Spiff

They do not. Such a law would be far too vague to ever pass a court challenge. A judge would probably want to know what the heck a "screening officer" is supposed to be, as such a joke title for their employees would likely predispose any sensible court against TSA.


They wouldn't prosecute, not only because of the really dubious legality of such a law as stated above, but also because their scummy little SSI would suddenly be up for discovery.

Wally Bird

In fact there is which I cited earlier: 49 USC 46503 .

The wording does require an "assault" to take place, but whether that could include a verbal (only) assault I don't know. There have been rare prosecutions under this code so it would seem to pass the void for vagueness test.

Spiff

"An individual in an area within a commercial service airport in the United States who, by assaulting a Federal, airport, or air carrier employee who has security duties within the airport, interferes with the performance of the duties of the employee or lessens the ability of the employee to perform those duties, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both."

1) I think you'd need a physical assault to take place, otherwise it would be a rather vague law to prosecute on. There are already laws against physical assault on anyone; this may simply up the penalties for doing so to a specific group of people.

2) Any prosecution under this law has the potential to expose SSI as it's up for discovery as to what exactly the interference was with.

3) Copiously absent is the joke designation of "officer" for government "security" employees.

InkUnderNails

On the cruises I have taken (2 years ago most recent), the security was done by the crews. They are looking mostly for weapons and beverages, mostly alcohol.

TheRoadie

And in total contrast to the TSA, the alcohol part is an obvious revenue protection process.

cbn42

Or maybe it's just "disorderly conduct". I can see how OP's action would be seen as disorderly, and there is possibly a state/local law against disorderly conduct at an airport (or any public place).

This may seem ridiculous to us, but if some creative prosecutor wanted to come up with a way of charging OP with a crime, there are probably ways to do it.

GUWonder

Disorderly conduct conviction for this situation? In most states, that would probably be a tough sell. In an empty "line" with no shouting by the passenger and no real conflict observable on a camera? Even tougher sell.

The "void for vagueness test" would be part of a moot case and thus probably not considered except were the section of federal law used to prosecute on a vague basis a person with the resources to challenge it.

Given the DOJ so infrequently uses the above section of federal law for prosecution and has so far "successfully" used it by mostly avoiding "vague" situations, it seems they do not.

"Verbal assault" using non-threatening language that is generally tolerated or even accepted in elementary schools? I doubt that there are many USA(A)s who want to become a professional laughing stock by picking losing battles.

Wally Bird

This by far the most common reason for arrest at an airport checkpoint once a LEO gets involved. It varies by airport; some PDs are fond of such nonsense arrests even though very few result in charges and even fewer in trials and convictions. Does happen though - several examples here in the TS&S forums.

Global_Hi_Flyer

That's because many cops subscribe to the theory that "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride".

These days they know that they can also inflict recurring punishment as an arrest or conviction can disqualify you from Global Entry and therefore also DQ you from Pre.