TSA's New Groping and Fondling Policy

 

Man Ejected from Airport After Telling TSA Agent: “You Touch My Junk & I’m Going to Have You Arrested”

Johnny Tyner checked the TSA's website and learned that the San Diego airport had not yet implemented its porno-scanners, so he went down to catch his flight. When he arrived, he discovered that the TSA's website was out of date, and the naked scanners were in place. He opted out of showing his penis to the government, so they told him he'd have to submit to an intimate testicle fondling. He told the screener, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." After faffing around with various supervisors and supervisors' supervisors, he opted not to fly, collected a refund from the American Airlines counter, and started to leave the airport. But before he could go, the supervisor's supervisor's supervisor told him he wasn't allowed to leave the checkpoint once he entered it, that he was already in for up to $10,000 in fines, and that he would have to return and allow the man's minons to palpate his genitals before he'd be allowed to leave the airport. After he objected, he was left cooling his heels for a long time. Finally, he asked if he was under arrest, and being told that he wasn't, but that he would be sued for $10K if he tried to go, he said, "you bring that suit" and left. Most of the incident was recorded on his phone. 


Tyner turned his cell phone on to record the assault by the TSA agents at the airport. You can hear the discussion that proceeded his ejection. The TSA agent describes the groin check at 3:30 into video.

 

In case anyone cares about the constitutional issues involved here, the relevant case law is:

Terry v. Ohio (1968) (which is the primary governing precedent in cases involving people being detained and frisked)

United States v. Place (1983)

Florida v. Royer (1983)

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)

To briefly summarize the key points established in these cases:

Any time a law enforcement officer conducts a search and/or seizure, the Fourth Amendment applies. Any time an officer detains someone, giving them the impression that they're not free to leave, that counts as a "seizure" of that person. And any time an officer "pats down" someone looking for a weapon, that counts as a "search" of that person under the Fourth Amendment. Searches and seizures are permitted only when the officer has good reason to believe that the person being searched/seized has committed a crime, or else is carrying a dangerous weapon that might be used against the officer. Unless there is reasonable suspicion that the person being detained and/or searched is either armed and dangerous or has committed a crime, the search and seizure is not permitted under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may conduct a "pat down" of a suspect ONLY for the officer's own safety – i.e. to insure that the suspect doesn't have a weapon that may be used against the officer. There is no other justification for conducting a "pat down" without a warrant. (Terry)

The principles established in Terry apply to searches and seizures at the airport in an effort to find contraband. (Place, Royer, Montoya de Hernandez)

However, when someone is suspected of smuggling contraband into the United States from abroad, more latitude is given to the officers in detaining and searching that suspect; but there still has to be reasonable grounds for suspicion – a person can't simply be held and searched arbitrarily without at least some basis for suspecting that this person is a smuggler. (Montoya de Hernandez)

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the TSA's current security screening procedures; but it's hard to see how they could possibly uphold the constitutionality of such procedures without overturning the precedents established in Terry and subsequent search and seizure cases.

o