TSA Screeners Not Law Enforcement Under Tort Law, Circuit Rules
The court affirmed dismissal of Nadine Pellegrino's claims over a security search gone awry at the Philadelphia International Airport.
July 12, 2018 at 11:31 AM
4 minute read
Transportation Security Administration screeners are not investigative or law enforcement officers under the Tort Claims Act and thus claims related to their conduct are barred by sovereign immunity, the Third Circuit has ruled in a precedential opinion. In the July 11 decision in Pellegrino v. TSA , the court noted that the screeners' status was a question of first impression. The court affirmed a U.S. district court ruling in favor of the TSA, which dismissed pro se appellant Nadine Pellegrino's claims over a security search gone awry at the Philadelphia International Airport. Judge Cheryl Ann Krause of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said in her opinion that the court had foreshadowed its decision in an earlier case, Vanderklok v. United States, where the court evaluated whether TSA screeners are law enforcement officers for purposes of a Bivens claim under the Fourth Amendment. But in Pellegrino, Krause said, the court took up the same issue in connection with the Tort Claims Act. “Based on the proviso's text, structure, context, purpose, and history, as well as the relevant case law, we are persuaded that the phrase 'investigative or law enforcement officers' is limited in scope and refers only to officers with criminal law enforcement powers,” Krause wrote. “Because TSOs only conduct administrative searches and do not have such powers, they are not subject to the law enforcement proviso, and the government's sovereign immunity bars this action.” According to Krause's opinion, the incident took place in 2006, when Pellegrino and her husband were planning to catch a flight to Florida from the Philadelphia airport. When a TSA screener began searching her bags, Pellegrino asked for a private search, the opinion said. TSA screener Nuyriah Abdul-Malik did the private search, which Pellegrino has alleged was “unnecessarily rough and invasive,” and caused damage to some of her belongings. The interaction deteriorated, the opinion said, and when Pellegrino left the room, she allegedly struck Abdul-Malik with a bag. The TSA screener pressed charges, and Pellegrino was charged with felony aggravated assault, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment, simple assault and making terroristic threats, the court noted. At Pellegrino's trial, however, Abdul-Malik, no longer a TSA employee, did not appear. So Pellegrino was found not guilty. After the trial, in 2008, Pellegrino submitted a claim for $951,000 in damages to the TSA, which was denied. Then in 2009, she brought a civil rights action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The district court ruled in the government's favor on all claims, except one property damage claim, which the parties settled. In evaluating whether TSA screeners are investigative or law enforcement officers, Krause noted that district courts have come to different conclusions on the issue. But no circuit court has decided the question precedentially. Judge Thomas Ambro wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he said the majority's reasoning was not in line with what Congress intended in the Tort Claims Act. “They equate airport screenings with routine administrative inspections, even though the former involve rigorous and thorough searches that often extend to an individual's physical person,” Ambro wrote. “Their opinion leaves several plaintiffs without a remedy, even if a TSO assaults them, wrongfully detains them, or fabricates criminal charges against them.” Called for comment, Pellegrino said, “The facts that are stated [in the opinion] are not the facts that are stated in our pleadings and our complaint.” In a statement, U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain said he is pleased with the decision. “Through the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress sought carefully to balance the federal government's sovereign immunity and duty to protect taxpayer dollars against the need to provide a remedy for plaintiffs in certain cases,” McSwain said. “The court rightly concluded that Congress did not provide for suits against the government for the acts of federal employees, including Transportation Security Administration Officers, who are not empowered by law with traditional law enforcement responsibilities.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250