Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

Lawyers Allowed through TSA Security to Serve Legal Document

Lawyers Allowed through TSA Security to Serve Legal Document

Old Aug 3, 07, 11:54 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA Plat, Marriott, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 1,502
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?

(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.)
chrisny2 is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 12:34 am
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,229
A self-described pedophile who says he is attracted to young girls but doesn't molest them was ordered Friday to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in California.
So if he got back on the plane, he immediately violated the 30 foot rule, unless there were no minors on the plane?
flyinbob is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 12:57 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: HOU
Programs: UA 1P, SPG Gold
Posts: 605
Wow. Flashbacks to my civpro exam.
entilzhaFT is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 1:00 am
  #4  
Original Poster
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA Plat, Marriott, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by entilzhaFT View Post
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!
chrisny2 is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 11:44 am
  #5  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,369
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.
goalie is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 3:18 pm
  #6  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,973
Originally Posted by chrisny2 View Post
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?
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?

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

Last edited by essxjay; Aug 4, 07 at 3:23 pm
essxjay is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 3:53 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA Plat, Marriott, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by essxjay View Post
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?
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.)

Originally Posted by essxjay View Post
Isn't it the point of mockery to show-up phoniness and facades? I'm not following the line of reasoning given.
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!)
chrisny2 is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 5:44 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: HOU
Programs: UA 1P, SPG Gold
Posts: 605
In the airspace? LOL. Mine was thrown through the checkpoint, but its target didn't pick it up.

Originally Posted by chrisny2 View Post
I was thinking the same thing! Mine actually did involve a defendant flying over a particular state being served with process in the airspace!
entilzhaFT is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 6:35 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Antonio
Programs: Marriott, AA EXP, United, Alaska, AirTran
Posts: 184
Isn't It Obvious?

Originally Posted by essxjay View Post
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.
The whole point of security checkpoints is to ensure passenger safety.

What better way than to deny access to lawyers?

runarut is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 7:32 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
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.
PatrickHenry1775 is offline  
Old Aug 4, 07, 11:31 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by chrisny2 View Post
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 guess my point was that it's just another example of the absurdity of certain TSA rules.
This isn't under the purview of the TSA but rather the airport.
DCA TSO is offline  
Old Aug 5, 07, 12:06 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UAE
Programs: Marriott LTP, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,073
The lawyer in the photo looks like Andy Dick.

Interesting case.

Bet the ACLU gets involved.
rebadc is offline  
Old Aug 5, 07, 12:19 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,486
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775 View Post
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.
Haven't read the article, but in any case, who says the attorneys are party to the action?
ralfp is offline  
Old Aug 5, 07, 1:00 am
  #14  
Original Poster
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA Plat, Marriott, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by ralfp View Post
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
chrisny2 is offline  
Old Aug 5, 07, 1:25 am
  #15  
Original Poster
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA Plat, Marriott, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by DCA TSO View Post
This isn't under the purview of the TSA but rather the airport.
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
chrisny2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread