and a lot of the government's argument here is that transportation security officers aren't wrong force one officer somehow because they don't have the panoply or the menu of things within their power such as arresting such as carrying it this is this is not conduct or perform searches execute searches and we consider that language which really sounds it in the language of of warrants of criminal law are consider carry a loaded firearm on a plane and their instruction training and identifying those things explosives items like that which are violations of the criminal law so they are searching for violations of the criminal law we read the word execute is to carry where federal officers went to people's homes without warrants arrest of been without probable cause and it resulted in congress wanted to create a remedy for our people when their encounter with a federal official who had the power to search who had the power to seize or who had the power to arrest houses that in a violation of their rights how is the nature of that search and more criminal than other types of the main street searches that the meat inspector w arrest but that person would fall into this statute and here is why what congress was concerned about is the abuse by a federal official every one of these awesome powers there are compilers of sawsan in our federal system has the power to search individuals bags or his or her person were to seize evidence or to arrest them and congress was focused on only like a laser beam on those kinds of abuses so i know all of those cases aren't before you today but i preach eate that you are concerned about what the implications would be here and i think that if congress has delegated to a federal official the power to conduct a search were to seize evidence or to make an arrest but those would churches that are because they're consensual this court has rejected that reasoning as to airport checkpoints and has said that these are not consensual search is that they are searches on the fourth amendment that don't turn on consent and when you're in that process you can not get out of it as it requests there was an escalation in the hardwell case and the court addressed the idea of whether or not a mistrial could have just walked out of that and the court said this was not turned on whether or not it's consensual because if it did it would essentially allow terrorists to rock into the two thousand and five and they are transportation security officers they were a badge that says united states officer on them and their on it in their held out to the public as officer twenty one zero four let me address that for a moment i think one of the problems you have if you go with twenty one of floors first list rights the for the purpose of this subsection second the definition there is someone under inclusive for instance postal officers are excluded from the definition of officer would need an appointment by the attorney general in order to be properly does it needs an officer and that statute even transportation security officers when they get a special designation of law enforcement officer which this court as it talked about in vander clock and i know it didn't rule on that issue later caught but it talked about how maybe there are instances when people have that special person officer designation maybe that's enough because they'd be appointed by the head of the t s a and not the head of the h s they probably are officers under twenty one for so any reference to another statute runs into a lot of problems one it's potentially under inclusive and it takes up people that you what about if if you look at forty four nine zero one says the screening shall take place before boarding and shall be carried out by a federal government employee it doesn't say by a law enforcement officer doesn't even say an officer no course it cites back to twenty fifteen but i don't find that all that helpful either but it is the statute that the authority of law and so for that officer with all of these functions that we traditionally associate with law enforcement i think it i think it means what it says the secretary undersecretary or the head of the t s a has the power to get people a title one of the t s a known as law enforcement officer and with that comes along retirement benefits it comes along a certain authorities to carry a gun to we're asked to seize evidence and to search the problem you help with that is this statute and the federal tort claims act doesn't require all of those things it just requires one of those things it is investigated or law enforcement officer which is defined then is any says nothing about investigative officers and the federal proclaims act talks about us law enforcement officers were to defines probably is any officer so i think it's clear that these folks are an officer what in one fourteen also in your earl people als officers which has not by the way been challenge that we can tell since it happened in two thousand and five other than congress in two thousand and eleven trying to take that title away and something called the strip back which never analysis of one fourteen p c of the transportation security act in the quote was exactly right there these are not law enforcement officers on board the transportation security act but i think the question that wasn't answered inventor clock is are they any officer of the united states investigative officer of the united states and iran force one officer designation that exists under one for ten p only really answers part of the question why didn't we see that in the context of the discussion about what not going to open up a floodgate of that occasion the transportation security administration actually keeps track of the experiences that people have when they go through airport screening to me put the statistics up on line in their public database in t thousand and fifteen over seven hundred million people went through screening they are required if they have a complaint the filing ministry of complaint with the t s a fewer than two hundred of those people actually people actually filed complaints with expanding it to a very different type of conduct well i would agree with you that it didn't is wrong it is one thing in a federal tort claims remedy is another thing and you're actually right in the legislative history the legislative history said but the amendment should not be it is limited to constitutional torts situations but would apply to any case in which a federal law enforcement agent committed to twelve well acting within the scope of his employment or under the color of federal law so if the court concerned that there may be instances where people seem to have a federal proclaim sacked remedy and they don't have a big tremonti i think that's fine because constitutional torts are hired to prove they are in their bad aspects to it there's qualified immunity where congress was going at here is trying to provide a remedy a good old fashioned court remedy for those who are victims of the most egregious the most serious intentional towards and so i think that the even a reasonable suspicion to engage in physical searches and this is not as in a typical administrative search context where we are highly regulated industry specialized with i suggested businesses that when you're talking about the ministry of search of an airport i think it's actually closer to what donna mentioned tons of the highly regulated industry out is this is one of the most highly regulated industries where the government itself is conducting the straining at airports and th search that is at issue at an airport i think it's called george and others have said it's a very particular type of search you have airline passengers and people who are looking to ship cargo showing up presenting themselves and there are certain safeguards in this transmission that yes it's a different type to search in that you can't decline to continue to search once you showed up but there are all sorts of regulations and procedures that put in place i think it's very different and i don't think you can equate it to a terr stop of an officer who has a reasonable suspicion that someone that he observes on the street may be up to no good obviously that person isn't presenting themselves to the officer and suggesting that they may or may not have an issue activity it's the status of the officer that the terms what they are covered so once you go down this that what is a search what is not a search you get into an area that i don't think this court needs to reach that the eleventh circuit court said they did not need to reach because ultimately what matters be wearing a badge may not be called the same thing but they have very specific statutory grants if you look at chapter twenty three of title eighteen which empowers various types of investigatory and wrong force and officers those are the types that is an officer for the much like the eleventh circuit said that you don't have to get into the definition of a search i think it's the cleaner way of doing it is like you know what is under milpark the status of the group of people we're talking about not what it is that they're they're actually  what categories of officers we're talking about who have that status and certainly those are as you are to describe them criminal law enforcement officers or current law enforcement powers if we start expanding this to ever sort of definition of what could be a search what could be a itself or even the term officer is you're asking us to define it only criminal law enforcement i think that phrase just helps the helps inform again what we're talking about it's not meant to create yet another officer may have what could be considered a law enforcement function as opposed to an investigatory one function i don't know exactly what that would be but it may be that it's just to make it a little bit broader than that just  traditional arrest powers there are certainly types of officer she may also be involved in investigating as if that's part of their duties and not necessarily just seen traditions or by west search and seizure proposal security at airports and whether you know to fly that plane if you don't agree they go through it right correct and so you're saying if they d word is contemplating that they are dear j officers can you explain where that that authorization for settlement the for those claims for damages officer different agencies who are not just department justice have their own force and officers who ultimately are defended by the department of justice and the department justice has ups its own internal procedures for consideration approval the face of the f t c any but here we're dealing with an exception to the exception and it's an exception to the government and congress having asserted sovereign again is it is it the government's position that the that the general negligence as it applies soon most federal employees in a certain exceptions that are in twenty six eighty twenty six eighty eight then takes that exception back into research sovereign immunity when it comes to intentional torts as as the words and certainly in this class of status of people that you're sick screeners are not within that exception to the exception to the exception such that stopping on a day should be wait wait for that particular case of an intentional toward involving a t s a screener to searching at airports are your person in your belongings and then that is required to be carried out by an employee that doesn't necessarily preclude that person from also be an officer which is what the t s a in ministr the court said but the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous and you should apply that language this case really turns on three words any officer for the purpose of this based on the postal service putting a package on someone steps and she fell over it and the government said if you let this case go forward six hundred sixteen million parcels a day are delivered two hundred forty two million different locations united