Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Religion Clause

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

"Flying Imams" Can Proceed Against Airport Security Officers For Search and Arrest

By Howard M. Friedman

In the so-called "flying Imams" case (see prior posting), a Minnesota federal district court on Friday refused to dismiss false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure and equal protection claims against Metropolitan Airport Commission officers. The six plaintiffs, all imams, were removed from U.S. Airways Flight 300 in 2006 as they were returning from the North American Imams Federation conference held in Minneapolis. The action was prompted after reports that the men were praying loudly before the flight, that they talked about Saddam Hussein, they had no checked luggage, two of the men requested seat belt extensions, and they sat in a "suspicious" seating pattern. The imams were detained in the jet way, handcuffed, searched, transported to police operations center and questioned for several hours before being released.

In Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., (D MN, July 24, 2009), the court wrote, in part:

MAC Defendants suggest that the attacks of September 11, 2001?perpetrated by men of Middle Eastern descent who espoused a radical version of Islam?justifies a massive curtailment of liberty whenever terrorism, and in this case, the suspicion of Islamic terrorism, is concerned. Unquestionably the events of 9/11 changed the calculus in the balance American society chooses to make, especially in airport settings, between liberty and security. Ultimately, the proper balance will be achieved, in large part, because we have the most capable and diligent law enforcement and intelligence communities in the world. But when a law enforcement officer exercises the power of the Sovereign over its citizens, she or he has a responsibility to operate within the bounds of the Constitution and cannot raise the specter of 9/11 as an absolute exception to that responsibility.

On the record before the Court, no reasonable officer could have believed they could arrest Plaintiffs without probable cause. The right that was violated is clearly established, and, thus, the MAC Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, summary judgment is denied on the unreasonable seizure claim.

The court however did dismiss plaintiffs' claims against US Airways holding that it was not a state actor and that law enforcement officers did not substitute the airline's judgment for their own. the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported on the decision yesterday. (See prior related posting.)

Full post as published by Religion Clause on July 26, 2009 (boomark / email).