Lawyers Allowed through TSA Security to Serve Legal Document
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/03...rss_topstories

" The order was obtained by attorneys Anthony Zinnanti and Richard Patterson, both parents of young children. As soon as Sandvig issued it, Zinnanti raced to Los Angeles International Airport to serve it on McClellan, who had boarded a flight to Chicago for a TV appearance.

"He was on an airplane and we managed to get him off the airplane and jam him with it," Zinnanti said by phone from the airport. McClellan accepted it nonchalantly and got back on the plane, he said."

Regardless of the politics of the restraining order, why were these lawyers allowed into the secure area? I wonder if they purchased tickets just to get through TSA security? Or is there some policy allowing people through security just to chase people down? :td:

(p.s. I think the current security rules are largely ridiculous, but I think that it makes a mockery of the security facade to allow people into the secure area to pull a guy off a plane to serve him legal documents.)

So if he got back on the plane, he immediately violated the 30 foot rule, unless there were no minors on the plane?

Wow. Flashbacks to my civpro exam.

I was thinking the same thing! Mine actually did involve a defendant flying over a particular state being served with process in the airspace! :D

just curious as to how "how profile" the lawyers were. combine la, lax and the likes of gloria allred (sp), mark geragos (sp?) and the late johnny cochrane and you'd be suprised how many rules get broke or bent in la-la land.

Good questions.

Since we've got at least two lawyers here, lemme play devil's advocate for a moment and ask this: why -- and on what grounds -- wouldn't these lawyers be allowed in the secure area to serve papers? They're officers of the court, doing the court's bidding ... right? As long as the men were subject to the same security protocols at the c/p that everyone else was, what was problematic about their presence in the sterile zone?

Isn't it the point of mockery to show-up phoniness and facades? I'm not following the line of reasoning given. :confused:

Well, I guess that was my question. I know that specific people are allowed through the checkpoints: Passengers, Airline/Airport employees, People assisting children or disabled passengers, Families greeting or saying goodbye to deployed military personnel, Hotel Guests at the DTW Westin...

I didn't know that serving legal documents would fall into the "approved" category, but perhaps it does. (I can't seem to find a list on the TSA website of who, in fact, is allowed through the checkpoints. Probably because it varies a lot per airport.)

I guess my point was that it's just another example of the absurdity of certain TSA rules.

(oh...and I'm not a lawyer yet. one year of school left!)

In the airspace? LOL. Mine was thrown through the checkpoint, but its target didn't pick it up.

Isn't It Obvious?
 

The whole point of security checkpoints is to ensure passenger safety.

What better way than to deny access to lawyers?

:D

Interesting that California civil procedure allows an attorney to serve orders. In the states in which I practice law, the rules of civil procedure prohibit a party to an action from serving process/summons.

This isn't under the purview of the TSA but rather the airport.

The lawyer in the photo looks like Andy Dick.

Interesting case.

Bet the ACLU gets involved.

Haven't read the article, but in any case, who says the attorneys are party to the action?

The ARTICLE says the attorneys are party to the action :)

That's ridiculous. If that were the case, most airports would allow anyone through the screening checkpoints in order to increase business for airport shops and restaurants. Plus, the TSA has generally pretty strict requirements about running passenger and hotel guest names through the "no-fly list" before giving access to terminals.

See, for example, the TSA's Airport Access Authorization to Commercial Establishments