Posted on 07/28/2006 7:24:33 PM PDT by Cagey
TAMPA, Fla. -- Security "pat-downs" of fans at Tampa Bay Buccaneers games are unconstitutional and unreasonable, a federal judge ruled Friday, throwing into question the practice at NFL games nationwide.
U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore issued an order siding with a Bucs season-ticket holder who had sued to stop the fan searches that began last season after the NFL implemented enhanced security measures.
High school civics teacher Gordon Johnson sued the Tampa Sports Authority, which operates the stadium, to stop officials from conducting the "suspicionless" searches. A state judge agreed with Johnston that the searches are likely unconstitutional and halted them.
The case was later moved to federal court, where the sports authority sought to have that order thrown out. Whittemore refused Friday, writing that the pat-downs "constitute unreasonable searches under the Florida Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
Further, Whittemore said the Tampa Sports Authority failed to establish that the risks outweigh the need to protect the public from unreasonable searches.
Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which sued on Johnston's behalf, said Whittemore's decision could turn out to be significant.
"It's obviously not going to govern what's happening around the country, but it's certainly going to be an influential precedent," Simon said. "Other courts may look at it."
Simon said he thinks the decision shows that courts are "pushing back" at governmental attempts to violate citizens' civil rights on the basis of a perceived threat of terrorism or crime.
Rick Zabak, an attorney for Tampa Sports Authority, said the decision will be appealed.
"We're disappointed, and we respectfully disagree with the judge's conclusions," Zabak said.
Calls to an NFL spokesman were not immediately returned Friday. In a previous statement, the NFL said "these limited screenings are reasonable and important to the protection of our fans."
Another NFL pat-down case made it into federal court last week when the Chicago Park District sued in federal court to challenge the planned searches by police at Chicago Bears games.
Here's a partial list for you--
--thousands of citizens not just patted down, but sent inland to camps and/or restricted in their movement
--mandatory air raid and readiness drills
--restrictions of items consumed, rationing, etc.
--media, radio and war coverage restrictions for journalists and broadcasting entities
I'm sure others here can add to the list
That would be a perfect and handy solution if it were common practice in the industry. What typically happens is different vehicles are dispatched for the inbound and subsequent outbound trips. Drivers will also transport other clients during that time.
"People typically don't drive to Madison Square Garden which is the venue I've been using for many of my examples. That would at least make it sort of a cat & mouse game."
It would be best to leave your toys at home then, wouldn't it?
Your observations about lying to the public and pretending policies are for "security" when they're really for "profitability" is absolutely correct. Preventing a person from bringing an empty container waterbottle into a stadium is outrageous...especially considering how hot those places get at field level during the summer.
~ Blue Jays ~
We're not talking about toys...we're talking about cellphones, penknives, digital cameras, medicines, and similar utilitarian items seen with locals and out-of-town tourists alike everyday.
~ Blue Jays ~
"And refund the money they paid for their tickets, too. I believe THAT was one of the key factors in the original lawsuit."
Nope. Conditions of entry are on the back of the ticket. You don't agree, you don't get in.Most normal people have no problem at all getting in any public event.
Goodnight all.
"So as a person running a venue you would prohibit a person suffering from hypoglycemia or diabetes from entering a concert/show because they need to carry food and/or sugar on their person in case of emergency? Wow."
A person suffering is responsible for themself. If you can't stay away from orange juice long enough for a football game, stay home. No one is responsible for your hardships
"What in the world are you talking about? He went to the concert straight from work to entertain clients and would take the commuter train home immediately following. It was the security team who had the bizarre fantasy of the laptop powercord being swung as a weapon"
Oh that's different. He had government supplied transportation so he was special
"That would be a perfect and handy solution if it were common practice in the industry. What typically happens is different vehicles are dispatched for the inbound and subsequent outbound trips. Drivers will also transport other clients during that time.
Why would you take these things to a sporting event/concert? Are you completely without clue? Damn, they wouldn't let me bring in my Glock even though I have a carry permit.
unintended consequence of the near-complete blackout of the event at Oklahoma University last fall.
So you don't think terrorists would be more attracted to a large venue such as a football game instead of my local grocery store?
If this is the same case that was discussed here on FR when the lawsuit was first filed (and I believe it is), then you are wrong. One of the points raised by the plaintiff was that subjecting himself to pat-down searches was NOT listed among the conditions of entry on his tickets. Nor were they listed among the conditions of entry when he purchased his season ticket plan. This "security measure" was imposed in the middle of the season(*) after he had already paid for his tickets, and the team did not give fans the right to opt out of their season ticket plan when the conditions of entry changed.
I predicted last year that this guy would win, but it's ridiculous to see the judgement handed down on the basis of some idiotic "violation of his constitutional rights."
(*) This raised a whole separate issue in the guy's lawsuit . . . i.e., if random pat-down searches were deemed to be so critical for the safety and security of the fans attending the event, then why did the team wait until the middle of the season before implementing them?
Why do you have to buy a ticket to get in? Is it the government patting people down? What is the governments role in this event? I really don't know who hold title, but even a lease-hold puts the property under private control. This is not a Constitutional issue. It only become a Constitutional issue when this judge sticks his nose into the business of private contracts.
Just attended a music concert and a burger, fries, and medium lemonade was $19.00 even. Ouch!
~ Blue Jays ~
"...A person suffering [diabetes] is responsible for themself. If [you] can't stay away from orange juice long enough for a football game, stay home. No one is responsible for your hardships..."
How very Christian and compassionate of you! According to what you've written above, a person with a common medical condition that can be controlled by balancing insulin and food needs to remain at home. The random diabetic or hypoglycemic isn't seeking someone to be "responsible for hardships," they just don't wanted to be hassled about glucose tablets during patdown sessions.
~ Blue Jays ~
"...Oh that's different. He had government supplied transportation so he was special..."
That is a complete non sequitur you've posted. People who work in Manhattan typically don't drive to their offices. The idea of a well-dressed businessperson in their early-50's swinging a computer AC adapter as a flail at an Eric Clapton/Cream concert is an outrageous "stretch" by the security personnel. Many people who entertain clients at concerts and sporting events attend directly from work and will have a briefcase or purse with them before hopping the bus or train to return home.
~ Blue Jays ~
"...Are you completely without clue? Damn, they wouldn't let me bring in my Glock even though I have a carry permit..."
You are the first and only person to mention bringing a firearm [Glock] into an entertainment venue. Nobody has raised this notion anywhere on the thread, so I have no additional commentary.
~ Blue Jays ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.