(a) In accordance with § 1542.217, each airport operator required to have a security program under § 1542.103(a) or (b) must provide:
(1) Law enforcement personnel in the number and manner adequate to support its security program.
(2) Uniformed law enforcement personnel in the number and manner adequate to support each system for screening persons and accessible property required under part 1544 or 1546 of this chapter, except to the extent that TSA provides Federal law enforcement support for the system.
(b) Each airport required to have a security program under § 1542.103(c) must ensure that:
(1) Law enforcement personnel are available and committed to respond to an incident in support of a civil aviation security program when requested by an aircraft operator or foreign air carrier that has a security program under part 1544 or 1546 of this chapter.
(2) The procedures by which to request law enforcement support are provided to each aircraft operator or foreign air carrier that has a security program under part 1544 or 1546 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. SEC. Admin. (2018)
ca3 · cites it 4×
“49 C.F.R. § 1542.215 (providing for “[u]niformed law enforcement personnel in the number and manner adequate to 15 support” passenger screenings).”
Roger Vanderklok v. United States (2017)
ca3
“Instead, they are instructed to carry out administrative searches and contact local law enforcement if they encounter situations requiring action beyond their limited though important responsibilities.”
Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA (2019)
ca3
“§ 44901(h)(1), “to support each system for screening” and perform those functions that TSA screeners have neither the authority nor the expertise to fulfill, 49 C.F.R. § 1542.215 (a)(2). And were there any doubt about whether Congress intended that mapping, the ATSA dispels it:…”
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque (2014)
nmd · cites it 2×
“8340, 8344)(citing 49 C.F.R. § 1542.215 ). The TSA agents asserted that Mocek’s “refusal to provide identification and his video recording of the screening process raised legitimate concerns about transportation security.”
Gesty v. United States (2019)
azd
“49 C.F.R. §§ 1542.215 , 1542.217. 3 Second, the plain meaning of the statute demonstrates that TSOs are not statutorily 4 considered officers under 49 U.”
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.