Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Transportation United States

TSA Screeners Win Immunity From Abuse Claims, Court Rules (reuters.com) 317

Posted by BeauHD from the hands-where-I-can-see-them dept.
Mr.Intel writes from a report via Reuters: "Fliers may have a tough time recovering damages for invasive screenings at U.S. airport security checkpoints, after a federal appeals court on Wednesday said screeners are immune from claims under a federal law governing assaults, false arrests and other abuses," reports Reuters. In a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners are shielded from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) because they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."

The decision, the first on the issue by a federal appeals court, was a defeat for Nadine Pellegrino, a business consultant from Boca Raton, Florida. "She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport," reports Reuters. According to court papers, Pellegrino had been randomly selected for additional screening at the Philadelphia airport before boarding a U.S. Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pellegrino, then 57, objected to the invasiveness of the search, but conditions deteriorated and she was later jailed for about 18 hours, the papers show. Criminal charges were filed, and Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Screeners Win Immunity From Abuse Claims, Court Rules More

TSA Screeners Win Immunity From Abuse Claims, Court Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Pedophiles R US! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Balial ( 39889 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @07:48PM (#56938154) Homepage

    i guess pretty soon every kiddy fiddler and other person who is into indecent assault will be working for the TSA, paid for by the US government. Great work.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Patent Lover ( 779809 )

      The President doesn't need to work for TSA.

    • Interesting take on this. My take - they wear uniforms, have official looking badges etc. So if it walks like a duck and so on. But here's the thing they're not law enforcement - so heap as much derision on them as one can.

      • Re:Pedophiles R US! (Score:4)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Friday July 13, 2018 @08:35AM (#56940440) Homepage

        They have basically played with an interpretation of law. It would seem if they are immune from civil suite under that act as they are not covered by it, then they are screwed individually and the organisation itself. You sued by that act and then you likely would also not be protected by other provisions ie you can not abandon one, without abandoning the other and you can use the judgement itself to directly sue the TSA as a private employer and the TSA agents themselves. So it would seem like in their rush to win the case, they tossed the TSA itself and it's employees under the bus. Got to be real careful when you start playing corrupt arsehole with the law, attempting to push distortions of interpretation, you get them to stick and sometimes they can turn around and bite you on the ass. Can't be sued under tort claims act, then you have pretty much publicly abandoned your protection under federal law and they can use this very case as precedent. I'll bet the government will settle now because whoops.

    • This day in slashdot history: Women Arrested For Refusing TSA Search of Children [slashdot.org]

  • Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12, 2018 @07:53PM (#56938178)
    If you see a TSA screener get in an accident, help the other person first, even if their car is burning. If you serve a TSA screener in a restaurant, make sure they wait a long time for stale dogfood. Ask them if they like to abuse the public if you see them in uniform off the job. Ostracism and public humiliation can be powerful tools for good.

    • Re:Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by youngone ( 975102 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:09PM (#56938238)
      Good idea.
      That's exactly what that restaurant owner did when she told Mr. Trump's propaganda woman to leave her restaurant.
      There should be consequences for bad behaviour.

      • Does anyone know if you can hire woodchucks?

      • Re:Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @11:08PM (#56938902) Journal

        No, that is not exactly the same thing.

        Sarah Huckabee Sanders was was hounded out of a restaurant because people didn't want her there. I wouldn't either. But if she was in a car wreck and in danger of dying, I for one wouldn't hesitate a split-second about saving her, no matter what I think of her politics or relationship with the truth.

        Humanity first. Then politics.

        • But if she was in a car wreck and in danger of dying, I for one wouldn't hesitate a split-second about saving her, no matter what I think of her politics or relationship with the truth.

          This is consistent. The GP said to help other people first. Prioritse the humans. If I see Sarah Sanders in an car wreck with a tree I would save her in a second. If I see her in a car wreck with a serial rapist who punched his own grandma then I would probably take a minute or two to assess the situation.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nor are they immune from personal revenge. One of those fuckers does me or my family wrong and I'll burn down their fucking house in the middle of the night.

      • Nor are they immune from personal revenge. One of those fuckers does me or my family wrong and I'll burn down their fucking house in the middle of the night.

        Bad Idea. Here's a better plan:

        - call the TSA
        - call the FBI
        - call your congresscritter
        - call your senator
        - call the media
        - call your lawyer

        Not necessarily in that order, but the point is, don't resort to vigilantism.

        • Re:Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Joey Vegetables ( 686525 ) on Friday July 13, 2018 @08:24AM (#56940382) Journal
          Always prefer less violent means when possible. But also understand that if you make peaceful resolution of conflict impossible, you thereby make violent resolution of conflict inevitable. When "government" not only refuses to punish predators, but actively protects them, it creates the sort of conflict that, again, inevitably requires the use of defensive or retaliatory force to address.
    • Just out of curiosity, how do you know if a person is a TSA screener in either of those situations? Presumably the only way to know for sure is if they're a friend of yours. My only question is if we should also shun the friends of TSA agents in a manner similar to that which you've prescribed above.

    • Oh puh-leeze.

      I have little sympathy for TSA rent-a-cops who abuse their authority, but come on. Compare touching your junk to burning in a car wreck. Your humanity demands that you help someone who is in danger of dying. And I have no doubt the TSA employees would do the very same in the reversed situation.

      • Your humanity says you have to help them. You don't have to help them FIRST -- help the other person in the car wreck first, then help them if you have the time. By being junk-touching, privacy-invading garbage, their life just got de-prioritized.

  • They can not detain you.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bandi13 ( 579298 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:03PM (#56938206) Homepage
    If they're not "investigative or law enforcement officers", then they can not detain you, and you should be able to walk right past the security checkpoint.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • 1990s (Score:5, Informative)

    by ickleberry ( 864871 ) <web@pineapple.vg> on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:07PM (#56938222) Homepage
    If you told someone back in the 90's that in order to get on a flight now you'd have to give a 3D scan of your naked body they'd accuse you of being some conspiracy tinfoil hat nutter who smokes too much weed.

    • Re:1990s (Score:5, Funny)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:18PM (#56938270)
      But if you showed someone from the 90's what a 3D scan of naked body of one of today's Americans looked like, they'd say you'd probably need harder drugs than weed just to be able to do that job all day.

    • Terrorists won (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @09:40PM (#56938604)
      we did exactly what we wanted them to do. We freaked the hell out, got involved in several pointless wars that are killing our nation (our infrastructure crumbles while we waste trillions in Iraq/Afghanistan). They played us like a harp.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      But if you also told people that in a bunch of states you could actually buy weed over the counter before getting your naked body scanned in 3d at the airport they also wouldn't believe you.

    • No, lots of security consultants in the 90's were urging this because Europe and Israel had tight security due to all the hijackings and other terrorism against airlines in the 80s and 90s

  • So now they're like cops... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by snapsnap ( 5451726 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:15PM (#56938252)
    in that they have immunity from behind held accountable from breaking the law. The worse thing though for the TSA is that they have less training and don't have to take an oath like cops do so this is even worse.

  • Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:21PM (#56938284)

    This is why I no longer fly. When the government treats you as a criminal, even though you've done nothing wrong, and you have no recourse, we've reach an Orwellian state.

    The best thing people can do is not fly and let the airlines fall apart.

    But they won't. As we see every day, people are too stupid to say no to injustices such as this. They'll gladly endure every imaginable humiliation because their government says it's for their protection.

    • Re:Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:30PM (#56938326) Journal

      This is why I no longer fly. ...
      But they won't. As we see every day, people are too stupid to say no to injustices such as this.

      That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.

      • Re:Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:45PM (#56938398)

        This is why I no longer fly. ... But they won't. As we see every day, people are too stupid to say no to injustices such as this.

        That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.

        As I told my family members who moved away - I'm not important enough to live near, so you're not important enough to visit. If I show up, I do, but I'm under no obligation. But I won't fly unless it's a private flight chartered by me.

        Regardless, you are going to have to decide how much shit you want to put up with. That's how much shit you're going to take. That might include getting your children felt up. Go to Ebaum's world and look up what the TSA is allowed to do. I'd put the link here, but it looks like KP. I'm certainly going to scour my computer tonight.

        But you need to see your family. So it's okay.

        • If they ban all private charter flights the rich, the powerful, & the politicians have to experience the same treatment as The Unwashed Masses, there will be changes.

          n2ch

          • If they ban all private charter flights the rich, the powerful, & the politicians have to experience the same treatment as The Unwashed Masses, there will be changes.

            Meanwhile, This will be another employment opportunity for some really skeevy types.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Uberbah ( 647458 )

          As I told my family members who moved away - I'm not important enough to live near, so you're not important enough to visit. If I show up, I do, but I'm under no obligation.

          Wow, you are SUCH a badass. But lets say your kid goes to a university on the other side of the country and is in a nasty accident, and your employer will only let you take three days off next to a weekend. You really gonna tell Junior to go fuck himself & he's on his own, or are you going to put down the big man act for a couple

          • As I told my family members who moved away - I'm not important enough to live near, so you're not important enough to visit. If I show up, I do, but I'm under no obligation.

            Wow, you are SUCH a badass. But lets say your kid goes to a university on the other side of the country and is in a nasty accident, and your employer will only let you take three days off next to a weekend. You really gonna tell Junior to go fuck himself & he's on his own, or are you going to put down the big man act for a couple of days and fly Southwest?

            I'm not the guy you are taking to task, but ... behavior changes on the margins.

            TSA excesses (and the lack of redress capability) make flying that much more "expensive".

            Sure, if it's worth it, we'll do it. Like any decision, there are multiple factors that we weigh, whether we do it consciously or not.

            But the overall effect will be - or should be - less flying.

            So when Junior's not in the hospital - which would be, uh, most of the time, for most people - he may have to wait until I can drive it to see me

        • Re:Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Friday July 13, 2018 @08:17AM (#56940324)

          This is why I no longer fly. ... But they won't. As we see every day, people are too stupid to say no to injustices such as this.

          That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.

          As I told my family members who moved away - I'm not important enough to live near, so you're not important enough to visit. If I show up, I do, but I'm under no obligation. But I won't fly unless it's a private flight chartered by me.

          Regardless, you are going to have to decide how much shit you want to put up with. That's how much shit you're going to take. That might include getting your children felt up. Go to Ebaum's world and look up what the TSA is allowed to do. I'd put the link here, but it looks like KP. I'm certainly going to scour my computer tonight.

          When I was moving to the UK from Oz, my mother tried the old guilt trip of "But I hardly see you now..." at which point I had to say "I've lived an hour away for a decade and now you're worried about seeing me".

          My point is, once you get out of the US air travel is a lot nicer. Airports are run by businesses that understand that customers want their customers to move quickly from A to B, A being whatever godforsaken mode of transport took them to the airport and B being a metal tube full of meat cargo. London Heathrow, Singapore Changi and Amsterdam Schipol are great airports that are relatively fast to get through for their size. Honestly I think I could turn up at LHR with 90 mins before wheels up and have plenty of time (and at lest 30 of that 90 mins will be walking, Heathrow is fucking massive), you couldn't hope to do that at LAX in a month of sundays. Asian airlines actually seem to care about customer service and comfort (European airlines are still crap though), standard economy on Singapore Airlines is called premium economy on others and when you're flying for 14 hours, an extra inch of leg and arse space is a godsend.

          BTW, charted and private planes are subject to TSA screening... So unless you're flying GA from and to a non TSA field, you're still up for an enhanced pat down.

        • But you need to see your family. So it's okay.

          Given that 'seeing family' is one of the central part of 'being fucking human' I struggle to understand how you think that sort of comment will win you any followers.

          The rest of us have to get on with our lives, and attempt to actually change the problems rather than just passively accepting them / avoiding them like you have done. Let me help you: boycotting will do nothing to change things unless you can persuade a big group of people to join the boycott. And if your opening argument is "you don't need hu

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )
        Chicken and egg. People didn't often move thousands of miles away from their families until we had airlines to bring them closer.

        • Chicken and egg. People didn't often move thousands of miles away from their families until we had airlines to bring them closer.

          Yes. All those Irish and German people who formed the bulk of the US population in the mid 20th century flew from Europe. Then, there were the Chinese who flew from China to help build the railroads. Oh, and I should not forget the people who were brought over in slave planes from Africa. </sarcasm>

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ichijo ( 607641 )
            You make it sound like we don't need planes because look at all the people who moved thousands of miles away from their families without them.

            • I was simply replying to your incorrect post.

              I know better than most what it is like to move thousands of miles away from family, and yes, planes are important.

        • Chicken and egg. People didn't often move thousands of miles away from their families until we had airlines to bring them closer.

          Not really, the chicken exists, it's here. People have mixed and travelled and flight is a normal (required) part of existence now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Dont worry the US has Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team (VIPR, or VIPER) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      to consider when using other methods of transport all around the USA.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      I haven't flown since summer of 1993. I wished we had t(ele/rans)porters. :(

    • The best thing people can do is not fly and let the airlines fall apart.

      Why? It's not the airlines groping me. Flying is a perfectly fine experience in most of the world.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      I live just across the border from Vancouver International Airport. I'll fly out of there.

  • They don't funcation as (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:28PM (#56938314)
    "investigative or law enforcement officers." Nope they don't, I am sure that some are good workers just trying to do a job. But now what do we do with the criminals, pervs and thieves?

    Oh that is right, they work for the government so none of them are criminals, pervs or thieves! Besides why should ordinary people have any recourse.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  • This was a 3 Judge panel (Score:3)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:49PM (#56938428)
    a sub set of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. So I think (not a lawyer) that an appeal can be made to the entire 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. So this may not be the final outcome. Time will tell.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    • a sub set of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. So I think (not a lawyer) that an appeal can be made to the entire 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. So this may not be the final outcome. Time will tell.

      Tidbit from the article not mentioned in the summary.

      Pellegrino, who represented herself, said she was reviewing the decision.

      My working hypothesis is that 99,9% of people who represent themselves in court are idiots, so I'm not reading anything the courts decision.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Whibla ( 210729 )

        Pellegrino, who represented herself, said she was reviewing the decision.

        My working hypothesis is that 99,9% of people who represent themselves in court are idiots, so I'm not reading anything the courts decision.

        Often phrased as: A lawyer who represents themself in court has a fool for a client.

  • Confused about the ruling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:50PM (#56938434) Homepage

    Sovereign immunity confuses the heck out of me. The idea that law enforcement is immune to prosecution is preposterous. The very concept seems to violate the 5th amendment to the constitution. Someone needs to hold them accountable.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    It seems quite obvious to me that someone having the power to hold someone for 18 hours arbitrarily is not someone you want immune from prosecution. I get that the government doesn't want every criminal suing the police because they can, but the current situation seems ripe for abuse. A TSA screener should not hold that kind of power. Maybe we need to permit liability in the event that the person is acquitted or charges dropped, like what happened here?

    • Sovereign immunity, as I understand it, is supposed to mean that a state's government cannot be sued in a different state's court unless it has consented to it. So, for example, you can't sue the US government in a Canadian court unless the US government has consented to it (say, via a treaty or a contract).

      Obviously the same cannot be said for individuals, which is why we can try leaders or perpetrators for war crimes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

      The 5th only means government isn't supposed to deprive people of those rights (without due process of law). It doesn't that law enforcement must be held personally liable for claims.

      Rather, I see a stronger argument found in the 1st amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievan

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The US courts have seen many people try and say they have all kinds of rights when getting searched.
      A full court warrant to look in any bag, their lawyer, the right to say no to any search.
      US courts have considered all that over many decades of attempts to change the results of what was found during a search.

      Given the numbers of people to search, the time per search and the location of an airport US courts have sided with allowing searches and the search results are legal.
      The idea that a flight could b

    • I thought the constitution didn't apply within 100miles of an airport or border.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mousit ( 646085 )
      There's quite a bit of confusion over this ruling and what the Federal Tort Claims Act actually covers.

      To start with though, no, they are not immune to prosecution. Neither is law enforcement, for that matter. This case does not deal with that at all. It deals with TORT, which is a civil case, not a criminal case, and is not a "prosecution" procedure. When you sue, you're pursuing a civil case, for civil damages typically, and the civil tort is usually aimed at a specific person and not just the whole

  • Yep. I drive. Upcoming events in California in November may make me make an exception, but maybe just won't go. Dunno. Having 4th Amendment rights violated repeatedly (Judge Napolitano, the Fox News legal consultant, says its absolutely a violation of the 4th Amendment for the gov't to be doing this - the airlines could do it, but gov't hired officials can't legally do it) rubs me the wrong way, plus when I do travel, I usually have along a piece of electronics that is 1) essential to the reason I fl

    • What is the piece of electronics? Your clues led me to no idea.

      • I road rally with the Sports Car Club of America. The best computer on the planet is the Timewise 798A.

        http://www.timewise.us/product... [timewise.us]

        Its about $2K when the guy has any for sale. I understand that a missing component has been acquired, the case, and a few more are available, but I think there's a few of them left with 10 - 15 year old circuit boards assembled into them. If I lose mine, and there's one available, then... fine. If there's not one available, I get to find a new hobby.

        • On 2nd thought... the boards being used to build the latest ones are probably not 10 -15 years old, but maybe 5. Sorry about that... just want to be as accurate as possible.

  • the tsa are rent a cops with gov jobs / unions. When the tsa took over the took on a on the old rent a cops that used to the same job.

  • I have a feeling that this will get appealed. I will only be concerned about with the final decision from the appellate court and/or Supreme Court.

  • "No one is above the law"

    What fucking bullshit, America, you are a liar of a nation....

  • ... no accountability.

  • If they are not law enforcement, then I would assume they have less latitude when it comes to detaining/abusing citizens. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would put them on equal footing with private security. If you are private security, and you detain someone for 18 hours without calling the police you are probably looking a kidnapping charge.

  • they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."

    So they're not enforcing any laws by "screening" people and detailing + questioning suspicious individuals: what?

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close