Security pat-downs illegal

[HotelSecurity]

I've just read in Security On-line that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has ruled that security pat-downs of football patrons at the Tampa Bay stadium in Tampa Florida are unconsitutional.

Is there no way around this? Can't the private property make it a rule that you must AGREE to a pat-down to be allowed into their property. As with airlines, you can refuse to go through the security check which means you can not go on the plane!

[N. A. Corbier]

I'll need to review the finding. Traditionally, since you have the right to leave during a pat-down, they were legal.

[Lawson]

Im very suprised about this ruling as well. Someone was saying to me that sometimes arenas, convention centers, public gathering areas, etc... are considered public domain and you have the right to come and go without your privacy being breached.

But I think the pat-downs were certainly legal.

With this ruling, does it mean that every single person who felt emotionally violated by patdowns has a civil suit against the NFL? (Class-action maybe?)

[Bill Warnock]

Im very suprised about this ruling as well. Someone was saying to me that sometimes arenas, convention centers, public gathering areas, etc... are considered public domain and you have the right to come and go without your privacy being breached.

But I think the pat-downs were certainly legal.

With this ruling, does it mean that every single person who felt emotionally violated by patdowns has a civil suit against the NFL? (Class-action maybe?)

Conversly, the stadium authority or NFL could be sued for not providing reasonable security if "A" shoots "B" within the confinds of the stadium.
Just a thought!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[aka Bull]

Here's one of the better articles I've read on this case.

Story

After reading this story I would tend to side with the court's opinion. The open-ended "we're combatting terrorism" argument is, IMHO, being used today as to broad a blanket when someone wishes to justify the actions they are taking or wanting to take.

Try a story this way -

Police Department: "We're stopping everyone walking down the street and searching them for weapons to prevent terrorism in our downtown."

[N. A. Corbier]

"We're searching all these bags in the subway to look for terrorists."

Done.

[aka Bull]

"We're searching all these bags in the subway to look for terrorists."

Done.

True Nathan. But a bag is not a body.

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person."
Chief Justice Earl Warren (1968)

as quoted in the article in my earlier post.

[Lawson]

Police Department: "We're stopping everyone walking down the street and searching them for weapons to prevent terrorism in our downtown."

Chances are the Department of Homeland Security didn't put out an announcement saying that street has a hightened risk of terrorism. They did; however; tell that to the NFL for their games.

[aka Bull]

Chances are the Department of Homeland Security didn't put out an announcement saying that street has a hightened risk of terrorism. They did; however; tell that to the NFL for their games.

Well, they really didn't in a specific.

Here is a link to the judge's 26 page ruling


Also, it appears, after my reading of this, that this is the court's ruling on the issue of the injuction brought up from the state court when the case was transferred to the federal courts. The judge was bound to review that injuction (as court rules dictate) to determine if it was to become a ruling of the federal district court.

I found it an interesting read. It gives more light to the slim media reports on the injuction.

[Hank1]

I thought I heard on 970 WFLA recently that pat-downs were not unconstitutional as of the last ruling. It seems I recall this about 3 weeks ago. However, there is another appeal. I could be wrong though.....

Be safe,

Hank

[UtahProtectionForce]

my understanding is this, if it is written on a ticket being sold, or poster adherd to a building that you maybe subject to pat-downs then no it aint illegal i think it depends of your state. like in utah you can consfiscate weapons and such and or illegal drugs of concert goers.

[ddog]

Do like Airport security now:

1. wand their privates, and

2. make them take their shoes off. Don't touch or even look at their shoes, but make them stand in their socks: just long enough to piss them off and back the waiting line up another 50 passengers

[Maelstrom]

Im very suprised about this ruling as well. Someone was saying to me that sometimes arenas, convention centers, public gathering areas, etc... are considered public domain and you have the right to come and go without your privacy being breached.

Aren't security searches a condition of entry to paid entry venues? naturally the public have the right to refuse the search, but in doing so they negate possibility of entry, or at least that would be my understanding...

[N. A. Corbier]

Aren't security searches a condition of entry to paid entry venues? naturally the public have the right to refuse the search, but in doing so they negate possibility of entry, or at least that would be my understanding...

Supposedly, the government violates the 4th amendment when they demand this. Tampa Stadium is government funded.

[Maelstrom]

Okay, so the Stadium is Government funded... fully funded? who does the proceeds of events held there go to?

If the stadium is hired/rented out to event organisers then surely those organisers have the power to make security searches a condition of entry (offer), because if the preverbial hit the fan it would be the organisers which would have the liability problem...

FWIW we don't do pat downs, just wanding and bag inspections (with consent)... the only possible exception is when you have more than reasonable grounds to suspect someone's carrying a concealed weapon (and has threaten you with same), the slippery slope is the definition of 'reasonable'