See other Resistance Articles
Title: Ruling allows pat-down searches at games
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 2, 2007
Author: staff
Post Date: 2007-07-02 11:16:24 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 145
Comments: 8
Ruling allows pat-down searches at games Click here to find out more! http://NFL.com wire reports TAMPA, Fla. (June 27, 2007) -- A federal appeals court cleared the way for pat-down searches to resume at Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games, rejecting a fan's contention that they violate his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. High school teacher Gordon Johnston successfully challenged the frisking of fans entering Raymond James Stadium in three lower courts, but a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned those rulings -- saying Johnston forfeited his right to challenge the constitutionality of the pat-downs when he consented to them. The court also said Johnston doesn't have a constitutional right to watch a football game, that he was aware of the search policy before entering the stadium and that the Bucs can revoke game tickets for any reason. "Considering Johnston's ticket was only a revocable license to attend games, there is in the court's opinion at least a question concerning whether Johnston had a constitutional right to pass voluntarily through the stadium gates without being subjected to a pat-down search, even if he had not consented to one," the court wrote. At three games in 2005, Johnston accepted the pat-down searches but told security officials he did not consent. NFL officials have contended such searches, which began in 2005, provide an essential layer of security in an age of constant terrorism threats. The 61-year-old Johnston said that he was talking to his attorneys to determine his next move. He could ask the panel to reconsider its decision, request a review by all 12 judges of the 11th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court. "I don't want to give up on it," said Johnston, who vowed to get rid of his season tickets if pat-downs resume. "Being a government teacher and knowing the Constitution, I think it's the wrong decision." Rick Zabak, an attorney for the Tampa Sports Authority that runs the stadium, said he's trying to determine whether the court's decision allows the searches to automatically resume at the Buccaneers' first preseason game Aug. 10 or if he has to ask a court to reinstate them. The NFL lauded the ruling. "Pat-downs are an important part of our comprehensive security procedures, including secure facility perimeters and bag searches," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. "These limited, consensual security screenings are designed to enhance the protection and safety of our fans." Tampa is the only NFL city where the pat-downs had been successfully challenged in court, although lawsuits also have been filed in Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
For the NFL to call these pat downs "consensual" is disingenuous. Sure attendence is a license subject to conditions, but when a condition is mandatory, it is not "consensual".
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
As a general rule I don't go anyplace where pat-downs are a matter of course.
Ummmm, you are speaking as if there is a Constitution..... and that somehow, United States citizens are protected by some kind of prohibitions against actions by government agents or others..... confused, I am. United States citizenship applies only to Washington, DC (see the Fourteenth Amendment), and since at least 1805 the federal judiciary has known very well that the Constitution does not apply to Washington, DC, so.... what is the problem here? United States v. More 3 Cranch 159 1805 http://press- pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do...s/a3_2_2s8.html [QUOTE]Mason.--When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution. If they are, they have violated it, by not giving us a republican form of government. The same observation will also apply to Louisiana.[/QUOTE] NOTE; When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Yes! You get it! Congrats! Except, of course, it can not be a Constitutional right because the Constitution is not about rights; it is about restrictions on the government. So you should have said; By this logic, there are no constitutional restrictions on government agents who seek to limit our natural right to go to any particular town or city or to drive on any particular road or to go to the mall... But then, since at least 1805 the federal judicairy has well understood that there are no Constitutional restrictions applied to Washington, DC, I fail to see the problem when the decision refers to US citizens. When such give up their rights for a pig-in-a-poke, such is their life. United States v. More 3 Cranch 159 1805 http://press- pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do...s/a3_2_2s8.html [QUOTE]Mason.--When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution. If they are, they have violated it, by not giving us a republican form of government. The same observation will also apply to Louisiana.[/QUOTE] NOTE; When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
ping
Why settle for the lesser of two evils, vote Cthulhu!
Only ONE of the many reasons why I've never attended an NFL game or ANY pro sports game as a paying customer.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition To be a reasonable search, there would have to be some rational basis for the Tampa Bay Sports Authority and the NFL to believe that NFL stadiums are likely to experience some kind of violence by those attending their games. There has been some weird behavior, such as people overdrinking, painting their faces and bodies, and behaving like fools, but how many times has someone actually committed violence at one of those games? If violence has been a rare occurrence in NFL stadiums, this policy is not within Supreme Court rulings on Investigative Detentions. Security officials are stopping and frisking while detaining the progress of spectators entering the stadium. This is an investigative detention. To conduct an investigative detention, a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity has to be present. If they are interested in stopping a terrorist attack, stopping and frisking a 61- year-old man will hardly do this, as such an individual could not fit into any known profile of a terrorist from Al Qaeda. All of the youngsters they frisk, not to mention bare-midriffed teen aged girls, hardly fit the profile either, although I guess the latter are a "fringe benefit" of having a security job there. He should use investigative detention rulings and challenge up to the Supreme Court if he is serious about it.
"Pat-downs are an important part of our comprehensive security procedures, including secure facility perimeters and bag searches," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. "These limited, consensual security screenings are designed to enhance the protection and safety of our fans."
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
#3. To: tom007 (#0)
#4. To: Pinguinite, tomoo7, all (#1)
For the NFL to call these pat downs "consensual" is disingenuous. Sure attendence is a license subject to conditions, but when a condition is mandatory, it is not "consensual".
#5. To: ghostdogtxn, tom007, all (#2)
By this logic, you don't have a constitutional right to go to any particular town or city or to drive on any particular road or to go to the mall...
#6. To: tom007, *libertarians* (#0)
#7. To: tom007 (#0)
#8. To: tom007 (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest