Slashdot Mirror
TSA Screeners Win Immunity From Abuse Claims, Court Rules (reuters.com)
Mr.Intel writes from a report via Reuters: "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," reports Reuters. In a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners are shielded from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) because they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."
The decision, the first on the issue by a federal appeals court, was a defeat for Nadine Pellegrino, a business consultant from Boca Raton, Florida. "She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport," reports Reuters. According to court papers, Pellegrino had been randomly selected for additional screening at the Philadelphia airport before boarding a U.S. Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pellegrino, then 57, objected to the invasiveness of the search, but conditions deteriorated and she was later jailed for about 18 hours, the papers show. Criminal charges were filed, and Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.
The decision, the first on the issue by a federal appeals court, was a defeat for Nadine Pellegrino, a business consultant from Boca Raton, Florida. "She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport," reports Reuters. According to court papers, Pellegrino had been randomly selected for additional screening at the Philadelphia airport before boarding a U.S. Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pellegrino, then 57, objected to the invasiveness of the search, but conditions deteriorated and she was later jailed for about 18 hours, the papers show. Criminal charges were filed, and Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.
If you told someone back in the 90's that in order to get on a flight now you'd have to give a 3D scan of your naked body they'd accuse you of being some conspiracy tinfoil hat nutter who smokes too much weed.
Dude was/is annoying (yeah, he did throw out a lot of bullshit affiliate links), but it's pretty annoying reading through CreimerDot these days. Can't y'all just either have sex or kill each other, or something, and leave the rest of us alone? We're hanging out in a website that is, unlike many, twenty years old, and frankly we'd like to keep on being cranky internet bastards. Go fight on Reddit. Or, hell, go take over Digg.
No, you need to reread the article *lol*
They have immunity if they follow the law. If they break the law they can be arrested and charged; if they follow the law they cannot be personally sued when someone gets upset
Sure and the right never does that. Tell you what, go ahead and tell a conservative christian that you are gay and that jesus is a lie and see what happens to you.
Conservative/libertarian and (by some definitions) Christian here, and the worst that I will do, depending on how well I know you, is to offer you historical evidence of His existence, as well as that of formerly "gay" people whom He had delivered from this and all of the rest of their sin, even though some of them weren't living accordingly at the time. Oh, and I will pray for you. What I will not do, however, is to condone nor to participate in beliefs or actions I know to be sin. For instance, I will not attend your so-called "gay wedding" nor your "Jesus Never Existed" conferences. I will not pretend to agree with your beliefs nor your lifestyle, if either or both are sinful and/or stupid. But I will tolerate you. For two reasons. One, you are my neighbor, and God commanded that we love our neighbor. Second, God may yet one day reveal Himself to you and make you His child, and, therefore, a brother or sister to every other one of His children.
Nonaggression works!
Protected classes vs non-protected, not too difficult. She was not hounded, just politely asked to leave.
Cheap storage VM.
or 2 fags wanting a cake.
Alas, I'll give you that, given the recent SCOTUS ruling. Sexual orientation is not yet a protected status, but perhaps someday it will be.
That isn't what the Supreme Court decided. The ruling was in favor of the baker because the state commission that heard his case were jerks that were openly hostile to his religious beliefs. If the commission had acted professionally and then decided that his religious beliefs did not override equal protection, the Supreme Court decision might have been different.