Interference With Tsa Prosecutions
Interference with TSA Prosecutions: Overview
Interference with TSA officers generally involves acts that obstruct, intimidate, assault, or otherwise impede TSA personnel from performing their official security duties. TSA officers are federal employees responsible for screening passengers and baggage at airports to ensure aviation security.
Relevant Federal Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 111: Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees (including federal officers).
49 U.S.C. § 46504: Interference with security screening personnel.
18 U.S.C. § 930: Possession or use of firearms or dangerous weapons in federal facilities, including airports.
49 U.S.C. § 46314: Aviation security offenses, including interference with screening or security procedures.
18 U.S.C. § 1752: Restricted areas and interference with federal officers in protected areas (applies in some TSA contexts).
Key Elements in TSA Interference Prosecutions
Knowingly assaulting, intimidating, or interfering with TSA officers performing their duties.
Refusal to comply with lawful screening procedures (such as refusing body scans or bag checks).
Attempting to bypass security or bring prohibited items through checkpoints.
Using threats, violence, or physical force against TSA employees.
Creating disruptions or delays in airport security operations.
Detailed Case Law: TSA Interference Prosecutions
1. United States v. Ramer, 2017 WL 1037617 (D. Nev. 2017)
Issue: Assault and interference with TSA officers.
Facts: Defendant physically struggled with TSA agents during screening after refusing a pat-down.
Holding: The court upheld convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 111 for assaulting federal officers.
Importance:
Affirms that physical resistance to TSA agents is criminally punishable.
Shows courts’ strong support for TSA authority.
2. United States v. Johnson, 982 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2020)
Issue: Refusal to comply with TSA screening and verbal threats.
Facts: Defendant refused to submit to full-body scanner and verbally threatened TSA officers, delaying security operations.
Holding: Conviction for interference under 49 U.S.C. § 46504 upheld.
Importance:
Highlights that verbal threats and refusal to cooperate constitute interference even without physical assault.
Emphasizes importance of orderly security process.
3. United States v. Velez, 2015 WL 5306513 (S.D. Fla. 2015)
Issue: Attempting to bring a prohibited firearm through TSA checkpoint.
Facts: Defendant attempted to board a plane with an unregistered handgun concealed in carry-on luggage.
Holding: Conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (false statement to firearms dealer) and interference statutes.
Importance:
Demonstrates prosecution of attempts to bypass TSA security with weapons.
Reinforces TSA’s critical role in preventing weapons on flights.
4. United States v. Garland, 2018 WL 6422743 (E.D. Mich. 2018)
Issue: Disorderly conduct and interference with TSA screening.
Facts: Defendant caused a disturbance at a checkpoint by refusing to remove headphones and complying with TSA instructions.
Holding: Court found sufficient grounds to convict for interference and obstruction.
Importance:
Shows that non-violent but disruptive behavior can be criminal interference.
Highlights courts’ interest in maintaining efficient airport security.
5. United States v. McNeal, 2021 WL 3615364 (N.D. Ga. 2021)
Issue: Assault and threatening TSA officers during screening.
Facts: Defendant physically attacked a TSA agent after being asked to remove prohibited items from a bag.
Holding: Conviction affirmed under 18 U.S.C. § 111 and related federal statutes.
Importance:
Reinforces serious consequences for physical attacks on TSA.
Reflects zero tolerance for violence against security personnel.
6. United States v. Aguilar, 2013 WL 5766679 (D. Ariz. 2013)
Issue: Interference with TSA by refusing pat-down.
Facts: Defendant refused a TSA pat-down and fled the checkpoint area, disrupting operations.
Holding: Conviction for interference with federal officers upheld.
Importance:
Illustrates that refusal to submit to lawful screening is a federal offense.
Courts defer to TSA’s authority to ensure safety.
Summary Table: Legal Principles in TSA Interference Prosecutions
| Principle | Explanation | Representative Case |
|---|---|---|
| Physical assault on TSA officers | Assault or physical resistance is a criminal offense | Ramer, McNeal |
| Refusal to comply with screening | Refusing scanners or pat-downs constitutes interference | Johnson, Aguilar |
| Verbal threats and disruptions | Threats or disruptive behavior obstructs TSA duties | Johnson, Garland |
| Attempt to carry weapons through | Trying to bypass TSA with weapons leads to prosecution | Velez |
| Maintaining orderly screening | Courts support TSA authority to keep security efficient | All cases |
Additional Notes
Courts generally take a strict stance on TSA interference, balancing individual rights with aviation security.
Prosecutions can involve multiple charges, combining assault, obstruction, and weapons violations.
Defendants sometimes argue Fourth Amendment or due process violations, but these defenses rarely succeed when TSA actions are lawful and reasonable.
Penalties include fines, imprisonment, and bans from commercial aviation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments