Elizabeth Koletas v. United States of America

Orlando, Florida personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a Federal Tort Claims Act claim.



On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff Elisabeth Koletas was traveling

through Southwest Florida International Airport. Upon arriving at

the security screening area, Koletas, four months pregnant, re

quested to undergo a pat-down instead of walking through a body

scanner. She explained that she was concerned about the effects of

radiation emitted from the body scanner on her pregnancy. Her

request was granted.



Koletas was then directed to the side of the security screen

ing area, where Transportation Security Officer (TSO) Sarno per

formed a pat-down search of Koletas. During this search, Sarno

engaged in a prolonged probe of Koletas's vaginal area, homing in

on unidentified material in Koletas's underwear. Koletas explained

to Sarno that the unidentified material was a piece of toilet paper

to stem vaginal bleeding resulting from her pregnancy. Skeptical

of this explanation, Sarno moved Koletas to an isolated room to

conduct further searching, and left to retrieve her supervisor.

Sarno returned with Supervising TSO Shane, who con

ducted further probing of Koletas's underwear and vaginal area.

Shane asked Koletas to lift up her dress and expose her underwear

so that Shane could see the purported toilet paper. Koletas de

murred, suggesting instead that she could remove the toilet paper

from her underwear and show it to Shane. But Shane rejected

Koletas's suggestion and again directed her to lift up her dress.

Koletas relented. Shane then pulled down Koletas's underwear, ex

posed her vaginal area, and removed the bloodied toilet paper. No

prohibited items were uncovered. So Shane permitted Koletas to

leave the room and proceed through security.



Koletas was deeply shaken by her encounter with Sarno and

Shane, and developed a host of psychological and physical symp

toms as a result of enduring their strip search. Accordingly, after

exhausting her administrative remedies, on September 13, 2023,

Koletas filed a FTCA suit against the United States, alleging battery,

false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress,

and negligence.



The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) effects a broad waiver

of sovereign immunity for torts committed by United States em

ployees. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. Although this broad waiver is

subject to several exceptions, including 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)'s inten

tional tort exception, Congress enacted a "law enforcement pro

viso” to § 2680(h), preserving the FTCA's waiver of sovereign im

munity for certain intentional torts committed by a defined class

of "investigative or law enforcement officers.”



This appeal asks us to determine whether Transportation

Security Officers authorized to conduct searches of people and

their property at airports fall within that defined class, which com

prises "officer[s] of the United States” who are "empowered by law

to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for viola

tions of Federal law.” 28 U.S.C § 2680(h).



Because federal regulations expressly authorize Transporta

tion Security Officers to conduct searches of both people and prop

erty to prevent prohibited items from being brought onto aircraft,

we join our five sister circuits that have addressed this issue in hold

ing that Transportation Security Officers are "investigative or law

enforcement officers” under the plain language of § 2680(h)'s law

enforcement proviso.



The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-mat

ter jurisdiction, arguing that § 2680(h)'s intentional tort exception

granted the United States sovereign immunity from the battery

and false imprisonment allegedly committed by TSOs Sarno and

Shane.2 Koletas responded that the Third and Eighth Circuits had

recently published decisions, concluding that TSOs fall under §2680(h)'s

law enforcement proviso carve-out of the intentional tort

exception.

Motion to dismiss granted.



Affirmed