NFL PING
FReepmail scott says to be added to, or to be taken off the NFL Ping list...
This is a fairly high volume ping list
Posted on 07/29/2006 11:27:38 AM PDT by SideoutFred
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sportsline.com ...
I'd say sell it, but to me the question is, don't the bucs have a lease, and wouldn't their lease agreement have security measures wrtten into it, allowing searches, if the Bucs have a valid lease, can't they just re-write it, requesting that the cops do the searches, or at least, in their lease, ask for permission to do it themselves?
Leases, if written properly, can effectivly give the power of ownership over to the leasee.(think power of attorney type coverage).
They aren't searching for terrorists or weapons, they are searching to make sure you don't sneak in any food or drinks so you have to pay a premium for them at the concession stands.
Perhaps someone should sue to ban the searches at the courthouse where this judge works, and cite this ruling as precedence. Why are a few judges more a target than 60,000 spectators in a single open facility?
NFL Ping.
Imagine that. A clinton appointed judge who understands that the constitution and the founders never intended public life to include a daily cavity search.
Hats off to the judge.
That is total BS. The WOT will never end and it is our responsibility to make sure we do not loose anymore liberty than we have to. There will always be a group or cause looking to strike. I do not eat it off a spoon because there is a good chance that there will be a demRat admin sometime. All things like this do is pave the way for more intrusive searches and erosion or rights. It is PC that is the real threat as those trying to fight or prevent terrorism have over 300 million suspects to sift through. Terrorists are out there but not under every rock..for now. Not hijacking the thread but it is a bit dishonest to be searching spectators when an entire border is wide open. The judge was right on this.
I agree with you, I'll give up some things and this is one item I have no problem with....that being said I must say the "patdowns" that are done are pretty worthless (at least at the stadiums I've been to including in MN, Chicago, Cleveland)...I know plenty of people who have snuck in items that would be as big as any explosive device would be...it's not like a crafty person is stopped by these preventative activities...a person on a mission will find the weaknesses in the system and exploit them no matter how much security is present...some of those in the security business after all are folks who are easily distracted or very bored, non-caring people who just want a job that pays ok...
I'm not knocking security folks-the vast majority take it very seriously, but I know we've all seen the 19 year old guy who is working at the ballpark for the baseball or football season who's way more interested in getting a look at the hot soccer mom or some college hottie than keeping a potential terrorist from blowing himself up inside...
LOL, Try walking into the courthouse where U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore works without being subjected to a search.
That's a stupidass argument because it has NOTHING to do with LOSING freedom it has to do with being prepared and smart enough to protect ourselves...You want to be an ungaurded dumbass in a time of WAR, go ahead, but I would rather be safely protected, than have some sypathizing terrorist prick blow themselves up taking innocents with them out of the Orange section...
Freedom is one thing, protecting yourself is another!
False security.
The ACLU is a threat to this country and our security.
I was patted down going into heavy metal concerts over a decade before 9-11, that whole "the terrorist win" line is 100% bullshit. It's just security, sometimes security sucks, but site owners feel it's necessary. It's their business it's their call, nobody wins in either direction.
That is not total B.S.
The idea that terrorists even care about civil liberties is BS.
They never, ever cared what People can or can't do or what rights they either have or don't have.
I'm not saying terrorists are under every rock, or that civil liberties need to be suspended, I am simply saying, that terrorists do not care about those rights or what the government does to its own citizens, it neither pleases not angers them.
Terrorists are about as concerned with how the government treats its citizens and their rights as they are concerned with the score of the yankees and devil rays game.
As for the the judge, the judge is wrong, the stadium is leased to the Bucs, and if the Bucs are okay with the searches, as the rightfull holders of the lease, then the judge has no business getting involved.
An example would be if my tenant decides to hold a house party, but one of his rules is he gets to ban certain things and frisk folks at the door, thats his right, if he gets security to do it (likes various night clubs do), so be it, the judge had no right or authority to step in, the Bucs have no problem with it, and they have the lease, and are okay with the government doing it, the judge should have butted out.
My point was that by not even doing anything they still win to a smaller degree. The population at whole still are affected. Just look at what happened at the Jewish Federation building in Washinton State. It will have an affect on 2nd Ammendment rights. The second part of your argument concerns public property not private property tights. This is still supposed to be a free country.
Response: " In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action."- A Great Historian 1888
Who is Pat Downs? Buccaneer franchise owner?
Different war called the WOD. I remember when there was no such thing at the concerts I went to. Call it indoctrination. Remember the Weathermen and Black Panthers in the 70's? I remember the shootouts (PLA) and bombs being planted around the country at post offices and other govt buildings. Just think about it. This is "feel good" security just like the NG patroling the airport terminals after 9-11. You want to feel safe then stay at home. I prefer to keep what little libery we have. I remember visiting East Germany when I was very young and and it stuck with me.
My original point, is that the idea that the terrorists care about civil liberties was b.s.
The terrorists don't win or lose at all, just because we tell folks they can't bring their own booze to a football game, OBL does not do a little victory dance because I can't sneak a 6 pack into a yankee game, and Al Quada does not consider it a horrible defeat and a set back for them, if someone decides not go to shopping.
What terrorists want, is policy oriented, terrorism, or terrorist tacktics, are mearly a means or a method to get them. If OBL thought that he could get the results he wants from hosting pot lucks, he would do that, instead, he thinks his tacktics of killing innocent people, will get him the results he wants.
Now, regarding private property and public property, the Lease holders for that property are the Bucs, and while I am not armiliar with Florida law, most sporting events do not allow patrons to bring in their own food or other items, so in all likely hood, the Bucs were more then happy with the searches, as they pay the rent, they get say in policy, which means the judge, should have kept his mouth shut and dismissed the case, as he should not have any say regarding what the Bucs allow or do not allow on facilities where they pay the rent, regardless of who the landlord is.
It may be a free country, but with idiot judges like this infringing on property rights, and not reading the constitution, it may not be for long.
FWIW, Folks may not want to be frisked, and there is no consitutional right to go to a NFL event whatever way one wants.
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.