After extensive negotiations, we were given permission to record audio (but not video or still photographs) of the formal hearing conducted in Portland. OR, on May 14, 2013, in the matter of “Naked American Hero” John Brennan.

Linked below are audio recordings of the entirety of the hearing:

Dramatis Personae other than witnesses (in order of appearance):

• Administrative Law Judge George J. Jordan (U.S. Coast Guard, Seattle regional office)
• Susan Conn (attorney for the TSA, Seattle regional office)
• Robert A. Callahan (attorney for Mr. Brennan)

Audio (MP3 recordings can be streamed from here or downloaded directly from the links below):

• Introduction and opening statements (4 min. 47 sec., 4 MB mp3)
• Steven Van Gordon (TSA checkpoint staff, PDX) (1 hr. 11 min. 38 sec., 66 MB mp3)
• Jerry Nichols (TSA checkpoint supervisor, PDX) (18 min. 56 sec., 17 MB mp3)
• Jonathan David (TSA manager, PDX) (42 min. 17 sec., 39 MB mp3)
• Officer Brian Cotter (Port of Portland Police Department) (15 min. 38 sec., 14 MB mp3)
• Marsha Shanahan (TSA Transportation Security Inspector) (36 min. 58 sec., 37 MB mp3)
• John Brennan (“Respondent”) (27 min. 16 sec., 25 MB mp3)
• Closing statements (4 min. 34 sec. 4 MB mp3)

Video: Excerpt from TSA/airport security camera video (from news report, but also entered into evidence at the formal hearing)

Mr. Brennan exercised his First Amendment right to express his political opinion by taking off all his clothes while he was being subjected to “secondary” searching at a TSA checkpoint at the Portland airport (PDX) on April 17, 2012.

The TSA called the Portland police, who arrested Mr. Brennan for “indecent” exposure, but he was eventually acquitted of all criminal charges by an Oregon judge.

Undeterred — or, more precisely, fearing that Mr. Brennan and others would no longer be deterred from similar politically expressive conduct after his acquittal — the TSA has proposed to assess a $1,000 “civil penalty” against Mr. Brennan for “interfering with screening”.

It certainly appears to us that Mr. Brennan’s actions should have facilitated his screening, and he testified that he was trying to assist the screeners in determining that he was not carrying explosives or weapons.

There are many Alice-In-Wonderland aspects to this administrative proceeding, among them that the TSA has declared the “Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty” which explains the basis for the proposed fine to be “Sensitive Security Information” (SSI) exempt from public disclosure.  The notice was, we presume, served on Mr. Brennan and/or his attorney, but they were not allowed to quote from it publicly.

Portions of the evidence and allegations against Mr. Brennan were also designated as SSI and exempt from disclosure.  We were allowed to attend and listen to the whole formal hearing, but not to see any of the documents that were being discussed and entered into the (secret) record.

The  decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on whether to assess a fine against Mr. Brennan, and if so in what amount, will probably also deemed SSI.

According to the rules for TSA civil penalty proceedings, journalists or members of the public can inspect  the docket — including the evidence, transcripts of the depositions and the formal hearing, and pre- and post-hearing briefs — only by filing a formal request under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

We’ve filed a FOIA request for the complete docket record, and have asked (in accordance with FOIA) that it be processed on an expedited basis, but the TSA’s first response was that they estimated that they won’t complete their response until August 23, 2013.  The Coast Guard ALJ’s office told us that they couldn’t remember anyone ever before asking for an active civil penalty docket, and hasn’t yet given us any estimated date for their response.

In the meantime, our audio recordings linked above are the best available public indication of what the TSA thinks Mr. Brennan did, how they think he “interfered with screening“, and why they think he deserves a $1,000 fine. These are also the best available guidance, for others who may be subjected to TSA enforcement action, about how the process works.

The TSA has threatened other protesters with civil penalties, but in most cases either people pay the proposed fines (for example, if they were trying to carry otherwise-legal firearms through a TSA checkpoint, which happens every day), they are convicted of some criminal offense (usually for drugs), or the TSA backs down and withdraws its proposal for a fine. So far as we know, this is the first time the TSA has continued to pursue a proposed civil penalty for nonviolent, non-criminal  political protest at a TSA checkpoint by someone who contested the proposed fine and exercised their right to a formal hearing.

(TSA Publc Affairs Manager Lorie Dankers, who came down from the TSA regional office in Seattle along with the TSA’s lawyer to attend the hearing in Portland, told reporters that since the TSA’s creation the agency has assessed “a few hundred” civil penalties for “interfering with screening.” But most of those cases involved neither political protest nor a formal hearing.)

This was an administrative proceeding, not a trial. It was held in a courtroom rented from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, but it was not a trial, not a “court” proceeding, and not governed by court rules.

Read More →

More than 18 months ago, a federal Court of Appeals ordered the TSA to provide formal notice and an opportunity for public comment on its “rules” for when travelers are required to submit to virtual strip-searches by machines that display images of our bodies as though naked.

Today, after seemingly endless foot-dragging that left it unclear if the TSA would ever comply with the court’s order (or would eventually be found in contempt of court for failing to do so), the TSA published its proposed rule in the Federal Register.

You have until June 24, 2013 to tell the TSA what you think of its proposal.

As Jim Harper of the Cato Institute points out, the proposed “rule” contains none of the (inadequate) limitations on the TSA’s virtual strip-search authority which were described in the TSA’s arguments to the Court of Appeals. (We’ll be talking with Jim and Ginger McCall of EPIC about this and related issues of “Travel Surveillance, Traveler Intrusion” at this lunchtime event at Cato in Washington next Tuesday, April 2nd.)

Rather than proposing a rule pursuant to which travelers would be entitled to opt out of the naked imaging (at the price of more intrusive groping of their genitals) , the TSA has proposed a rule in which, in addition to whatever else the TSA secretly defines as constituting “screening” in any particular case, all travelers are required, as a condition of travel by common carrier, to submit to virtual strip-searches whenever the TSA tells them to do so.

But that’s not the only glaring defect in the TSA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Read More →

The TSA has made explicit its intent to take the next logical but lawless step in the merger of (1) profiling of travelers and (2) privatization of judicial decision-making: outsourcing of decisions as to who should be subjected to what degree of intrusiveness of search to private contractors acting on the basis of commercial data.

The TSA already delegates on-the-spot “discretionary” decisions about searches (“screening”) to private contractors at airports like SFO, and relies for its profiling (“prescreening” and “no-fly”) decisions on commercial data contained in airline Passenger Name Records (PNRs).

Now a request for proposals quietly posted by the TSA early this month among the “Federal Business Opportunities” at FBO.gov, and spotted by the ACLU, gives notice that the TSA is considering “Third Party Prescreening” of travelers: TSA contractors would decide in advance (secretly, of course, on the basis of secret dossiers from private data aggregators) which travelers would be “invited” to proceed through the less-intrusive-search “Pre-Check” security lanes, and which would be subjected to “ordinary”, more intrusive groping of their bodies, opening of carry-on baggage and belongings, interrogation, etc.

In effect, “Third Party Prescreening”, as the concept is defined in the TSA notice to would-be contractors, would replace probable cause with private profiling as the basis for determining who among us would be legally obligated, as a condition of the exercise of Constitutional civil liberties and internationally recognized human rights, to submit to exactly what degree of intrusiveness of search of our persons and property.

The by-invitation-only TSA “Pre-Check” profiling scheme is already entirely arbitrary, as travelers have discovered when they have tried to find out how to obtain an invitation to the less-mistrusted-traveler club or why they haven’t been invited. “Don’t call us, we’ll call you” if we want to invite you, say airlines and the TSA.  There are no publicly-disclosed substantive or procedural standards for invitation or inclusion.

“Third Party Prescreening” would extend that arbitrariness to advance decisions that particular travelers must submit to heightened “screening” (or are not to be allowed to proceed through lighter screening, which amounts to the same thing) before they will be “allowed” to exercise their right to travel.

Such a particularized decision, in advance, conditioning travel by a specific traveler on submission to a specific type or degree of intrusiveness of search is not what was contemplated in judicial decisions upholding “administrative” searches at airports.   Rather, this is the sort of search that the Constitution demands be justified by probable cause, as articulated to and approved by a judge.

Private contractors are not judges. Fitting the profile, based on a secret commercial dossier, as determined by a secret algorithm, is not probable cause. No “Third Party Prescreening” could create a lawful basis for a search, or for interference with the right to travel of those who decline to submit to such a search.

This week is national Opt Out and Film Week. Across the country, travelers will be documenting the TSA’s practices of groping the genitals of anyone who wants to exercise their right to travel without “voluntarily” submitting to an x-ray or RF virtual strip search.

The TSA even acknowledges Opt Out and Film Week in its official blog, where Blogger Bob sez:

We’re also aware of the Opt Out and Film week, where some are planning on opting out of the body scanner and then filming their experience. TSA respects passengers rights to exercise freedom of speech as well as the rights of fellow travelers trying to get to their destination safely and without unnecessary delay. While the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may.

That looks to us like an attempt to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) on clear-cut Constitutional rights.

While the TSA has a history of improperly calling local cops on photographers (for which we are currently suing both the TSA staff and the police who acted on their bogus complaints), it’s not true that  “local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may” restrict the exercise of First Amendment rights.

As we say in our cheat sheet, What you need to know about your rights at the airport:

You have the 1st Amendment right to film, photograph, and record what happens in public areas of airports, including your interactions with TSA and screeners.  Photography and recording in airports and at TSA checkpoints violates no Federal law or TSA regulation. Any state or local laws that purport to prohibit this are likely to be unconstitutional. You have the right, for your own protection, to document what happens to you and what is done to you.