Jonathan Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration
568 F. App’x 690 (2014)
Rule of Law:
Standard TSA screeners are considered federal employees rather than 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), meaning the United States retains sovereign immunity against claims of intentional torts arising from their conduct.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Corbett arrived at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport to board a flight and placed his carry-on items, including a backpack and bag of books, on the x-ray belt.
- Corbett refused to pass through the full-body scanner and subsequently refused the standard manual pat-down procedure, forbidding screeners from touching his genitals or buttocks.
- TSA Manager Chamizo was summoned and allegedly warned Corbett that refusal to consent to the search could result in arrest.
- While Corbett argued with supervisors, screeners manually inspected his bags, closely examining credit cards to verify his identity and fanning through the pages of a book.
- Due to the unresolved screening, TSA summoned a Broward County Sheriff's officer who ran a background check on Corbett, which came back clear.
- The entire process detained Corbett at the checkpoint for approximately one hour.
- Corbett was ultimately denied access to the boarding gate and escorted out of the security area.
- Corbett subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for video and documents related to the incident; the TSA provided these but redacted the names and faces of screeners.
Procedural Posture:
- Corbett filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- Corbett filed an amended complaint adding the Sheriff's Office as a defendant.
- The defendants filed Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss.
- The District Court granted the motions to dismiss for all claims except the FOIA claim.
- TSA filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the remaining FOIA claim.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the TSA.
- Corbett appealed the District Court's dismissal and summary judgment orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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:
Are TSA screeners considered 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under the Federal Tort Claims Act such that the United States waives sovereign immunity for intentional torts committed during airport screenings, and do such screenings constitute reasonable administrative searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers under the FTCA, and the screenings were reasonable. The Court affirmed the lower court's rulings. Regarding the constitutional claims against Manager Chamizo (Bivens claims), the Court held that airport screenings are valid administrative searches. The inspection of Corbett's bags, including the book and credit cards, was reasonable to detect hidden threats (like sheet explosives) or attempts to circumvent watch-lists. Regarding the tort claims against the United States (assault, false arrest, etc.), the Court held that the United States is protected by sovereign immunity. While the FTCA waives immunity for some acts, it generally excludes intentional torts unless committed by 'investigative or law enforcement officers.' The Court determined that standard TSA screeners are 'employees,' not 'officers,' because they do not possess the statutory authority to make arrests or execute warrants unless specially designated. Therefore, the 'law enforcement proviso' does not apply, and the government is immune. Finally, regarding the FOIA claim, the Court held that redacting names and faces was permissible under Exemption 6, as the employees' privacy interests outweighed the minimal public interest in their identities.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its strict textual interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) regarding airport security. By distinguishing between federal 'employees' and 'officers of the United States,' the Eleventh Circuit effectively shielded the federal government from liability for intentional torts (like assault or false imprisonment) committed by standard TSA screeners. The ruling reinforces the doctrine that airport security measures are administrative searches that do not require individualized suspicion. Additionally, the decision strengthens privacy protections for lower-level government employees against FOIA requests, establishing that their names and faces are generally exempt from disclosure absent a compelling public interest.
