Erin Osmon v. United States
66 F.4th 144 (2023)
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act's 'law enforcement proviso' (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)), Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners qualify as 'investigative or law enforcement officers' because they are empowered by law to execute searches for violations of federal law, thereby waiving the government's sovereign immunity for claims of assault and battery arising from their conduct.
Facts:
- Erin Osmon arrived at Asheville Regional Airport to board a scheduled commercial flight.
- She proceeded through the security checkpoint managed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
- A TSA screener informed Osmon that the body scanner had alarmed and that a 'groin search' was required.
- During the subsequent interaction, the screener allegedly forced Osmon to spread her legs wider than necessary.
- Osmon alleges that the screener fondled her genitals twice during the search.
Procedural Posture:
- Osmon filed a civil suit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging battery under the FTCA.
- A magistrate judge issued a memorandum recommending the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Osmon filed objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
- The District Court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Osmon's complaint.
- Osmon appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 Administration (TSA) screeners qualify as 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) so that the United States waives sovereign immunity for claims of assault and battery resulting from their official conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Heytens
Yes, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives sovereign immunity for assault and battery claims involving TSA screeners because they fall within the statutory definition of 'investigative or law enforcement officers.' The court relied on the plain text of the 'law enforcement proviso' in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), which defines such officers as those empowered to 'execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests.' The court emphasized that this definition is disjunctive, meaning an officer need only perform one of these functions to qualify. Because TSA screeners are statutorily empowered to screen passengers and property—which legally constitutes a 'search'—they meet the definition. The court rejected the government's arguments that the statute requires 'criminal' law enforcement duties or the power to execute warrants, noting that the text contains no such limiting language. Consequently, the government is amenable to suit for the alleged battery.
Analysis:
This decision deepens a circuit split regarding the liability of the United States for the actions of TSA agents, with the Fourth Circuit joining the Third and Eighth Circuits in ruling against the government. By strictly adhering to the plain text of the FTCA, the court rejected the government's attempt to narrow the scope of the 'law enforcement proviso' to traditional police functions involving criminal warrants and arrests. This ruling is significant because it opens the federal government to tort liability for physical misconduct by TSA screeners, ensuring that travelers have a legal remedy for intentional torts such as assault and battery committed during airport security screenings within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Erin Osmon v. United States (2023)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"