Nicholas George v. William Rehiel, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25604

Background

Nicholas George, a college student, was detained at Philadelphia International Airport after TSA screeners found handwritten Arabic–English flashcards (some containing words like “bomb,” “terrorist,” “kill”) and a book critical of U.S. foreign policy.
TSA screeners moved George to a secondary area, swabbed his phone, searched his carry‑on, and questioned him for ~30–45 minutes before summoning a supervisor.
While the TSA supervisor was questioning him, a Philadelphia police officer handcuffed George, escorted him to the airport police station, and he was held in a cell (handcuffed for ~2 hours) for over four hours.
Two FBI JTTF agents later interviewed him for ~30 minutes, concluded he was not a threat, and released him; George alleges First and Fourth Amendment violations and sued federal officers under Bivens.
The district court denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions (qualified immunity asserted); the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded the federal officials are entitled to qualified immunity and reversed.

Issues

Issue	George's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether TSA’s continued screening/detention violated the Fourth Amendment	Continued detention after no explosives were found became an investigatory seizure/arrest lacking reasonable suspicion or probable cause	Initial administrative screening and brief escalation based on flashcards was a permissible, minimally intrusive administrative search and further inquiry was reasonable	Court: TSA screening and short additional detention were reasonable under the administrative‑search/Terry framework; no Fourth Amendment violation by TSA officials
Whether JTTF agents violated the Fourth Amendment by participating in detention/interrogation	JTTF agents’ arrival, search of belongings, 30‑minute questioning and delay in release contributed to unconstitutional seizure	JTTF agents responded to police request, questioned George, concluded no threat, and did not unlawfully prolong seizure	Court: Allegations insufficient to show JTTF agents violated Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity applies
Whether federal officials are liable for Philadelphia Police’s handcuffing, arrest and prolonged detention (agency/control theory)	Federal officials effectively controlled or directed local police, causing the prolonged arrest/detention	Local police acted independently; pleading lacks factual allegations showing legal/functional control by federal officials	Court: Conclusory agency allegations fail under Iqbal; cannot impute police conduct to federal defendants
Whether the searches/questioning were First Amendment retaliation for possession of materials	Possession of flashcards and a critical book was protected speech and motivated the harassment, detention and interrogation	Officials had an obvious non‑retaliatory, security‑based reason to investigate content that included violent/terroristic terms; reasonable suspicion negates retaliation inference	Court: Content of materials provided an obvious, lawful explanation for investigation; allegations do not plausibly establish First Amendment retaliation; qualified immunity applies

Key Cases Cited

Hartwell v. United States, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (upholding incremental, suspicionless airport screening as an administrative search when minimally intrusive and tailored)
United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (airport screening constitutionally reasonable; detention duration reasonable)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards: conclusory allegations insufficient)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permitting brief investigative stops on reasonable suspicion)
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (First Amendment retaliatory prosecution analysis and Bivens context)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (courts need not reach second step of qualified immunity if no constitutional violation is pleaded)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (balancing test for suspicionless checkpoints)