On January 3, 2014 The National Law Journal ran a story spotlighting Ruskai v. Pistole, the firm’s case challenging the TSA’s policy of giving invasive full-body pat-downs to disabled passengers who alarm metal detectors. Inga Bernstein, lead counsel on the case, explains that basic Fourth Amendment law requires the court to balance the need for any search “against the intrusiveness of the search, and the [TSA’s] search is highly intrusive.” Bernstein also notes that the TSA’s policy disproportionately affects older passengers with metal joint implants, who are a significant portion of the passengers who alarm metal detectors, but that those passengers are not a heightened security risk. ““There’s no correlation between [their devices] alarming the system and the risk they present as a traveler,” Bernstein stated.
The full article can be found at The National Law Journal
On January 6, 2014 the Boston Business Journal ran an article on the case, describing the pat-downs Ruskai receives when she alarms metal detectors: “The TSA pat-downs Ruskai receives include her entire body, Bernstein said. Ruskai repeatedly is touched on her inner thighs, Bernstein said. ‘She objects to that,’ Bernstein said, adding that Ruskai’s breasts are touched and fingers are run on the inside of her waist band.”
The full article can be found at the Boston Business Journal