Posted on 07/29/2006 11:27:38 AM PDT by SideoutFred
U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore
Bill Clinton nominated October 1999
You might like being searched but I think this is a good ruling. Just remember that the more we lose in basic freedoms the more the terrorists win.
Would the judge have been able to rule this way if the stadium wasn't owned by the government? Could they get around this ruling by selling the complex to a private company?
"The Tampa Sports Authority was created May 28, 1965 by Governor Hayden Burns for the purpose of planning, developing, and maintaining a comprehensive complex of sports and recreational facilities for the Tampa Bay area."
Just another reason why governments should not build stadiums for multimillionaire team owners.
I don't like being searched, I think it's part of the times however. I don't like going through long lines at the airport either being searched.
All this ruling does is say "TERRORISTS...come on down to Tampa because you have nothing to worry about. Strap those explosives on that waist and take the express train to Allah after you blow up 50 people in section 208"
I see your point, but what happens when achmed detonates himself in the cheap seats. It almost happened at an OU game last year..
Why are the Bucs picking on Pat Downs? I know Pat, Pat is a friend of mine... never mind
Yep. The left is going to help terrorists as much as possible and when the next hit happens they will blame Bush and have the media along with them.
I just disagree in giving up freedom for thinly veiled "security".
Apparently Dick Burns wasn't available.
Is the search really causing your rights to be taken away? I hear this argument and I have to tell you, I just don't feel any rights being taken away at all. I have nothing to hide, they can search me all day in the name of safety for a game with 80,000 people.
Unless I miss my guess this is the same Judge that refused to deal with the Terri Schiavo matter to get Greer off the case.
since fedgov and our media apparently suppresses any terrorism attempt that is not spectacularly successful (OU event is a prime example of this), most in the public will not have information on the OU event in hand when deciding on the value of any searches in public events. i think anyone reviewing all of the information available here on the OU event, initial reports that vanished from news, the father going onto interviews within a few days of his son's death, etc., would be hard pressed to conclude that this was not a botched bomb effort with a very powerful explosive and large potential death toll in that stadium.
that said, I am very sympathetic to people expressing concerns that basic concepts of civil liberty/4th amendment issues are being eroded in the name of security, since in fact they are, and the apparatus used today to geniunely protect us from terror events can and presumably will gradually be expanded over time.
it certain is a problem, and one which will probably not have a happy resolution.
If without probable cause then yes.
Mr. Downs was unavailable for comment.
Ah, and so could the 9/11 hijackers if they had wanted to, instead of waiting to get on the planes, hijack them and fly them into buildings.
But they didn't because it was so much more effective (in terror terms) and horrible to do what they did instead of just blow themselves up at a ticket counter.
Same with the game.
A suicide bomber inside a stadium would not only injure those around him, but would create such panic that thousands would be injured trying to leave the stadium.
We pat down people, when necessary to board a plane because of 9/11. Before 9/11 we could have never arrest people who were "suspected" of terror planning, but now we can.
Once somebody blows themselves up, or smuggles a bomb into a football game, all the talking heads will be saying exactly what they said after 9/11...how come we didn't know this was going to happen and prepare for it. Must be Bush's fault!
I assume the court would have ruled differently if the stadium was owned by a private entity because the 4th Amendment only protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures performed by or on behalf of federal, state, or local government. Without regard to whether the court's decision is good or bad, right or wrong, what bothers me is that it seems inconsistent with several Supreme Court and Circuit Court decisions that have ruled that police may conduct static and roving DUI roadblocks, even in the absence of probable cause, without running afoul of the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments. Also, if stadium searches are unlawful, then what about TSA airport security searches?
Thats an arguement that folks make on behalf of the terrorists.
OBL and the rest of them, could not care less if the government restricted liberties or not, if they banned things or not, the terrorists really do not care about our civil liberties, they care aboue exploiting weaknesses to kill, maim, and terrorize as many people as possible.
I doubt you will find any terrorist, or terrorist sympathizer or supporter, who claims he wants or would want, the government of his opposition to "crack down" on its people.
He simply wouldn't care.
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.