Tag: tsa

Jon to Judge: Release the Names of the TSA Screeners Who Harassed Me

A part of my lawsuit from when the TSA detained me in FLL airport in 2011 relates to a Freedom of Information Act request I submitted after the incident, which asks for all documents relating to their illegal detention: incident reports, video, e-mails, etc. After the airport initially lied to me (because they were worried about giving away the “secret” fact that they videotape TSA checkpoints), the airport and TSA have given me most of the documents — with the exception that they took out all the names of all the TSA employees who wrote the documents, and blurred the video so that you can’t see the faces of the screeners. That’s right — the TSA has the right to digitally strip search you, but a video of their faces might violate their privacy.

My brief explains why this is legally wrong, but also why it’s not in the public interest:

The public has an undeniable right to review the actions of its government, and this concept is the very reason for the existence of public records laws like FOIA. As any citizen who has contested a traffic violation has found out, in the context of where a member of the public offers a version of the facts that contradicts a version offered by an employee of the government, all other things equal, courts uniformly adopt the version proffered by the government employee, even in situations where the burden of proof is high. Often times, video evidence is the only means a criminal defendant has in order to dislodge an accusation by a police officer.

But, the public interest of the release of videos of government interaction goes far beyond that of the individual whose liberty or property is on the line. Release of video provides accountability of government officials to the public. When an official knows that his or her actions are being recorded and may be published on the evening news, it is axiomatic that he or she will be more likely to act lawfully and in the public interest.

If there were ever a government agency that could benefit from increased accountability to the public, the Transportation Security Administration is it. In 2012, the TSA has admitted that hundreds of its employees have been caught stealing from members of the public. It admitted to strip-searching grandmothers without lawful authority. It admitted that it hires former clergy accused of sex offenses against children to search children. And, regardless of whether or not such actions are technically legal, it is accused on a daily basis of bullying everyone from grown men to women and children. The TSA is more disdained by Americans than the Internal Revenue Service, a distinction which they have well earned.

Accountability is achieved not by releasing redacted video with blurred faces, but rather by the knowledge that the public – your friends, family, neighbors, letter carrier, Starbucks barista, and anyone else – will judge you if you make a 3-year-old on her way to Disney World cry because you were a power-hungry, arrogant, insensitive, and pathetic individual in the course of your service of the American people. When both the courts and Congress refuse to – or work at a snail’s pace to – leash an out-of-control agency such as the TSA, this is all that we, the people, have left. On the flip side, with the release of video, members of the public who make accusations of mistreatment when they were in fact to blame for an incident will lose their power to malign the agency and its employees.

Defendant TSA is absolutely correct that when the Court releases the full video to Plaintiff, he will publish this video for the world to see. However, if TSA and its employees have done nothing wrong, they should be proud to have that video published, demonstrating their faithful service and that Plaintiff is simply a “troublemaker.” The truth of the matter is that the TSA does not want disclosure of the videos in this case and many others because it knows that while it can argue the legality of its actions in court, it cannot justify its actions to the citizens.

The most awesome part of writing this brief was that the Department of Justice actually did all the research for me. As I was researching case law, I came across the Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act, which was written (surprisingly) from an entirely neutral perspective and thoroughly analyzes, with case citations, privacy exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act. Lo and behold, the DoJ opines that “civilian federal employees who are not involved in law enforcement generally have no expectation of privacy regarding their names, titles, grades, salaries, and duty stations as employees…” I couldn’t have said it better myself!

If you want to see what the paperwork looks like when you say “no” to the TSA, check the end of the TSA’s motion (below).

Corbett v. TSA – Motion for Summary Judgment (Broward) (.pdf)
Corbett v. TSA – Motion for Summary Judgment (TSA) (.pdf) (3 MB)
Corbett v. TSA – Motion for Summary Judgment (Corbett) + Opposition to Defendants’ Motions (.pdf)

7

Broward County Wastes Tax Dollars Delaying Inevitable Appeal

A couple months ago, U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard dismissed much of my lawsuit from when I was detained in FLL airport for refusing to let the TSA “touch my junk.” Two of the 21 claims my lawsuit were allowed proceed, and I’d like to appeal the 19 dismissed counts immediately. In order to do that in federal court, I need to have the judge essentialy sign off that those 19 counts are “done.” You might think that it would be obvious that they’re done since they’ve been dismissed, but since the entire lawsuit wasn’t dismissed, that “Rule 54(b) certification” is required.

The TSA, surprisingly, had no opposition to this, since as a party who is experienced in being sued, they understand that my appeal is as of right and will happen sooner or later. Broward County and its sheriff, however, wrote to the court to ask that she not certify that judgment is final on those counts, despite the fact that the appeal will happen eventually (after the 2 remaining counts are settled) even if the judge refuses to certify. I have no idea why they want to delay, since as a pro se litigant I have all the time in the world. The reply of the sheriff, however, was particularly hilarious: he spent more than a full page whining about how I travel around suing everyone and therefore the judge shouldn’t certify. Obviously, this is entirely irrelevant and untrue: I’ve gone after the TSA in one district ever.

So, I made this little infographic to help the court to parse the sheriff’s reply:

nowhining

It sucks that tax dollars are being wasted on this futile motion, especially in light of the fact that I have offered to settle for changes to policy instead of money — an offer that was declined.

5

Press Release: TSA to Remove All Rapiscan Nude Body Scanners

January 18th, 2013 (Miami Beach, Fla.) – As a result of the public outcry regarding the invasiveness of the TSA’s nude body scanner program, Congress has required the TSA to remove all scanners that produce an image of a traveler’s unclothed body for inspection by a TSA screener. The TSA today has indicated that it will comply by June of this year, resulting in the removal of all Rapiscan x-ray devices from airports across the country.

The Rapiscan x-ray scanners represented perhaps the TSA’s most egregious violation of the public, as in addition to the creation of a detailed image of the intimate areas of the body, it doses the traveler with ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen. It was estimated that these devices may kill several travelers per year by damaging the DNA of body tissues and turning healthy cells into cancerous cells.

Our fight against TSA abuse is unfortunately not over. The remaining nude body scanners, built by L-3 Communications (the same company that tortured the prisoners of Abu Ghraib), still require Americans to submit to an inspection of every inch of their body, completed by a computer rather than a person. While the TSA’s Congressional mandate and constitutional boundaries require it to search solely for items that can be used to terrorize air travelers, it is clear that the L-3 nude body scanners far exceed the scope necessary to find weapons, and instead are used to further the government’s failed war on drugs at the expense of our liberties. It has also been made abundantly clear that anyone in possession of entry-level sewing skills could easily defeat this technology, leaving our skies at risk. Furthermore, the continual false-positives — estimated to be at a rate between 30% and 70%– result in “pat-downs” that have infamously left children in tears, parents in jail for daring to object, the elderly humiliated, and everyone in between wondering how we got to the point where the government quite literally has its hands in our pants.

Removal of the Rapiscan devices is a step in the right direction, and we look forward to the eventual removal of all body scanners and the elimination of the “pat-down” program that places government hands on the genitals of our families.

15

The TSA Likes It Both Ways

If you’ve been following for a while, you know that my first filing for court review of the TSA’s nude body scanner and genital molestation program was booted for being filed “in the wrong court” (if by “wrong” they mean “in the court that would give me the best opportunity to challenge the TSA’s unconstitutional behavior”). In order to convince the courts to dismiss my case and the several others like it, it had to assure the courts that the other court — the US Court of Appeals — actually would have jurisdiction. This was a problem, since filing in that court has a statutory time limit of 60 days absent “reasonable grounds” for delay.

So, when another plaintiff, who filed virtually the exact same complaint as I did (in large part word-for-word ;)) pointed this out to the judge in their case, the government argued that the “reasonable grounds” clause would clearly cover such a case, and the court need not worry about it:

assholery1

Months later, here we are in that Court of Appeals that the TSA insisted on. And, of course, now the TSA argues that reasonable grounds don’t actually apply:

assholery2

Just another fine example of the Department of Justice’s “Win At All Costs, Fuck Justice” attitude. Luckily, courts are not keen on hypocrites and arguing one thing in front of one court and the opposite in another is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. …in theory, at least. Ruling in favor of the TSA here would mean that “scope & grope” would never be able to be reviewed by any court, ever, which is equivalent to placing the Constitution in the fireplace. Let’s see how the court handles this one!

8

I Made It Into The TSA Dictionary!

A “rogue TSA screener” put up a new blog called Taking Sense Away (TSA ;)) that goes through much of the absurdity at the TSA, and includes a lot of feedback from other screeners and passengers. One post on his blog is The Insider’s TSA Dictionary, a guide to the unofficial lexicon of the TSA. One of his entries:

Corbetted (to Corbett): A term connoting a David like figure single-handedly exposing ridiculous vulnerabilities of a Goliath-like billion dollar technology. Ex: “The TSA announced they were going to start random house screenings after the house bomber plot last month. But some guy proved that all you had to do to foil the screening is close your curtains. Totally Corbetted their ass.”

Love it! 🙂

Hat tip: Ava Wilde

7

TSA to Court: Actually Don’t Bother with Facts, Just Grant Us Permanent Immunity

In Monday’s post about the TSA asking the court to hear only its own version of the facts, the TSA had reached a new low. It appears they’ve continued to dig. Yesterday’s filing asks the court not to hear my challenge — or anyone’s challenge — regarding the nude body scanners and “pat-downs” — ever!

The basis of this request is that there is a law that says challenges to TSA orders have to be made within 60 days unless “reasonable grounds” are shown. So even though my original challenge *was* filed within 60 days (November 16th, 2010!), because I was forced to re-file in a different court (clearly not a “reasonable ground,” right?), the TSA would like the clock reset and the case thrown out. Naturally, this would mean that no one can challenge the order at this time or at any time in the future, in any court, ever.

In light of the fact that a constitutional injury continues every day that the order remains in place, this is blatantly unconstitutional. And stupid. The requests from the TSA continue to get crazier and crazier, perhaps because judges keep granting them. I seriously hope they’ve crossed a line that even a federal judge can see.

Corbett v. DHS – Jurisdictional Q Govt Reply (.pdf)

7

TSA to Court: Only Hear Our Version of the “Facts!”

Our fight against the nude body scanners has been going on for over 2 years now. In that time span, the merits of the case have never seen the light of day while 1.5 billion travelers have been subject to the hands of the TSA (quite literally). The U.S. Department of Justice, instead of working in the interest of justice, has instead spent the entirety of the time attempting to disenfranchise anyone who has sought court review and ensuring that review of TSA procedures is delayed and marginalized. They’ve challenged standing (whether or not the TSA affects me enough that I’m entitled to review), they’ve challenged jurisdiction (which court I can go in and when I can file), and here and there, they’ve compared me to a terrorist. Nice, right?

But last week’s filing by the government is the most blatant slap to the face the Fifth Amendment has yet received in those 2+ years: the TSA has asked the Court to decide my lawsuit to end the scans and groping solely by reviewing their “administrative record” — which of course contains only the “facts” as the government presents them. They’ve essentially asked the court to bar discovery, experts, witnesses, and any other source of facts, because the TSA knows it all, and will fairly present all the facts to the court.

I truly wonder what kind of person writes these government briefs. Who goes to law school to study the incredible history of American jurisprudence, including and especially the Constitution, to end up in a career where they fight to take away the rights of the citizens?

Corbett v. DHS – Motion to Transfer (.pdf) (My brief)
Corbett v. DHS – Motion to Transfer Opposition (.pdf) (TSA’s brief)

7

New Petition + TSA Removes 91 Body Scanners

It’s been a crazy 2 years. I never really imagined myself as a civil rights advocate, but on November 16th, 2010, I found myself sitting in a South Beach bar unable to enjoy my evening because I was so disturbed by what had just occurred in our airports. I sat there thinking long and hard about how unbelievable it was that our government was now asking to photograph us naked if we wanted to enter an airport, and I eventually came to this poetic conclusion: “Fuck this shit!” I left my mostly-full drink on the bar and returned to my office at about 2 AM, and didn’t stop writing until the sun was brightly shining through my window. I made the 7 mile trek to the courthouse with my new documents on rollerblades across the Venetian Causeway, which is beautiful on a sunny day, in about 25 minutes. The friendly U.S. Marshalls for sure still know me as “the guy with the rollerblades.”

I’ve since had some crazy experiences (Getting kicked out of airports? Presenting my work to Congress? Seeing my name on Drudge Report?) and met some amazing people, who have encouraged and supported me to this 2 year anniversary. Our fight moves slowly, but I’m ready to keep going, thanks to you all!

Today, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the Department of Homeland Security, will be opening packages with a brand new petition asking for judicial review of the TSA’s nude body scanner and genital inspection programs. This petition is the first to be filed in a Court of Appeals that squarely addresses the constitutionality of the body scanners, and will seek an immediate stay of the order. I’m excited that the merits of my case may finally be addressed! Documents are linked below.

Also, great news: the TSA has removed 91 scanners from active use, put into a notorous graveyard for expensive taxpayer-funded gadgets that the TSA refers to as a “storage room” in Texas. This storage room is the same place where the “puffer machines” of 2006 rotted until they were thrown out. My prediction is that these machines will never scan another person. It’s a great step forward!

Corbett v. DHS – Petition (.pdf)
Corbett v. DHS – Motion to Transfer (.pdf)
Corbett v. DHS – Motion to Stay (.pdf)

39

No Power But Petition Presses Onward

Just a quick note that electricity in lower Manhattan or not, the first draft of my new petition documents is completed. I’m going to spend the next couple of weeks adding sources and discussing with useful and interested parties, with a filing date of November 16th, 2012, which happens to be the 2-year anniversary of my first complaint and the very beginning of this blog!

Hard to believe it’s been 2 years!

15

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑