Hernandez v. United States
34 F. Supp. 3d 1168
D. Colo.2014Background
- Plaintiff Marco A. Hernandez sues the United States, TSA, and several individual TSA employees for harassment and detention during airport screenings in 2008–2009.
- Plaintiff asserts FTCA negligence, false arrest, assault, battery, false imprisonment, unlawful search, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress; also asserts Fourth Amendment claims against individuals.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of FTCA waiver, sovereign immunity, res judicata, and failure to state Fourth Amendment claims.
- Court analyzes whether TSA screeners are “investigative or law enforcement officers” under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) and if FTCA applies to claims arising from TSA conduct.
- The court grants dismissal, holding TSA screeners are not covered by the § 2680(h) proviso; FTCA claims are barred; Fourth Amendment claims against the United States/TSA are not waivable; and claims against individuals are dismissed as frivolous or without viable basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA waiver applies to TSA conduct? | Hernandez argues FTCA applies to TSA as government employees. | Defendants contend TSA screeners are not “investigative or law enforcement officers” under § 2680(h). | FTCA waiver does not apply to TSA conduct; claims barred. |
| Are false arrest/assault/battery/false imprisonment actionable under FTCA? | Claims arise from intentional torts by TSA personnel. | § 2680(h) bars intentional tort claims unless the officer is an investigative or law enforcement officer. | Barred; TSA screeners not within § 2680(h) proviso. |
| Are negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress actionable under FTCA? | Negligence claims rely on tort allegations. | § 2680(h) precludes claims arising from intentional torts; negligence claims duplicative of barred claims. | Barred; claims arise out of barred intentional torts. |
| Are unlawful search, unlawful invasion of privacy, and IIED viable under FTCA? | Alleged constitutional/ tort claims. | FTCA § 2680(h) excludes these as they stem from TSA actions. | Barred; derivative of barred claims and outside FTCA waiver. |
| Fourth Amendment damages claims against United States/TSA viable? | Damages-based Fourth Amendment claims survive. | Sovereign immunity bars damages claims against United States/TSA. | Dismissed; no waiver for money damages against United States or agencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crow v. United States, 659 F. Supp. 556 (D. Kan. 1987) (law enforcement proviso powers to seize/arrest broadly construed)
- Weinraub v. United States, 927 F. Supp. 2d 258 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (TSA screeners not law enforcement officers under § 2680(h))
- Hartwell v. United States, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (airport searches analyzed under administrative search doctrine)
- Aukai v. United States, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (administrative searches at airports; reasonableness)
- Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. Sec. Admin., 855 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (contrasted TSA scope with traditional law enforcement)