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

Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,086 AG
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

Replies

  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 8,800 Admiral
    what damages can you incur from an invasive screening?   Damaged pride?  sore orifices?  
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 1,918 Moderator
    Be interesting to see if an attorney picks this up and goes up the ladder.
    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,756 Admiral
    edited July 11 #4
    what damages can you incur from an invasive screening?   Damaged pride?  sore orifices?  
    The black eye you incurred on the screener?
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 8,800 Admiral
    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.  
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    edited July 11 #6
    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. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,086 AG
    This is what you get with a federal "super" police force.  This isnt the end of this case.
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 8,800 Admiral
    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.   
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    They aren't police. They have no arrest powers. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • conchydongconchydong Pompano BeachPosts: 3,810 Captain
    They aren't even mall cops. Invasive searches should be handled by sworn LEOs anyway. 

    “Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,086 AG
    edited July 11 #11
    They are "policing" regardless if they have arrest powers. They can detain you and apparently now, they can also abuse you.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    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. 


    Mini Mart Magnate

  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    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 SGary S Posts: 834 Officer
    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 PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 8,800 Admiral
    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!!   
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • Gary SGary S Posts: 834 Officer
    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.
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 7,466 Admiral
    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. 



    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,756 Admiral
    Not to mention that after Oct 1st millions of Americans will die. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • RockslamRockslam Posts: 75 Greenhorn
    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.
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,930 Captain
    Blanket immunity is a dangerous thing
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 7,466 Admiral
    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.


    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    edited July 13 #22
    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. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    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.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    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. 
     

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,756 Admiral
    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. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    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.  

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    edited July 13 #27
    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 TerrorTurner River Terror Posts: 5,593 Admiral
    Grouping...I haven't had anyone Grope me in years...I need to get out more.
    Killin and Grillin :grin
  • conchydongconchydong Pompano BeachPosts: 3,810 Captain
    Grouping...I haven't had anyone Grope me in years...I need to get out more.
    What happened to your neighbor?

    “Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,086 AG
    cadman 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.
  • DropTheHammerDropTheHammer East CoastPosts: 556 Officer
    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.


    We all new what we were doing until DropTheHammer showed up.
Sign In or Register to comment.