Ruskai v. Pistole
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24350
1st Cir.2014Background
- Ruskai has metallic joint implants and triggers WTMD alarms at security checkpoints.
- TSA uses AIT scanners or a standard pat-down as primary/secondary screening when WTMD alarms occur.
- Ruskai challenges TSA's Screening Checkpoint SOP as violating the Fourth Amendment and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- TSA has been expanding AIT and the PreCheck program to reduce reliance on standard pat-downs.
- Ruskai seeks a metal-only search using HHMD and medical documentation, with pat-down limited to alerted areas.
- The court ultimately denies relief, upholding TSA's current multi-tier screening approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TSA's standard pat-down is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. | Ruskai argues pat-down is invasive and exceeds scope for metal-only issues. | TSA asserts a balanced, reasonably effective search for both metallic and nonmetallic weapons. | Fourth Amendment claim denied. |
| Whether TSA's procedures discriminate against Ruskai under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. | Disparate impact on disabled individuals from WTMD-triggered searches. | No meaningful access denied; TSA's actions are not discriminatory in effect regarding program access. | Rehabilitation Act claim denied. |
| Whether TSA could have taken less intrusive or alternative measures yet still meet security goals. | Proposes metal-only HHMD searches and greater reliance on medical documentation. | Alternatives exist but are not practicable or would undermine efficiency and safety. | Reasonable accommodation not required; current protocol upheld. |
| Whether the record supports TSA's effectiveness and underinclusiveness justifications. | Insufficient evidence of effectiveness; protocol is underinclusive. | Some evidence supports effectiveness; TSA expanding AIT/PreCheck. | Court accepts TSA's justifications; not dispositive to grant relief. |
| Whether TSA's handling of complaints and record supplementation affected review. | TSA failed to investigate complaints timely; extra-record submissions warranted. | Record supplementation allowed; mootness and timing considerations addressed. | Not dispositive to the merits; court reviews on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Von Raab v. United States, 489 U.S. 656, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) (administrative searches may be justified without probable cause in some contexts)
- Cassidy v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006) (reasonableness in administrative searches; not required to be least intrusive)
- Earls v. Board of Education, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) (risk-based testing allowed in schools; substantial public safety interest)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (disparate impact under §504 not always required; meaningful access focus)
- Theriault v. Flynn, 162 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) (meaningful access analysis; safety interests permit reasonable accommodations)
- Sitz v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (sobriety checkpoint effectiveness; government interest vs. intrusion)
- Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 767 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2014) (nonmetallic explosives threat; reasonable administrative alternatives)
- Hartwell v. United States, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (airport checkpoint searches; special needs doctrine)