Opinion ID: 2764193
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Modifications to PreCheck

Text: Ruskai's first proposal is to modify TSA's PreCheck program. She argues that even when a checkpoint lacks the -23- technology needed to confirm PreCheck status, she should be able to show TSA personnel medical records confirming she has an implant. But the security risks of requiring TSA to simply accept medical documentation as proof that Ruskai, or any other passenger, is not carrying a weapon are obvious. Moreover, Ruskai is already a PreCheck member, and did not clearly challenge the search protocol for PreCheck passengers in the administrative proceeding, or in her petition for review.5 As PreCheck expands, her cause for complaint shrinks. And if a checkpoint is not able to confirm PreCheck status, it would seem obvious that it could not confirm the authenticity of whatever medical documents Ruskai might show. Ultimately, the problem is that there is not yet PreCheck capability at all checkpoints where there are no AIT scanners. TSA, however, agrees with Ruskai that PreCheck should be more widely available. Indeed, the agency represents that its current 5 At oral argument, Ruskai contended that the more limited PreCheck pat-down is also unacceptable, and continued that theme in her second motion to supplement the record. Her opening brief did not distinguish between the standard and PreCheck pat-downs, and so arguably encompassed both. However, in her reply brief, Ruskai cited the more limited PreCheck pat-down as being an alternative that is more respectful of passengers' civil rights, and responded to the government's argument about the more limited PreCheck pat-down by asserting that there is no reason why she should not be able to show the card at every security lane . . . and receive the same benefit that she would in a PreCheck lane. Accordingly, we consider her objection to the PreCheck limited patdown raised for the first time at oral argument, and so forfeited. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a); Piazza v. Aponte Roque, 909 F.2d 35, 37 (1st Cir. 1990)(Except in extraordinary circumstances not present here, a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time at oral argument.). -24- screening program calls for continuous expansion of its use of AIT scanners and PreCheck. TSA's current use of both techniques and its ongoing efforts to expand their availability persuade us that it would make no sense to require TSA also to develop a system for, in effect, using medical documents in lieu of PreCheck.6