TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

Big Battery · July 11

How is this possible? This is a problem with government provided anything.... if Govco employees are granted immunity from prosecution.

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.

In a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners are shielded by government sovereign immunity from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act because they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tsa-screeners-win-immunity-flier-abuse-claims-u-150740124.html

Soda Popinski · July 11

what damages can you incur from an invasive screening? Damaged pride? sore orifices?

ferris1248 · July 11

Be interesting to see if an attorney picks this up and goes up the ladder.

mustang190 · July 11

Soda Popinski said:

what damages can you incur from an invasive screening? Damaged pride? sore orifices?

The black eye you incurred on the screener?

Soda Popinski · July 11

mustang190 said:

Soda Popinski said:

what damages can you incur from an invasive screening? Damaged pride? sore orifices?

The black eye you incurred on the screener?

Only if they don't make eye contact through the whole thing.

cadman · July 11

one heck of a case. A little more to it than invasive screening.

Here is a description of what happened according to plaintiff.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120302758

The lady was arrested and prosecuted. She was found not guilty of any crimes and then sued.

Big Battery · July 11

This is what you get with a federal "super" police force. This isnt the end of this case.

Soda Popinski · July 11

cadman said:

one heck of a case. A little more to it than invasive screening.

Here is a description of what happened according to plaintiff.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120302758

The lady was arrested and prosecuted. She was found not guilty of any crimes and then sued.

Wow ok yeah that is a long drawn out ordeal.

cadman · July 11

They aren't police. They have no arrest powers.

conchydong · July 11

They aren't even mall cops. Invasive searches should be handled by sworn LEOs anyway.

Big Battery · July 11

They are "policing" regardless if they have arrest powers. They can detain you and apparently now, they can also abuse you.

cadman · July 11

Big Battery said:

They are "policing" regardless if they have arrest powers. They can detain you and apparently now, they can also abuse you.

Steal something from a retail store and they can detain you,. The ability to detain someone does not equate to police powers, They police nothing, they just screen passengers and call the police if an issue arises.

Tarponator · July 11

This is a very disturbing situation, lawsuit, and ruling. Didn't have a chance to read the entire case, but I do wonder whatever happened to the video of the incident.

Gary S · July 12

Believing that TSA screening procedures require TSOs to change their gloves upon request by an individual, Pellegrino immediately requested Abdul-Malik change her gloves before touching Pellegrino's belongings. Abdul-Malik complied, but in the process physically contaminated the new set.

Looks like attitude was a player in this whole thing.

Soda Popinski · July 12

Gary S said:

Believing that TSA screening procedures require TSOs to change their gloves upon request by an individual, Pellegrino immediately requested Abdul-Malik change her gloves before touching Pellegrino's belongings. Abdul-Malik complied, but in the process physically contaminated the new set.

Looks like attitude was a player in this whole thing.

Two women and suddenly attitude becomes a factor? Say it ain't so!!

Gary S · July 12

The other thing is husband and wife have different last names. Nothing wrong with it if that is what floats your boat, but the couples I have known doing this the women were a little into themselves.

Gardawg · July 12

LOL … does anyone think the current US Supreme Court will overturn this decision? Not A Chance!!!

In addition to rulings like this we will see a lot more of individuals with civil cases being forced into arbitration instead of having a day in court with a jury of one's peers.

mustang190 · July 12

Not to mention that after Oct 1st millions of Americans will die.

Rockslam · July 13

Without the video it's hard to say what happened. But that article is from the side of the woman making the complaint against TSA. A one sided report written by a lawyer. Hard to make a decision off that.

treemanjohn · July 13

Blanket immunity is a dangerous thing

Gardawg · July 13

Rockslam said:

Without the video it's hard to say what happened. But that article is from the side of the woman making the complaint against TSA. A one sided report written by a lawyer. Hard to make a decision off that.

The court accepted it as true.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must "accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn there from." Krantz v. Prudential Invs. Fund Mgmt., 305 F.3d 140, 142 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The plaintiff need not satisfy any "probability"

[855 F.Supp.2d 354]

requirement, but must set forth "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unwillingly." Id.

cadman · July 13

Gardawg said:

Rockslam said:

Without the video it's hard to say what happened. But that article is from the side of the woman making the complaint against TSA. A one sided report written by a lawyer. Hard to make a decision off that.

The court accepted it as true.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must "accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn there from." Krantz v. Prudential Invs. Fund Mgmt., 305 F.3d 140, 142 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The plaintiff need not satisfy any "probability"
[855 F.Supp.2d 354]
requirement, but must set forth "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unwillingly." Id.

Only for that motion, That does not mean they believed the story. But for purposes of deciding that motion it is required they assume the complaint is factual. Then if the complaint is factual, is there a claim on which relief can be granted. That was the motion being decided.

Tarponator · July 13

I still really want to know what happened to that videotape!

Was it "lost"?

Did the amount of time for the lawsuit to be filed lead to it being automatically purged?

I'm really scratching my head on that -- because this whole thing should be on tape, and then it doesn't become a he-said she-said affair.

cadman · July 13

i am sure their system, automatically overwrites the disk after a certain period of time. It appears the attorneys were trying to get the video preserved, so not sure why a back up was not made,. It would depend on how large the hard drive is on how long it keeps it. I have 4 terabyte hard drives and can keep about 3 weeks of video, I would hope they keep at least 90 days.

mustang190 · July 13

cadman said:

i am sure their system, automatically overwrites the disk after a certain period of time. It appears the attorneys were trying to get the video preserved, so not sure why a back up was not made,. It would depend on how large the hard drive is on how long it keeps it. I have 4 terabyte hard drives and can keep about 3 weeks of video, I would hope they keep at least 90 days.

That’s convenient.

cadman · July 13

mustang190 said:

cadman said:

i am sure their system, automatically overwrites the disk after a certain period of time. It appears the attorneys were trying to get the video preserved, so not sure why a back up was not made,. It would depend on how large the hard drive is on how long it keeps it. I have 4 terabyte hard drives and can keep about 3 weeks of video, I would hope they keep at least 90 days.

That’s convenient.

It is impossible to keep everything forever. Video eats up a lot of hard drive space. I don't know their procedures, but at some point it is getting overwritten. Usually you only backup problems that you know you might want later. But if the police or attorneys send an order to preserve data you have to do so if it is possible. I have saved numerous files that never got used because I thought an issue might develop or it was requested. Some times attorneys wait to long to request the data and it is gone. Then there is the amount of stuff the police has gotten over the years. The good thing is, it is easier these days than the past. Everything just goes on a USB drive and i back up the video clip to the work computer, That way I have a copy if one gets lost. It also contains some kind of digital watermarks so there is no tampering with the video.

Tarponator · July 13

Incidents like this should be flagged and archived. Seems only prudent.

Unless you'd rather the video not make its way into a court of law or the public domain, of course.

I agree with Mustang, it seems a bit convenient, and I also agree with Cad, you can't keep everything, but who knows for sure what happened to this prima facie evidence.

Turner River Terror · July 13

Grouping...I haven't had anyone Grope me in years...I need to get out more.

conchydong · July 13

Turner River Terror said:

Grouping...I haven't had anyone Grope me in years...I need to get out more.

What happened to your neighbor?

Big Battery · July 16

cadman said:

mustang190 said:

cadman said:

i am sure their system, automatically overwrites the disk after a certain period of time. It appears the attorneys were trying to get the video preserved, so not sure why a back up was not made,. It would depend on how large the hard drive is on how long it keeps it. I have 4 terabyte hard drives and can keep about 3 weeks of video, I would hope they keep at least 90 days.

That’s convenient.

It is impossible to keep everything forever. Video eats up a lot of hard drive space. I don't know their procedures, but at some point it is getting overwritten. Usually you only backup problems that you know you might want later. But if the police or attorneys send an order to preserve data you have to do so if it is possible. I have saved numerous files that never got used because I thought an issue might develop or it was requested. Some times attorneys wait to long to request the data and it is gone. Then there is the amount of stuff the police has gotten over the years. The good thing is, it is easier these days than the past. Everything just goes on a USB drive and i back up the video clip to the work computer, That way I have a copy if one gets lost. It also contains some kind of digital watermarks so there is no tampering with the video.

It is easily possible to keep everything especially if someone is arrested.

DropTheHammer · July 17

Hi! I just walked in from off the street. I'm here to see the owner.
Do you have an appointment?
No! But he's expecting me.
That's when I said to Ahmad Abdul from Mexico " Do you know where the owner is?"
He said "Yes I locked him outside"
That's rude of you. Go and take this gentlemen to see him and make sure you tell the
owner that he needs to let us know when He's having an associate stop in.

TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

Replies

STANDARD OF REVIEW

STANDARD OF REVIEW