Last month, I posted that the Court of Appeals ruled in one of my cases that TSA screeners are free to read through the documents of travelers as they pass through the checkpoint, among a plethora of other rubber-stamping of government thuggery. I’ve asked the court to re-hear the case en banc, which means that all the judges of the 11th Circuit would consider the case, rather than just a 3-judge panel.
In this petition, I called it how it is, no sugar-coating:
Appellant has asked the Court to clearly delineate the boundaries of administrative searches – a warrantless, causeless, consentless mode of search – in the context of aviation security screening. Instead, the panel has given the government carte blanche to do nearly anything it pleases at an airport security checkpoint.
In particular, while every other circuit to address the issue has limited the scope of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s searches to that which is likely to find instrumentalities of destroying an airplane (i.e., weapons and explosives), the panel of this Court has bestowed upon the TSA the ability to search for anything the TSA can reasonably argue is suspicious, from literature that the TSA doesn’t like to credit cards in another person’s name. This novel approach does not comport with the Fourth Amendment and any valid precedent relating thereto.
I also took issue with the fact that the 3-judge panel affirmed the dismissal of two of my claims without any explanation, with merely a footnote that they agreed with the lower court:
The panel, however, dismissed these well-articulated claims in a footnote, stating tersely, “We agree with the district court’s cogent analysis of these claims.” Panel Opinion, p. 31, fn. 11. Respectfully, Appellant paid his filing fee to this Court, took the time to argue these claims, and complied with the Court’s rules throughout the proceedings. These claims are non-frivolous and, having presented what he believes to be at least a colorable argument in support of them, Appellant humbly requests that the Court take the time to address these claims in detail.
Petitions for re-hearing en banc are denied more often than they are heard, so it’s likely that a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is coming soon. But first, let’s give the 11th Circuit a chance to correct itself.