CHAPTER 4

Analyze and Prosecute Unruly Incidents

Effectively managing unruly incidents in airports requires a data-driven strategic approach that monitors existing initiatives, investigates root causes, and works with relevant laws and regulations. Investigations into root causes of incidents can provide data that can be tracked to identify commonalities and opportunities to implement proactive measures to prevent unruly behavior.

Airports have several avenues to pursue civil penalties and criminal charges at the local, state, and federal levels, but the specifics of each incident determine which avenues can be taken (e.g., location, severity of the incident, and mitigating factors such as mental health).

It should be noted that inconsistent accountability for unruly incidents can negatively impact aviation worker morale, especially if it appears the offender will not be punished for their actions. Feedback loops informing appropriate individuals of the results of investigations can improve trust between the operators and those inside the airport. Educating aviation stakeholders regarding the elements of the crimes necessary to charge and prosecute unruly individuals and prescribed penalties is needed to set expectations regarding criminal prosecution in the nation’s criminal justice system.

This chapter presents strategies to support a data-driven strategic approach to analyzing and prosecuting unruly incidents, including:

• establishing metrics and data sources to monitor the effectiveness of implemented initiatives and identify areas for improvement
• identifying root causes using data collected during investigations
• understanding relevant regulations, laws, and standards that impact response to unruly incidents
• ensuring postincident accountability as a deterrent to future unruly incidents

4.1 Metrics

Establishing metrics and data sources to track the effectiveness of initiatives is vital to ensure implemented measures are achieving intended goals. Measuring and monitoring customer service data can help identify pain points in the passenger’s journey that can potentially be addressed through awareness campaigns, policy modification, training, or technology. Reviewing incident data can help the airport identify trends to determine which symptoms can be attributed to a single root cause.

Effective development and analysis of data metrics (see Table 9, recommendation 4.1) requires consistency in:

• definition of unruly person and behavior
• criteria for reporting an unruly behavior incident

• reporting mechanism(s) and data repository
• code(s) or other identifiers of an unruly incident for accurate analysis (e.g., HBD [has been drinking], EDP [emotionally disturbed person])
• staff to analyze the data

Customer service data can also be used to identify potential problems that could be leading to a rise in certain types of behavior. Monitoring services and features such as friendliness of staff, cleanliness of the terminal, ease of finding parking, etc., can identify projects the airport can implement to improve the passenger experience (see Table 9, implementation note 4.1).

Collecting real-time data from operational systems such as baggage delivery time or wait times can also help the airport identify areas in need of resource response to mitigate or address potential points of frustration.

Baseline measurements of the various metrics to be monitored should be gathered before implementing changes to accurately gauge the effectiveness of each initiative.

Table 9. Section 4.1 recommendations.

4.2 Identifying Root Causes of Unruly Incidents and Behavior

Effective root cause analysis (RCA) can help airports systematically address and mitigate potential triggers to unruly behaviors by examining and investigating incidents. RCA is a continuous process that requires revisiting and refining solutions as new information becomes available or if similar incidents continue to occur. Understanding common root causes of disruptive and unruly behavior through analysis of data collected during investigations helps airports craft targeted responses to eliminate or mitigate the root cause.

In general, the airport operators and LEOs interviewed do not perform in-depth RCAs but will conduct informal analyses on an as-needed basis, typically in the form of a short debrief between the responding LEOs and their supervisors. In the case of serious incidents involving unruly or disruptive behavior, several airports interviewed reported conducting an assessment as part of the after-action report process.

Given the wide variety of root causes and the uniqueness of every unruly incident, it is difficult to easily determine common trigger points. In some instances, the trigger is fairly obvious (e.g., denied boarding, canceled flight), while the factors leading to escalation of behavior may be less obvious (e.g., mental illness, substance use, grief).

4.3 Relevant Regulations, Laws, and Standards

Many aviation regulations regarding unruly behavior are directed at incidents taking place on an aircraft. In the United States, several federal agencies have jurisdiction in the regulated areas of the airport and on the aircraft. State and local laws also have jurisdiction over unruly incidents occurring in the sterile and public areas of the airport. The ICAO and IATA define international standards to improve safety onboard the aircraft for all participating members.

Knowledge of state, federal, and international regulations and laws relevant to unruly behavior informs proper response protocols, charges, and fines to pursue to deter future incidents.

4.3.1 Recent U.S. Federal Legislation and FAA Enforcement Policy Updates

In 2021, the FAA introduced its “zero tolerance” policy to bring attention to the rising trend in unruly incidents and behavior and mitigate future unruly incidents. The FAA’s policy has three components to mitigate unruly behavior:

1. use of special enforcement policies (civil penalties)
2. collaboration with the TSA on passenger interference
3. cooperation with the FBI on criminal prosecutions

In December 2021, the TSA and FAA announced a partnership to augment the consequences for unruly passenger behavior. Under this agreement, the FAA shares information about passengers facing fines for disruptive and unruly conduct with the TSA, which may then revoke TSA PreCheck eligibility for these individuals. This collaboration aims to promote safe and responsible passenger behavior by leveraging TSA PreCheck privileges and improving information-sharing between the two agencies to better identify and penalize unruly passengers.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (H.R.3935, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3935/text) introduced a comprehensive strategy to combat disruptive and unruly passenger incidents at U.S. airports and in flight. The act enhances crewmember training, establishes industrywide standards for addressing passenger interference, mandates employee assault prevention plans, and requires formal policies on sexual assault and harassment. Notably, the act also extends existing penalties for assaulting or interfering with security personnel to cover airport and air carrier employees performing ticketing, check-in, baggage claim, or boarding functions, with offenders facing fines and up to 10 years imprisonment, or potential life sentences if weapons are involved. By implementing this multifaceted approach, the legislation aims to deter disruptive and unruly behavior, improve response capabilities, and create a safer, more secure air travel environment for both passengers and aviation workers.

Section 436 of the act makes significant changes to 49 USC §46503, which addresses interference with security screening personnel at airports. The amendment expands the scope of protected employees by explicitly including airport and air carrier employees with security duties, including ticketing, check-in, baggage claim, or boarding functions. This expansion recognizes the critical role these customer-facing airport and air carrier workers play in maintaining airport security and ensures they receive the same legal protections as TSA security screening personnel. Thus, the updates to §46503 take a more comprehensive approach to airport security and recognize that maintaining a safe environment requires protecting all employees who contribute to the security process.

Summaries and excerpts from related sections in the FAA Reauthorization Act and updates to Title 49 are included in Appendix E.

4.3.2 State and Local Laws

Criminal disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor in many states and some jurisdictions do not allow law enforcement to arrest an offender for a misdemeanor crime. Additionally, some jurisdictions require the individual to be arrested before they can be prosecuted, which can create a gap that allows disorderly conduct to go unprosecuted.

This research identified alcohol and intoxication as contributing factors in many unruly and disruptive passenger incidents. Each state sets specific rules and laws encompassing the selling and serving of alcohol through a state, city, or county licensing board, commission, authority, or agency. These alcohol licensing authorities are tasked with writing policies, approving licenses, and imposing enforcement actions and sanctions against licensees who commit licensing violations. Agents may conduct special operations to investigate reports of potential infractions. States that have lifted restrictions against cannabis and psilocybin will include those substances under the board’s purview.

Many states have created ordinances or statutes that give the airport the authority to enforce rules against prohibited behavior or limit users’ access to the airport. Some states allow the airport security coordinator, director, or CEO to create new ordinances to address the airport’s safety, security, and operational needs. Without the legal authority to enforce rules against unruly and disruptive behavior, the airport has limited ability to deter this behavior and penalize individuals causing disturbances in the terminal (see Table 10, recommendation 4.3.2).

Firearms in the terminal can be major challenges for states with open carry laws. Among the airports surveyed in right-to-carry states, several reported allowing individuals with firearms in public areas but monitoring their presence. Should they enter the queue to the checkpoint with the firearm, the LEOs and TSA would be able to levy penalties and/or charges.

4.3.3 International Regulations

The Tokyo Convention of 1963 was created to address the increased number of in-flight disturbances, and signing members committed to implementing criminal behavior mitigation measures and strategies. The agreement was amended in 2014 by the Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Montreal Protocol 2014) to include commitments to working with other signing members to initiate cross-jurisdictional criminal proceedings against unruly passengers. Note, the United States is not a signatory of the Montreal Protocol as of September 2024.

ICAO (2017) defines international standards for managing unruly passengers on board an aircraft. Contracting states, including the United States, agree to the following:

Table 10. Section 4.3 recommendation.

4.4 Postincident Follow-Up and Prosecution

It is not standard practice to charge unruly individuals at the time of the incident unless they have been arrested. Detectives need to investigate and perform their due diligence to collect evidence and witness statements to support a charge. The investigation could take weeks before sufficient facts are gathered, an assessment to charge is made, and charges are filed.

CCTV is useful for investigating incidents in the terminal spaces but offers little assistance with incidents in the jetway or on board the aircraft. Many airport LEOs are switching to primarily using body-worn cameras as they offer clear footage and audio recording. Footage from LEO body cameras is often used as evidence to support the prosecution of level 1 and 2 unruly crimes. Some airport police are not issued body cameras but can use agency-issued cell phones to record the incident.

Cell phone footage captured by witnesses is often the only physical evidence of the incident, but the witnesses must be found to request footage, which can take days. Footage uploaded to social media has been useful as evidence in many unruly behavior incidents.

Reducing repeat offenses through criminal prosecutions can be a major challenge for airports. Many prosecuting authorities will not press charges without a physical assault. However, it is common for the victim to decline to press charges and/or that the victim and witnesses cannot be located due to the tight flight schedules and quick turnaround of flights. In some instances, there is not enough evidence to prosecute due to lack of witnesses and their statements. This creates a gap where verbally abusive individuals are seldom punished and continue their behavior on subsequent visits to the airport.

Several airports participating in this research indicated they are not permitted to arrest individuals for most misdemeanor crimes (e.g., disorderly conduct, public intoxication, trespassing), which is often the only avenue to charging for unruly behavior. Many courts have high charging thresholds, often a result of overcrowded holding cells. Several airports in the study reported having their own holding cells or contracts with regionally owned jails that provide alternate booking options for unruly persons.

The IATA (2022) reports that 60% of unruly behavior cases are never prosecuted. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most commonly reported reasons were lack of evidence, uncooperative witnesses, the case being considered an inappropriate use of limited resources, limited availability of court time, and cost.

Another prosecutorial challenge to charging unruly individuals is the varied perspectives and priorities of the local/state district attorney’s (DA) office and the U.S. Attorney General’s office. The threat profile of a commercial airport may influence the U.S. Attorney General’s decision to prosecute. Airports should work with their prosecuting authorities (e.g., DA’s office) to advocate for more accountability and enforcement for unruly individuals, including pursuing more criminal charges (see Table 11, recommendation 4.4). The same is true for federal partners (the FAA, TSA, and DOJ); it may be helpful to encourage them to pursue more penalties for unruly individuals.

Table 11. Section 4.4 recommendation.