New Jersey get one right. Takes on TSA.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Airports are public, governmental facilities, air travel is facilitated by the use of public air traffic control, and safe air travel is a compelling interest of the federal government.

You couldn't be more wrong.

You realize that if you have a private aircraft, you can fly it from anywhere to anywhere without ever contacting anyone, right? You don't have to file a flightplan, you don't have to make contact with the various towers you fly by, and you don't have to make contact with any other pilots. You don't have to tell anyone where you're going. You can simply get in your plane and go.

Aside from that, airports are NOT government facilities. They are owned by organizations (or municipalities).

That's another reason this whole thing is ludicrous. I could rent a Cessna for the day, fly it to Las Vegas airport, land, taxi to one of the private terminals where there are no screenings or checks of any kind for less than $50, load 500 lbs of C4 onto the plane, take off again and crash straight in to the Bellagio without anyone ever knowing my intentions or what I had in my plane.

The government does not regulate the skies. It's a nice illusion they've pulled over your eyes, but it is only an illusion.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,405
8,580
126
And, how is a strip search or "enhanced pat down" NOT an unreasonable and warrantless search?

the court decided a few decades ago that warrants were applicable when there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. if they tell you up front 'buy an airline ticket and we're going to put you in a dick measuring device' then you can't reasonably have an expectation of privacy.

problem with the reasonable expectation of privacy standard is that it is easy to make expecting privacy unreasonable, thereby increasing the number of warrantless searches that easily meet the standard.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Here is why I think the whole terrorist at airports thing is overblown.
People die from car accidents at the rate of one person every 13 minutes. In one year over 3000 people die driving between the hours of 3am and 6am . If the need to preserve life is so great shouldn't we restrict driving hours ? Doing that could save a lot of lives, it is a proven in the statistics , so why not ?

Inconvenience an entire population from doing something on the basis that out of over 300 million people , 3000 of them might die in those hours ?

At some point you have to use common sense and realize that the cure is worse than the disease.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
You couldn't be more wrong.

You realize that if you have a private aircraft, you can fly it from anywhere to anywhere without ever contacting anyone, right? You don't have to file a flightplan, you don't have to make contact with the various towers you fly by, and you don't have to make contact with any other pilots. You don't have to tell anyone where you're going. You can simply get in your plane and go.


I don't think people realize how many small airports exist. There is one about 15 miles from my home big enough for a corporate jet but not commercial airlines where local pilots take off every single day without any inspections. They only have about 5 people that work at the airport and I know for a fact they don't search every plane that takes off.

Pic of the airport
air3.jpg




When I see a terrorist plot fail I have to wonder how incompetent the terrorists are. I can think of a million ways to do what they want and not be detected and none of them involve airlines.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,148
55,677
136
You couldn't be more wrong.

You realize that if you have a private aircraft, you can fly it from anywhere to anywhere without ever contacting anyone, right? You don't have to file a flightplan, you don't have to make contact with the various towers you fly by, and you don't have to make contact with any other pilots. You don't have to tell anyone where you're going. You can simply get in your plane and go.

Aside from that, airports are NOT government facilities. They are owned by organizations (or municipalities).

That's another reason this whole thing is ludicrous. I could rent a Cessna for the day, fly it to Las Vegas airport, land, taxi to one of the private terminals where there are no screenings or checks of any kind for less than $50, load 500 lbs of C4 onto the plane, take off again and crash straight in to the Bellagio without anyone ever knowing my intentions or what I had in my plane.

The government does not regulate the skies. It's a nice illusion they've pulled over your eyes, but it is only an illusion.

Uhmm, right. We aren't talking about those aircraft, and you don't have to go through security screening for those either. The government regulates commercial air travel, which is what this whole thread is about.

As for commercial airports, ownership by a municipality is government ownership, just so you know. Any commercial airport that is privately owned is also subject to the same regulations as government owned airports, and they are considered public facilities.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Flying is not a constitutional right. You still have the right to refuse the scanner and the search, but you will be driving a car or riding ina bus / train.

If the TSA breaks state laws then why should the local police not arrest them? Does TSA somehow get an exemption from all state and local laws (as well as some federal)?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,479
19,989
146
Actually freedom of movement is a constitutional right. There's no way they could scan you while walking around, but freedom of movement by airplane is not one. This is why your 4th amendment right against unreasonable search doesn't apply. The slippery slope argument is usually a pretty bad one.

Once again as others have mentioned, it's simply amazing to me that many of the same people who have no problem with warrantless wiretapping, with abuse of national security letters, with endless violations of privacy by the government, have found a bridge too far here. I think it says something about America, and what it says is really sad.

On the bolded part of this, ES, we can agree, but you see, I have a problem with ALL of those.

It is very sad the rights and freedoms people seem to gladly give up in the name of safety and/or security.

And this whole topic is proof that the slippery slope exists when it comes to rights and freedoms. There is no doubt and it is almost ALWAYS a valid argument. With each new generation, our 4th Amendment rights are erroded further. Be it espionoge, the war on drugs, the war on terror or whatever new "crisis" we face, the one sure outcome is another errosion of our rights and freedoms. Slippery slope confirmed.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Uhmm, right. We aren't talking about those aircraft, and you don't have to go through security screening for those either. The government regulates commercial air travel, which is what this whole thread is about.

As for commercial airports, ownership by a municipality is government ownership, just so you know. Any commercial airport that is privately owned is also subject to the same regulations as government owned airports, and they are considered public facilities.

That's precisely my point. Commercial airlines are about as ineffective as it gets from a terrorist's point of view if his goal is to cause destruction and death.

Now, if he wants to fuck with our way of life, well, then his goal has succeeded and we've already "lost".

The point is that these "precautions" serve no actual purpose, because there are far better and more efficient ways for terrorists to blow things up that don't involve commercial air travel. Singling out commercial air travel because it happened ONCE 10 years ago is just plain stupid when it's quite possible for people to use those same airports in a completely unregulated manner to accomplish the same thing without the risk of being discovered.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,148
55,677
136
On the bolded part of this, ES, we can agree, but you see, I have a problem with ALL of those.

It is very sad the rights and freedoms people seem to gladly give up in the name of safety and/or security.

And this whole topic is proof that the slippery slope exists when it comes to rights and freedoms. There is no doubt and it is almost ALWAYS a valid argument. With each new generation, our 4th Amendment rights are erroded further. Be it espionoge, the war on drugs, the war on terror or whatever new "crisis" we face, the one sure outcome is another errosion of our rights and freedoms. Slippery slope confirmed.

Well then for once we will agree!

As for the slippery slope argument, it's not that our freedoms can't continue to erode, it's just that I find it to be a poor argument. If you want to oppose policy A, then tell me why A is bad, don't tell me that you oppose A because you extrapolate B will happen. Sure it is true in some cases, but I think there are much better arguments to be made.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
the court decided a few decades ago that warrants were applicable when there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. if they tell you up front 'buy an airline ticket and we're going to put you in a dick measuring device' then you can't reasonably have an expectation of privacy.

problem with the reasonable expectation of privacy standard is that it is easy to make expecting privacy unreasonable, thereby increasing the number of warrantless searches that easily meet the standard.

Serious question: Since the airlines have no control over the TSA, why would that apply when the airline can not with certainty tell you what sort of security measures you will be subjected to? I have never in my life done business with the TSA so why would the above apply?

Can I, as a vendor, sell you a product that gives a 3rd party the right to feel you up? Can I even enter into a contract that states I have the right to play with the other parties tits at my discretion? Will a judge really force some hot chick to let me motorboat her titties?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,148
55,677
136
That's precisely my point. Commercial airlines are about as ineffective as it gets from a terrorist's point of view if his goal is to cause destruction and death.

Now, if he wants to fuck with our way of life, well, then his goal has succeeded and we've already "lost".

The point is that these "precautions" serve no actual purpose, because there are far better and more efficient ways for terrorists to blow things up that don't involve commercial air travel. Singling out commercial air travel because it happened ONCE 10 years ago is just plain stupid when it's quite possible for people to use those same airports in a completely unregulated manner to accomplish the same thing without the risk of being discovered.

As I said before, I agree that these regulations are stupid.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Actually freedom of movement is a constitutional right. There's no way they could scan you while walking around, but freedom of movement by airplane is not one. This is why your 4th amendment right against unreasonable search doesn't apply. The slippery slope argument is usually a pretty bad one.

Once again as others have mentioned, it's simply amazing to me that many of the same people who have no problem with warrantless wiretapping, with abuse of national security letters, with endless violations of privacy by the government, have found a bridge too far here. I think it says something about America, and what it says is really sad.

I completely agree with your 2nd paragraph. As to the first, where can I find the list of which methods of travel are "rights" and which ones are not? The freedom of movement is much of a freedom if just about every way you can achieve movement in todays world is restricted or requires you to give up other rights in order to exercise that freedom.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,148
55,677
136
I completely agree with your 2nd paragraph. As to the first, where can I find the list of which methods of travel are "rights" and which ones are not? The freedom of movement is much of a freedom if just about every way you can achieve movement in todays world is restricted or requires you to give up other rights in order to exercise that freedom.

You probably can't find that list. What I can say is that the courts have recognized the governments right to regulate commercial air travel and travel by automobile, so those two are definitely off the list.

Travel by Segway!
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,405
8,580
126
Serious question: Since the airlines have no control over the TSA, why would that apply when the airline can not with certainty tell you what sort of security measures you will be subjected to? I have never in my life done business with the TSA so why would the above apply?
it really doesn't have anything to do with doing business with someone. it has to do with you voluntarily going somewhere that you're well aware you're going to get screened. as long as the .gov tells you up front that they're going to search you if you go to a certain area, then you have no expectation of privacy. this is very similar to drunk driving checkpoints. the .gov can tell you that if you take exit 93 you're going to be in a drunk driving checkpoint. if you take exit 93 then they can stop you and check you. the only real restriction is that there must be some policy that has to be followed (randomization, basically), and (in texas at least) the warning that you're going into the area has to be sufficiently far in advance to give you the option of not going.
Can I, as a vendor, sell you a product that gives a 3rd party the right to feel you up? Can I even enter into a contract that states I have the right to play with the other parties tits at my discretion? Will a judge really force some hot chick to let me motorboat her titties?
you don't have police powers so no. and i think that contract would be prostitution. as for enforcement, you'd probably only be able to get your money back. judges frown on specific enforcement.
 
Last edited:

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Do people get all bent out of shape when they buy a concert ticket and find out that they are going to be subject to a frisking at the entrance but weren't told about it at the time of purchase?
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
600
126
Do people get all bent out of shape when they buy a concert ticket and find out that they are going to be subject to a frisking at the entrance but weren't told about it at the time of purchase?

I don't recall having security go down my pants and stroke my junk.

One remembers those sorts of things. . .
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
it has to do with you voluntarily going somewhere that you're well aware you're going to get screened.

No, it has to do with the screens being unreasonable and unwarranted.

Xraying bags for contraband is one thing. Walking through a metal detector is one thing. Being wanded is one thing.

Being virtually stripsearched and molested is an entirely different thing altogether.

No one is saying that the government should remove ALL screening. The complaint is that the government's new form of screening is unreasonable and unwarranted.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Do people get all bent out of shape when they buy a concert ticket and find out that they are going to be subject to a frisking at the entrance but weren't told about it at the time of purchase?

I have been to a lot of football games and concerts and not once has security "touched my junk", what kind of weird music are you into?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
it really doesn't have anything to do with doing business with someone. it has to do with you voluntarily going somewhere that you're well aware you're going to get screened. as long as the .gov tells you up front that they're going to search you if you go to a certain area, then you have no expectation of privacy. this is very similar to drunk driving checkpoints. the .gov can tell you that if you take exit 93 you're going to be in a drunk driving checkpoint. if you take exit 93 then they can stop you and check you. the only real restriction is that there must be some policy that has to be followed (randomization, basically), and (in texas at least) the warning that you're going into the area has to be sufficiently far in advance to give you the option of not going.

I don't believe those checkpoints are constitutional either but thats an entirely different topic.

Can we extend that further though, at those checkpoints can the police legally perform a custody search on you simply for showing up (no probable cause, suspicion, etc...).

you don't have police powers so no. and i think that contract would be prostitution. as for enforcement, you'd probably only be able to get your money back. judges frown on specific enforcement.

I don't believe the TSA have police powers either but I could be wrong.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
I don't believe the TSA have police powers either but I could be wrong.

Good question, actually - I poked around a bit and found the following summary at a local lawyer's website. It's dated 2003:

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/tsaavsec.html

NOTE: The issues discussed in this article do not constitute legal advice. The objective is to alert you to some common issues so that you can avoid or minimize legal trouble. Anyone with an aviation law problem should be guided by the advice of his or her lawyer, under applicable federal and state laws, after a full and confidential disclosure of all relevant facts.



Pilots in the United States have traditionally enjoyed freedom of operation unmatched in most developed countries. The FAA although strict on safety issues, has always tried to promote air commerce. While some pilots grumble about the FAA’s heavy regulatory hand, the U.S. has been a great place to own and fly aircraft. On September 11th, the terrorists changed that by attacking the United States through the aviation industry. As a result, The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been given unparalleled powers to protect air transportation.





TSA has Extensive Power to Bring Enforcement Actions for Aviation Security Violations




The TSA issued its first Investigative and Enforcement Procedures on August 8, 2002. TSA promulgated enforcement rules as “interim final rules” without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act. In this context, the word “interim” doesn’t tell the whole story - it means that these rules are in force until the TSA issues new rules. The TSA temporarily copied the FAA Civil Penalty Rules but made some modifications consisting with the TSA’s new authority and concerns for secrecy. The old FAA procedures are familiar and were developed under the Administrative Procedure Act; thus, they should provide a modicum of due process. But, what about the new TSA rules? Consider that the TSA has new broad powers, TSA announced that it is not bound by the Administrative Procedure Act in conducting enforcement proceedings. TSA has new procedures for limiting access to secret information used in enforcement proceedings. Will the new rules be applied fairly?



One of the first examples of a new rule is the TSA/FAA Airman Security Rule. FAA docket number 2003-14293; amendment nos. 61-108,63-32,65-44. The Security Rule that allows the TSA to deem an airman a security threat and cause the FAA to remove his eligibility to hold his certificate without a hearing and without seeing the evidence against him unless the TSA decides to show it to him.



The TSA Will Decide its Own Measure of Due Process


The TSA has announced that it will conduct its enforcement procedures consistent with the broad authority granted by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (“ATSA”) (Public Law 107-71, amending 49 U.S. Code Chapters 401-501). In the Preamble to the new enforcement rules, The TSA made clear that “TSA’s enforcement proceedings are not required to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).” [EMPHASIS ADDED].



The TSA may actually issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in the future, in order to preview changes to these interim rules. However, the power of the TSA and their freedom from administrative procedural constraints, should raise concerns over whether post 9/11 due process will be significantly different in aviation security matters.



Brief Summary of TSA’s Aviation Investigative and Enforcement Procedures.



Any person who suspects a violation of the Aviation Security laws, regulations or orders, may report it to TSA. The TSA will investigate the matter and determine if the alleged violation requires action. The TSA can use subpoenas, take depositions and compel the production of documents as part of their investigation.



Any person may file a formal written complaint with the TSA. The Complaint goes into the TSA’s enforcement docket. The alleged violator will have twenty (20) days to respond to the formal written complaint. If the Under Secretary for the Security Transportation Administration, decides that sufficient grounds exist, a notice of proposed order regarding civil penalty may be issued or other enforcement action may be taken. Of course, the TSA may initiate an investigation for suspected violations of aviation security laws.





If TSA determines that legal enforcement is not necessary, an administrative action in the form of a warning notice or letter of correction may be issued to address the infraction. The violator will have no opportunity for a hearing or appeal of an administrative action, nor willit be considered a legal sanction. If a legal enforcement action is brought against an alleged violator, the respondent will have a right either directly or through his authorized representative, to obtain a copy of the enforcement Investigative Report prepared in his case released to him. It appears from the new interim regulations of the TSA that the respondent will have access to the sensitive security information (“SSI”) which has been collected by the TSA but only in confidence and only to prepare its defense. 49 CFR §1520.3.



A civil penalty action will be initiated when the respondent is sent a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. The Notice will include the violations and the amount of the proposed civil penalty. The respondent has thirty (30) days to respond to the proposed notice of civil penalty. The respondent must : (1) pay the penalty, (2) submit a written explanation justifying or mitigating the alleged violation, (3) submit a written request to reduce the civil penalty, (4) request an informal conference, or (5) request a hearing.



If the matter is not resolved after the issuance of the proposed notice, and after sufficient time to respond or hold an informal conference, a Final Notice of Civil Penalty will issue. The recipient of a Final Notice of Civil Penalty must pay the penalty. Alternatively, the Respondent may request a hearing in 15 days from personal service or the date of the mailing of the final notice.



A written request for hearing must be filed with the enforcement docket clerk at the Transportation Security Administration. A hearing will be held before an administrative law judge of the Department of Transportation after sufficient time for discovery. If the respondent is not satisfied with the final order of the administrative law judge, he may appeal to the Administration’s “Decision maker” - the Under secretary of Transportation for the Transportation Security Administration. If the respondent is not satisfied with the TSA decision maker’s ruling on the appeal, the respondent may file a Petition for Review with the United States Court of Appeals.





The TSA Will Have Power to Penalize “Any Person.”


The new TSA Enforcement Procedures apply to “any person.” engaged in aviation-related activities. 49 CFR § 1540. TSA may bring an enforcement action against individuals, entities such as corporations and governmental authorities. Aircraft operators, pilots, flight attendants, airport visitors, and passengers on airplanes will be subject to the rules. Moreover, section 1540.113 of the new regulations requires that any aviation person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization or license issued by the FAA must present it upon demand from the TSA.



It is important to note that the enforcement procedures may be applied to any individuals, not just employees of aviation businesses. For example, under § 1540.109, any person who is suspected of interfering with, threatening or intimidating a screening person in the performance of their screening duties, may be penalized. The rule prohibits distracting a screener including even verbal abuse which has the effect of distracting or intimidating the screener. Thus, irate travelers and airport visitors and even airline pilots must be careful how they target their frustration.



TSA Will Limit Access to Sensitive Security Information (SSI)


TSA has issued regulations protecting the information it considers important in performing its security function. Information that may be kept secret will be known as Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”). TSA will maintain secrecy over SSI, in order to protect the safety or security of the traveling public. Section 1520.7 of the regulations, specifies types of information and records that may be classified as Sensitive Security Information. The Preamble to the new rule reveals an intent to broadly classify as sensitive, any information that could help someone determine how to defeat security systems. Further, § 1520.3 reveals that the scope of sensitive security information can include information developed for the conduct of security as well as research and develop activities under 49 U.S. Code § 40119. Thus, work schedules, the physical location of property and many otherwise routine matters may become secret.



TSA Has The Power to Seek Large Monetary Civil Penalties


The Under Secretary of Transportation for the Transportation Security Administration will have the power to propose substantial monetary civil penalties. Penalties can lie against individuals and those who operate aircraft for compensation and hire to punish violations of aviation security laws, regulations and orders. The amount of civil penalties that can be assessed is up to $1,000.00 per violation against individuals or entities and up to $10,000.00 per violation against operators of aircraft used for compensation or hire. 49 U.S. Code § 147(a); 46301(a)(4).

It is unclear whether the TSA will interpret each “violation” the same way the FAA has interpreted this language, such that the violation of one order or regulation that occurs repeatedly over several days, constitutes a separate violation, with a separate penalty adding up each day.



The TSA can forcibly impose penalties up to $50,000.00. Civil penalties greater than $50,000.00, may be sought by the TSA and collected by settlement under the authority of the Under Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. If TSA is not able to negotiate a compromise of a civil penalty in excess of $50,000.00, the enforcement action must be assigned to the United States Attorneys Office. The U.S. Attorney will have the power to seek civil penalties against any person for violation of Aviation Security Laws in the United States District Court, in any amount justified by the allegations. Further, if the violation is “knowing” criminal penalties may be sought.



In non criminal security violation cases, the United States Attorneys Office may besides civil penalties, seek injunctions against violators, file in rem actions against property, seize property and subject it to a lien. One advantage of having the U.S. Attorney’s office prosecuting an aviation security violation case, is that the Defendant is entitled to a jury trial in District Court. 49 USC §46305.



Will a Sufficient Record For Appeal Be Compiled if the Penalty is based on SSI?


Under the ATSA, the TSA is not required to provide administrative hearings on the record. Under the interim rules employing FAA enforcement procedures, the TSA will create a record; however, the contents of the record are open to substantial restriction under TSA interpretations. The TSA attorneys can even petition the administrative law judge to seal the record to preserve information that does not qualify as SSI. 49 CFR §1503.226 (a). It is not clear whether a full transcript of all testimony will be compiled. May Security personnel armed with SSI be open to cross examination on the record? May their testimony be redacted from the transcript? Will a record composed of all evidence used in the enforcement proceeding will be preserved and available for review on appeal? If not then, the entire process is subject to abuse.



The Respondent and His Attorney Will Have Access to The EIR


A respondent’s access to the Enforcement Investigative Report is preserved in the new regulations; however, such access will be subject to the limitations imposed by the agency attorneys who are handling the case. Thus, if the agency attorneys assert work product protection, Attorney Client Privilege or Deliberative Process Privilege process to the contents of the EnforcementInvestigative Record, such material may be withheld from disclosure to the Respondent. It is unclear at this time how agency attorneys will interpret the Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney Client privilege vis’ a vis’ sensitive exculpatory or mitigating evidence in the enforcement file. Will an in camera review procedure be available to verify an assertion of privilege?





Attorney Access to Enforcement Dockets, Meaningful Opinions and Enforcement Standards may be Restricted.


Attorneys representing Respondents in aviation security enforcement cases may have difficulty investigating the handling of other Respondents’ security violations and evaluating the comparability of penalties assessed. Attorneys will not have access to other dockets (besides their client’s docket) unless they seek access through the Freedom of Information Act. Any request made through the Freedom of Information Act will be subject to the many exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act. Exemptions include information deemed secret in the interests of national defense, Privacy Act records, inter agency memos, personnel and medical files, records compiled for law enforcement and documents revealing internal rules and practices. 5 USC § 552; See 49 CFR Part 7. Attorneys can try to persuade the Under Secretary that they have “a need to know” to gain access to enforcement dockets and SSI. 49 CFR §1503.230.



It is not clear whether decisions of DOT Administrative Law Judges or Under Secretary will be published in usable form. While the TSA may plan to post opinions , the evidentiary basis for the opinions is particularly useful to attorneys. The Judges may have to base their opinions on substantial secret SSI information which cannot be described in the opinions. Further sensitive testimony may have been taken under seal and not disclosed in the opinion.



The FAA used Compliance & Enforcement Handbook, FAA Order 2150.3A. The FAA Order set standards the FAA Enforcement attorneys were required to follow. Will TSA attorneys prepare such a handbook and make it available to attorneys representing Respondents?



The Public Will Not Have Access to Dockets or Enforcement Investigative Reports


The general public will not have access to any enforcement docket or Enforcement Investigative Report without submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the TSA. Any FOIA release of such information will be limited to information not covered by an exemption, a privilege asserted by the TSA enforcement lawyers, not covered by an ALJ’s seal. SSI will not be released without convincing the Under Secretary of a “need to know.”
 
Last edited: