568 F. App'x 690
11th Cir.2014Background
- Corbett, proceeding pro se, sued the TSA, United States, Chamizo, Broward County, and the Broward Sheriff’s Office over the Aug. 27, 2011 airport screening at Fort Lauderdale, including a refused pat-down and subsequent bag searches.
- Corbett refused the full-body scanner and a standard pat-down; a TSA supervisor and Chamizo allegedly warned of arrest if consent to a pat-down was not given.
- TSA screeners examined Corbett’s carry-on bags under Management Directive 100.4, including review of identification media and a book; Corbett objected to these inspections.
- A Sheriff’s deputy conducted a background check after receiving Corbett’s license; Corbett was escorted from the checkpoint after an hour-long screening, with no completed clearance.
- Corbett also filed FOIA requests seeking records and video of the incident; the TSA redacted names and faces under FOIA exemptions, withholding material from disclosure.
- The district court dismissed most claims and granted summary judgment on the remaining FOIA and related claims; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chamizo’s supervisory liability survives the Fourth Amendment claim | Corbett alleges Chamizo approved searches causing rights violations | Chamizo’s liability requires personal participation or causal link; he did not personally conduct searches | Dismissal affirmed; no personal participation shown and searches reasonable under administrative screening |
| Whether FTCA intentional torts are barred for the United States claims | FTCA waiver applies to assault, false arrest, etc. | Intentional torts exception bars these claims unless the law enforcement proviso applies | Affirmed; § 2680(h) proviso inapplicable; TSA screeners not “officers of the United States”; intentional torts barred |
| Whether Privacy Act claims against the TSA support recovery | Photocopying driver’s license and boarding pass violated Privacy Act; seek damages | No actual damages shown; injunctive relief not properly pleaded | Affirmed; no pecuniary damages shown and no proper injunction request |
| Whether the FOIA claim against the TSA was properly resolved | Desire for unredacted records and complete video disclosure | Redactions necessary under Exemption 6 (privacy) and Exemption 7(C) not contested for the Sheriff’s name | Affirmed; Exemption 6 allowed redactions; full records still provided with privacy protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) (administrative searches may be reasonable without suspicion)
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) (suspicionless searches as reasonable in certain contexts)
- United States v. Herzbrun, 723 F.2d 773 (11th Cir. 1983) (consent to airport screening can be retained; revocation not allowed post-consent)
- O’Ferrell v. United States, 253 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) (intentional torts exception broad in scope to underlying governmental conduct)
- News-Press v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 489 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007) (Exemption 6 privacy balancing; disclose vs. privacy interests)
- U.S. Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) (Exemption 6 broad interpretation of ‘similar files’)