Brian Iverson v. United States
973 F.3d 843 (2020)
Rule of Law:
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) qualify as 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under the Federal Tort Claims Act's law enforcement proviso because they are officers of the United States empowered by law to execute searches for violations of federal law, thereby waiving sovereign immunity for intentional torts such as battery.
Facts:
- Brian Iverson arrived at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport to travel.
- Due to a prior injury, Iverson required the use of crutches to walk.
- Iverson proceeded through the TSA security checkpoint where Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) conducted a pat-down search.
- During the search, TSOs permitted Iverson to place his hands on his crutches but required him to stand under his own power.
- Iverson alleges that a TSO pulled him forward during the screening.
- The TSO allegedly let go of Iverson abruptly.
- As a result of the TSO's actions, Iverson fell and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Iverson filed an administrative claim with the TSA, which was denied.
- Iverson sued the United States and the TSA in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota asserting battery and negligence claims.
- The government moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing sovereign immunity barred the claims.
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that TSOs are not investigative or law enforcement officers.
- Iverson (Appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) qualify as 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, such that the United States waives sovereign immunity for a battery claim arising from a TSO's conduct during an airport security screening?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith
Yes, TSOs constitute investigative or law enforcement officers under the FTCA, meaning the government is not immune from suit. The court employed a textual analysis of the statutory definition in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). First, TSOs are 'officers of the United States' because they are charged with statutory duties, exercise government functions for the public benefit, and hold positions of authority symbolized by uniforms and badges. Second, they are 'empowered by law' because the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) mandates that screenings be carried out by federal employees. Third, they 'execute searches' as they physically examine passengers and baggage to discover contraband. Finally, these searches are for 'violations of Federal law,' specifically to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives onto aircraft, which is a federal crime.
Dissenting - Gruender
No, TSOs should not be classified as investigative or law enforcement officers under the FTCA. The dissenting judge argued that the court should look to the specific statute creating the TSA (the ATSA), which explicitly distinguishes between 'employees' (screeners) and 'law enforcement officers' (who carry firearms and make arrests). Furthermore, the dissent argued that 'execute searches' in the FTCA context refers to traditional criminal investigations, whereas TSA screenings are administrative searches. Finally, the dissent emphasized that waivers of sovereign immunity should be strictly construed in favor of the government, and the majority's broad reading improperly expands federal liability.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it expands the scope of the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). By ruling that TSA screeners are 'investigative or law enforcement officers,' the Eighth Circuit allows individuals to sue the federal government for intentional torts (like assault or battery) committed by TSOs during airport screenings. This creates a circuit split, agreeing with the Third Circuit (Pellegrino) but disagreeing with the Eleventh Circuit (Corbett), potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court review regarding the liability of federal screeners.
