Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration
968 F. Supp. 2d 1171
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Plaintiff Jonathan Corbett filed an amended complaint against Broward County, the United States, TSA, Chamizo, and Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti arising from an August 27, 2011 checkpoint incident at Ft. Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport.
- Plaintiff declined the full-body scanner and agreed to a pat-down conditioned on not touching private areas; TSA and supervisor demanded compliance or police would be called.
- Chamizo allegedly told Plaintiff he would be forcibly searched/arrested if he did not consent to a pat-down that would involve touching private areas.
- TSA screeners searched Plaintiff’s belongings for weapons, examined his books and IDs, and photocopied or shared certain documents; search lasted over 30 minutes and Plaintiff was ejected from the checkpoint.
- TSA and Broward County provided differing responses to FOIA/Public Records Act requests, later supplemented with video footage and materials subject to exemptions; some materials remained withheld or redacted.
- Plaintiff asserted twenty-one counts including civil rights, torts, Privacy Act, and FOIA/Public Records Act violations; Defendants moved to dismiss or amend; Court issued an omnibus order addressing jurisdiction, immunity, and the viability of proposed amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chamizo is entitled to qualified immunity on Counts 1–5 (Fourth Amendment claims). | Plaintiff argues Court has jurisdiction and Chamizo is responsible for screeners’ conduct. | Chamizo argues the claims are barred or improper; individual liability and lack of clearly established right. | Chamizo entitled to qualified immunity; Counts 1–5 dismissed. |
| Whether FTCA sovereign-immunity bars Counts 6–9 (tort claims). | Plaintiff contends TSA agents are investigative/officer personnel and FTCA waiver applies. | FTCA does not waive for TSA; claims are barred and related false light/intentional tort claims are derivative. | Counts 6–9 barred by sovereign immunity; related claims dismissed. |
| Whether Privacy Act claims (Counts 10–16) state a viable claim for monetary relief or injunctive relief. | Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for Privacy Act violations. | No monetary damages absent actual damages; injunctive relief limited to specific statutory remedies. | Privacy Act counts fail; damages not shown and injunctive relief not available. |
| Whether FOIA claim (Count 17) remains viable post-disclosures. | Plaintiff argues records remain inadequately disclosed due to redactions. | Agency produced responsive materials; claim moot. | FOIA claim not moot; Court retains jurisdiction to address disclosure sufficiency. |
| Whether Broward County/County Defendant’s Public Records Act claim (Count 18) and related conspiracy allegations (Counts 19–20) survive. | Broward improperly denied existence of records; conspiracy alleged. | Records status and– or communications with TSA justify withholding; conspiracy pleadings lack specificity. | Count 18 not dismissed at this stage; Counts 19–20 dismissed for failure to plead actionable conspiracy. |
| Whether Count 21 state constitutional claim against Broward Sheriff’s Office is viable. | Plaintiff seeks state-constitutional damages. | Florida law does not permit money damages for state-constitutional rights; entity misnamed. | Count 21 dismissed; leave to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis; can be modified by Pearson)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (reaffirmed option to address prongs in any order)
- Burger v. United States, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (administrative searches exception under regulatory scheme)
- Biswell v. United States, 406 U.S. 311 (1972) (administrative searches; scope of warrantless inspections)
- Aukai v. City of Oakland, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (airport screening reasonable if not more intrusive than necessary)
- McCarty v. United States, 648 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (limits on administrative searches and purpose of screening)
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004) (privacy act requires actual damages for monetary relief)
- Hartwell v. United States, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (discusses clearly established rights in qualified immunity)