Lawsuit: TSA Supervisor Got Traveler Arrested For Bogus 'Terroristic Threat' Charge, Lied About Incident In Court
from the obviously,-the-'T'-stands-for-'Thug' dept
Here's more evidence the TSA really isn't about keeping travelers safe. What it is about is malevolent middle-management-types fiercely guarding the borders of their microfiefdoms and arbitrarily ejecting ticket-holding serfs for any conceivable reason.
Roger Vanderklok, a distance runner who frequently flies to events around the country, had the misfortune of passing through TSA supervisor Charles Kieser's turf at the Philadelphia airport. Vanderklok faced some legitimate questions (as legitimate as any questions based on the ever-shifting TSA list of suspicious items can be, anyway) and answered them all satisfactorily.
On this day, he was headed to Miami. In his carry-on bag was a packet of PowerBars and a heart-monitoring watch. When the bag went through the X-ray scanner, the items looked suspicious to a TSA agent whom Kieser supervises.But the TSA's Charles Kieser took issue with Vanderklok's suggestion: that agents make it a bit more clear what "organic matter" entails. Keiser decided Vanderklok didn't appreciate the severity of the situation (that situation being, apparently, that the TSA makes suggestions, not the other way around). According to Vanderklok's lawsuit [pdf link], Kieser became "confrontational." Vanderklok then asked if he could file a complaint. Bad move.
For the next 30 minutes, screeners checked the bag several times. Vanderklok told them that a tube-shaped case in the bag contained his watch. Then he was asked if his bag contained "organic matter." Vanderklok said no, as he thought "organic matter" meant fruits or vegetables.
PowerBars, which contain milk, grain and sugar, are considered "organic matter" and can resemble a common explosive. Terrorists often use a small electronic device, like a watch, to detonate the explosive. Hence the agent's concern.
Instead, Kieser summoned the Philadelphia Police. Vanderklok was taken to an airport holding cell, and his personal belongings - including his phone - were confiscated while police "investigated" him.Kieser provided his version of the story at Vanderklok's trial -- one that was mostly lies. He claimed Vanderklok "threatened" to bring a bomb through security. He also claimed Vanderklok made aggressive arm movements and pointed his finger in Keiser's face. Unfortunately for Kieser, surveillance footage proved nearly every accusation false.
Vanderklok was detained for three hours in the holding cell, missing his plane. Then he was handcuffed, taken to the 18th District at 55th and Pine and placed in another cell.
He says that no one - neither the police officers at the airport nor the detectives at the 18th - told him why he was there. He didn't find out until he was arraigned at 2 a.m. that he was being charged with "threatening the placement of a bomb" and making "terroristic threats."
Vanderklok's Kafkaesque odyssey finally ended at 4 a.m., when his wife paid 10 percent of his $40,000 bail.
Throughout the search, Vanderklok appears calm. His laptop computer is tucked under his arms and his hands are clasped in front of him the entire time. Without any fuss, he follows TSA agents when they move from one part of the screening area to another. He even smiles a little.And as for the only claim that might have held up -- the "bomb threat" -- Keiser's own words on the police statement, as well as his underlings' actions, undercut that assertion as well. No agent other than Kieser appears to be the least bit alarmed by Vanderklok's alleged bomb threat. One messes with his cellphone. Another rearranges bins. No passengers are prevented from entering the area.
Not once does he raise his hands. Not once does he point a finger in Kieser's face. If anyone is becoming agitated, the video shows, it is Kieser.
In his statement to the police, Kieser claims Vanderklok said "Anyone could bring a bomb through here and you wouldn't know it." That's not a threat. That's an opinion. And, given the TSA's track record on stopping airborne terrorists, the protected opinion/non-threat comes disturbingly close to being a factual statement.
The presiding judge dismissed the charges against Vanderklok "within minutes" of Kieser's statements. Kieser's testimony must have been incredibly terrible, considering the judge never even bothered to view the video evidence that contradicted most of his claims. There must have been an obvious odor of vindictiveness permeating the courtroom during the TSA supervisor's statements. And it's that same respect-my-authority-or-else attitude that's likely going to cost the TSA some money.
Vanderklok has filed a lawsuit against the agency for his wrongful arrest, one that also names the Philly police department as co-defendants. Perhaps the video clearing Vanderklok will be seen during this court battle, or perhaps the agency will just settle quickly, rather than allow Kieser to further embarrass himself. And perhaps, Kieser will finally be out of a job. But for now, he still wields a level of power that far outpaces his ability to perform his duties in a credible and responsible manner.
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: arrests, charles kieser, philadelphia, roger vanderklok, security theater, threats, travelers, tsa
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Turnabout and incentives for honesty
I believe that any time it's found that a person is trying to frame someone for a crime they didn't commit, like happened here, the one making the false claims should automatically be found guilty of the crime they are trying to frame another for, with the sentence being doubled($1,000 fine instead of $500, 10 years prison instead of 5, and so on) from what it would have been had the innocent person been found guilty.Try and frame someone for assault? Then you are found guilty of assault and have whatever the punishment would have been doubled.
Attempt to frame someone for drug possession? Same thing, you're found guilty of the crime and your sentence is double what it would have been.
Try and frame someone for 'making bomb related threats'? Then you're found guilty of of that same crime and face double the penalty for it.
If there were real (or any)penalties for committing perjury and trying to frame an innocent person, maybe, just maybe, people would be less quick to do so.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: City of Brotherly Love
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heartfelt plea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heartfelt plea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heartfelt plea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The TSA should phrase the question differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Methane and other organic compounds found on Mars increase the chances of finding life there, but can be found without it. Giant clouds of alcohol - an organic compound - have been found in space but do not imply life. Nor does the methane and ammonia on Jupiter, nor the hydrocarbon atmosphere and lakes on Titan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you know what people would call me if I got angry or condescending every time someone didn't know the particulars of IT? A jerk or an asshole... which is exactly what this TSA guy is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, since we're nitpicking, that's the definition from the realm of chemistry.
From the realm of phsysiology, the definition of "organic" is "having to do with organs". From the legal realm, it's defined as "relating to or constituting the law by which an organization exists." Another correct general-purpose definition is "something that is an integral part of a larger whole".
All of these are correct. I was just using the definition that seemed closest to what the TSA apparently meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless your bag is made solely of metal, not likely, it contains organic matter. Plastics, cotton fiber, canvas, etc., all contain carbon, and thus are organic no matter how they are made. The statement, made by the TSA, is not only not scientific based, but it isn't really based in any known use of the word organic either.
I've been asked at the airport if my bag contained any organic material, and I've always said yes. When they checked and didn't find anything, I said my bag was made of plastic fibers and contained clothes, all which had carbon in them. Luckily, I've never flown through Philadelphia and every time the TSA agent has returned my luggage to me after swabbing it and allowed me to move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget asbestos.
Asbestos can be woven into cloth, and there was even a time when industrial 'shop' clothing was commonly made out of it.
And anyway, didn't the Flintstones have suitcases made out of solid rock?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can no longer travel between borders without government intervention, just like North Korea.
Our communications are monitored, just like North Korea.
Our rights are eroded, just like North Korea.
The government is abusing its power, holy shit, just like North Korea.
One day, we'll wake up as our families are whisked away into detention centers.
Wait. Aren't those called "Walmart" here in the US?
Articles like this sicken me and prove, once again, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Considering widely reported actions against whistle blowers in the US, I don't think that difference is going to be with us for too much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The one thing that is still protected appears to be criticism of the government. That really is the only major difference. The rest are all different by degree only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: commenting
And here we can talk about it and report on it. But if you do you might well find that you yourself miss your next flight to wherever you were going. You almost certainly won't go to jail but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that you'll never fly again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait. Aren't those called "Walmart"...
When I don't have a choice to walk into a Walmart, and I don't have a choice to walk out of same without purchasing anything, then I'll believe that. A better example would be the agency that issues your ID/passport/driver's license.
The rest of that post is spot on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout and incentives for honesty
Try and frame someone for assault? Then you are found guilty of assault and have whatever the punishment would have been doubled.
Attempt to frame someone for drug possession? Same thing, you're found guilty of the crime and your sentence is double what it would have been.
Try and frame someone for 'making bomb related threats'? Then you're found guilty of of that same crime and face double the penalty for it.
If there were real (or any)penalties for committing perjury and trying to frame an innocent person, maybe, just maybe, people would be less quick to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
Holding people responsible for their actions isn't part of this most nontransparent administration in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
Including Govt officials and law enforcement of course.
Oh no, not including, but especially government officials and law enforcement. Those that are tasked with serving and representing the public deserve to the held to the highest of standards, and face harsh penalties should they betray the trust of the public, more so when they do so in a manner meant to inflict harm on those they are supposed to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
What happens when I accuse someone of doing something shady (say, I saw someone breaking into a van), and it turns out I'm wrong (they owned the van, and were locked out), but I was well intentioned, and now I'm going to prison for double GTA?
That's the problems with penalties for perjury and "framing someone" - humans are innacurate creatures, you have to allow room for error or else MORE bad things happen, not less. What you are proposing is and would be used for censorship. It would just make people afraid to ever accuse anyone of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
In the example above, the TSA supervisor was clearly lying and doing so in order to accuse someone of a crime. Note the intent here...you can't lie if you're wrong and don't know it. There's no way he could have accidentally thought the guy pointed at him and threatened him. It's clearly a lie he created to justify his own actions.
This wouldn't affect reporting at all because proving intent has a rather high standard. If a reasonable person could have made the mistake, like in your van theft example, there's no crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
Then you should receive the death penalty twice... Maybe lethal injection while being electrocuted? =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout and incentives for honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, you know what actually worries me about terrorism? The overblown responses to it. When I visit the US next month, I'm far more concerned that I'll come across some small-minded bully like this while trying to get to my connecting flights than I am that anyone will do anything to the planes I'm travelling on.
That's a pretty sad state of affairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's amazing that you can say this in a thread talking about this subject. You appear to believe we're still in the last century. Anyone traveling to the US these days is a fool, as Vanderklik's story proves. Perhaps you'll be in line for a big payout from resultant lawsuits, or maybe you'll just end up stranded in an airport when you end up on the no-fly list or your visa is revoked. Capricious officialdom is the rule these days, not the exception.
What kind of an idiot travels to Nazi Germany in 1939?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Family is still important to me, even if I don't agree with many of the policies of the country in which they've chosen to reside. I don't think they're at Nazi levels quite yet, so I will take my chances for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, he was asking for it.
Getting him dragged off the airport was the safest way to ensure that he could not continue to detract from the other terrorists' attempts to get fissionable material on board.
Just try putting yourself into the shoes of a complete psychopath. Wouldn't you want to have Vanderklok arrested? Ok, now take off Kieser's shoes again. I mean, ugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: cubicleslave on Feb 10th, 2015 @ 7:34am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: cubicleslave on Feb 10th, 2015 @ 7:34am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: cubicleslave on Feb 10th, 2015 @ 7:34am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is much easier for a criminal and corrupt ruling party to have a willing population to rule over. More so when you make their basic rights illegal unless allowed the privledge of what used to be a basic right by said rulers.
Just look at history has more than enough examples of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The terrorists have already won
But, instead, the terrorists have achieved their goal of making TSA agents live in a world of fear where everyone is treated like a suspected terrorist, any snacks could be bomb material, and any electronics can be a detonator.
I also wish there was a way to hold agents like this personally responsible. Instead, the issue will be handled the sames as when police officers do something bad: the agency or union will pay out, the payment will come out of the agency's budget (which is funded by taxes), and everyone will have to pay a little more to cover the lawsuit.
So how is the agent punished? Maybe he's suspended of fired, but does that really balance having a guy arrested and having an arrest record (even if the charges were thrown out), and then lying about it in court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The terrorists have already won
Because there's no incentive to demonstrate someone is NOT a terrorist. No valid suspects, no reason to swing your d*ck around, no reason to even have the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What should have happened with the power bars isn't for polite company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The terrorists have already won
The only test for Poison so an enemy or else may not do wrong police asks the carrier to mix-up thoroughly and eat 3-full bites; kept there for 20 minutes. Then accept for delivery.
I was in school when this had to deliver. And it is still in vogue. No solids allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psychopathic thugs do not make the USA safer.
TSA = The Stupid A$$holes, just mentally damaged thugs stealing from the taxpayer lying about promising safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the TSA website:
"however, an officer may need to remove the CPAP, BiPAP or APAP from the bag to test it for traces of explosives."
http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/passengers-cpaps-bipaps-and-apaps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The TSA agent felt that someone didn't genuflect to his authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Fly List
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So are we supposed to believe that the lesson from all this is that anyone planning on packing a bomb in their luggage would be advised to bring one constructed of metal-salt based (or other inorganic) explosive compound so they can honestly answer "no" to the "organic" question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Probably. I'm no scientist, so I can't say for certain. I think the bag's actually got a leather lining, so I think I might. Does leather count?"
"Have you got any organic matter in this bag, sir?"
"Sure have! I accidentally sneezed in it twenty minutes ago!"
"Have you got any organic matter in this bag, sir?"
"At the very least, the last time I put my hand in there it would have transferred some skin cells so I'm going to have to go with yes."
"Trying to be funny, sir?"
"Hey, if there's some standard definition of 'organic matter' you go with, maybe you ought to explain it before asking people."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA says freeze in place, anyone that doesn't gets yelled at by their fellow commuters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things he didn't have/do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Material Science
2) I applied for a Global Entry pass for US customs. A year later, I had my application rejected at interview because to paraphrase "I was a lying liar who lies, and imports contraband". I asked WTF, they said "You know." I repeated WTF, they said "Crushed Palm Leaves". I had no recollection, because, recall, what I had confiscated was a DOLL, not a plant.
But you see, the doll that I had was made of plants. And I am supposed to know that. But then, where does it end? My cotton shirt is also made of plants. I'd venture that nobody at all has ever crossed a border guard without some plant material on his/her person.
Where does the responsibility to understand the input materials of our products end?
- Is Vanderklok legally required to know what "organics" means, to that agent in that context? He had Powerbars. Does he need to know the list of ingredients, and their family, genus, and species?
- Does someone driving from Vancouver to Seattle need to know the soft materials used in the seating for their car, which may contain plant matter? Or all the other input materials for their car?
- Why is everything so arbitrary? I've had trips where a new and packaged Snickers bar is not considered food by agents that I've asked, and I've had trips where it IS considered food. You can judge which was right, but regardless, it should not depend on the mood of the agent.
If the Homeland Security agents can't nail down what is contraband and what is not, how can we? Ridiculous! A moron in a hurry cannot be expected to be a material science expert on the composition of every product they carry across borders or onto airplanes. Nor should we need to be.
Homeland Security should look for bombs and weapons. That's all most of us really care about our TSA finding. Just keep the plane safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Material Science
The moment he stopped giving this man the respect he did not deserve he was made a target by the TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Material Science
It's basic psychology: one of the things you do to people to increase their level of subservience to you is to make arbitrary demands that are strictly enforced. It's a classic move made by pretty much all cults ever.
When you start looking at the TSA with that eye, an awful lot of what they do was ripped straight out of the "how to start a cult" handbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more TSA folly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more TSA folly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we don't need a cabinet-level department that presides over so much corruption to be active in any meaningful way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DHS needs to go simply because it has made the actions of the agencies under its umbrella more aggressive in violating the rights of citizens, more expensive, more corrupt, and less effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perjury?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perjury?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought this article was about the TSA, not the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new here cops frequently lie under oath
For more info, check: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted= all&_r=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry - Just wanted to get some satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]