Federal Judge finds security patdowns at football games unconstitutional
Jul 29, 2006, 2:56 am
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Federal Judge finds security patdowns at football games unconstitutional
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9576028
More good news.
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."
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."
Jul 29, 2006, 4:16 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Wow, this really is good news. Perhaps sanity is slowly but surely returning to this nation of ours. I may have to stop referring to the United States as a "nation of idiots," which would be fine with me! Of course, this is not terribly relevant to airport security, but it's still good news. ^
Bruce
Bruce
Jul 29, 2006, 4:52 am
#3
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lubbock TX
Programs: Sadly no longer platinum with anyone. Plain old Delta Skymiles member and Marriott Rewards member
Posts: 502
i wonder when this becomes the standard for all sports. I got a big pat down at Fenway park this spring, a bigger one than I get for rock concerts. could not believe it!
Jul 29, 2006, 7:46 am
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Unfortunately, the article didn't mention if the judge struck down searches by privately-contracted security guards or police officers. I would think that the practice of looking inside backpacks for glass containers would still be permitted as a reasonable security search. I do agree that pat-downs at sports events is unreasonable.
The problem I have with this article is that it doesn't mention much about the arguments behind the decision.
The problem I have with this article is that it doesn't mention much about the arguments behind the decision.
Jul 29, 2006, 8:49 am
#6
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by Bart
The problem I have with this article is that it doesn't mention much about the arguments behind the decision.
The 4th lives on, in one jurist's mind at least ^
Jul 31, 2006, 1:02 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
I agree that this is very good news. Bad news for those who profit from patdowns, however.
Completely irrelevant. The Tampa Sports Authority is a government body, and its cavalier attitudes and behavior toward its citizens is constrained by the Florida and US Constitutions. Doesn't matter if it hired Covenant, the County Sherrif, Tampa PD, the Florida State Police or bums and winos to pat people down. Doesn't matter at all in analyzing the constitutionality of the illegal searches.
When government agencies seek to search people, those searches must be in accordance to Constitutional protections. And in this case, a state judge, a state appeals court and now a federal judge have all agreed that they are not in compliance with the Florida or US Constitutions.
Screw the arrogant A-Holes we call the NFL.
The NFL: Violating our fans' Constitutional rights and proud of it
Here's the TSA (Tampa Sports Authority) website mentioning the suspension of their illegal searches:
http://www.tampasportsauthority.com/
These clowns even call themselves TSA - too freakin' hilarious.
There's only about 100 other articles on Google News, some of which offer the requested detail.
Not to worry; if sheople still want to subject themselves to illegal searches at football games, they can amend the various state and the US Constitutions to eliminate that pesky Fourth Amendment (and state corollaries to the Fourth Amendment). Or they could volunteer for patdowns. That line would have a large diagram of a Sheople directing those fans to their appropriate line.
Originally Posted by Bart
Unfortunately, the article didn't mention if the judge struck down searches by privately-contracted security guards or police officers.
When government agencies seek to search people, those searches must be in accordance to Constitutional protections. And in this case, a state judge, a state appeals court and now a federal judge have all agreed that they are not in compliance with the Florida or US Constitutions.
Screw the arrogant A-Holes we call the NFL.
The NFL: Violating our fans' Constitutional rights and proud of it
Here's the TSA (Tampa Sports Authority) website mentioning the suspension of their illegal searches:
http://www.tampasportsauthority.com/
These clowns even call themselves TSA - too freakin' hilarious.
Originally Posted by Bart
The problem I have with this article is that it doesn't mention much about the arguments behind the decision.
Not to worry; if sheople still want to subject themselves to illegal searches at football games, they can amend the various state and the US Constitutions to eliminate that pesky Fourth Amendment (and state corollaries to the Fourth Amendment). Or they could volunteer for patdowns. That line would have a large diagram of a Sheople directing those fans to their appropriate line.
Jul 31, 2006, 8:27 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by bdschobel
Perhaps sanity is slowly but surely returning to this nation of ours. I may have to stop referring to the United States as a "nation of idiots," which would be fine with me!
Jul 31, 2006, 11:38 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Originally Posted by Bart
The problem I have with this article is that it doesn't mention much about the arguments behind the decision.
I printed and read the entire 26-page decision (which is available on the ACLU website-- ACLU came up on google first-- go figure). This is generally the best way to get the facts, IMO.
It should be mentioned that throughout the 26-page decision, the judge went out of his way to point out why this case is different and distinct from travel-related fourth ammendment cases which tend to allow searches.
Jul 31, 2006, 1:00 pm
#10
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
From the decision:
"The Fourth Amendment embodies a value judgment by the Framers that prevents us from gradually trading ever-increasing amounts of freedom and privacy for additional security. It establishes searches based on evidence-rather than potentially effective, broad prophylactic dragnets-as the constitutions norm." Bourgeois 387 F.3d at 1312.
I, too, have just read the decision and I disagree that "throughout the 26-page decision, the judge went out of his way to point out why this case is different and distinct from travel-related fourth ammendment cases which tend to allow searches."
The judge does address "Special Needs" exceptions. One could argue from this decision that this judge would be very willing to find airport patdowns unconstitutional:
"In order to justify the "special needs" exception, however, the risk to public safety must be "substantial and real." Chandler, 520 U.S. at 323. ....There must also be a "concrete danger" demanding departure from the Fourth Amendement's main rule," such that the hazard or threat is "real and not simply hypothetical," Id. at 318-19. A "special need" cannot be demonstrated by the gravity of the threat" alone or the "severe and intractable nature of the problem." See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond 531 U.S. 32, 42043 (2000)
....
"A generalized threat of a terrorist attack will not suffice. Bourgeois, 387 F.3d at 1311 (rejecting general evidence of a threat of terrorism, such as the Department of Homeland Security's elevated threat advisory level, as insufficient to justify a "special needs" exception to a suspicionless search)".
The only citations the judge made to searches that were constitutional "special needs" searches referred to random subway container searches and airport searches conducted with magnetometers.....
"see also Wilkinson, 832 F2nd at 1339 (recognizing that "the airport and courtroom cases have sanctioned only magnetometer searches, despite unprecendented evidence of the potential harm to hundreds of persons posed by airplane hijackings and bombings)."
"The Fourth Amendment embodies a value judgment by the Framers that prevents us from gradually trading ever-increasing amounts of freedom and privacy for additional security. It establishes searches based on evidence-rather than potentially effective, broad prophylactic dragnets-as the constitutions norm." Bourgeois 387 F.3d at 1312.
I, too, have just read the decision and I disagree that "throughout the 26-page decision, the judge went out of his way to point out why this case is different and distinct from travel-related fourth ammendment cases which tend to allow searches."
The judge does address "Special Needs" exceptions. One could argue from this decision that this judge would be very willing to find airport patdowns unconstitutional:
"In order to justify the "special needs" exception, however, the risk to public safety must be "substantial and real." Chandler, 520 U.S. at 323. ....There must also be a "concrete danger" demanding departure from the Fourth Amendement's main rule," such that the hazard or threat is "real and not simply hypothetical," Id. at 318-19. A "special need" cannot be demonstrated by the gravity of the threat" alone or the "severe and intractable nature of the problem." See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond 531 U.S. 32, 42043 (2000)
....
"A generalized threat of a terrorist attack will not suffice. Bourgeois, 387 F.3d at 1311 (rejecting general evidence of a threat of terrorism, such as the Department of Homeland Security's elevated threat advisory level, as insufficient to justify a "special needs" exception to a suspicionless search)".
The only citations the judge made to searches that were constitutional "special needs" searches referred to random subway container searches and airport searches conducted with magnetometers.....
"see also Wilkinson, 832 F2nd at 1339 (recognizing that "the airport and courtroom cases have sanctioned only magnetometer searches, despite unprecendented evidence of the potential harm to hundreds of persons posed by airplane hijackings and bombings)."
Jul 31, 2006, 2:25 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Originally Posted by doober
The judge does address "Special Needs" exceptions. One could argue from this decision that this judge would be very willing to find airport patdowns unconstitutional.
Had the NFL used WTMD's do you suppose the injunction would've been lifted?
Jul 31, 2006, 8:14 pm
#12
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Also from the ruling (quote from St. Petersburg Times): "A generalized fear of terrorism should not diminish the fundamental 4th Amendment protection envisioned by our Founding Fathers."
It's nice to see a federal judge treat the 4th Amendment like it's not some vestige of a bygone era. It's reassuring to see rejection of the trend toward treating everyday activities like wanting to go to work, wanting to attend a sporting event, or wanting to go visit your dad on the other side of the country as probable cause of illegal activity and grounds for intrusive searches. When was the last time there was media coverage of a ruling (or even just a ruling) that used the 4th Amendment to restrict government activity rather than saying some government activity was allowed by the 4th amendment? They seem pretty rare these days, especially if the word "terrorism" appears anywhere in the case.
While it's not as if this ruling will directly impact anything else, I don't see how it can be separated completely from travel-related issues. Surely one could argue that a football stadium is an even more attractive target for terrorists than an airplane (many more potential casualties from a big bomb or a chem/bio attack).
It's nice to see a federal judge treat the 4th Amendment like it's not some vestige of a bygone era. It's reassuring to see rejection of the trend toward treating everyday activities like wanting to go to work, wanting to attend a sporting event, or wanting to go visit your dad on the other side of the country as probable cause of illegal activity and grounds for intrusive searches. When was the last time there was media coverage of a ruling (or even just a ruling) that used the 4th Amendment to restrict government activity rather than saying some government activity was allowed by the 4th amendment? They seem pretty rare these days, especially if the word "terrorism" appears anywhere in the case.
While it's not as if this ruling will directly impact anything else, I don't see how it can be separated completely from travel-related issues. Surely one could argue that a football stadium is an even more attractive target for terrorists than an airplane (many more potential casualties from a big bomb or a chem/bio attack).
Jul 31, 2006, 10:10 pm
#14
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GEG
Programs: Motel 6 Club Avoir Le Cafard
Posts: 5,027
The Tampa Sports Authority is a government body, and its cavalier attitudes and behavior toward its citizens is constrained by the Florida and US Constitutions. Doesn't matter if it hired Covenant, the County Sherrif, Tampa PD, the Florida State Police or bums and winos to pat people down.
Jul 31, 2006, 10:15 pm
#15
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by mbstone
Having litigated and appealed the identical issue at privately-owned Dodger Stadium, without success, I'll bet a couple of tickets on the 50-yard line that they find a way to transfer ownership of the venue (on paper) to some private entity, and then have some rent-a-gropers do the (now legal) searching.