RgnadKzin

This is a long story. Bear with me. Before you call us nutcases, learn a bit more about who we are here: Flying with my daughter and no "government issued" ID. I am not going to reveal the where or the when, as this matter is not yet adjudicated.

My wife travels quite frequently. She generally gets a first class upgrade and never gets hassled about her lack of "government-issued" ID because it says "first class" on the boarding pass. She was travelling home from her mom's house and Mom was coming with her to visit her granddaughter. Mom has an artificial knee replacement. It always sets off the detectors. She always has to suffer secondary screening.

Mom has been a widow for 25 years. As far as we know, she has never had any intimate contact with anyone (except for a TSA screener) in that amount of time. Mom is very religious and objects to being touched by homosexuals. So, she always relates to the screener that if the screener is a homosexual, that she would prefer that another screener be brought over.

Mom was already being screened when my wife (Nic) was sheparding the bags thru the conveyor. Nic saw Mom's screener run off in a huff and that a new screener had been brought and Mom was being screened. Nic gathered the bags and positioned herself nearby to observe the screening and to wait for Mom to get done. The initial screener then brought over her supervisor and the two of them detained Mom and told her that the police had been called.

Nic was directed to stand against a wall opposite where Mom was being detained. Nic was already passed and was outside of the screening area. She could have simply left, but we surmise that if she had done so, that Mom would have been arrested.

Three cops showed up and began their "investigation." They demanded ID from Mom and she duly presented it. They asked her a few questions and then they approached Nic. When they asked Nic for ID, she asked them whether they were conducting a criminal investigation, and when they said they were not, she told them that she was under no obligation to either identify herself or to answer any of their questions. Nic was not in a stop and identify state, so she was perfectly within her rights to refuse to cooperate.

After about a 20 minute conversation with the cops, wherein the female repeatedly told Nic to shut up and "F**K You", Nic ends up being taken into custody. The TSA pointedly detained Mom for another 15 minutes, "screened" her a total of five times, and released her only after she had missed her flight. Mom was never charged with anything.

We know all of this because we have a copy of the surveillance videotape that was made at the checkpoint. We had to sue the airport authority in a FOIA suit to get it. The tape itself is not "sensitive security information" but they said it was. The court found otherwise. I would suggest that anyone who gets hassled by the TSA immediately secure a copy of all of the surveillance tapes available thru FOIA. If you get refused, then please contact me via my email address and I will help you secure a copy.

Long story short, Nic is facing trial next month on a matter that we have dragged out for over two years. We have an expert witness on body language that is going to testify that Nic was battered by the female cop three times (slammed against the wall twice and roughly pushed to the ground). When the case is resolved in our favor, we will be going after everyone and their dog in a civil rights suit.

Mom doesn't want to file a civil suit against the TSA for false arrest and imprisonment. Too bad. Would have been fun to play spank the TSA.

Nic will be pleased that I have just realized that the TSA was the proximate cause of her arrest. They had no cause to call the police. If they had never called the cops, then Nic would never have been arrested. So they are going to be joined into the suit anyway. Yay.

Solarmoon

This is very usefull information. But one thing is unclear: did you get the copy of the surveillance tape as part of discovery for your civil rights and other claims, or did you get it as an "unrelated" FOIA suit?

If it was the latter, it would be interesting to see if folks could just request copies of the surveillance tapes as a matter of course the way that others keep track of documents, etc.... As these are government tapes, there would presumably be no copyright restrictions and I'm sure that folks could really use these as raw material for political art, etc...

RgnadKzin

The civil rights suit has yet to commence. We want to get an adjudication in our favor on the merits of the criminal charges so that we can go after the prosecutor for malicious prosectution.

We always request these matters via FOIA under the state's open records act. We also sent a federal FOIA to the TSA/DHS for the tape, but their contention is that it is not in thier possession or control.

We had much resistance to securing the tape. The airport authority balked an said it was "sensitive security information." If you read the regulations about SSI, then in the event that you send a FOIA to the state agency controlling the information, they have to forward the request and the material to TSA/DHS for a determination that the information is SSI. No such request was ever made (we FOIA TSA/DHS for a copy of the airport authority's request for determination and there was no record of one made). All of this came out in the FOIA suit and we got the tape.

I take down the date and time each time I go thru security and secure a copy of the videotape as a matter of course. I do this mainly to test the system, but if everyone that had an altercation with the TSA did this, the airport authorities would soon tire of the expense and pressure TSA/DHS to change their ways.

Mikey likes it

I really like our new member.

^ ^

MeVoy

"So, she always relates to the screener that if the screener is a homosexual, that she would prefer that another screener be brought over."

Very interesting story. However, I do not quite understand this sentence. Does it mean that "Mom" can divine if and when a screener is homosexual, or does it mean she asks the screener if he or she is homosexual? Would that be considered appropriate? Surely, that becomes a relevant set of circumstances!

J-M

The way I read it, she asks the screener if they are a homosexual. Despite the way I feel about the "security-bashers" around these parts, I can actually agree with "Mom". I would be none too happy about being touched by a homosexual, and I think "Mom" is well within her rights to ask that question.

For the same reason a male screener can't screen a female pax, I would think that a homosexual male couldn't screen another male.

Jaimito Cartero

Well, at least it's nice that someone is giving the TSA a hard time. I would be interested to see what wife was arrested for. Failure to cooperate? Telling the "man" off?

RgnadKzin

We discreetly tell the screener that we would object to their touching us if they are either homosexual or bisexual. "I am not asking you if you are gay or straight, but I would be grateful that if you believe your sexual orientation would cause me any concern that you bring over another screener."

Jaimito Cartero

Can we perhaps, request a certain sexual orientation? I'd like to be handled by lesbians, personally. As long as they're the "lipstick" style.

Doppy

Wow, this is a little crazy. Who else does mom ask about their sexuality? Ticket agents, FAs? Would she object to a homosexual fireman carrying her out of a burning building?

And so do you ask this question of TSA screeners? Who else?

Doppy

While you're at it, you might as well get the "cup" size of your choice, n'est pas?

Some nicer hotels have you fill out a whole profile with a couple dozen questions from what magazines you want in the room to how you like the bed made. Maybe the TSA can do that. I only want bisexual, half Israeli, half Palestinian male screeners with a BMI of 20, +/- 20%, who are Buddhists, but I'll take scientologists in a pinch.

TierFlyer

Actually, I read that post in its entirity and sent a copy to several friends. We all had about the same reaction, which, in deference to your request above, I'll shorten to: hope I don't have to be in an airport while you're causing a stir.

Way, way, way TMI.
I think it is very reasonable for somene to be that sensitive. And if she has objections to blacks, jews, moslems, baldness or obesity, she should make that known too.

As a matter of curiosity, how does your mom deal with waiters, cooks, busboys, and cleaning people? These are all people who are in "intimate contact" with things touching her - and most of them aren't wearing rubber gloves. Cooties, you know?

In any case, if they're generally understanding of your mom's restrictions, then next time I get a secondary screening I'm asking for a Hooters girl.

RgnadKzin

The original charge was "FAIED TO OBEY PO." From that we gather that she failed to obey a police officer. The ordinance that they cited related to refusing to stop violating some other ordinance when asked to do so. The cop believed that refusal to produce ID or to identify oneself was required. In a stop and identify state, it might be an issue, but we know where these states are and we actually carry copies of these laws on our persons when necessary.

When we moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted (they charged us without showing the nature of the "other" ordinance that she was violating), the prosecutor dismissed the charge and instituted the state charge of "Disturbing a lawful meeting." When we complained about that, the prosecutor added "Attempting to assault a police officer." Funny, the police reports don't mention any assault and the videotape certainly doesn't show any assault. Under the law, battery is any unwanted physical touching and assault is an attempt to batter. As a matter of law one cannot be found guilty of attempting an attempt to batter. It is a legal impossibility.

The attempted assault charge was added when we filed the FOIA suit to secure the tape. I don't believe in coincidences.

Their bill of particulars shows that "loudly refusing to provide information to the police" is a crime. First, Nic was not loud. There is no mention of it in the police reports. Second, refusing to provide information to the police is a right secured by the federal and state constitutions (under most circumstances); see Brown v Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), which is distinguished from Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court,03-5554 (2004) (as Nevada is a stop and identify state).

The judge is improperly trying to shoehorm a common law charge of "disturbing the peace" into the "disturbing a lawful meeting" statute. The jury instructions are completely different and we believe the judge is going to improperly instruct the jury.

RgnadKzin

A ticket agent or an FA is not going to touch me in a "senstive" area. Neither is a fireman.

Your argument offers a logical fallacy in an attempt to divert attention from the issue at hand.

GUWonder

This could open a Pandora's box, maybe even a few fights.

So is it ok for gay men to frisk women? Then should we expect a lot of TSA persons "coming out of the closet"?

I don't think homophobia will put an end to frisking at airports; nervous nellies rule the day.