C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER XII—TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY › SUBCHAPTER C—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY › PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES › Subpart B—Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons

49 C.F.R. § 1540.109

Prohibition against interference with screening personnel

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

No person may interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties under this subchapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2022 · leading case: Aaron Tobey v. Terri Jones, 706 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aaron Tobey v. Terri Jones, 706 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 7× “[TSA] screening personnel in the perfor- mance of their duties," 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 ; and "[n]o per- son may .”
Michael J. Rendon v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 424 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 9× “Petitioner Michael Rendon appeals from the Transportation Security Administration Decision Maker’s order upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision finding that Petitioner had interfered with an airport screener in the performance of his screening duties in violation of…”
Rohan Ramsingh v. TSA, 40 F.4th 625 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 7× “]” 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 . Ramsingh petitioned this court to overturn the penalty on the ground that his refusal to submit to a pat-down, particularly in light of his medical justifications, did not constitute interference under the regulation.”
Zoltanski v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 372 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2004). “Second, she contends that the Administrator actually found her in violation of 49 C.F.R. 1540.109, which was promulgated in 2002 and thus not in effect on October 21, 1999.”
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2015). “22, 2002) (codified at 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 ). 3 . Mocek additionally alleges that he in fact revealed his name because it was printed on the boarding pass he gave to the TSA agents, though the complaint does not indicate that Officer Dilley knew about the boarding pass.”
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (D.N.M. 2014). · cites it 2× “See Federal MTD at 3-4 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 ). The TSA agents pointed out that Mocek willfully refused to provide identification to TSA agents at the Albuquerque Sunport.”
Kindhearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner, 647 F. Supp. 2d 857 (N.D. Ohio 2009). “” 49 C.F. R. § 1540.109. Because the statute requires that the plaintiff “interfere” with screeners in the performance of a specified task, it did not give screeners unfettered discretion to fine anyone they may find disruptive and therefore did not reach a substantial amount of…”
Brennan v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 691 F. App'x 332 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 (“No person may interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties under this subchap-ter.”
Rendon v. Trans Sec. Admin (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 10× “Petitioner Michael Rendon appeals from the Transportation Security Administration Decision Maker’s order upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision finding that Petitioner had interfered with an airport screener in the performance of his screening duties in violation of…”
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.