896 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2018), 15-3047, Pellegrino v. United States
|Citation:||896 F.3d 207|
|Opinion Judge:||KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||Nadine PELLEGRINO; Harry Waldman, Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DIV. OF DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TSA TSO Nuyriah Abdul-Malik, Sued in her individual capacity; TSA STSO Laura Labbee, Sued in her individual capacity; TSA TSO Denice Kissinger, Sued in her individual capacity; John/Jane Doe TSA ...|
|Attorney:||Nadine Pellegrino and Harry Waldman, Pro Se Appellants. Mark J. Sherer, Esq. (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, Counsel for Appellees. Paul M. Thompson, Esq. (Argued), Sarah P. Hogarth, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery, Matthew L. Knowles, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery, Court Appointed Amicus...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges AMBRO, Circuit Judge, dissenting|
|Case Date:||July 11, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Argued: October 3, 2017
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner (E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2-09-cv-05505)
Nadine Pellegrino and Harry Waldman, Pro Se Appellants.
Mark J. Sherer, Esq. (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, Counsel for Appellees.
Paul M. Thompson, Esq. (Argued), Sarah P. Hogarth, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery, Matthew L. Knowles, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery, Court Appointed Amicus Curiae.
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
In Vanderklok v. United States, 868 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2017), we declined to imply a Bivens cause of action against airport screeners employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in part because they "typically are not law enforcement officers and do not act as such." Id. at 208. We now must decide a related question that we anticipated, but did not resolve, in Vanderklok : whether TSA screeners are "investigative or law enforcement officers" under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
This question, one of first impression among the Courts of Appeals, arises because Appellant Nadine Pellegrino has asserted intentional tort claims against TSA screeners. Although under the FTCA the United States generally enjoys sovereign immunity for intentional torts committed by federal employees, this rule is subject to an exception known as the "law enforcement proviso," which waives immunity for a subset of intentional torts committed by employees who qualify as "investigative or law enforcement officers." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Pellegrinos claims may proceed only if TSA screeners fall into this category.
Based on our review of the statutes text, purpose, and legislative history, as well as precedent from this Court and other Courts of Appeals, we now reach the conclusion that we foreshadowed in Vanderklok and hold that TSA screeners are not "investigative or law enforcement officers" under the law enforcement proviso. Pellegrinos claims are therefore barred by the Governments sovereign immunity, and we will affirm the District Courts judgment dismissing this action.
I. Facts and Procedural History
A. Airport Security and Screeners
To place what follows in proper context, we briefly describe the structure of the TSA and the screeners place within that structure. Congress created the TSA in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, with the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001). The head of the TSA is the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, 49 U.S.C. § 114(b), who is responsible for security in all modes of transportation, including civil aviation, id. § 114(d).
Pertinent here is the Under Secretarys responsibility to "provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation." Id. § 44901(a). With exceptions not relevant here, this screening is required to be performed "by a Federal Government employee." Id. These employees were referred to as "screeners" at the time of the ATSAs enactment but were reclassified as "Transportation Security Officers" (TSOs) in 2005 as part of an effort to improve morale and combat employee-retention problems. The Transportation Security Administrations Airline Passenger and Baggage Screening: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci., & Transp., 109th Cong. 7 (2006) [hereinafter Screening Hearing ] (statement of Edmund "Kip" Hawley, Assistant Secretary, Transportation Security Administration).1 In 2016, the TSA screened more than 2 million passengers per day. See Bob Burns, TSA Year in Review, Transp. Sec. Admin. (Jan. 12, 2017), https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2017/01/12/tsa-year-review-record-amount-firearms-discovered-2016.
TSOs form just one part of the airport-security apparatus. The Under Secretary may also designate employees to serve as "law enforcement officer[s]." 49 U.S.C. § 114(p)(1). An employee so designated may carry a firearm, make arrests, and seek and execute warrants for arrest or seizure of evidence. Id. § 114(p)(2). The Under Secretary is required to deploy law enforcement personnel at each screening location; typically, at least one such law enforcement officer must be at each location. Id. § 44901(h)(1)-(2). Screening locations are thus staffed by both TSOs and law enforcement officers.
B. Factual Background2
In 2006, Pellegrino and her husband, Harry Waldman, arrived at the Philadelphia International Airport, where they planned to catch a flight home to Florida. Pellegrino brought three bags to the security checkpoint: a rolling tote, a larger rolling bag that would fit in the overhead compartment of the airplane, and a small black canvas bag. After Pellegrino passed through a metal detector, a TSO directed her to step aside for further screening. A few minutes later, TSO Thomas Clemmons arrived and began to search Pellegrinos bags, but because Pellegrino believed that Clemmons was treating neither her nor her bags respectfully, she asked for a private screening. According to Pellegrino, Clemmons then "walked off with a very
arrogant, negative, hostile attitude," Pellegrino Dep. 85:24-86:2, D.Ct. Dkt. No. 156, and TSO Nuyriah Abdul-Malik came to perform the screening in Clemmonss stead.
As Abdul-Malik prepared to search Pellegrinos bags, Pellegrino "had the distinct feeling" that Abdul-Maliks gloves were not clean and asked her to put on new ones. Pellegrino Dep. 90:18-22, D.Ct. Dkt. No. 156. Abdul-Malik did as Pellegrino asked, but Pellegrino asserts that this request engendered hostility from Abdul-Malik. Abdul-Malik and Pellegrino then proceeded to a private screening room, where they were joined by TSA employees Laura Labbee, a supervisory TSO, and Denise Kissinger, another TSO.3 Kissinger swabbed Pellegrinos shirt and left the room to test the sample (for the presence of explosives), while Abdul-Malik inspected Pellegrinos luggage. Pellegrino contends that Abdul-Maliks screening was unnecessarily rough and invasive— extending to her credit cards, coins, cell phone, and lipstick.
At some point, Pellegrino asked Labbee why she was being subjected to this screening, and Labbee responded that it was an "airline-designated search." Pellegrino Dep. 104:12, D.Ct. Dkt. No. 156. Pellegrino took this to mean that her airline ticket had been marked in a way that prompted the search, and because she and Waldman had accidentally switched tickets, she sought to stop the search by explaining that she believed that Waldman should have been searched instead. Nevertheless, the search continued, and Pellegrino told Labbee that she was going to report her to TSA authorities.
Once Abdul-Malik finished searching the rolling tote, Pellegrino, who believed that Abdul-Malik had damaged her eyeglasses and jewelry, asked Abdul-Malik to leave her items outside the tote so that Pellegrino could re-pack it herself. Abdul-Malik refused and the interaction continued to deteriorate. First, Abdul-Malik had trouble zipping the tote closed and had to press her knee into it to force it shut. Next, when Pellegrino asked Labbee for permission to examine the tote, which she believed Abdul-Malik had damaged, that request was also denied. Pellegrino then told Labbee and Abdul-Malik they were "behaving like bitches." Pellegrino Dep. 114:13-14, D.Ct. Dkt. No. 156. Finally, after Abdul-Malik had searched Pellegrinos largest bag, which contained clothes and shoes, and Kissinger finished swabbing and testing, Pellegrino was told that she could leave.
But simple closure was not to be. Instead, Pellegrino saw that Abdul-Malik had not re-packed her shoes, asked if she intended to do so, and was told "no." Pellegrino Dep. 122:2, D.Ct. Dkt. No. 156. At that point, intending to re-pack her bags outside of the screening room, Pellegrino tossed her shoes through the open door...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP