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 ...
No actually, completely un-war related. That was during the era when Guns n Roses were having 1 riot per tour and venue managers were getting paranoid, it only happened at heavy metal concerts nobody was worried about the easy listening crowd. It's not feel good security, it's NFL paranoia, they know terrorists like lots of blood, they know they have around 75,000 innocent victims in attendance at most events, they know somebody already tried to blow up a college football game, they don't want a day that will be remembered for all the wrong reasons named after one of their teams.
It's not about whether or not I feel safwe it's about you lying about what this is about, it's about the idiots that say security is a bad thing, it's about the morons that draw parallels between reasonable and intelligent security and Eastern Bloc totalitarianism. All your parallels are FALSE parallels.
pat downs...like patting you down to check for weapons, etc.
Why I capitalized it I have no clue.
That cannot be good.
Federal judges generally face no greater risk than the rest of us when it comes to terrorism, of course, so all that expensive machinery and beef at the entrance is useless and should be removed.
What that means is the judge in this case interfered with the rights of a private party, to wit, the team, to peaceably have and hold its property. I see a 5th amendment "taking" case here that could end up having the federal government pay the team for it's constructively "lost rent" for each and every game conducted under this judge's order.
No doubt the judge had this in mind as is personal donation to Tampa ~
This sort of thing is ordinarily part of the lease. The team (the lessor) had their rights violated with this ruling.
Ever wonder why they were there?
I'm with you, certain levels of property rights come with a lease, including basic rights of security. And you or I can legally search everyone that enters our premises, it would be rude and probably iritate our friends, but no one's rights would be violated.
I'm surprised we have so many on this thread who would use the federal courts to deprive private parties of their right to defend themselves.
Should we report them as trolls or what?
Excellent. Now it will be easier for me to smuggle flasks into Jets games with me early in the season.
Oh boy! The more government types are going to love you!
Heaven forbid we actually expel ALL practicing muslims from this country based on the following and leave the lawful US Citizen alone:
We need to define what can be classified and protected as a valid religion. I suggest a few simple litmus tests that any group seeking 1st amendment protection must pass. If your belief fails any of the litmus tests below you belong to a hate group and must be expelled from the country.
#1: If your belief commands you to kill or enslave those who are not of your religion then you fail the litmus test. .
#2: If your belief commands you to kill anyone who leaves your organization then you fail the litmus test.
#3: If your belief demands you kill or enslave anyone who writes, draws, speaks negatively about your belief you fail the litmus test.
Yes it is terrible, to lose one's freedoms, of course the way the law works one does not have permission to enter a property unless the property owner (or the one who leases the property) gives permission.
In the case of Bucs stadium the Bucs( who lease the stadium off of the local government) decided for the safety of their customers to institute searches, which by law are perfectly legal. (You don't want searched buy the Bucs don't go to their games) Now the Buc's owner's rights of property have been violated, by a judge who does not have a freaking clue.
How about Dick Trickle?
*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!
If the NFL wants to do things their way, they can do it on their own property -- and get their sticky fingers out of the taxpayers' wallets.
Nonsense. One of the classic objectives of terrorism is to provoke knee-jerk reactions that erode confidence in the targeted government.
Then you simply don't know what you're talking about.
For example, I'm sure that Iraqi terrorist are high-fiving each other over measures like driving restrictions in Baghdad -- it pisses people off and erodes popular trust in the established government, thus making the terrorists' job that much easier.
I just disagree in giving up freedom for thinly veiled "security".
You are not forced to give up anything. There is nothing forcing you to go to the game. If you are so afraid they will find something on you just do not go to the game.
Well said komrade!
I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad that you belive such propaganda.
Especially terrorists "high fiving" each other, like one goes to the other "Hey, Mohammad, we caused a traffic jam, whooo hoooo, now we are getting somewhere".
No terrorist group, ever cares about the civil liberties of who is oppressed, they think of themselves and their targets...and how to kill them....not backing up an expressway during rush hour for check points.
Yes, because the real goal of Al Quada wasn't to kill 3,000 people on 9/11, it was to make it annoying to go through airline security.
You actually think OBL tells his co-horts, "A few more bombings and death, and we can achieve our true goal.....making the infidels inconvenienced and unable to sneak budweiser into sporting events".
Give me a break, Death and destruction are the means to get to a policy goal..and that goal does not include me not being able to bring a ham sandwhich into a football game.
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.