UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Jonathan Corbett,
Plaintiff
v.
Transportation Security Administration,
Defendant /
15-CV-______
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
OF THE 5THAMENDMENT TO
THE UNITEDSTATES
CONSTITUTION
JURY DEMANDED

SUMMARY

  1. Defendant Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) has required or coerced U.S.-based airlines to participate in its secret “international security interview program,” whereby individuals seeking to fly from foreign countries into the United States are required to answer questions posed by a security contractor hired by the airlines.
  1. Refusal to answer questions will result in denied boarding, stranding even U.S. citizens overseas unless and until they comply.
  1. This requirement is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, when placed in context with the constitutional rights to travel and for citizens to re-enter the country, as well as statutory guarantees of access to travel by air.

JURY TRIAL

  1. Plaintiff Jonathan Corbett (“CORBETT”) demands a jury trial.

PARTIES

  1. CORBETT is a U.S. citizen residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. CORBETT is a frequent flyer who has been, and will continue to regularly be, subject to the demands of the international security interview program.
  1. TSA is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

  1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, on the basis of there being a federal question. SeeBivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
  1. However, if the international security interview is determined to qualify as an “order” of the TSA, jurisdiction will be proper in the United States Court of Appeals. See49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). Because the challenged program is designated as Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”), 49 C.F.R. Part 15, Plaintiff does not have access to information to determine whether or not he is challenging an “order” at this time. Additionally, 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) sets a 60-day time limit for challenging orders, and the Court of Appeals has explained that mistakenly filing in a district court does not toll this time limit, and therefore concurrent petitions within both a district court and appellate court is appropriate when jurisdiction is uncertain. Corbett v. TSA, 767 F.3d 1171, 1179 (11th Cir. 2014). Therefore, Plaintiff is filing concurrently in the Court of Appeals.
  1. Additionally, some questions raised require adjudication by the Courts of Appeals. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges whether the international security interview program in its entirety meets the requirements for SSI designation. SSI designations are TSA orders and thus can only be reviewed by the Courts of Appeals.
  1. Venue is appropriate because the incident that gave rise to this action occurred while Plaintiff was en route to John F. Kennedy Airport (“JFK”), which is located within this district, and because the TSA maintains offices within this district.
  1. However, the venue for any challenge of TSA orders is proper, by statute, in either the D.C. Circuit or the circuit in which the petitioner resides. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). While Petitioner would prefer to file the concurrent petition in the Second Circuit since this complaint is filed in a district court within that circuit, this is not an option allowed under the law. Therefore, the concurrent filing will be made in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals[1].

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

  1. On December 25th, 2014, CORBETT arrived at London Heathrow Airport (LHR), in the United Kingdom.
  1. CORBETT was ticketed to fly that day from LHR to John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) in Queens, New York, on American Airlines (“AA”).
  1. Upon entering an airport lounge operated by AA, a man at a podium (“Security Contractor I”) asked to see CORBETT’s passport and began asking questions of him.
  1. This question and answer session is known as the “international security interview program;” however, travelers are not informed of this program and a search of the Internet shows that no public acknowledgement of this program exists.
  1. Initially, the questions seemed to be queries about the flight CORBETT intended to take (e.g., “Where are you going?”).
  1. However, the questions progressed into personal questions unrelated to the flight at hand (e.g., “Why were you traveling?”).
  1. CORBETT asked Security Contractor I if these questions were necessary, and Security Contractor I replied in the affirmative.
  1. CORBETT refused to answer the question posed.
  1. Security Contractor I returned CORBETT’s passport and directed him to the lounge staff, who allowed CORBETT to proceed.
  1. However, Security Contractor I did not place a sticker on CORBETT’s passport, as he would have had CORBETT completed the interview.
  1. A passenger lacking a sticker who approaches the gate is sent to another security contractor to be interviewed.
  1. Therefore, CORBETT, upon reaching the gate for his departure, was asked to speak with another man at a podium (“Security Contractor II”).
  1. Security Contractor II did not force CORBETT to answer any personal questions not directly related to his flight, and therefore CORBETT was given a sticker and was permitted to fly.
  1. Upon information and belief, the questions asked vary significantly based on the individual asking them, and the intensity of the questions asked of travelers is “luck of the draw” based on which interrogator they happen to be directed to.
  1. Later, CORBETT contacted AA to complain about the security procedures.
  1. AA informed CORBETT that the procedures he encountered were “controlled by DHS/TSA.”
  1. CORBETT then contacted the TSA to clarify that the program was their requirement.
  1. TSA informed CORBETT that “American Airlines is required to conduct a security interview of passengers prior to departure to the United States from an overseas last point of departure airport. If a passenger declines the security interview, American Airlines will deny the passenger boarding. The contents of the security program and the security interview are considered Sensitive Security Information (SSI) under Title 49 CFR 1520 and its contents are not for public disclosure.”
  1. CORBETT is a frequent flyer, having flown approximately 100,000 miles (approximately 200 hours in the air) over the last year, has consistently flown at least tens of thousands of miles annually for each of the past 5 years, and plans to continue to fly at that level in 2015 and beyond.
  1. CORBETT regularly flies internationally, frequently enough to require the Department of State to add additional pages to his passport to accommodate the visa stamps.
  1. Therefore, CORBETT is virtually certain to encounter the program in the future.
  1. CORBETT intends to exercise his right to remain silent should he encounter this program in the future, regardless of the nature of the questions, and legitimately fears (because the government told him so) that this will cause him to be unable to return to his home, effectively stranding him overseas.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

  1. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees U.S. citizens the right to travel, both domestically and internationally. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958). SeealsoIbrahim v. D.H.S., Order Denying Motion to Dismiss,06-CV-545 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 20th, 2012) (“While the Constitution does not ordinarily guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation, given that other forms of travel usually remain possible, the fact remains that for international travel, air transport in these modern times is practically the only form of transportation, travel by ship being prohibitively expensive or so it will be presumed at the pleading stage.”).
  1. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees the right to remain silent.
  1. However, the government has, via forcing a domestic airline to implement a secret security procedure, now required that citizens seeking to re-enter the country explain themselves and answer any questions presented to them or be forced to remain abroad until they do, thus effectively abridging both prongs of the Fifth Amendment discussed above.
  1. This program thusly violates CORBETT’s Fifth Amendment rights.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

  1. Declaratory relief stating that the international security interview program, as described by CORBETT, is unconstitutional.
  1. Injunctive relief requiring that the TSA no longer compel, or in any way coerce, any airline into implementing the international security interview program, and to notify all airlines that they may revise their security protocols accordingly.
  1. Nominal damages in the amount of US$21.00.
  1. Cost of the action.
  1. Reasonable attorney’s fees, should CORBETT retain an attorney[2].
  1. Any other such relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Dated: New York, New YorkRespectfully submitted,

February 23rd, 2015

______

Jonathan Corbett

Plaintiff, Pro Se

382 N.E. 191st St., #86952

Miami, FL 33179

E-mail:

- 1 -

[1]Plaintiff recognizes that it borders on the absurd that he should be required to simultaneously file in a district court and in a circuit court in another part of the country that has no authority over the district court. It is inefficient and, in Plaintiff’s view, a waste of limited judicial resources. However, that is the law that Congress has wrote, as interpreted by the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the matter.

[2] CORBETT is presently representing himself in this action pro se, and is not seeking attorney’s fees for any pro se work. CORBETT only seeks attorney’s fees in the event that he retains an attorney at a later point, and only for the work completed by said attorney.