TSA Kangaroo Court Rubber Stamps TSA Fining Guy Who Stripped Naked, Completely Dismissing Court Ruling Finding It Legal
from the well-of-course dept
A couple years ago, we wrote about a guy named John Brennan (who, we're pretty damn sure is not the John Brennan who is now director of the CIA) who decided to strip naked at a TSA screening area in an airport to protest the screening process. As we noted, a federal judge acquitted Brennan on First Amendment grounds, noting that he was engaged in a public protest, and that the nudity was a form of protected expression, not subject to indecent exposure laws.No matter, apparently, for the TSA, who just went ahead and fined Brennan anyway claiming Brennan "interfered with screening personnel in the performance of their duties" (a violation of this rather broad law). As Lowering the Bar notes, this charge is bogus -- and is basically the same thing as when police arrest people filming them under similar charges:
[The TSA] fined him $1,000 for doing this, claiming he had "interfered" with screening operations when he took off all his clothes. As I discussed here, and then again here, that's the same bullshit argument police use when they arrest people for filming them—we had to come over there and stop you from doing something you're constitutionally entitled to do, and so you "interfered" with us. But that logic makes perfect sense to the TSA, and in particular to the administrative-law judge (a TSA employee) who upheld the penalty (reduced to $500) in April. Brennan appealed.You'll never guess what happened next -- or, wait, actually you will:
Because this is an agency proceeding, the initial appeal is still within the agency, in this case to the deputy administrator. And as I mentioned above, because I didn't want you to be on pins and needles wondering what happened, he affirmed the ruling. The final order (PDF via PapersPlease.org) is again based entirely on the "no, you interfered with us" argument (about which I feel as described above). This also has the benefit (for the TSA) of making the law irrelevant. In fact, the deputy administrator says in his opinion, "I agree with TSA"—of which he is the deputy administrator—"that Respondent's arguments regarding the legality of the nudity are not relevant." Well, that's handy.Handy indeed to be able to ignore a federal court saying that the activity was constitutionally-protected free speech.
Oh, and it gets more ridiculous. Apparently, the TSA review of the matter said the fine is appropriate because the whole three minutes that things were delayed was horrible for TSA efficiency:
By the way, he admits in his opinion that the checkpoint was closed "for approximately three minutes" as a result of the incident, yet affirms the finding that because of this, the agents "were not able to conduct screening in an efficient manner on other passengers present at the checkpoint." So the TSA is claiming here, with a straight face, not only that it screens passengers "in an efficient manner" to begin with but that it is so efficient that punishment is justified if you delay it by three minutes.I'm still wondering how any of this is making us safer. I'm guessing I'll have to keep waiting on that one...
I don't know about you, but I've been pointlessly delayed by much more than three minutes by the TSA approximately EVERY TIME I HAVE FLOWN DURING THE PAST DECADE, so I would describe that claim as farcical.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, interference, john brennan, protest, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, I for one wouldn't like to go to the airports and see other people man/womanhoods visible all over the place. I think the TSA is actually doing a good job to provide a dong-free environment in our airports. Think of the children that go to the airports!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, don't worry Ninja, the TSA already thinks about the children that go to the airports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm thinking that they're going to grow up without an appreciation or expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, thanks in part to your precious blue-shirted authoritarian thugs and the prevalent police/surveillance-state that they're a part of. Further, at least half of them already see and/or handle cocks (belonging to themselves) on a regular basis — seeing a cock that's not attached to themselves represents no great threat, and as the aforementioned federal judge has wisely ruled, hanging out in the breeze represents protected speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
B) Your Sarc-O-Meter is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They start charging that and I bet security lines everywhere will take on a whole new brisk pace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is $5.56 per second. Seems a little excessive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It will not matter. Right now the Circuit Circus Courts afferm magistrate decisions that are against the individual over 95%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It will not matter. Right now the Circuit Circus Courts afferm magistrate decisions that are against the individual over 95%
Even if true, that is not necessarily a problem. That could simply indicate that prosecutors are good at choosing which cases to pursue. I'm not saying there are no issues with the justice system, only that that particular number doesn't prove anything by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working for the TSA must be awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Start goosestepping now
I feel safer already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Start goosestepping now
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
System to enforce the system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
There's no getting around it unfortunately: that word renders the entire amendment null and void when wielded by the justice system. This has been proven time and time again over the years, and any protections it does actually provide at this date and time will be whittled to nothing before all is said and done.
"Unreasonable" is purely subjective no matter how you slice it, and in time nothing will be considered so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TSA
I call that a good start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TSA
It had nothing to do with "threats to public safety" or "crime in progress" or similar - only with the likelihood, and (by way of determining that) believability, of the idea that the search being carried out would find the thing being searched for. If you can't convince the person whose responsibility it is to make such judgments that it's probable that the thing is where you say it is, you don't get to search for it there.
That gets lost to some degree under the common-parlance jargon use of the phrase, but I believe it's still of critical importance in understanding how the idea of probable cause should be applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TSA
Repeated incidents will be grounds for an internal affairs investigation
The police should never be the ones in charge of investigating themselves, that has 'conflict of interest' written all over it. Such investigations should instead always be carried out by an independent third party, one that doesn't answer to the police, but which does have authority to order them to cooperate, and punish them if they refuse to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TSA
So they will always find a justification for abuse of power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TSA
The Word "Unreasonable" in the forth does not provide EXCEPTION! It specifically states that ANY SEARCH OR SEIZURE that does not have a WARRANT is UNREASONABLE!
Read it again and use your noggin... now you know how ignorant the vast Legal Machine is! WAKE UP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TSA
I'm pointing out that due to conflict of interest, police should never be involved in investigating their own actions, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TSA
In reality, I suspect most of them really don't give a crap one way or the other. The vast majority likely only care about three things:
1. What time their shift starts
2. What time their shift ends
3. What day they get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TSA
I can't see how this would have any effect on the TSA whatsoever. The agents are just powerless plebes. The TSA certainly couldn't care less what they think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TSA
On the other hand, it would mean that people could despise, ostracise, and otherwise socially abuse TSA employees with a clear conscience - thereby giving the remaining employees a different type of disincentive to continue working there.
I think there's a case to be made that that could be worth the trade-off. Although there is still the difficulty that there's no way to be certain that the state where only "the bad people" still work there has yet been achieved, so it wouldn't be possible to be entirely certain about that clarity of conscience after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish
"No officer, I do not think I was speeding, you got it wrong." ::loks left, looks right:: "Upon further review your complaints are noted, but I reaffirm the prior judgment stating I was not speeding. If you continue to interfere with me getting home I will fine you approximately 20,000$ an hour for the delay(s) you have given me"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, the TSA has been demonstrated to be selective in who it gropes, and therefore presumably selective in who it would like to strip nude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's indeed ironic when a person is forced to strip naked as a punishment for ... stripping naked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy caused a major disruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TSA is just angry about their security theater getting bad reviews from critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aww, but it's so much more fun to imagine it is...
"Added cavity exams and naked scans as a bonus! Where do I apply?"
Cavity searches cost extra- unless you're a Chinese pigeon, or travelling in Nevada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not just legal, but protected by the constitution. In other words, the TSA just said it is not bound by the constitution. Anyone feel safe yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd think this would speed the process up , I mean no clothing means quicker search procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another "court" that shouldn't exist and doesn't know its place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some clarity would be nice
1. The initial case was a CRIMINAL (much higher bar to find someone guilty) case decided in COUNTY court. No federal involvement. He was charged with indecent exposure by county officers.
2. The TSA case is a CIVIL case in FEDERAL court. Brennan is basically being sued for damages by the TSA alleging that he caused injury to TSA and the American taxpayers.
The differences between a criminal case and a civil case are huge. The differences between county law and federal regulations are huge. I agree with the sentiment in the article (TSA overreach)... but I feel the author does a disservice to readers and the libertarian cause in general by dumbing it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some clarity would be nice
1. The initial case was a CRIMINAL (much higher bar to find someone guilty) case decided in COUNTY court. No federal involvement. He was charged with indecent exposure by county officers.
2. The TSA case is a CIVIL case in FEDERAL court. Brennan is basically being sued for damages by the TSA alleging that he caused injury to TSA and the American taxpayers.
The differences between a criminal case and a civil case are huge. The differences between county law and federal regulations are huge. I agree with the sentiment in the article (TSA overreach)... but I feel the author does a disservice to readers and the libertarian cause in general by dumbing it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
9th Circuit Court is Next
There is a difference between the criminal charges (of which I was acquitted) and the on-going civil case. However, the two are related in the eyes of the law, just not in the eyes of the TSA, who are unaccountable and self-absorbed.
As Kevin at Lowering the Bar notes, whatever the TSAs rules are, above all, they can not be unconstitutional. TSA (and DHS) has operating with impunity.
I plan to appeal this administrative decision to the US Federal Court, likely the 9th Circuit Court. It's in this court that, after two and a half years of administrivia, the connection between TSA and the US Constitution can be examined. Of course, I hope to prevail.
I *do* need to get a lawyer. I'm talking to a couple of sources right now. And I do need to raise money for legal expenses. That will be kicking off soon.
To get more information, go to http://www.nakedamericanhero.com, which will redirect you to my facebook fan page.
You can also follow me on Twitter or Tumblr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 9th Circuit Court is Next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a man (hopefully seductively)doffing his clothing for them to inspect interferes with their ability to do their jobs imagine what a person with a honest-to-god weapon would do to them.
All of the agency rulings are subject to judicial review after all appeal avenues within the agency are exhausted. My guess is they will have to prove to the court that 3 minutes of searching a person is a lot of time compared to other searches to make this fine stick.
Maybe Eric Holder will argue that the TSA would have used that time better to protect "America's children".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]