Elizabeth Koletas v. United States of America

Date: 11-13-2025

Case Number: 23-CV-733

Judge: SPC

Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orange County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Orlando

Description: 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.

Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: