Whether the attested-as-intentional excessive and unreasonable force striking of a cooperative passenger's genitals by a TSA screener not meeting mandatory precedent thresholds, should be allowed to usurp police powers and be granted qualified immunity to defeat an otherwise obvious 4th Amendment violation actionable under Bivens?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondent, an individual capacity TSA screener : seeks qualified immunity for alleged excessive force striking of a cooperative non-custodial airport passenger’s genitals, later requiring, surgery for attackattributed nerve damage upon petitioner. The screener and TSA supervisors filed attestations that the striking was intentional, but laughed and refused several times to simply apologize. The admitted non-police TSA screener was eventually arrested by petitioner under common law for felony sexual battery. Qualified immunity, already being claimed by TSA screeners nationwide, violates district, 4th Circuit, and mandatory precedents barring qualified immunity and proscribing a 4th Amendment violation in closely parallel cases. The district and appellate courts granted and affirmed en banc TSA’s permanent self-written order to foreclose all future lawsuits against TSA by making TSA its own sole arbiter of future evidence decisions (with retroactive authority to render evidence inadmissible) and the authority and temptation to violate 49 U.S.C. § 114@). The refusal by the 4th Circuit and district court to recognize this TSA’s screener’s felony sexual battery arrest creates circuit splits with the 9th Circuit, the Virginia Supreme Court, and state courts nationwide. Virginia citizens and police off-duty or outside of their jurisdictions now face false arrest charges themselves for arresting felony suspects. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Whether the excessive and unreasonable force striking of a cooperative ii passenger’s genitals by a TSA screener not meeting mandatory precedent thresholds, should be allowed to usurp police powers and be granted qualified immunity to defeat an otherwise obvious 4th Amendment violation actionable under Bivens? 2. Whether the district court’s granting of a permanent nation-wide order, verbatim-written by TSA, should be vacated since it grants authority for TSA to retroactively violate 49 U.S.C. § 114@) and makes TSA the sole arbiter of its own decisions, effectively foreclosing all future lawsuits against TSA despite merits and remedies in established law? 8. Whether the Circuit split denying common law felony arrest rights in the 4th Circuit and Virginia district court, should be reconciled to accord with established law in the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court in Virginia, and state courts nation-wide, to restore the rights of police and citizens to arrest felony suspects without themselves being liable for false arrest charges?