Security pat-downs at Tampa Bay NFL games unconstitutional

So sayeth a Judge and the Americans without a friggin' Clue....

from JoeUser Forums
I could really care less what the Americans [ without a friggin' C ] LU [ e ] think, but I unfortunately am governed somewhat by the laws as determined by the Judges at various levels in our society.

Apparently, at least one Judge believes that attendees at NFL games have more right not to be "patted-down" than does the NFL or teams (like, and specifically in this case, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers) to use that tool to help protect fans and attendees at the games from potential terrorists, or from violence at games thanks to unruly fans that may bring items into the stadium that otherwise would have been found and blocked.

The news on this issue can be found here:

Judge rules against Bucs; league defends pat-downs

with a few choice clips here:
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.


I know that I brought this issue up previously, and will state again that my feelings are that this soon-to-be-former-season-ticket-holder is likely to lose his right to do business with the NFL and/or the local franchise there, as they have every right to refuse to do business with him for just about any reason they may wish to use.

While the rest of the article does mention that the Team/Stadium Authority will appeal, the appeal process could go in just about any direction.

I know that some feel that the "get out of jail free"-card style use of the big boogeyman "protecting the security of our patrons" against another 9-11 type event, or against an event such as what happened in Madrid, has been way overboard and overly agressive when compared to the chances of a real threat, but real threats are out there, and we do need to be vigilant to prevent them.

Can we tell if these searches have stopped any terrorist strikes? No. But that doesn't mean we should toss away what has been a reasonable tool to help protect attendees at sporting events from being killed en masse thanks to even one "lucky" individual that happens to be able to sneak in a container of gas, chemicals, or other deadly materials.

Will the ACLU be around to apologize to the dead when the more lax security policies go into effect and are taken advantage of by the likes of Al Qaida? I wouldn't bet on it.
politics
3,032 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
This may make me think long and hard about possibly attending any NFL games in the future if the policy really does change. I have no issues at all with raising my arms and letting a security guard do their job... Frankly I'm frustrated that anyone would even make this an issue, as it makes me suspicious of what they found so damned important to smuggle in while maintaining their privacy.

Do I like the implication that I may be hiding something just because I'm going to a sporting event? No, but when the searches are NOT random, and NOT targetted via some sort of profiling, then where is the harm?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can still pat down the cheerleaders, though, right?
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought that the protections against unwarrented searches applied to the government not private entities. It seems to me that if one wishes to gain access to what amounts to private property the property owner has every right to place any conditions deemed neccessary including pat downs.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution that ensures the right to attend a sports event. This kind of stupidity just makes me wonder what some people are thinking.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think a judge is auditioning for the 9th Circus.  I cant see how it will stand.  As Mason points out.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's absurd! Anyone who knows me knows I'm a pretty hard core Constitutionalist, but that's not the point here!

This is NOT a public stadium, or a public event. It is a PRIVATE event, and the operators of that event should have the right to take any security measures they need to ensure the safety of the fans. Period. If you don't like it, you don't buy a ticket.

There is NO Constitutional right to attend Tampa Bay Buccaneers games (which begs the question, "who would want to?" -- but I digress!