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.
I've been to concerts where there were pat-downs. If you go to Detroit, you might get worked over by the X-Men. They seemed to be quite angry. At other places, it was just "show me what you have in your pockets" or a wave through. At other places, they didn't care to do anything more than just take your ticket. I could have carried a gun into some of the places I've seen concerts. These were hard rock/metal concerts.
If it's really a "public venue," then the people of Tampa shouldn't have to buy tickets to enter the place.
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.
~ Blue Jays ~
"Targeting middle eastern men with box cutters would have stopped 9-11"
There was no law against box cutters pre 9/11. That would have been a violation of their rights.
And refund the money they paid for their tickets, too. I believe THAT was one of the key factors in the original lawsuit.
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.
~ Blue Jays ~
"It is unreal what some people (especially FReepers) will endure!"
Like I said, go fight the Battle Of Kelo. Knock 'em dead over prayer at high school commencements and friday night fottball games. Let freedom ring.
Meditate on the freedoms we were willing to lay aside while fighting Germany and Japan. Then come back and we'll talk about this pat down at stadiums...
Amen. The apologists for the police state are everywhere.
"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?"
Your argument gets weaker the more you type. Been there done that with a diabetic. You don't want to go, don't go. You want to go, the rules are really pretty simple. The price tag is high though.
Thanks for the advice. I've been very outspoken about homeowners and eminent domain.
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.
BJ, life is a slippery slope. That's why we have judgement. A company that goes overboard will lose business. Government has no place in this.
Good. Now what about the WWII part?
Abusive language and personal attacks are discouraged on Free Republic.
~ Blue Jays ~
I can't provide commentary about freedoms set aside during World War II because I wasn't around and would need to ask around and do research on that topic. There has been lots of discussion about internment camps and their impact on society at the time.
~ Blue Jays ~
"They won't even let you bring an EMPTY plastic bottle in to fill up at the water fountain at that place. I know b/c they wouldn't let me. Basically they wanted to make sure I had to buy their water."
How exactly did that force you to buy their water? You were inconvenienced to walk to the water fountain to drink free water. You weren't forced to BUY anything.
So if you take a two-hour limousine ride to a Broadway play with your husband or wife and the venue decides cellphones are prohibited and must be tossed in collection bins because people can't be trusted to turn them off and may contain cameras, what would you do?
I'd take it back to the car
It's the innocent people that get "caught in the stream" before the marketplace can punish businesses with bad policies. It is unreasonable to put people between a rock and a hard place when a common and utilitarian tool or device (e.g. penknife or cellular telephone) is randomly regarded as "not allowed" by the venue. I clearly see your point about government involvement.
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.