Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Security 'Pat-Downs" Of Buc Fans Unconstitutional
WKMG-TV ^ | 7-28-2006

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 4a; 4thamendment; ada; bootlickers; bootlicking; bumpfrisk; disabilities; disabledamericans; falsesecurity; fourthamendment; freedom; frisk; goodcitizen; govwatch; handsoffmister; infringe; infringements; liberty; papersplease; prejudice; privacy; sacrificeliberty; search; searchandseizure; searchseizure; security; theft; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last
To: technomage
Well, if there is an attack at a stadium and it is found that the perp was a suicide bomber that could have been stopped with a pat down, we can all thank Gordon Johnson.

And hopefully Mr Johnson will be in attendance.

I disagree. A Bucs game is a private venue. You don't want to be patted down, don't go.

21 posted on 07/28/2006 8:17:06 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays
It is a private event, they set the rules, you don't like it nobody forces you to go. Most concert venues won't allow umbrellas. Should people be allowed to bring them in? even if they ruin the view for everyone else. Should artists be required to allow people to videotape their concerts?

This has been going on forever at concerts, it isn't a freedom issue, anyone who doesn't want to go to the event isn't frisked, but the owner or lessee has the right (or should) to refuse entry to anyone they wish.

22 posted on 07/28/2006 8:17:20 PM PDT by sharkhawk (Play me a dirge matey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
THIS IS THE CORRECT DECISION!!!

This is not Naziville USA.

They check bags, fine, but don't hang this judge for erring on the side of civil liberties.

23 posted on 07/28/2006 8:19:16 PM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
Hi misterrob-

See my post# 16 that follows. You believe you have an expensive fountainpen in your pocket...and the security guy counters that it's a dagger and it must be surrendered. The whole private property thing gets a little tedious.

~ Blue Jays ~

24 posted on 07/28/2006 8:19:26 PM PDT by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays

You don't have to surrender the pen, you just don't go into the venue. I carry a pocketknife, I know enough not to carry it anywhere where I would be frisked.


25 posted on 07/28/2006 8:21:27 PM PDT by sharkhawk (Play me a dirge matey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
No biggie. Everybody knows the terrorists are coming in blimps. They should be patting down muzzie blimp drivers.


26 posted on 07/28/2006 8:25:56 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cagey

They are really trying to destroy America, aren't they? Even if flies in the face just plain common sense.


27 posted on 07/28/2006 8:26:09 PM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk
Hi sharkhawk-

They often say "no outside food or beverages" so what is your response to a person with hypoglycemia who must carry protein or a diabetic who must carry glucose? The knuckleheads who work the door at these places don't know nuance.

Do you see my point? Management of these venues will try virtually everything (even put people with medical conditions at risk) in the attempt to sell another soda or bottle of water. Searching womens' handbags at movie theaters? You don't seriously support that technique, do you? Do you honestly believe that increases your security when you take your kids to see a Harry Potter movie?

~ Blue Jays ~

28 posted on 07/28/2006 8:28:32 PM PDT by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays

What is so hard to understand. It is a private event, they can make their own rules. You don't like their rules don't go. Why should the government be allowed to intrude on a private transaction between a consumer and a venue? If a person needs the sugar that badly, they have to fork over the money for the concessions. Or should the owners be required to give free tickets to people who can't afford them?


29 posted on 07/28/2006 8:32:30 PM PDT by sharkhawk (Play me a dirge matey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cagey

So: we've just announced to terrorist cells out there planning destruction and mayhem: hey, you won't be patted down at the gates to stadiums packing 60 thousand people!

Maybe the Constitition is a suicide pact after all. The judge seems to think so...


30 posted on 07/28/2006 8:33:49 PM PDT by olderwiser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
Wow! A judge that understands probable cause, common law custom during war time and the 4th amendment. Maybe we can stop patting down grannies in wheelchairs and focus on suspects that might be hauling bombs.

They are going into a private establishment, this has nothing to do with the Constitution.

31 posted on 07/28/2006 8:34:36 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: technomage
Well, if there is an attack at a stadium and it is found that the perp was a suicide bomber that could have been stopped with a pat down, we can all thank Gordon Johnson.

Actually, I think you can thank James Madison.

32 posted on 07/28/2006 8:35:20 PM PDT by Sloth (Politicians have NO incentive to please those whose votes are already secure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk
Hi sharkhawk-

It's my belief that you're being intentionally obtuse to be contrarian. In your example, what if you were carrying a small pocketknife that you've carried (legally) for decades and are told is not accepted at the museum for which you've paid in advance to see a special exhibit? Your choice is to sacrifice the sentimental knife or toss the ticket in the garbage. Do you see my point?

We can't have malls, retailers, sporting venues, concert halls, theaters, and restaurants just randomly deciding what they think is permitted and what isn't permitted.

~ Blue Jays ~

33 posted on 07/28/2006 8:35:35 PM PDT by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays
We can't have malls, retailers, sporting venues, concert halls, theaters, and restaurants just randomly deciding what they think is permitted and what isn't permitted.

Are those not privately owned places? It seems to me that deciding what is permitted in your building is part of that pesky property rights thing.

34 posted on 07/28/2006 8:39:27 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk
Hi sharkhawk-

You answered the question and I see you're being intentionally obtuse.

A diabetic cannot "wait" for sugar identically to the same way a cardiac patient cannot "wait" for nitroglycerin tablets if they feel heart fluctuations. A concert promoter shouldn't be permitted to refuse entry to someone with pills in their pocket because they "think" it might be a recreational/illegal drug.

~ Blue Jays ~

35 posted on 07/28/2006 8:40:45 PM PDT by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays

All right, one vote against private property rights. I don't see what is being obtuse about defending those.


36 posted on 07/28/2006 8:42:11 PM PDT by sharkhawk (Play me a dirge matey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
Hi MichiganConservative-

So you feel retailers should be permitted to refuse entry to black people simply because they're involved in an inordinate amount of property theft? This is where the "private property" thing loses steam.

~ Blue Jays ~

37 posted on 07/28/2006 8:43:58 PM PDT by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

No, actually, you can thank the "living constitution" of dumb leftists who have no problem banning prayer at school graduations, smoking in restaurants, gun ownership, but can find nothing reasonable about wanting to pat people down who are entering a tightly packed arena when we're at war with fanatics.


38 posted on 07/28/2006 8:44:34 PM PDT by olderwiser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk; misterrob; VeniVidiVici; Always Right
I think the residents of Tampa, who are paying thirty years of taxes to underwrite the public financing of this $168 million stadium, would be fascinated to learn that this is a "private venue." As would the Tampa Sports Authority itself, which is a part of the state government, established by the Florida legislature in 1965.
39 posted on 07/28/2006 8:46:33 PM PDT by Sloth (Politicians have NO incentive to please those whose votes are already secure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays

Discriminating on the basis of skin color is unpopular, but it is part of that "freedom of association" thing. So yes, I do believe you should be free do be a dick if you want to be.

What are the limits on the use of private property? Who should set them? Where does it stop and why should it stop where you say it should stop?


40 posted on 07/28/2006 8:48:18 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson