Both are public servants.

No, I'm not. For one thing, it's ambiguous: does it mean intentionally doing the act in question (as opposed to be being an accident) or does it mean intending to "delay, impede, or distract" the TSO? In the latter case, you have the problem that you can't know what's in the passenger's mind and so can't know why he or she took that action. As I pointed out in another setting (sexual assault), that's why we usually assume intent, rather than try to prove it.

If somebody's walking very slowly through a checkpoint, is it because they intend to slow down screening or because they sprained their ankle a few weeks before, felt something peculiar when they took their shoe off, and want to walk very gingerly to avoid reinjuring it?

If you ask somebody a question and they don't answer it, are they chosing not to answer it to assert their right to remain silent or are they not answering it for the purpose of impeding your duties?

Define "unable". Somebody dislocates their shoulder and it's treated and healing. Their doctor tells them (I'm making this up: I have no idea if this is really an issue in that case, but suppose for the sake of this post that it is) "be careful not to lift your arm up too often over the next few weeks because if you do, you run the risk of another dislocation". This person is selected for WBI and says he can't lift his arm up. But it so happens that the checkpoint camera showed him lifting it up earlier to scratch his head. Did he refuse to lift his arm for the purpose of impeding screening or because he was concerned about his doctor's advice? How is a court to determine that?

State of mind enters into this with the four levels of culpability. Intentionally is one level and is an integral part of the formula as to whether or not some type of fine is levied. The act coupled with other things has a bearing on the outcome. I leave you with one final thought though. Traffic offenses do not require intent. You run a stop sign, you get a ticket. So it is probably a good thing that we are left wondering what the intent was OR alot more people would be looking at the prospect of getting a civil penalty for interfering with the screening process.

Somebody's head would probably explode.

Of course they do! Almost every offense requires intent (the two most common that don't are statutory rape and copyright infringement).

False. You have to intend to run the stop sign. If you run a stop sign because you can't see it, because your brakes broke, or because somebody ran into you and pushed you through it (among other possibilities) you haven't broken the law.

A typical response by you Eyecue, would not have expected anything more.

That’s the TSA’s problem, not the “fares” problem, the website clearly states the right to keep our possessions in sight at all times. If it is not possible at all times, then the website should be more specific and state “if possible”

Since the TSA’s policy is clearly printed, then the TSA must adhere to their policy, but we all know that TSA supervisors make up their own rules at each checkpoint at the spur of the moment and then threaten arrest and hide behind SSI when questioned.

The supervisors will do the same thing that they did to Stacy Amato at PHX, when she had a copy of the TSA policy about screening of her pumped breast milk, the suits there totally ignored it and made up their own policy. It took a higher level manager there who shadowed her the following week to force the suits to back off and follow proper procedure when the suits tried to do the same thing again to her.

Also to comment on your original statement about intentionally causing interference, an LEO is highly trained to observe and report on what they see and typically their testimony, which is almost always challenged in court by the defendant’s lawyers is mostly accepted. What training does a typical TSO get, 20 hours of watching videos and 20 hours of on the job training, I would not call a TSO highly trained.

In due time, some of these interference charges are going to make their way thru the courts, and any good defense lawyer will destroy the testimony of any TSO. All they have to do is subpoena the training records and show how little training the TSO’s get.

But this will never happen because the TSA will never release these records and I am sure they will drop the charges to prevent any TSO from appearing in court, and also to prevent any court rulings against the TSA, which will then set precedence. All that is needed is one liberal judge in one Federal Court to rule against the TSA and that can open the floodgates for others to fight their charges against the TSA.

Mr. Elliott

The problem is easily solved. All TSA has to do is bring the bins to the area where the traveler is about to be assaulted.

Traffic violations are clearly spelled out so everyone knows what must happen for a violation to occur.

What is the exact language for TSA Interferring with Screening violations. If I'm subject to a fine it is only right that I know how to avoid the issue.

Then why do so many of them do it? When they are told very clearly 'I cannot do XYZ' why do so many immediately order 'Do XYZ' and when one repeats again calmly 'I cannot do XYZ', they start to threaten the DY... card or threaten that one is interfering with the process?

Is is a lack of understanding of English? Is it a lack of respect for the passenger that they don't choose to hear what is said? Is it a lack of training about diversity and varying physical abilities? Or is it something else?

Those are the easy ones, except the last which I would argue is constitutionally-protected speech. If I say, "Only a weasely little sex pervert would touch another man's genitals without consent," is absolutely protected speech. Saying, "Touch my junk and I'll deck you," would almost certainly NOT be protected speech, and would constitute interference as a threat. Saying, "Exceed your procedure by by half-an-inch or half-an-ounce and I'll have you arrested," is neither a threat nor interference.

One of these days, I'd love to walk through the checkpoint wearing a jacket with, "F*** the TSA," written on the back. I think it's probably time for a court to remind TSA about Cohen v. California Superior Court.

Regardless, how about these:

A TDC at SFO asks how I pronounce my last name. I refuse to tell him saying, instead, "I am uninterested in the fact that TSOs at this station are required to do this unnecessary extra step because of their previous inattention to matching boarding passes with IDs. I have presented you with government-issued photo ID that matches, exactly, the name on my boarding pass, as is required by Secure Flight and your SOP. That is enough."

The TDC calls the STSO, who asks me, "Where are you going today?" I refuse to tell him, as my understanding of the Constitution precludes TSA's ability to demand this information.

The STSO asks the TDC for my ID and is chagrined to discover I have presented my passport, and not my drivers license. He asks me if I have a license. I reply, "Why do you persist in asking me questions, the answers to which you have no legal right to compel?"

The STSO demands my address so he can write up an incident report. I refuse to provide it on the grounds that (1) TSA has failed to provide the necessary disclosures as to what will be done with my private information, and (2) neither TSOs nor STSOs have any legal authority to demand any personal information from me.

At no time have I raised my voice, become agitated, or acted belligerently.

What do you think, eyecue? Interference with screening?

In the situation you've described here, I think you're right. How about if I stand with my arms out, you've worked your way down to my waist and, with my arms out, I close my 2nd, 4th and 5th fingers, giving you the finger? Before you answer, please remember the holding in Cohen v. California Superior Court, as well as the First Amendment prohibition on state-actor limitations on petitioning the government for the re-dress of grievances?

And how about this: you ignore the twin birds, finish your "enhanced pat-down" and say, "You're free to go. Thank you." I gather my belongins and, as I'm leaving, I say (not shout, but calmly speak), "F*** you," and then leave. Have I interfered?

Is that really the test that you're applying? Interesting. Because I would argue that the test is whether the passenger was or was not engaging in a constitutionally-protected exercise of an inherent right. Again, referring to my hypothetical "F*** the TSA" jacket, it doesn't much matter whether it raises your blood pressure to the point where you become apoplectic and collapse on the spot. My right to wear that jacket is absolute, at least in the context of a checkpoint in an airport.

Hunh? Please give me one example of a filed lawsuit in which the plaintiffs struggled to "keep them open," because of the "current state of affairs as it reflects on the war on terrorism." Law suits are not dismissed because of, "the current state of affairs as it reflects on the war on terrorism."

There's another TSO who posts here and frequently makes the same mistake as you're making here. It does NOT matter how severe the threat of terrorism (only Congress can declare a war and it has not done so against, "terrorism"), constitutional rights can NOT be impaired.

^^^^^^
+ the preceding posts * 10,000


I think PTravel would make a h*lluva entertaining travelling companion, wrt these airport exchanges. I'd be willing to buy him one of the F**k the TSA jackets...