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.
i guess pretty soon every kiddy fiddler and other person who is into indecent assault will be working for the TSA, paid for by the US government. Great work.
If you see a TSA screener get in an accident, help the other person first, even if their car is burning. If you serve a TSA screener in a restaurant, make sure they wait a long time for stale dogfood. Ask them if they like to abuse the public if you see them in uniform off the job. Ostracism and public humiliation can be powerful tools for good.
If they're not "investigative or law enforcement officers", then they can not detain you, and you should be able to walk right past the security checkpoint.
This is why I no longer fly. When the government treats you as a criminal, even though you've done nothing wrong, and you have no recourse, we've reach an Orwellian state.
The best thing people can do is not fly and let the airlines fall apart.
But they won't. As we see every day, people are too stupid to say no to injustices such as this. They'll gladly endure every imaginable humiliation because their government says it's for their protection.
"investigative or law enforcement officers." Nope they don't, I am sure that some are good workers just trying to do a job. But now what do we do with the criminals, pervs and thieves?
;)
Oh that is right, they work for the government so none of them are criminals, pervs or thieves! Besides why should ordinary people have any recourse.
Just my 2 cents
Given that I cannot ever recall seeing one of these, they must have been eminently forgettable. On the other hand, the sheer volume of spam _about_ Creimer has
a) made him look like a victim of targeted harassment, and
b) been more memorable and disruptive than anything he did.
Given that the justification for this behaviour is that Creimer's behaviour was an abuse of Slashdot, critical self reflection doesn't seem to be a strong suit of whomever is posting the anti-Criemer spam.
Sovereign immunity confuses the heck out of me. The idea that law enforcement is immune to prosecution is preposterous. The very concept seems to violate the 5th amendment to the constitution. Someone needs to hold them accountable.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It seems quite obvious to me that someone having the power to hold someone for 18 hours arbitrarily is not someone you want immune from prosecution. I get that the government doesn't want every criminal suing the police because they can, but the current situation seems ripe for abuse. A TSA screener should not hold that kind of power. Maybe we need to permit liability in the event that the person is acquitted or charges dropped, like what happened here?
we did exactly what we wanted them to do. We freaked the hell out, got involved in several pointless wars that are killing our nation (our infrastructure crumbles while we waste trillions in Iraq/Afghanistan). They played us like a harp.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You'd learn quickly that whining leads to more suffering, and you would quit your bleating.
One aspect of the brutalisation that is bootcamp is to break down a normal person and to rebuild them into an effective soldier. That includes obedience to orders.
While I respect the sacrifice that involves, to suggest that it is anything other than an ugly necessity or that it has application in a broader context suggests a kind of fetishisation of the military that is disturbing.
Obeying a bad law is not a virtue.
It is a necessary evil after douche bags like the shoe bomber did what they did
The aim of terorism is not the direct damage, but the disruption of everyday life for people who might otherwise be able to ignore the conflict. To that end, the degree to which the US has increased surveillance and curtailled the freedom of its citizens is an incredible success for terrorism and part of why it keeps being used against the US.
Your acceptance of the security theater is a 'win' for terrorism. Your chances of dying due to a terrorist attack before and after these measures is statistically unchanged.
That your only comparison to the TSA search is a prison strip search should give you pause. Whether it's better or not the very fact that you choose boot camp and prison admission is an admission that this is something that should not be happening as a matter of course to non-criminal, non-military people.
Please stop being an apologist.
>Here's a clue for you. When over 90% of black people and the majority of other minorities vote for the left it's because they think (correctly) that the right is actively working against them.
Black unemployment is at the lowest level in history thanks to Trump. Pelosi and the democRATS want the blacks in the ghetto and to shut up and vote (D) so get their meager welfare benefits.
Black on Black crime, not LEO shootings, are the #1 killer of blacks... yet do you see the democRATS doing anything about it? No. Just more free abortions and single parent families for the welfare roles.
Gah! Why are things just all around getting worse dammit!?!?
Regarding "things" in the US, it's very simple. The US government has become far too large and powerful to the point it no longer fears the people.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty, when the people fear their government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.