Reducing and Managing Disruptive and Unruly Behavior in Airports: A Guide (2025)
Chapter: 3 Respond to and Intervene in Unruly Incidents
CHAPTER 3
Respond to and Intervene in Unruly Incidents
Communication and cooperation among stakeholders are critical to effective intervention in and resolution of unruly incidents. Ensuring alignment between airport, air carrier, and law enforcement policies and procedures—and stakeholder training on those policies—can streamline the response to incidents, determine the most effective intervention strategy, and support criminal or civil penalties.
While unruly passenger incidents occurring during flights are beyond the scope of this research and generally fall under federal jurisdiction, airport security and LEOs play a crucial role in postincident response once an aircraft lands. This chapter includes best practices for airport personnel supporting these situations, focusing on:
- Clear communication with stakeholders during an incident to ensure minimal information loss during transmission between multiple communication channels and collection of critical report information.
- Determination of appropriate roles and authorities needed to respond to a call for service, including removal of disruptive individuals from aircraft.
- Jurisdictional factors that impact appropriate response protocols and ability to prosecute for serious offenses.
By addressing these factors, airports can effectively support federal and local partners and ensure smooth handling of incidents that begin in flight but require on-ground resolution.
3.1 Communicating with Stakeholders
Communicating with stakeholders for an aircraft diversion due to an unruly passenger is a complex process as the information must pass through several channels—other passengers, flight attendants, aircraft captain/pilot, air carrier operations, gate agents, tower controller, airport dispatch, law enforcement, the FBI, the TSA, the FAA, airport security/operations, clinicians, etc. This may result in information being conveyed incorrectly, which can lead to an inappropriate response to the incident.
The aircraft communication addressing and reporting system (ACARS) message or domestic events network (DEN) message is received from the aircraft pilot in command who determines the threat level based on the facts presented. The threat level is intended to communicate the assessment of the seriousness of the threat and determine the level of appropriate response.
This information should include the assigned level of unruly behavior (levels 1–4; see section 1.1.2), whether there was physical contact, and the current condition of the offending passenger (e.g., handcuffed, subdued). It should also include instructions to notify the FBI. The police dispatcher should convey this information to the responding authorities as it becomes
available. It is noted that threat levels may be changed later and can be revised by the pilot in command or the FAA.
For situations that occur on the aircraft, responding LEOs and airport and air carrier representatives need to work with primary witnesses to assess and understand the situation. Witness forms, such as the in-flight disturbance report or an unruly passenger incident form (see Appendix B), can be used to obtain witness statements.
Responding law enforcement or airport security personnel should capture witness statements as soon as possible in support of the investigation to help keep the information from being diluted with time (see Table 7, recommendation 3.1a). Information requested for the investigation typically includes identity of the suspect; the names and phone numbers of all witnesses and victims; contact information for the crew, including name and cell phone number; seat numbers of victim(s) and perpetrator; and a description of what occurred (who, what, when, where, and why, if known). This basic information is necessary for an investigation and is a key factor in the ability to effectively prosecute.
Unruly incidents occurring on airport property typically involve fewer airport stakeholders relaying information than those involved with flight diversions. Calls for service are usually relayed through the airport’s dispatch center to the appropriate responders. Several airports interviewed reported that LEOs are dispatched to all calls for service, but some choose to send airport representatives (typically security or operations personnel) or a combination of LEO and airport representative or assigned crisis coordinator/responder.
The following case example provides insight into the complexity of incidents involving unruly individuals in the aviation environment and the impact on commercial airports. This incident sheds light on the considerations and strategies affecting an airport’s response to an incident that began shortly after a flight pushed back from the gate and began to taxi toward the runway. This incident demonstrates reporting and communication challenges, root cause assessment, stakeholder roles and coordination, law enforcement response protocols, and varying stakeholder perspectives. Alongside these topics, it is key for airports to understand the impact of video recording and social media, which affect incident response at the time and in the future.
Case Example: Airport Response to Unruly Passenger on an Aircraft
In the summer of 2023, a legacy carrier flight was preparing to take off from DFW when they were forced to return to the gate because of a disturbance on board which culminated in a request from the air carrier for law enforcement to remove a passenger.
As is typical of in-flight incidents, the cabin crew notified the pilot that the aircraft needed to return to the gate. The pilot contacted the ATC tower who then notified the airport’s operations center. The dispatcher notified the Operations Department to coordinate with the air carrier to find a gate for the returning aircraft and send a supervisor or manager to meet law enforcement at the gate. LEOs were dispatched to respond to a disturbance on the aircraft between two passengers. The air carriers indicated that the incident may have involved an argument between family members over the potential larceny of an item. By the time the officers arrived at the aircraft, the passenger had deplaned and returned to the terminal without speaking to law enforcement.
In these instances, standard protocols require the pilot to declare that a passenger must be removed from the aircraft unless there is an active threat or emergency, in which case LEOs will take the necessary actions.
DFW law enforcement have a standard operating procedure (SOP) preference to deplane all passengers before officers step on the aircraft to prevent any altercations with the offending passenger resulting in injury to others, and to reduce risk to the responding LEOs.
The officers interviewed the air carrier supervisor and crew members to obtain their statements. There was conflicting information because of the multiple communication channels and the number of people the report had to pass through, and it took some time for the responding officers to get a better understanding of the situation. Airport operators often refer to this challenge as “the telephone game,” where information is paraphrased or changes slightly as each person passes along the report.
There were conflicting reports of what transpired, which took a significant amount of time to reconcile. The passenger made several statements that caused safety concerns, and the air carrier requested that the entire plane be rescreened. The flight crew, the ground security coordinator, and the TSA conferred, and the TSA rescreened the aircraft.
Law enforcement was not shown the video recordings captured by other passengers at the time of the incident, but later saw the videos posted to social media. These recordings can be the best source of evidence and can assist significantly in determining the facts and best response. Had the LEOs seen the videos documenting certain statements made by the passenger during their investigation, the passenger would likely have been detained longer for questioning.
To further complicate the incident, the cabin crew claimed they had not taken the disruptive passenger’s name, which they needed to deny her reboarding the aircraft. The reason for this request was not understood since the passenger manifest should have contained this information, although some reports suggest she switched seats with another passenger. The officers were able to find the passenger on the sterile side of the terminal and escorted her to the public side.
Postincident Response
The passenger was issued a verbal criminal trespass notice and was denied reboarding the flight by the air carrier, then escorted to the public side of the terminal. However, even though the ticket status was updated in the air carrier’s system, it would take some time for the TSA’s system to update. In this time the passenger was able to use the original ticket to pass through the security checkpoint, but LEOs quickly escorted her back to the public side to wait for her ride.
The passenger was subsequently issued a written criminal trespass notice by law enforcement, which was signed by a management representative of the air carrier as the passenger departed the airport before signing. The air carrier banned the passenger from flying with them in the future, but news articles reported the passenger flew out the next day on an alternate air carrier.
No criminal charges were filed by local, state, or federal law enforcement based on the investigation. The police chief stated that the conflicting information made it difficult to determine what, if any, laws were violated. The responding officers had already completed their investigation and reports when the incident went viral the next day. The videos taken by passengers provided more information and context for the incident.
The root cause of the incident had not been determined but several contributing factors existed. The passenger admitted to drinking two glasses of wine before boarding and was suffering from a back injury the day of the flight. The passenger also acknowledged on social media that she was experiencing a mental health crisis which she referred to as a “breakdown.” The police chief believes there was some sort of trigger that started the altercation and ensuing expletive-filled outburst, which began in the aircraft and continued into the airport terminal, including in her interaction with law enforcement. The passenger has since realized the impact of her behavior and admitted that she was not thinking clearly because she was “worked up” and does not blame the air carrier for their decision to ban her from flying on their aircraft in the future.
Critical Factors
This case highlights the importance of the initial calls between the pilot, the ATC tower, technical operations, and the operations/communications center that dispatches the LEOs. The initial report needs to pass through multiple channels and people in distinct functions and organizations before being given to the responding officers (see Table 7, recommendation 3.1b). This step is crucial to giving the LEOs as much information as accurately as possible prior to arrival, but the reality is the myriad of channels impact the completeness and accuracy of the information. As illustrated in this instance, the LEOs arrived on scene with minimal information and received conflicting statements from the flight crew and air carrier supervisors, which confused the investigation.
Video recordings are one of the best forms of evidence, but passengers prefer to post to social media rather than give them to the authorities responding to these incidents. CCTV exists in many airport terminals but not on board most aircraft, which impairs the ability to conduct an accurate and timely investigation, especially when there are conflicting reports and/or no witnesses.
Airport Operations and the operations center did an exemplary job coordinating this incident. Operations coordinated with the air carrier to find an available gate for the aircraft and with the TSA to rescreen the aircraft and passengers. In total, the flight was delayed 3 hours because of the incident and rescreening. The airport’s Communications team was very responsive in handling the airport’s social media, as this incident went viral immediately. Subsequently, the airport received several requests for video from the responding officers’ body-worn cameras and the Legal Department received many open records requests from the media requesting police incident reports.
Conclusion
This case example demonstrates that incidents involving unruly individuals in the aviation environment are complex and have a tangible impact on commercial airports and their diverse stakeholders. Responding to disruptive passenger incidents that may begin on the aircraft or in the air requires coordinating many resources and stakeholders; establishing SOPs; and maintaining unity of purpose between the air carrier, TSA, airport, law enforcement, and potentially other agencies, depending on the circumstances. Additionally, understanding and considering the role and enduring impact of social media on these incidents and the airport’s image and reputation is essential in guiding an effective response.
Table 7. Section 3.1 recommendations.
|
Develop and implement protocols for witness statement collection and management:
|
|
Airports can implement protocols for managing information flow through multiple communication channels.
|
Recommendation 3.1a: witness statement collection3.2 Determining an Appropriate Response
Calls for service can be reported from a variety of airport stakeholders for a wide range of incidents. Determining the appropriate responding personnel and follow-up measures depends on many factors, including the unruly individual’s status (e.g., passenger, aviation worker, non-airport-user), the type of behavior (verbal or physical), and the location (public or secure area) (see Table 8, recommendation 3.2).
LEOs are frequently dispatched to respond to all calls for service, even those usually not considered a law enforcement matter, such as enforcing air carrier policies. Air carrier agents often call for service from LEOs to act as support when denying a passenger boarding, which is rarely a necessary precaution.
The airport dispatchers will use the information they receive to determine the appropriate response personnel. While LEOs are most often the responding personnel, the situation may call for others, such as airport security, operations, and/or clinicians, as available and necessary. They may also notify the TSA, FBI, and/or CBP, as applicable. The dispatcher is often in the airport operations center (AOC), emergency communications center (ECC), or police department and can pull up video footage (if available) of the incident, both after the fact and in real time. This allows dispatchers to give the responding LEOs more information, such as descriptions of the inciting incident (trigger), persons involved, location, direction of travel, and whether they have left the area.
For one airport; as soon as a call about a disruptive person is received, the dispatcher immediately reviews CCTV cameras to pass critical information to the responding officers/personnel. Simultaneously, the dispatcher starts the forensic playback of the incident to confirm the facts leading up to the incident and relay the description of the individual(s) to the responders.
This procedure depends on the CCTV field of view, and incidents occurring on aircraft do not have CCTV. In these instances, the police depend on cell phone videos from passengers willing to provide them.
When responding to a report of an unruly or disruptive individual, it is a best practice to engage the individual in a private place outside the public view, such as a nearby gate area, and voluntarily, if possible, to avoid further attention and incitement or escalation of the incident.
At one airport, a flight was delayed after boarding procedures due to a maintenance issue. One of the passengers became agitated and had to be removed from the aircraft by the airport LEOs. While in the waiting area, the passenger used his cell phone to call in a bomb threat to the aircraft. The FBI responded to the bomb threat and the passenger was arrested and charged for making a false threat. The passengers on the aircraft had to be deplaned and the TSA’s explosive detection canines swept the aircraft and bags. The CBP also responded because the flight’s destination was international.
3.2.1 Law Enforcement Response
LEOs are trained to respond to diverse types of unruly behavior calls:
- disturbances, such as abusive language or disruptive behaviors that are upsetting to those around the individual
- threats against passengers, aviation workers, aircraft, the airport, or the aviation system
- property damage
- theft from concessionaires, aviation workers, or passengers
- assault on a civilian (e.g., other passengers, aviation worker, flight crew) or LEO
Officers may escort the unruly individual to the public area with a warning or place them under arrest depending on the severity of the incident. In general, LEOs will attempt a variety of actions before resorting to arrest, such as mediation, escorting from the property, calling for social services, and temporary detainment.
San Diego International Airport (SAN) included language in the Airport Rules and Regulations to support air carrier policies for denying boarding of an aircraft by a person obviously under the influence (County of San Diego Airports 2016):
2.27 Intoxicants and Drugs. [ . . . ] No person obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol shall be permitted to board any aircraft except in case of emergency.
In most cases, if the intoxicated individual is exhibiting disturbing behaviors but not acting violent, they will be transported to the sheriff’s office and held 4–12 hours to recover. Charges are rarely filed in these circumstances and the individual is released on their own cognizance.
Several law enforcement agencies reported that their departmental preferences governing response to unruly passengers on an aircraft—specifically, removing an unruly individual—require the passengers to be deplaned (by order of the pilot in command or captain) prior to the LEOs boarding the aircraft, unless there is an exigent circumstance (see Table 8, recommendation 3.2.1). This helps reduce safety risks to the officers, passengers, and crew as the cabin of the aircraft is narrow and does not allow much room to maneuver, which increases the possibility of injury if a struggle ensues. However, the process of deplaning the passengers can make it difficult to collect the victim’s and witnesses’ data, unless the cabin crew collects the information before the police arrive.
Airport law enforcement responds to a wide array of incidents, but it is important to recognize that not all calls for service require a traditional law enforcement response and approach. Many situations encountered at airports stem from underlying social issues such as mental health crises, homelessness, or substance use. These incidents might be more effectively addressed by behavioral health clinicians, specialists, or other specially trained personnel. By strategically allocating responses between law enforcement and specialized civilian resources, airports can optimize their limited law enforcement capacity. This approach allows officers to focus on incidents involving potential criminal behavior.
3.2.2 Airport Representative Response
Many minor disputes at airports can be effectively resolved by trained airport representatives. These employees, equipped with strong customer service skills and de-escalation tactics, are
often best suited to handle situations that arise from contract (ticket) issues between passengers and air carriers, such as disagreements over seating arrangements, lost baggage, and other travel inconveniences. Airport representatives can liaise between passengers and air carrier supervisors, managing these situations professionally and efficiently. Their intervention often prevents escalation to more severe incidents that would require law enforcement involvement. Only when a situation escalates beyond the scope of the capability of the airport representative or poses a potential security threat does it become necessary to involve LEOs or a clinician.
3.2.3 Behavioral Health Specialist Intervention and Response
Trained behavioral health clinicians and specialists are essential to address complex situations at airports that require specialized intervention. These professionals have the expertise to handle a range of issues, from mental health crises to cases involving PEH or migrants seeking temporary shelter. Their approach involves multistep intervention strategies that incorporate specialized knowledge and skills, the ability to develop rapport quickly, information gathering and interpretation, and knowledge of treatments and service delivery options. These skills enable them to provide more effective and compassionate responses to complex situations than traditional law enforcement or customer service approaches.
The process of determining appropriate care is a critical aspect of behavioral health response at airports. Specialists typically assess whether individuals can care for themselves and whether they pose a danger to themselves or others. This evaluation helps guide the response, which varies depending on the situation. For instance, in cases involving intoxicated individuals who are not causing disturbances, some participating airports have established relationships with sobering centers or local support services. In other situations, airport personnel may contact family or friends to help determine the best approach, releasing individuals into their care when appropriate.
Airports face several challenges in implementing specialized response systems, particularly in rural areas. Smaller, more remote airports may struggle with a shortage of local resources, making it difficult to provide appropriate support for individuals in crisis. This scarcity can result in limited options for intervention, potentially leading to recurring issues as individuals may return to the airport due to a lack of alternative resources.
The involvement of behavioral health specialists in airport incident response can lead to more positive outcomes, which can reduce the burden on law enforcement and provide more appropriate care for individuals in crisis. However, the implementation of such programs requires careful planning, training, and often collaboration with local health services and community organizations. As airports continue to evolve their approach to complex social issues, the role of behavioral health professionals in these settings is likely to become increasingly important.
3.2.4 Co-Response Models
Several airports participating in this research are adopting co-response models as a strategy to address the growing number of unruly behavior incidents. Representatives of airport co-response teams offered two key pieces of advice for other airports considering implementation of a co-response program.
First, research similar programs deployed in comparable settings. There is no need to start from nothing and there is no need to reinvent or innovate when initially rolling out the program (see Table 8, recommendation 3.2.4a). Second, carefully assess the airport community’s needs. Include airport stakeholders and community members from multiple perspectives to support a
more integrated approach. Consider how lessons learned from the research into other programs can be integrated into the airport’s preexisting programs and organizational structure.
3.2.4.1 With Civilian Personnel
Civilian co-response models often include a LEO (or team of two) and an airport representative, such as the operations or security manager/staff. This approach allows the co-response team to assess the situation, determine the appropriate course of action, and rapidly transition from a potential criminal incident to an administrative matter and vice versa to responsibly manage the situation and achieve the best outcome for all (see Table 8, recommendation 3.2.4b). Additionally, civilian personnel are often dressed in less intimidating attire, which can make people more comfortable and calmer.
For some calls for service, the officer and the civilian personnel will have to discuss whether the individual needs to be escorted from the airport or if social services/a support agency needs to be contacted.
Several airports in the study reported providing specific training to their civilian personnel who co-respond with law enforcement, such as PERT, which is a 96-hour course for LEOs and clinicians. Civilian personnel may attend but do not receive the certification.
One airport has established a co-response with PERT-trained security personnel to ensure responding assets are fully trained to assess and respond to unruly behavior situations. It is common for an LEO, security personnel, and a PERT-certified clinician to respond simultaneously to situations. This allows the responding assets to determine the appropriate resolution to the incident, whether that be criminal charges, administrative citations, or referrals to behavioral health services. In some cases, a LEO and a security personnel member will respond first and determine whether a PERT clinician is the most appropriate responder; when the clinician arrives, the LEO and security personnel will stand down but remain on site as backup.
3.2.4.2 With Clinicians
Several airports in this study have adopted a co-response with clinician model, and this approach appears to be expanding to other airports across the country. In the co-response with clinician model, a police officer responds alongside a mental health clinician (see Table 8, recommendation 3.2.4c). These teams are often trained to arrest as a last resort and seek to provide services first using intervention techniques and strategies. The officers on co-response teams are often trained in crisis intervention or mental health first aid and the clinician is a mental health expert, which equips them to respond to various levels of crisis calls, including overconsumption of drugs/alcohol or someone experiencing a mental health crisis.
The co-response with clinicians approach recognizes that many complex, multifaceted issues and crises occur in the airport environment that require resolution beyond the scope of traditional law enforcement response. Integrating mental health professionals and mental health crisis intervention at the airport helps address the diverse needs of individuals experiencing crisis and reduce the burden on law enforcement.
These teams are usually a special unit assigned under the airport police department and are dispatched as needed. This gives the crisis teams sufficient time to engage with the individual
One airport has entered into an agreement with their local behavioral service provider to offer mental health services to members of the airport community who do not have an EAP through their employer.
and determine the appropriate intervention and response while allowing the airport police to resume their law enforcement duties. Co-response with clinician teams are trained to work with individuals in crisis and determine what services may be needed. Teams may engage the same individuals repeatedly to build relationships with those who are often at the airport and connect them with mental health services, shelters, and transition/recovery services.
The collaboration between mental health providers, substance treatment programs, and other community resources is crucial to the effectiveness of this co-response model.
Benefits and Challenges to a Co-Response with Clinicians Team
A co-response with clinicians model encourages collaboration across multiple agencies while improving efficiency, coordination, information-sharing, and overall safety in response to individuals experiencing crisis and PEH. The teams also provide more sustainable treatment options than the traditional law enforcement response of removal and/or arrest.
Benefits of the co-response with clinicians model include:
- Enhanced crisis response: Mental health crises require specialized intervention that LEOs may not be equipped to provide. Clinicians can offer immediate mental health support, de-escalate situations, and connect individuals with appropriate care and services.
- Improved public safety and trust: These models are designed to improve public safety and build trust in the community by ensuring individuals in crisis receive compassionate, appropriate care. This approach can also reduce the likelihood of confrontations between police and individuals in crisis.
- Resource efficiency: Co-response with clinician teams can more effectively use community resources to ensure individuals receive the necessary level of support at the right time when an incident occurs at an airport. This approach has the potential to reduce the need for more intensive and expensive services in the future.
- Support for officers: The presence of mental health clinicians supports LEOs and reduces the law enforcement burden by sharing the responsibility for managing complex situations involving mental health. Clinicians can usually approve an involuntary medical hold to transport the individual to an emergency department or other nearby medical or psychiatric facility for evaluation. The clinician can have a more informed conversation with healthcare providers at the facility because their training and experience allows them to better articulate information about the individual.
A notable challenge for the co-response with clinicians model is that this unit or the clinicians may not be on-site 24/7. This results in some hours (typically overnight) without clinicians available to respond to calls. Some agreements may include on-call services (also known as a mobile response team), but it is more common for the responding officers to request an ambulance for the individual to be transported to the local emergency department where a hospital clinician can evaluate them.
Establishing a Co-Response Team with Clinicians
Several steps are needed to establish an effective co-response team with clinicians.
First, the airport should contact the local department of mental health or similar governing agency for any guidance they can provide. The department can provide information and recommendations on available grants, application procedures, and upcoming sessions or workshops. Some cities, counties, and states have procurement platforms that support the search for grants, solicitations, or requests for proposals; airports can use these platforms to apply for grants or
develop procurement documents. If possible, attending information sessions and workshops organized by the local department of mental health or other agencies can provide valuable insights into the grant application process and networking opportunities with potential partners.
Benchmarking with existing successful programs at other airports can provide valuable insights into effectively establishing a co-response with clinicians model. Discussions with the airport operator in charge of the program can provide relevant knowledge and experience that may not be found elsewhere.
Funding will be a critical factor in the airport’s ability to implement and sustain a co-response with clinicians team. Several participating airports reported using data related to unruly incidents to demonstrate that they impact the airport’s reputation and brand image to use funding from the airport’s operating budget. Financial support can also come from various funding streams, including grant applications, partnerships with local organizations, and collaboration with government agencies. Online grant databases, government websites, and philanthropic organizations often provide information on open grants and their eligibility requirements.
Most funding streams will require a comprehensive and compelling grant proposal that clearly outlines the objectives, methods, and expected outcomes of the co-response with clinicians team. The grant program will outline the eligibility criteria, and the proposed model should align with those focus areas, goals, and priorities.
The proposal may need to address the following factors:
- protocols established to ensure effective joint response by law enforcement and mental health professionals
- training requirements for clinicians and LEO partners, such as secure identification display area (SIDA) training or CIT
- specialized equipment or technology needed, especially to communicate between the various stakeholders
- community outreach and education initiatives to raise awareness of the model and its operation at the airport to foster support from multidisciplinary practitioners, first responders, and stakeholders while soliciting meaningful insights and recommendations from diverse perspectives
- metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of the team and identifying areas for improvement
- scaling plan for future growth
Examples of Co-Response Models at Airports
Boston-Logan International Airport CRT
In 2017, the Massachusetts State Police subcontracted with a local nonprofit agency, North Suffolk Community Services, to implement the crisis response team (CRT) at Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS). Prior to the activation of the CRT, North Suffolk provided on-call behavioral health services, but the state police and airport saw a need for an on-site team to better serve the community.
The team offers support to airport passengers, staff, and visitors in stressful situations, giving unruly individuals diversion from arrests and alternatives to involuntary hospitalization.
LEOs and clinicians arrive at calls together in a co-response model. The current team consists of two full-time clinicians (available 7 AM–11 PM, Monday–Friday) and a clinical supervisor (on-call 24/7). Three full-time state troopers are assigned to the team to work with the clinicians.
The Team has a large support system around the Boston area, including many nonprofit organizations and hospital systems. The agreement with North Suffolk provides a pool of per diem clinicians who work a swing shift at the airport on the weekend and a mobile crisis unit available 24/7 via a 1-800 number.
The CRT is funded through a grant from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health. The grant requires the team to follow strict guidelines from the Department, including completing a form for every encounter.
The case example in Appendix C provides more detail on BOS’s CRT.
Seattle–Tacoma International Airport CRT
Seattle–Tacoma International Airport’s (SEA) CRT started as a one-person program in 2021 when the position of crisis coordinator was made full-time. The CRT has since added a full-time licensed mental health professional (MHP) who responds to calls for service with the crisis coordinator (a commissioned LEO) or other patrol officers. The crisis coordinator and MHP work on opposite days of the week on modified swing shifts to allow both positions the opportunity to work with day- and night-shift officers.
The CRT also works with federal resources to offer services and resources to refugee families, military veterans, and others. The crisis coordinator can make decisions on involuntary commitments for those in crisis; the MHP can advise officers but cannot impose involuntary transport. Both are trained in crisis communication and de-escalation techniques with connections to local nonprofit organizations and social service providers in the state and county. Both positions are also required to maintain airport-issued ID media to respond to calls in secure areas.
The crisis coordinator based the SEA CRT program on similar co-response programs, including Los Angeles World Airports’ (LAWA) CRT, San Antonio Police Department’s Mental Health Unit, and co-response programs in King County, Washington. The Port of Seattle Police Department funds and oversees the CRT; the crisis coordinator manages the administrative responsibilities.
Initially, the program had no tracking system, and the crisis coordinator maintained a log of encounters in a spreadsheet. Eventually, the data were migrated to an internal Port of Seattle database that allows all team members to read encounter reports. The database tracks the number of encounters, the number of encounters who accepted a form of assistance or referral, and the number of encounters resolved without arrest.
The SEA CRT has increased the sense of safety for airport employees and stakeholders since its inception. Patrol officers now have more tools at their disposal when they encounter people in crisis at the airport, and an increased ability to focus on patrol duties.
3.2.5 Supporting Resources
Airport community emergency response teams (A-CERTs) consist of community volunteers who have been educated and organized to assist airports during response and recovery from emergency incidents. In many cases, these teams are familiar with the airport’s property and are badged to access secure areas where assistance may be needed in response to an unruly incident. These teams can be deployed during or after extended unruly behavior incidents to help bring the airport back to operational capacity.
IEM, Inc., et al. (2013) provides guidance and tools designed to help organize and operate a citizen volunteer program to assist airport staff in emergency incidents or disasters.
Table 8. Section 3.2 recommendations.
|
Establish protocols for determining appropriate responding personnel:
|
|
Establish procedures that prioritize passenger and crew safety during aircraft incidents:
|
|
Airports can create an implementation strategy for a co-response program:
|
|
Airports can establish co-response teams that pair LEOs with trained civilian personnel:
|
|
Develop comprehensive co-response program with mental health clinicians:
|
3.3 Jurisdictional Boundaries
Jurisdictional authority, overlapping authorities, and the ability to prosecute can create obstacles for airports managing unruly incidents that require law enforcement response. The jurisdictional authority often dictates the response to the situation and follow-up requirements. Responding LEOs will make an initial assessment of the situation to determine the responsible jurisdiction for prosecution. Regardless of the responsible authority (federal or local), responding officers will typically conduct the initial investigation of the incident and collect witness statements and contact information.
3.3.1 Local
For unruly incidents at the boarding gate or jetway, the air carrier representatives (e.g., supervisor, crew members) are responsible for determining whether a passenger is denied boarding or removed from the aircraft. The passenger’s ticket grants them access to the sterile side of the airport, so once the ticket is invalidated the passenger is no longer an authorized user of the airport and must return to the public side. Failure to comply peacefully often results in the passenger being escorted to the terminal curbside and issued a trespass warning.
Jurisdiction over incidents that take place on airport property (outside an aircraft) falls to local law enforcement and the airport, except for some incidents that occur in the passenger security screening checkpoint. Local and airport law enforcement can charge criminal violations associated with unruly individuals such as trespassing, disturbing the peace, or disorderly
DFW straddles Dallas and Tarrant Counties and the airport has agreements in place to turn cases over to the Tarrant County courts.
SFO is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco but is physically located in San Mateo County. The airport turns cases over to the San Mateo County courts.
conduct, although these minor criminal violations are not prioritized in state criminal justice systems. Among the airports studied, it is more common for unruly individuals to be issued a warning unless there is a victim willing to press charges or other violations stemming from the incident.
In rare instances, an unruly incident will occur on an aircraft before the aircraft door is closed. Because the aircraft is not technically in flight until the external doors are closed following embarkation (49 U.S.C. Chapter 46501; see Appendix D), these incidents can be prosecuted by the local jurisdiction.
Some airports straddle multiple county or municipal jurisdictions, which creates unique law enforcement coordination challenges. Often, the airport will have agreements in place that dictate which jurisdiction will prosecute cases from the airport.
Local law enforcement assists their federal partners by conducting initial investigative tasks, such as the first report and collecting victim and witness statements, as available.
3.3.2 Federal
The TSA and FAA have authority to take civil enforcement action for unruly incidents (e.g., levying civil fines). In addition, federal law enforcement authorities have jurisdiction over criminal acts that occur on board aircraft. From the time the external doors of an aircraft are closed in preparation for flight until they are reopened, any domestic flight, U.S.-bound flight, or U.S.-registered aircraft operating anywhere in the world is said to be within the “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” (49 U.S.C. Chapter 46501; see Appendix D). Alleged federal crimes occurring in that jurisdiction are investigated by federal law enforcement and prosecuted by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Criminal penalties and fines are different and separate from the civil penalties assessed by the TSA and FAA. Withdrawal of criminal charges will not affect civil penalty charges, and vice versa. The FAA can impose civil penalties up to $37,000 per violation; sanctions can be doubled by FAA legal counsel for perpetrators who commit these crimes more than one time (repeat offenders).
The FAA refers the most serious unruly passenger cases to the FBI for criminal prosecution review. The TSA and FAA have also agreed to share information on abusive and unruly passengers to remove them from TSA PreCheck screening eligibility (TSA 2021). The duration of disqualification from TSA PreCheck is related to the seriousness of the violation and/or a repeated history of regulatory violations. Membership suspension can last up to 5 years for a first-time offense or be permanent for egregious incidents or repeat offenses.
Most airports do not have a federal law enforcement representative, such as an FBI airport liaison agent (ALA), on-site, especially at night when many unruly incidents occur. The responding airport LEOs will notify their assigned federal representative of the incident and will be directed on next steps. This usually involves a request to hold the individual until the federal representative can arrive at the airport. In most cases, the unruly individual is released, and the federal representative uses the information collected by the local LEOs to investigate and prosecute the individual, if warranted.
