New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 17, 2005

Mark Weisenmiller cheers for a strong Fourth Amendment defensive line against pat-down searches at stadiums.

Comments

|11.17.05 @ 3:21PM|#

But security pat-downs (on adults only) without full-body searches manage to be intrusive without providing much security as compensation.

Careful how you phrase things, Mr. Weisenmiller. Instead of reading the above to mean that searches are a waste of time, they'll think they need to add the extra measure of cavity searches to improve security.

|11.17.05 @ 3:22PM|#

perhaps i read the article too quickly and missed something, but does the government have anything to do with this? maybe it's different in tampa, but at steelers games the privately hired security people do the pat-downs (not a very thorough job of it either).

|11.17.05 @ 3:24PM|#

Since a government agency runs the stadium and hires the security guards who staff it, the ACLU argues, they should be subject to the same rules

more important issue: why is a gov't agency running an NFL stadium?

|11.17.05 @ 3:34PM|#

"Since a government agency runs the stadium and hires the security guards who staff it, the ACLU argues, they should be subject to the same rules."

|11.17.05 @ 3:42PM|#

Of course they haven't caught anybody trying to bring anything in. Hasn't anyone else experienced how worthless those "searches" are? I've been "searched" at both Shea Stadium and Yankee Stadium, and in both cases, it was a joke, doubly so for women: because all the guards are male, they search women especially gingerly. But even I could have gotten stuff by hidden in my boot, strapped to my thigh, at the small of my back, you name it. Real security is not provided by hiring people off the street at minimum wage and then expecting them not to hold people up at the gates much.

|11.17.05 @ 3:42PM|#

thanks julian and sorry guys :-[

(saw that as soon as I came back from post. was hoping it wouldn't make it through but it did)

|11.17.05 @ 3:55PM|#

As they stop above the waistline, they're not even full-body searches

Yet for males, who presumably make up the majority of the fans attending, the strategic, private, hands-off-unless-you're-my-lover parts are all below the waist, aren't they?

|11.17.05 @ 3:59PM|#

Wait a minute, that last comment of mine makes no sense, as it was based on a casual glance at the statement and. . . hell, skip over it and forget it.

For a woman, a search could be entirely above the waist and still be inappropriate to the point of sexual assault, though.

Dick Ard|11.17.05 @ 4:01PM|#

For a woman, a search could be entirely above the waist and still be inappropriate to the point of sexual assault, though.

Does that only apply if it's a gov't agent performing the search?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.17.05 @ 4:08PM|#

Hmmm, went to the baseball game, waited for a half a friggin hour while they searched everyone at the gate. Then once we got inside, since it was BAT DAY, they gave everybody a fargin bat.

Not an original thought, but it sure does illustrate the problem.

Used to be they just searched for beer of glass containers.

|11.17.05 @ 4:09PM|#

If this is really a violation of the 4th, doesn't that mean such things as security in courthouses are unconstitutional? That strikes me as ridiculous.

At least with the courthouse you may be forced into entering the building, but no one forces you to go to a game. Also, I don't think that private security officers are the same things as police even if the government hires them.

|11.17.05 @ 4:15PM|#

For a woman, a search could be entirely above the waist and still be inappropriate to the point of sexual assault, though.. . .Does that only apply if it's a gov't agent performing the search?

but no one forces you to go to a game. Also, I don't think that private security officers are the same things as police even if the government hires them.

And yet the fact remains that because of inherent differences between the sexes, something which isn't too inappropriate for a man could be wildly inappropriate for a woman.

Do businesses have the right to basically say "We reserve the right to perform a version of sexual assault on all female customers--hell, we'd assault the guys too, except they don't have boobs!" Except for the really fat ones, but. . . eeew.

Ed|11.17.05 @ 4:26PM|#

A football fan who hates America?
The terrorists have won.

|11.17.05 @ 4:41PM|#

It seems to me that the story missed one of the prime reasons for this policy and these searches, which has nothing to do with protecting the fans. This policy seems to me to have been put in place to help the NFL defend itself against lawsuits if a tragedy were to happen. They can then point to this policy to show that they made a "best effort" to prevent such an tragedy, thus lowering their liability.

Or maybe I am just a cynic.

|11.17.05 @ 4:45PM|#

I hope they start running a hot poker up everybody's ass. It's not that I hate football or anything. I'm just curious what it would take to be anything less than sold out when the Bengals play the Colts this Sunday.

Why does anybody watch, other than on TV?

|11.17.05 @ 4:54PM|#

One would think they've managed to confiscate some marijuana or other contraband with this policy; therefore, it's all been worth it.

Name withheld to protect the g|11.17.05 @ 5:14PM|#

Are they trying to cover their legal butts or ensure that no one brings prohibited food & drinks to the game so they can continue to sell $8 Coors Lite in a plastic cup?

|11.17.05 @ 5:24PM|#

quiet has a good point.

Jhywun also has a good point.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.17.05 @ 5:29PM|#

Ruthless...you funny guy.

Since I haven't followed football since the Colts were in Baltimore, I don't have a direct stake in this conflict.

Stretch, The extreme libertarian/anarchist position would be that the property owner (not the government) makes the rules and that the market will force most of the buttholes to dispense with really heavy handed search techniques.

Then the pragmatists jump in say but what about the bouncers at Studio 54 that made chicks stand topless in the snow to get inside to which I say, yes that is inmuman and immoral and the people who did that should skip purgatory and drop straight down the chute to hell. But, how stupid or desperate do you have to be to stand in the snow topless?

Of course, the statists and their security minded bretheren also believe the market will respond except they believe that the end result will be that the market will sacrafice security for a buck. They point to the decided lack of non-smoking bars and eateries in the times preceding the War-On-Smokers as proof of that. Therefore, all draconian methods of security must be put in place by law.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 5:45PM|#

I think that whether it's a 4th Amendment violation depends less on whom the pat-down guards are hired by than by what happens to you if you break a rule. If you're disallowed entry, then no. If you're arrested on the spot, then yes. (I know there's gray areas, but that's what they hire judges for.)

So that said, I don't know if a judge is correct to stop the pat-downs altogether. But if someone is found to have something illegal on them, the 4th Amendment would be a valid defense in court. Which would be ironic and weird, if what he had was actually a bomb, but hey, life's ironic and weird sometimes. Maybe they could raid his apartment based on reasonable cause and find some other incriminating evidence.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 5:50PM|#

Stretch brings up courthouse pat-downs. Isn't airport security an even more obvious similar example? Obviously certain events have made the reason for airport security more palpable than perhaps stadium security. But is that the difference between whether it's a 4th Amendment violation or not? (Ditto for whether the searches are efffective, though I imagine especially useless and time consuming searches are especiallly infuriating!!)

|11.17.05 @ 6:48PM|#

Yet again, Tampa is in the news. What the heck is with this place? And if you think we're done with our disproportionate newsworthiness, well, we've got a Sami al-Arian verdict coming next for your edification and amusement.

|11.17.05 @ 7:07PM|#

This policy seems to me to have been put in place to help the NFL defend itself against lawsuits if a tragedy were to happen. They can then point to this policy to show that they made a "best effort" to prevent such an tragedy, thus lowering their liability.

At which point then NFL security guards get federalized and start cavity-searching...

|11.17.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Sorry, I'm not really a football fan; the coolest thing about this story to me is the fact that there's a judge named Perry White...

|11.17.05 @ 11:13PM|#

If you consider someone bringing a weapon or a bomb into a stadium is a non-trivial threat (as I recall some fool tried to suicide bomb a college football game in Oklahoma about a month ago but detonated himself in a empty area), but you consider searches ineffective and a violation of civil rights, what do you suggest that would be both effective and innocuous? Or do you want the stadium authority to takes its chances, do nothing, and if someone manages to blow away a few dozen to thousand spectators, then that's just bad luck?

|11.18.05 @ 8:29AM|#

MJ,
Just say it. The terrorists have won.

slightlybad|11.18.05 @ 9:10AM|#

I think that these searches are stupid, useless and bad business, but I don't think that they're illegal. A ticket to a game is a license that can be revoked at will -- the stadium can eject you for any reason they like or no reason at all. You can condition admittance on submitting to a search. The analogy to an airport is probably the most correct. Don't like the search? You don't have to submit, but you ain't flying.

|11.18.05 @ 9:34AM|#

MJ, for the record, I personally had my civil liberties violated by the Tampa Sports Authority when I went to the Bucs-Dolphins game last month. The "search" was totally pro forma and wouldn't stop a teenaged terrorist, let alone someone who might, I don't know, PLAN his attack to deal with such obstacles. I think the idea behind the searches is that if an attack happened and the TSA did nothing at all, there would be blame game and liability issues. If an attack happens with the "searches" in place, then, well, we've been overcome by those sly terrorists again. Obviously, a free and open society will always be vulnerable to such attacks.

Incidentally, it's clear that the reason Tampa feels compelled to defend this case is that it doesn't want to upset the NFL and risk losing a Super Bowl. The good news is that some members of the TSA have openly questioned the policy (I actually know the one mentioned in the article--Patrick Monteiga), so the day of blindly deferring decisions about constitutionality to the private sector hasn't come entirely yet :)

As the self-designated Hit & Run comment thread correspondent for the Bay Area, I feel compelled to reveal the next bit of Tampanalia to hit the national news scene: Babe and satisfier-of-the-ultimate-teenaged-boy-fantasy teacher, Debra Lafave, is slated to go on trial on December 5. Given her attractiveness (our major standard for whether abducted people or criminals make the national news feed), expect a lovely media circus. Plus she's crazy, and Zeus knows we Americans love crazy people.

|11.18.05 @ 9:46AM|#

slightlybad, my problem with the searches is that it's the government performing them. If we had a slightly more libertarian system, then the airports, the stadiums, and the schools would be run by the private sector. Then issues related to searches, free speech, and teaching Genesis in place of science would be irrelevant (constitutionally speaking) and subject to review only by the Invisible Hand.

One useless and mildly infringing search may not bother me that much, but we've accepted so many government infringements of our 4th Amendment rights that one begins to wonder exactly when the government can't search or eavesdrop upon us.

|11.18.05 @ 12:27PM|#

I just read a St. Petersburg Times article on this case and ran across a couple of interesting items. First, Perry White would be Superman's editor. Perry Little would be the judge in this case. Sorry Daily Planet fans.

Second, the TSA has an interesting statement in its brief: "There is no constitutional right to watch a professional football game in person." I have never liked this type of argument, because the Constitution doesn't create rights. Besides, the whole point of this isn't my right to attend a football game, it's my right against unreasonable searches. To be fair, the TSA is trying to parallel the reasoning behind cases allowing airport searches, but I find such reasoning annoying in this instance.

|11.19.05 @ 10:38AM|#

"I think the idea behind the searches is that if an attack happened and the TSA did nothing at all, there would be blame game and liability issues."- Pro Liberate

I think you have it precisely right. Furthermore, with the tort system in this country as it is, that is not either an irrational or foolish response by the NFL or the stadium authority (and yes, the Bucs should own and operate their stadium, so government would be out of it, but that's not the facts on the ground). Is there a better method to secure the stadium? Maybe, I'm not sure what one would be, but I'm not seeing any suggestions here.


Ruthless-

Do you have anything useful to contribute? Or will you just continue to impotently bitch and moan?