(a) No person may:
(1) Tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, attempt to circumvent, or cause a person to tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, or attempt to circumvent any security system, measure, or procedure implemented under this subchapter.
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
(3) Use, allow to be used, or cause to be used, any airport-issued or airport-approved access medium or identification medium that authorizes the access, presence, or movement of persons or vehicles in secured areas, AOA's, or SIDA's in any other manner than that for which it was issued by the appropriate authority under this subchapter.
(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to conducting inspections or tests to determine compliance with this part or 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII authorized by:
(1) TSA, or
(2) The airport operator, aircraft operator, or foreign air carrier, when acting in accordance with the procedures described in a security program approved by TSA.
Notes of Decisions
Aaron Tobey v. Terri Jones, 706 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “any security system, measure, or procedure," 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105 . Based on the facts alleged in his complaint, Mr.”
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105 (a)(2). The Congress did, however, in 2004, direct the TSA to “give a high priority to developing, testing, improving, and deploying” at airport screening checkpoints a new technology “that detects nonmetallic, chemical, biological, and radiological…”
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2015).
“See 49 C.F.R. §§ 1540.105 (a), 1540.109. Mocek had been resisting the agents’ attempts to identify him, and it was clear that passengers who “simply refuse[d] to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity” would not be…”
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
“§ 44903 (h) (authorizing TSA screening of “all individuals” before entry into a secured area of covered airports); 49 C.F.R. §§ 1540.105 , 1540.107 (including 49 U.”
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (D.N.M. 2014).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105 . Furthermore, the TSA at the Albuquerque Sunport is required to have a security program, which provides for law enforcement personnel “in the number and manner adequate to support each system for screening persons and accessible property.”
Jameson Weatherford v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F. App'x 255 (4th Cir. 2013).
“Weatherford petitions for review of the Transportation Security Administration’s (“TSA”) order imposing a *256 $1500 penalty for his violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 1540.105 (a), 1540.111(a)(1) (2018).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.