In
a 9-4 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration
screeners were "investigative or law enforcement officers" for
purposes of searching passengers, waiving the government's usual
immunity from lawsuits.
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro said the "intimate physical nature"
of airport screenings brought them within the ambit of law
enforcement, allowing travelers to pursue some civil claims
under the Federal Tort Claims Act for intentional wrongdoing.
He downplayed concern that the decision would open the
floodgates to litigation, saying that in 2015 fewer than 200
people, out of more than 700 million screened, filed complaints
that might trigger the waiver.
"The overwhelming majority of [screeners] perform their jobs
professionally despite far more grumbling than appreciation," he
wrote. "Their professionalism is commensurate with the
seriousness of their role in keeping our skies safe."
Friday's decision reversed a July 2018 ruling by a three-judge
3rd Circuit panel.
It is a victory for Nadine Pellegrino, a business consultant
from Boca Raton, Florida, who with her husband sued for false
arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July
2006 incident at Philadelphia International Airport.
Pellegrino, then 57, had objected to the invasiveness of a
random screening prior to her scheduled boarding of a US Airways
flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was accused of striking
a TSA officer.
She was eventually jailed for about 18 hours and charged with
assault, making terroristic threats and other crimes, which she
denied. Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.
"If you think you are a victim of intentional misconduct by TSA
agents, you can now have your day in court," her lawyer Paul
Thompson said in an interview. "Nadine never gave up, and it is
a real tribute to her courage."
The Department of Justice, representing the TSA, did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause dissented from Friday's
decision, saying it exposed the government to "vast" potential
liability that Congress did not clearly intend.
She also said the majority split from other federal circuit
courts by failing to distinguish TSA screeners from FBI agents,
immigration agents, postal inspectors, customs officers and
others with traditional police powers.
"I am sympathetic to the concern that the current legal regime
provides no obvious remedy" to people like Pellegrino, but
expanding the immunity waiver "lies beyond our purview," she
wrote.
The case is Pellegrino et al v U.S. Transportation Security
Administration et al, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No.
15-3047.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Matthew
Lewis)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|