next case for argument is led light to them versus united states department of homeland security be made that the t s a official was a law enforcement officer i'm certain instance a question the argument was made before judge clunes the district court judge that as i think i understand the record the t s a officer was a law enforcement official so that was another reason that you were not going to be successful in your case right no i think he's a  to do the subject matter it's very unfortunate that that's that's a situation ok so your red light is on which means your time to argue is finished except that you have another minute after ms olds who is representing the government argues to us i want to assure you we read your papers in this case a question fully aware of that of course and we're we're going to hear from the government at this point and then you'll have a chance to respond his preflight screening at john f kennedy airport specifically the t s a screeners do not fall within the law enforcement proviso of the federal tort claims act i guess the rd circuit doesn't agree with you right but that's correct  context is indicated in a few ways st the proviso applies only to a precise group of people investigative or law enforcement officers and those limitations reflect congress's judgment that the proviso shouldn't apply to every federal employee who screens or pro or conducts a search but only to a precise group well that's for sure but law enforcement officer is defined right that's correct it's it's it's defined as those empowered by law to execute searches to se is executing a search and the rd circuit least a majority of thought that it was right that's true and why is that wrong that's wrong because for a few reasons st of all those three  authority acts as in those three ways execute searches seize evidence and make arrests for violations of law inform each other and provide a context that indicates that the proviso applies to those who do traditional police power functions as searching for and responding to violations of federal law which is not what t s a screeners do t s a screeners conduct administrative searches preventing violations of law they are there in effect to keep certain prohibited items from getting past a certain point that's very different than the broad powers are or police functions that indicated by those three things and further the proviso includes the words empowered by law as your honor mentioned which means that we've to look at the statute that empowers t s a screeners and and look at what it is they are empowered to do and as i mentioned they are empowered to screen and section one  p of that statute does actually give t s a the authority to to designate certain employees as law enforcement officers and they have done that and the responsibilities there's a stark difference in the responsibilities between people who have have and in fact in the course of their administrative search if he has he screeners come upon evidence of violation of law they are required to call those who have been so it hasn't made it by is he a say is those are the people who actually investigate and determine whether there has been a violation of law or not and that phrase empowered by law is important as shown by this court's decision and wilson it's not just a question of whether what they do searches but is it a search within the meaning of the law enforcement provi wilson which as i mentioned you know looks at whether sees means just because it's their inherent to seize whether that's the same as being empowered to seize within the meaning of the law enforcement proviso and so the district teed up down there and it is the way it's teed up in front of us i mean i i would like the government's view on that i'm not asking you to pronounce foreign oil obviously we've got to figure that out oh well there there is certainly intentional conduct that's played here  i know that the plaintiff is making the argument that it may have not been intentional but but the facts as alleged in the complaint do do indicate intentional conduct and so the government i thank you for being here to present it thank you both we will reserve decision on this case