Denver TSA Groping Scheme Update: What You're Not Hearing From Mainstream Media
I gave a talk on Tuesday at Cal State Fullerton, and was only fleetingly online, so I kind of missed the news cycle, including the story of the Denver TSA groping scheme.
But terrific Chris Bray at TSA News Blog (which cross-posts my TSA blog items) has an update with his investigation to fill in the massive holes in reports by mainstream media:
The TSA has actively protected employees who were allegedly conspiring to commit frequent and serious acts of sexual assault. And the news reports about the event have left out more questions than they've answered, in part because no one appears to have bothered to get the police report -- which took me all of five minutes by email from my living room, a thousand miles from Denver.But before I describe the evidence, let me say this again: The TSA received a tip that some of its employees were sexually assaulting airline passengers in an airport checkpoint, and that the crime was routine and ongoing. And the TSA's response was to protect those employees.
...in November of 2014, the TSA was warned that two of its officers were currently, actively conspiring to commit sexual assault. But the TSA did not notify the police about that anonymous tip. The Denver Police Department is the agency that regularly polices Denver International Airport; the DIA Bureau is listed on this directory.
If the TSA had notified the police about the tip in November, the police could have been watching the checkpoint to observe the groping incident that was instead witnessed by a TSA employee. But the police didn't know about an allegation of active, current, ongoing sexual assault, because the TSA didn't tell them.
And so an act of sexual assault occurred right in front of a TSA investigator -- and the investigator let the victim walk away without approaching him and identifying him.
Then, in March 2015, the TSA informed the police of the allegation, and of the evidence of the event that a TSA investigator had personally witnessed more than a month before. But the TSA didn't notify the police until both employees had been fired -- in other words, until both participants in a scheme to commit sexual assault had been removed from the place in which they allegedly committed it.
It's as if someone called the fire department to report a pile of cold ashes. The TSA waited to call the police until the passengers were long gone, the TSA officers alleged to have committed the crime were long gone, and the crime witnessed by a TSA investigator was more than a month old.
Then Special Agent Charles Stone called the District Attorney's office, asked if charges would be filed in the absence of named victims, got the information that no named victims meant no charges . . . and then told the police detective assigned to the case that it wasn't possible to identify any victims.
...The TSA has had more than its share of embarrassments about employees being arrested for on- and off-duty crimes. In this instance, they received a serious allegation of ongoing sexual assault by TSA employees, and handled it in a way that kept the police from being able to investigate and which prevented prosecutors from filing charges. They protected a TSA agenet who committed a dozen acts of planned and deliberate sexual assault, and they protected the agent(s) who helped him. They let a crime victim walk away unidentified, and they called the police only when it was too late to matter.
Unforgivable.
So, Patrick – is this an "administrative" search also? Approved by the courts?
How do you tell the difference between this and a search of which you apparently approve?
I figured I would ask you because you have figured out how my six-year-old grandnephew has rights under the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments… you gotta know this one!
Radwaste at April 15, 2015 1:14 PM
An update: Victims have called the police.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27918438/two-possible-dia-groping-victims-contact-denver-police
Chris Bray at April 15, 2015 1:19 PM
So, Patrick – is this an "administrative" search also? Approved by the courts?
How do you tell the difference between this and a search of which you apparently approve?
No, it is not administrative, because it is sexual assault, just like if a policeman pulls you over for speeding and rhen he decides you are attractive, and he won't give you a ticket, If he can see your boobs.
Same thing as selecting people for pat downs so you can molest them.
Just out of curiosity Radwaste do you think it would be okie dokie if your local proctologist started sticking other things in your ass besides his finger? ... especially if he had an erection while he did it?
I mean, what is the diff really?
This is my home airport by the way, and I hope they prosecute these jerks. They don't need a victim. They have the assault on video.
Isab at April 15, 2015 1:29 PM
Abolish the damn TSA. They aren't security. They are government protected morons at best and sexual deviates at worst. There has to be a better way.
Jay at April 15, 2015 1:43 PM
My info suggests that it's not the best and brightest of DPD that get assigned to DIA, many may have been "sent down" for some reason. Could be this did come to their attention, but to handle a real case against members of a federal agency might have put them out of their depth.
bkmale at April 15, 2015 3:18 PM
> How do you tell the difference between this and a search of which you apparently approve?
Exactly.
> No, it is not administrative, because it is sexual assault, just like if a policeman pulls you over for speeding and rhen he decides you are attractive, and he won't give you a ticket, If he can see your boobs.
If it weren't that two people conspired in this, if it was just one person opportunistically groping people as part of her regular TSA searching, would any other TSA employee be able to tell groping was occurring and not just a "normal" administrative search?
If no outside observer can tell, then it seems ridiculous to claim an administrative search does not allow for sexual groping.
jerry at April 15, 2015 3:49 PM
If no outside observer can tell, then it seems ridiculous to claim an administrative search does not allow for sexual groping.
Posted by: jerry at April 15, 2015 3:49 PM
Oh, it does, just not the way the TSA went about it here.
The moment you elect not to go through the scanner, you open yourself up for this, as a condition of getting on the plane.
However, in this case, the TSA employees were deliberately manipulating the scanner data to provide an opportunity for sexual groping when there was nothing on the scanner that was suspicious.
This is pretextual
Isab at April 15, 2015 4:17 PM
The moment you elect not to go through the scanner, you open yourself up for this, as a condition of getting on the plane.
Do you though?
Sure if the AIRLINE required it, it wouldnt be a problem.
However in the case of the TSA its the GOVERNMENT DEMANDING the airline demand it.
Wouldnt this in essence make them agents of the state and subject to the same restrictions as the state?
lujlp at April 15, 2015 4:58 PM
if the AIRLINE required it, it wouldnt be a problem.
However in the case of the TSA its the GOVERNMENT DEMANDING the airline demand it.
Wouldnt this in essence make them agents of the state and subject to the same restrictions as the state?
Posted by: lujlp at April 15, 2015 4:58 PM
In a nutshell, no. None of your constitutional rights come into play because this is an administrative search.
If they wanted to, the government or the airlines could require it before you event set foot in the door of the airport, just like they do when you enter a federal court house.
Always your choice, not to go in, just as it is your choice not to fly.
Isab at April 15, 2015 6:07 PM
They must think they're the Catholic Church...
Tony K at April 15, 2015 6:21 PM
As I said before in this case, when it was shared in other places on Amy's blog, it isn't sufficient that these sickos were fired. They need to be prosecuted, convicted and spend the rest of their lives on the sex offender registry.
Isab, you already answered a question I was going to ask. I was wondering if they needed one of the victims to come forward in order to prosecute. If I understand you correctly, the answer to that is "no."
How about if one of the victims does come forward? Does he have grounds for a civil suit against the TSA? I imagine he would, since TSA employees assaulted him. (But as I understand it, there've been no complaints yet.)
As for administrative searches, they happen all the time and in other places. The other day, I went to visit the regional office of Veterans' Affairs. Yes, I got searched before I was allowed in. My bag was x-rayed, and I passed through a scanner. I wasn't patted down, but I might have been if the scanner detected some anomaly.
I have been subject to these searches every single time I've gone into that office. It's been that way for as I've been going there. My alternative, if I don't want to be searched, is to not go into the regional office. And arguably, I have more of a right to go into that office than you do to fly.
No, they don't have probable cause to suspect I'm doing anything wrong, like trying to smuggle a bomb into the regional office or something. They nonetheless have the right to search me.
And to the security guards at the regional office, I have this to say: thank you for keeping us safe. Disgruntled, frustrated vets have been known to do some crazy things, and I'm grateful that someone is at least trying to make sure none of those crazy things happens in the regional office while I'm there.
Patrick at April 15, 2015 6:34 PM
Silly Raddy is trying to paint me as someone who approves of everything the courts do. That isn't the case at all. There are court decisions I disagree with. For instance, Korematsu v. The United States. There are worse court decisions, of course, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford. But unlike Dred Scott, Korematsu has never been overturned.
It's not that I agree with everything that the courts do, but I do recognize that the courts have the last word on the subject of the interpretation of the law. Yes, court decisions, even those of SCOTUS can be reversed, but that generally takes a while and a huge upheaval to bring it about.
Dred Scott took a bloody civil war and three amendments to the Constitution to reverse it. Plessey v. Ferguson was reversed by Brown v. The Board of Education. And gee, that only took 58 years.
The President is urging the reversal of Citizens United. Can't think that's going to happen any time soon.
The point is, that when the courts have made their decision, for good or ill, it is, for all practical purposes, Game Over.
Could we eventually see our way clear to get rid of the TSA? Maybe. But if the cases I mentioned above are indicative of the general trend, that's going to a while and it's going to take an awful lot of work.
And for all his bluster about the evils of the TSA, I can't help but wonder what Silly Raddy's doing about it. Dollars to doughnuts says, "Absolutely nothing."
Patrick at April 15, 2015 6:53 PM
"There are court decisions I disagree with. For instance, Korematsu v. The United States. There are worse court decisions, of course, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford. But unlike Dred Scott, Korematsu has never been overturned."
The reason it hasn't been overturned is because it was correctly decided.
The Japanese lobby has painted this decision as something other than what it was, in order to divert attention from both the number of spies they had in the U.S. And their horrible record of war crimes.
Why don't you go back and read it so you can determine both what the question was, and what the decision was?
Isab at April 15, 2015 7:42 PM
Complaining about TSA misbehavior as misbehavior just lets them continue to frame the debate. They serve no purpose except to push us around, and we should miss no opportunity to demand the agency be abolished. Not reformed; abolished permanently.
jdgalt at April 15, 2015 8:49 PM
"And for all his bluster about the evils of the TSA, I can't help but wonder what Silly Raddy's doing about it. Dollars to doughnuts says, "Absolutely nothing.""
Nice of you to ask - and to try to make this about me. I suppose I should expect that. I wish an earlier discussion had begun with such a disclosure as you have made here...
Unlike yourself, I oppose the idea that rights require the permission of a governmental body. I do what I can to dispel idiocy about the regulatory environment. I recognize the limitations of government in maintaining order even as I correspond with my representatives. I also notice, as you apparently have not even though you have provided examples, that a court's ruling does not end the matter. Such things provide order, but temporarily.
Got any practical action of yours to cite?
Radwaste at April 16, 2015 2:40 AM
... a federal court house.
Always your choice, not to go in,
When I go to a court house, it's usually because I don't have a choice, so that voids your dismissal.
And if you must know, it's because "proof of insurance" in Florida is defined as whatever the officer of the day decides. Of course, it's a different story at the court house (after you fork over $15).
Exposition (skip if you like): They run your license and find you have insurance, but they don't like your insurance card, or the 'smartphone' cards (which are not yet legally accepted), so they ding you for no 'proof' even though they know you have it. Then you go to the courthouse with the SAME card (and $15) and everything is fine.
DrCos at April 16, 2015 4:01 AM
Rad: I also notice, as you apparently have not even though you have provided examples, that a court's ruling does not end the matter. Such things provide order, but temporarily.
Your capacity to misunderstand is astounding. I did not say that the decision of the courts end the matter completely. (As you note, I provided examples of court rulings that were overturned...eventually.)
The problem is that overturning a court's ruling is generally a long time in coming and a lot of work. The courts have ruled that the TSA is fine, and the SCOTUS doesn't seem anxious to weigh in on the subject, which suggests that they're at least not significantly bothered by the decisions of the lower courts. Unless removing TSA proves to be the exception to the rule of how involved reversing a court decision is, we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
Patrick at April 16, 2015 5:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/04/15/denver_tsa_grop.html#comment-5965786">comment from PatrickThe TSA is not going to catch terrorists. These are repurposed mall clerks in cop costumes. And they are so ineffective at "policing" (as mere costumed cops) that they cannot even root out crime in their own ranks, not even when they are told of its existence. And I believe my grope-down at Logan on Sunday, by disgusting TSA worker Ms. Melendy -- blonde, short, paid a a lot for those highlights -- was punitively thorough. No woman should touch my labia FOUR times as she did, and do what TSA worker Thedala Magee did to me at LAX (before she tried to get $500K out of me for writing about it), if there is no probable cause...no reasonable reason to believe I am or will be guilty of a crime.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2015 6:00 AM
The whole "administrative search" thing renders the Fourth Amendment moot. The government can require that you submit to an "administrative search" in order to do anything at all. They can require you to submit to an "administrative search" the moment that you step out the front door. It's blatanty unconstitutional, and all three branches of government have agreed to go along with the charade because it gives all of them more power. The ruling class wins; the citizens lose. It's that simple. And there's probably only one thing that's going to stop it. I don't think I need to say what that thing is.
Cousin Dave at April 16, 2015 7:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/04/15/denver_tsa_grop.html#comment-5965939">comment from Cousin DaveCousin Dave, you are absolutely right. It's a version of presidential "signing statements."
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2015 7:49 AM
The whole "administrative search" thing renders the Fourth Amendment moot. The government can require that you submit to an "administrative search" in order to do anything at all. They can require you to submit to an "administrative search" the moment that you step out the front door"
This isn't even close to true as the courts have made clear.
An administrative search is always going to be constitutional when it is a condition for doing something that is not constitutionalally protected, like getting on a commercial airline, and the fourth amendment only applies to using the products of that search to bring criminal charges.
That said, I do think the nanny state has gone way too far in what they are allowed to do to you administratively,without any criminal conviction at all, in a real court of law.
CPS is out of control in most states, as is the probation industry for minor crimes such as DUI, and of course,the college administration bureaucracy.
I hope those poor parents in Maryland get a big judgment out of Montgomery County and that some of this nonsense stops, but it is going to have to be beaten back, city by city, and state by state, through mostly a process of defunding and downsizing of the agencies that make it possible.
We are paying a big price, in all aspects of our life in catering to the out of control *risk averse*
Isab at April 16, 2015 8:50 AM
"This isn't even close to true as the courts have made clear."
Since when? Can you cite a case where a court ruled that an administrative search was illegal and there were consequences for the agency that performed the search (evidence disallowed, casees dismissed, permanant injunctions, or sanctions against the agency)? I do not know of a single one. I know of cases where a court told an agency "don't do that again", but the agency was still permitted to proceeed with the case and the illegally discovered evidence. (And after a while, when they figure the judge that issued the ruling isn't paying attention any more, the agency simply disregards the ruling and goes back to what it was doing before.)
Fact is, there is no "bright line" for what administrative searches are legal and which ones aren't. Take the airport TSA searches. You say that since the TSA search is an administrative serach, the evidence they find can't be used in court. Since when? We've all seen cases where the TSA brought charges against people based on things that they found in an airport search.
Further, there's the case of courthouses. There are times when I must enter the courthouse, under pain of incarceration if I fail to do so, in order to fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen. If I am subpoenaed to appear in court, I must enter the courthouse. I have no choice about the matter. And, in order to enter the courthouse, I must submit to a search. It is totally involuntary. If I refuse to submit, I go to jail.
When the Fourth Amendment was first adopted, the government needed a warrant to search your property. Period. If they wanted to check your buildings for code violations, they needed a warrant. If they wanted to check your land for endangered species, they needed a warrant. If they wanted to go through your underwear because you wished to get on board a stagecoach, they needed a warrant. There is no barrier to expanding the doctrine of administrative search to infinity. There is interpretation of the Constitution that says "here is where the line is", becuase the entire doctrine was designed from the get-go to bypass the Constitution. And it has succeeded.
What about your house? Aren't you still secure there? Well, again, there is nothing in administrative-search doctrine that says so; only tradition stands in the way, and tradition can be overcome. Pretty soon, California or some other left-wing state is going to decide the preventing smoking is such an important public good that the state should have the power to enter your house at any time in order to make sure you aren't smoking. All they have to do is get one court to agree, one time, and then the precedent is set.
And you mention CPS. In a lot of states, if you have children, CPS has the right to enter your house at any time, with or without a warrant. All they have to tell a court is that they had suspicions about you, and that gives them carte blanche. And yes, they can and will use anything they find in a criminal prosecution.
Is there any answer for this? I see none. There is no line. There is no barrier. There's only what government officials decide that they can force people to accept, and that frontier moves further every day. Nothing stands in the way. By definition, this makes the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search a dead letter.
Cousin Dave at April 16, 2015 11:43 AM
Correction: "There is *no* interpretation of the Constitution that says 'here is where the line is', becuase the entire doctrine was designed from the get-go to bypass the Constitution. "
Cousin Dave at April 16, 2015 11:56 AM
"The point is, that when the courts have made their decision, for good or ill, it is, for all practical purposes, Game Over."
Perhaps you should read what you write.
I suspect that you haven't even noticed you came to agree with Crid on the "cake test".
Radwaste at April 17, 2015 4:00 AM
Leave a comment