

Proving that intent in a court would be a whole different matter.

Last edited by Boggie Dog; Nov 3, 2010 at 7:00 am Reason: edited for clarity
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 7:11 am
  #27  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
There is an interesting read over at Legal Match about what requirements need to be met for a TSA patdown to be considered inappropriate. Granted the information is outdated based on the new patdowns as to the specifics (for example, some stations no longer use hand held wands), but in general it pretty much comes down to this:

When Does a Pat-Down Become Inappropriate?

A pat-down becomes inappropriate whenever the TSA's guidelines are not followed.


I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's wrong, but if they are following their guidelines, and you consent to the search as they outline each step and allow them to do so, I think there's little chance of a suit working out in your favor. They won't let you through if you don't consent, which is another issue, but they do give you the option to opt out of it all.
cordelli is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 7:26 am
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
Originally Posted by Hedwigkin
I have a question for the more educated of the FlyerTalk community. The next time I fly, I will consent to the metal detector, a swab, and a back of the hand pat down. However, I will not consent to an open hand "grope" and, if pressed, will ask for the GSC (or a CO employee) and LEO to be present due to the following phrase I intend to use: "I do not consent to the unreasonable search of my private parts, and if these are touched without my permission, I will file sexual assault charges". So my question is: Has this been attempted? If so, could you provide a link? If not, will it carry any water?

Additionally, I'd like to thank the TS/S community in helping formulate the letter I am composing for the following recipients: Senators, Congressman, US AG, TX AG, UAL Execs, DHS Admins, TSA Admins, ACLU, and Major News Outlets.

Thanks for your help.
I more limited approach which won't cost you a dime, is to file a sexual harassment grievance against the screener. recently, the DHS IG made the TSA come up with a sexual harassment program because they never bothered to create one (We're a young agency after all.).

A sexual harassment grievance is an administrative action which causes the TSA to investigate the claim in a similar fashion to a sexual assault charge. The individual most likely can't go to jail but can be administratively punished. There was a thread about the TSA's sexual harassment program here on FT. As is the case with most government agencies, the parameters for being accused of sexual harassment are pretty broad and goes way beyond a male employee hitting on a female employee. You will make it nearly as on the employee and his management as a criminal charge without all the muss & fuss of trying to get a screener arrested.

The easiest way to do this is through the DHS IG hotline. I've posted how to do this in the past and don't have time to provide the link right now.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 7:29 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Programs: Frontier EarlyReturns
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by username_unknown
At that point you will probably get the infamous "do you want to fly today"
The problem is you can't just leave the security area and not fly. You basically have only three choices:
1. Get your skin irradiated from the backscatter machine.
2. Get molested.
3. Get "escorted" out by a pissed-off police officer.

If choice #3 were simply, "Collect your stuff, leave the security area and don't fly today," I'd be happy with it.
beauvoir is offline  
Old Nov 3, 2010 | 7:46 am
  #30  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,386
Originally Posted by cordelli
There is an interesting read over at Legal Match about what requirements need to be met for a TSA patdown to be considered inappropriate. Granted the information is outdated based on the new patdowns as to the specifics (for example, some stations no longer use hand held wands), but in general it pretty much comes down to this:

When Does a Pat-Down Become Inappropriate?

A pat-down becomes inappropriate whenever the TSA's guidelines are not followed.


I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's wrong, but if they are following their guidelines, and you consent to the search as they outline each step and allow them to do so, I think there's little chance of a suit working out in your favor. They won't let you through if you don't consent, which is another issue, but they do give you the option to opt out of it all.
Which is exactly why the TSA guidelines are SSI.
Global_Hi_Flyer is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.