After writing 24 pages on this one, I could use a few more eyes to help make sure I’m still making sense. 😉 No legal experience required — just let me know if you think the argument is compelling or could be improved (and how). The brief background is that the TSA has argued that it has the right to detain people and the right to read all of your documents when you go through the checkpoint, in addition to some jurisdictional arguments.
Corbett v. TSA – Motion to Dismiss IV Opposition – DRAFT (.pdf)
This is the main file to look at
Corbett v. TSA – Motion to Dismiss IV Opposition Declaration – DRAFT (.pdf)
Corbett v. TSA – Motion to Dismiss IV Opposition Exhibit A – DRAFT (.pdf)
These two files are referenced within the main file
Corbett v. TSA – Motion to Dismiss IV (.pdf)
Corbett v. TSA – Motion to Dismiss IV Declaration (.pdf)
These two files are the motion that I’m opposing
For any attorneys out there, replies on this blog will not be interpreted as legal advice.
Thanks for your help!
–Jon
Professional Troublemaker ® 
Jon – good draft. Sent private email.
ALL: Read the draft and look for the PICTURES OF EXPLOSIVES ON THE TSA BLOG !!
Absolutely priceless !!!
My opinion: TSA claims all their rights because people purchase a ticket on a commercial airliner without reserving any of their own rights. TSA legally assumes everyones rights were waived, so they proceed to molest, irradiate, and thieve everyone who has a ticket.
The Transportation Security Administration is a criminal enterprise, just like the U.S.Congress and the Federal U.S. Government.
What this criminal agency does and those who defend it is absolutely astounding.
Hi Jon, no time to read through entire file as yet, but here are top 3 improvements:
1) You might want to consider abstaining from use of the word “obviously.” There is room for superlatives and even some histrionics in briefings, albeit a subjective art-form; and the word “obvious” is generally tabu.
2) You may want some case reference/precedent to the legal def. and meaning of “detained.” There are a few key legal concepts at play here that the court may expect to see. I.e,, time frames and reasonable expectations; motivations and presence of authority figures; and what may have been sacrificed if detainee attempted to “just walk away.”
3) I am not sure a few credit cards and a “book” are sufficient as “private and/or personal documents” in this instance…after all, if the TSA has authority to strip-search travelers, then it probably also has clearance in the eyes of the court to rifle through your summer reading novel, your consumer credit cards, and probably even your wallet. Unless the book was your copyrighted creation, I feel this case has stronger merits on unlawful detention.
Apologies if that’s where your brief was heading –again, I only had time for this feedback on the first 4 pages.
Okay —-after reading a bit more of your plaintiff appellant response; I’d have to say that on p.6 you have strayed from your sustainable argument by saying that “While Plaintiff in a federal civil action carries the burden of facially establishing subject matter jurisdiction, that burden has been satisfied by raising a federal question, as Plaintiff clearly did”
It’s still “best practices” OF “Plaintiff” to re-state exactly what those/that ‘federal question’ IS.
[On or around p. 5or 6]
As of this point -my FYI is that while it’s certainly a HUGE burden to bear, a step-up citizen such as yourself facing this federal instance is definitely in need of at least 2 things: 1- Intelligent and loyal public support; and 2 -the immediately clear and relatable communications that galvanize a core issue….
and help retain said intelligent and loyal support. So Good Luck! You are on the right course, and it may well prove to be a very important course,,,for us all.