Texas bill to criminalize "enhanced pat-downs" hits setback

Passengers wait in line to pass through the security check point at DFW Airport in Fort Worth,Texas November 15, 2007. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

Passengers wait in line to pass through the security check point at DFW Airport in Fort Worth,Texas November 15, 2007.

Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi

Related Topics

AUSTIN, Tex | Wed May 25, 2011 11:26am EDT

AUSTIN, Tex (Reuters) - A controversial proposal to criminalize "enhanced pat-downs" at Texas airports stalled in the state senate late on Tuesday night, following a lobbying effort against it by the federal government.

State Senator Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican, had said he had enough support to win approval of the measure, which would have called for Transportation Security Administration agents to be charged with misdemeanor sexual harassment for what the bill calls 'intrusive touching,' a crime that carries a penalty of up to a year in jail.

The bill described 'intrusive touching' as touching a passenger's sexual organs, or 'touching in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.'

But after John Murphy, United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, circulated a letter threatening to cancel flights out of Texas if the law passed, Patrick saw support for the measure rapidly vanish.

When Patrick found he no longer had the two thirds majority of the senate required under the rules to debate a bill on the floor, he pulled it from consideration. With the legislature set to adjourn on Monday, the proposal looks dead for the current session.

Murphy had written that: "The proposed legislation would criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations in order to ensure the safety of the American public."

"Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law."

Murphy said if the measure became law, the TSA would "likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew."

State Representative David Simpson, a Longview Republican who introduced the bill in the Texas house, where it was approved two weeks ago, criticized Murphy's 'brazen show of disregard for the dignity and the constitutional rights of American citizens.'

"The Federal Government showed its willingness to bully the State of Texas if attempts to protect passengers from being forced to give up constitutional rights are not dropped," Simpson said.

"Either Texas backs off and continues to let government employees fondle innocent women, children, and men as a condition of travel, or the TSA will cancel Texas flights."

Simpson said his bill specifically exempts TSA agents from prosecution if federal law directs them to perform "invasive, indecent groping searches."

(Additional reporting by Jim Forsyth; Editing by Jerry Norton)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
HSaxon wrote:
This is disappointing news. We need to send a clear message – that invasive genital touching is not okay. We are not willing to give up our rights and allow ourselves, our wives and our children to suffer these abuses. We are Americans and we need to start acting like it.

May 25, 2011 12:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
141West wrote:
I hope the Texas legislature reconsiders when they realize the dictatorial methods employed by the TSA.

And I hope other states take note and stand up with Texas.

May 25, 2011 1:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
slippy01 wrote:
The TSA’s official statement: The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.

The problem here? The statement is false. Ignorance from the TSA is unlikely, so let’s call a spade a spade. They’re lying.

The supremacy clause says nothing of the sort. Here’s the full text:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, in simple terms, what does the supremacy clause mean? Just what it says. The constitution is supreme. And any federal laws made in line with the constitution are supreme. Nothing more, nothing less.

Notice there’s not one single word in the actual text that says anything about states regulating the federal government as the TSA claims. They’re just making things up as they go.

May 25, 2011 6:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.