Posted on 11/24/2010 3:56:16 PM PST by Qbert
TAMPA - A Hillsborough judge on Thursday ordered a halt to NFL-mandated pat-down searches before Tampa Bay Buccaneers games at Raymond James Stadium.
Hillsborough Circuit Judge Perry A. Little issued the temporary injunction nearly two weeks after high school civics teacher Gordon Johnston, 60, filed a lawsuit against the Tampa Sports Authority, claiming its decision to implement the searches was unconstitutional.
Little said he initially had doubts about the complaint, but in the end was convinced by legal precedents that the searches should end.
"I didn't think personally that what the Tampa Sports Authority was requiring was unreasonable, but our personal beliefs are not the standard we must be guided by," Little said from the bench. "A random search of 65,000 people every Sunday is not the way."
Under the judge's ruling, the Tampa Sports Authority has a right to appeal the injunction and can fight to reinstate the pat-downs in a civil court proceeding. Until that happens, however, Bucs fans will not be subject to the controversial searches at home games, including the next one Nov. 6 against the Carolina Panthers. If Johnston wins his lawsuit, the pat-downs would be permanently banned.
Moments after Little banned the pat-downs, Johnston, a Valrico resident, high-fived his attorneys and declared the ruling a touchdown for Bucs fans.
"I'm happy. I feel I've been vindicated," he said.
Sports Authority attorney Rick Zabak declined to say whether he plans to appeal the ruling. It is likely that the agency would be required to vote on whether to proceed with an appeal before its attorneys take any legal action.
The judge is expected to determine the amount of a bond that Johnston must arrange to cover any losses or legal claims incurred by the Sports Authority while the temporary injunction is in force.
The NFL ordered the pat-downs at the start of this season at all stadiums where its 32 teams play. The searches began at Raymond James on Sept. 18.
On Thursday, NFL director of event security, Robert Hast, testified that league officials decided to extend the requirement to all teams shortly after the July terrorist bombings in London. A former Secret Service agent, Hast said NFL officials began consulting with the FBI, the New York City Police Department and other counterterrorism experts about possible threats against sports arenas from groups such as al-Qaida after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. He said he believed that a decision not to implement the pat-downs would separate Raymond James Stadium from the norm, making it more of a target for suicide bombers.
"The terrorists are adaptive. I think they're going to change their targets," Hast said. "I think anyone who is unprepared is making themselves a target."
Hast, however, acknowledged that the NFL never tested the effectiveness of the pat-downs at any of the NFL's stadiums.
Joined in the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, Johnston's attorney, John Goldsmith, argued during two separate days of hearings that the NFL had not received a specific threat and said the extra security could be costly for Hillsborough County taxpayers. Last week, Goldsmith called several witnesses to prove his case. But he ultimately relied heavily on constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and prior legal precedents to make his arguments.
"If there's some particularized threat for sports venues, why doesn't Major League Baseball do it? Why doesn't the NBA do it? Why doesn't the (Tampa Bay) Lightning do it?" Goldsmith said. "The issue here is a very simple one: Can a public entity as a result of a generalized threat of terrorism eviscerate the Fourth Amendment rights of every single that walks into a football game?"
Judge Little said he found the argument and legal precedents cited by Goldsmith especially compelling. He determined that Johnston's attorneys had proved there was no legal remedy for the harm caused by the pat-downs, that protection against unreasonable searches was in the public interest and that Johnston was likely to prevail in court.
"9/11 was a tragedy in and of itself, but that doesn't mean, in my opinion, the Constitution has to be ripped up and thrown out the door," Little said.
The injunction could have wide-reaching implications for the National Football League. Initially, the Cincinnati Bengals and the Chicago Bears were the only teams that opted not to implement the security measure. Last week, the pat-downs were reinstated in Cincinnati after the Bengals agreed to pay for the extra security. At least one Hamilton County official said, however, that county commissioners may continue to fight the mandatory search policy.
An attorney for the NFL declined to comment on the judge's ruling.
I remember this story from five years ago.
Strange, isn’t it, that the initials of the Tampa Sports Authority are “TSA.”
No. And not at airports either.
“Strange, isn’t it, that the initials of the Tampa Sports Authority are “TSA.”
Yep, I thought the same thing.
This is getting to be a fad - everyone wants in on the action. Next pedestrians will be stopped every block or two for a groin and breast check...
And they will be asking you for your papers.
ML/NJ
“There’s a big difference between the NFL and the Federal government.”
But shouldn’t the same legal principles hold?
Someone should sue the TSA to block the searches prior to a planned trip.
Do any of these people think anymore or do they just want to act like mindless robots?
Well, at football games they just want to make sure you don’t bring your own food or booze so you have to buy their overpriced junk.
BACKSCATTER X-RAY SURVEILLANCE VANS HIT THE STREETS-Viral This One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVIbndTmCT4
No. Of course not. The NFL can impose whatever restrictions it want to impose upon its customers, at least so far as I, and James Madison, are concerned. I suppose the NFL cannot impose restrictions that might cause harm to its customers but such restrictions would be lunacy for a business to impose upon its customers. You cannot bring in signs though. The Federal government cannot ban signs, at least in my view. I also not think it cannot have its agents search with without a warrant or probable cause. But that's just me, I guess.
ML/NJ
All I’m suggesting is that the violation of 4th Amendment, and the other concerns the judge in this case had, should be considered in the current pat-downs in airports.
At any rate, it’ll be interesting to see if the administration tries to do pat-downs and x-rays at major sporting events, concerts, etc.
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.