And everyone abused by one of the thugs hiding behind a federal ID needs to go after the thug the same way.
Defendant does not cite, and the Court cannot see, any other reason why
national security concerns would counsel hesitation to imply a Bivens
remedy here. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed excessive force
during a security screening, deliberately and gratuitously striking
Plaintiff in the groin. This is not conduct that the TSA has deemed
necessary, or even desirable, to protect national security. Indeed, the
TSA expressly forbids its officers to engage in such behavior. …
oratorical calisthenics appear calculated to avoid simple questions
with obvious answers: First, does the Fourth Amendment permit a federal
officer to gratuitously strike an individual during a search? No.
Second, was that clearly established in the law at the time? Yes. …
the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint as true, Plaintiff was not
suspected of committing any crime, posed no threat to Defendant or
others, and fully complied with Defendant’s instructions during the
pat-down search. The search in question went well beyond what was
necessary to detect contraband, and was not confined to that purpose.
There was, in short, no legitimate government interest served by
Defendant’s alleged use of force to be weighed against Plaintiff’s
substantial interest in being free from an unreasonable seizure. Such an
action is “objectively unreasonable,” by any measure, and violates the
Fourth Amendment. …