Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Arrest the TSA Perverts !!!!!!!!111!!!!

Or so I read around the blogs.

Lovely idea. Dropping fantasy for reality for a moment if I may.

I'm an actual State prosecutor. There is an actual airport in a nearby State. It is staffed with actual TSA screeners. They actually screen. I've seen a hundred or so pat downs here and maybe 400 elsewhere while going through it myself.

Here's a link to the the actual State criminal code of sexual offenses in that State.

In the actual world, which crime can I convince a jury of twelve, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that an actual screener commits when screening/patting down?

This is a serious question, I'd like to know what commenters here see as the crime GIVEN THE ACTUAL LAW, not fantasy law.


T said...

Hmm. I live in a different state, so I used the laws there.

The only applicable charge I can see is assault or aggravated assault, depending on if the TSA person is armed. Given that simple assault is a misdemeanor (I don't see the felony upgrades applying) I don't see how mass arrests would be worthwhile.

Frank W. James said...

Okay, I'll bite. I feel I've seen the crime (by the listed definitions) of "Sexual Battery".

Because; under paragraph (4) the sexual contact is accomplished by fraud.

The 'fraud' being this whole Homeland Security fiasco. We could go on and into greater depth, but you get the idea...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Jack'o'all Trades said...

copied reply from another blog...
Staghounds, to repeat BP, IANL, however, if the need is to have a charge to levy against offenders for this to work, (whether or not that actually sees a trial may be irrelevant) wouldn't "39-13-527. Sexual battery by an authority figure" fit the bill. The argument can be made that working for the TSA in the capacity of a screener is not forced. And that knowing that you would have to perform duties such as inappropriately touching the genital areas of minors and adults, one can easily conclude that some level of satisfaction or 'gratification' is obtained by terrorizing free people!

If the bad guys can twist the wording of statutes to get them off, the reverse must be allowed too!

Anonymous said...

If I recall correctly, the "don't touch my junk" guy was threatened with a $10,000 civil penalty if he did not agree to be patted down or scanned. This would seem to be sexual battery by means of extortion which is a form of coercion. See 39-13-505 d.

Barbara said...

Presumably you are giving your consent to what could be described as sexual battery. You have the alternative of going home and getting a refund on your ticket.

Geodkyt said...

The kickers are:

For any of the offences involving "sexual contact" (Sexual battery, etc.), the contact must be "unlawful" AND could reasonably be interpreted as for sexual arousal gratification. even for rape and associated crimes, the penetration must be "unlawful".

The TSA monkeys have statutory authority, so their conduct is not "unlawful".

However, I think a case can be made for at least simple assault . . . but I think a MUCH stronger case can be made for the defence in that situation. Because they are carrying out duties authorized under law.

Now, when they single out the Hooters waitress for "random" intensive search every time she comes through, that meets the definitions, since they aren't doing it in the lawful course of their duty, but for titilation.