Of course the DA will prosecute sexual assault. It is his job. But I very much doubt he'll go after any TSO who is following SOP. That case probably won't even survive preliminary motions.

The main problem is that SOP is now to conduct a virtual molestation. So we have to get the SOP changed, not go after individual TSOs (that's like killing ants one at a time).

Remember, with US legal precedent, Nuremberg defense is an admission of guilt ^.

These TSA morons are likely not that bright nor able to afford competent legal help. A jury is also likely to be displeased with them and may convict them simply because they were a TSA officer.

Republicans having a major house majority will probably not lead them to giving TSA officers immunity.

In fact the GOP may be in favor of eliminating TSA in favor of private contractors.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...108259869.html

Then they would need to take the SOP out of SSI and introduce it as evidence.

That would be a win.

Somebody will complain

The DA will go and pull the tape

The DA will review the tape and the procedure with the agent and or their supervisor who will say that's standard procedure.

They will never be able to prove sexual or lewd attempt (indeed the agents are probably having a meeting this morning to discuss what that means and how to avoid it) and there will be no arrest or charges filed.

I think anybody who believes there will be arrests, testimony, evidence is going to be very disappointed. The DA knows there will not be any of that, it's pure grandstanding.

How about "Head's up: there's a cutie coming through!" ?

Can the federal government really exempt their employees from state criminal laws? The constitutionality of such a law would make an interesting case, I suspect.

Given the huge number of passengers (and screeners), the general unprofessionalism of so many screeners, and incidents we have seen before, I think it is inevitable that there will be a prosecutable case. We've already had the penis-size incident in FL (Rolando Negrin) and reports of screeners saying "I've got a cutie for you" as they send an attractive young woman for groping. Something like that should satisfy the lewd intent or similar requirement, right?

Lewd intent on whose part?

If the person who selects the "cutie" is not the one who pats her down, it would be difficult to prove that he had lewd intent. It is merely an (inappropriate) comment about her looks.

If the person who conducts the pat down did not choose the "cutie" , that remarks can not be held against her. This is especially true if the female screener is heterosexual and has never shown any interest in sexual contact with another female.

I would say that about the only way that someone could be prosecuted is if the female screener is a known lesbian, has requested that all "cuties" be sent to her, and that the screener who selected the "cutie" was fulfilling her request.

Of course, even in the above case, it would have to be demonstrated by the DA that the female screener went beyond the kind of pat down she would give an extremely unattractive woman.

Your "only way" is not the only way, as there are more ways, including arrest on a different criminal charge leading to discovery of evidence related to intent that facilitates prosecution of a claim about a sex offense at the airport.

SFO is one of the 5 airports with private screeners. Does this change things in this instance?

How could a DA know if the screener followed SOP or not? After all, SOP is SSI!

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

A couple of thoughts:

1. The screeners in his jurisdiction are contractors and not federal employees. Don't know if this makes it easier or harder to prosecute someone?

2. Rolando's case is interesting because this was screener-on-screener sexual assault. I'd say this type of situation is ripe for a charge. The goal is to take down a screener or two. I don't really care how it happens.

3. Francine signed off on the procedures.

While it is indeed a meaningless gesture on most levels, it will undoubtedly have a very subtle effect on the contract security personnel. Most law enforcement officials I know become very interested when anyone starts talking about prosecuting cops for their conduct on the job. Even when we advise them that there are layers of protection we will afford them, there is always that nagging doubt.....

In any event, grandstanding or not, ^^ to the DA. We need more public officials taking a stand in opposition to Reichsminister Napolitano.

Yeah, maybe the DA is thinking about the next election. Absurd. How about the San Mateo county jail---is he going to threaten prison officials who perform pat downs on visitors also?

Why would you juxtapose the experience of using an airport with the experience of using a jail? Or are you now wanting to mock the DHS/TSA approach of treating free Americans at a public transport facility in a manner increasingly approaching how jailers treat arrested suspects and/or convicted criminals and those wanting access to such persons?

A prosecution is not as far fetched as it seems. That law states "sexual OR lewd" intent.

Lewdness does not have to be sexual in nature, but covers anything that is obscene or indecent. If they accidently brush your package, that is one thing. If they intentionally grab you, it seems that would be covered by the law.

And if there is a manual that directs people to grope and fondle, that pretty much establishes the intent to touch private areas. Seems to me it is the intention to touch that is the key here, regardless of whether the groper gets any pleasure out of it (that would be covered under the second part of the phrase).

And if I recall correctly, the screeners at SFO are not TSA, they are private contractors. Should make it easier to avoid the ridiculous defense - "we're from the government, and we're here to touch your junk".