Lawsuit Inga Bernstein, Monica Shah, and Naomi Shatz challenge TSA’s pat-down procedures in First Circuit

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Fisher1949, Aug 17, 2013.

  1. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    This has been under the radar. After an admittedly brief search, this doesn't appear to be a trivial law firm. I wish them luck and applaud their effort, whether successful or not.


    Full filing available here:
    Ruskai v. Pistole, Petitioner’s Brief
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  2. RB

    RB Founding Member

    TSA's response, more strip search machines.
     
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Just started looking at the full brief (109 pages total), and this stood out:

    The Absence of Enhanced Pat-Downs at Foreign Preclearance
    Airports Shows that Pat-Downs Are Not Necessary to Achieve
    the Government’s Security Objectives and are Therefore
    Unreasonable

    Dynamite observation -- at foreign pre-clearance airports passengers are inspected & cleared to enter the U.S. airport system, transferring to other flights in U.S. airports with no further security measures other than the occasional gate rape when they have too many perverts on duty with nothing useful to do.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  4. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    May TSA be required to respond to the disability and other issues before the court:
    Ruskai is a very dissatisfied Pre-Check customer.
     
  5. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I can understand her dissatisfaction.

    For anyone who has been assaulted by one of TSA's Enhanced Gropes, pat down is non-descriptive of what TSA does, it is understandable.
     
  6. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Does this have the potential of becoming a class action suit on behalf of all disabled individuals?

    ETA. I guess it's too late for the above as Pistole/TSA have apparently already responded.

    Why is a brief the first document to be filed rather than a complaint?

    Clear up some things for me: why does it seem as if the TSA made this entire document SSI? Why are a couple of sentences regarding types of explosive redacted? Cannot the petitioner release the document without redaction or did the TSA release the document?

    What do the "AR" references refer to? For example, the first large redaction is related to "AR-3376-77." What is AR 3376-77 (or did I miss something someplace?)

    There seem to be some excellent arguments. I especially like the argument that passengers who traverse the WTMD without alarm are, for the most part, allow to go on their way unmolested while those who alarm each and every time are molested each and every time.

    I do wish the attorneys would have used the word/phrase "genitals" or "genital area" more often.
     
  7. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Still not finished reading, but it seems to me as if all the verbiage regarding SSI has been crossed out, then there is no need to also redact certain verbiage.

    This law firm needs its own Edward Snowden to release those redactions to us.
     

Share This Page