TexasCHLforum.com

Important note: I think each of us supports the right of property owners to set conditions for entry on their property, whether it's searches or hopping on one leg while clucking like a chicken. The market will determine whether those requirements are excessive.

But at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers stadium, the "owner" is the Tampa Bay Sports Authority, a government agency. They were using government power to search people before being allowed into the stadium. And, presumably, to arrest them for possession of anything unauthorized.

An odd but related case is pending in Chicago, where the Chicago Park District (government? private association?) is suing to stop police searches at Bears games.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9576028

Judge rules against Bucs; league defends pat-downs

July 28, 2006
CBS SportsLine.com wire reports

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.

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which sued on Johnston's behalf, said Whittemore's decision could turn out to be significant.

"It's obviously not going to govern what's happening around the country, but it's certainly going to be an influential precedent," Simon said. "Other courts may look at it."

Simon said he thinks the decision shows that courts are "pushing back" at governmental attempts to violate citizens' civil rights on the basis of a perceived threat of terrorism or crime.

Rick Zabak, an attorney for Tampa Sports Authority, said the decision will be appealed.

"We're disappointed, and we respectfully disagree with the judge's conclusions," Zabak said.

Calls to an NFL spokesman were not immediately returned Friday. In a previous statement, the NFL said "these limited screenings are reasonable and important to the protection of our fans."

Another NFL pat-down case made it into federal court last week when the Chicago Park District sued in federal court to challenge the planned searches by police at Chicago Bears games.

Fancy that. When sports teams get the taxpayers to build them a stadium, the Constitution remains in effect on the taxpayers' property.

There's hope.

Soldier Field, where the Bears play in Chicago, is city property. The Chicago Park District is a subdivision of the city government.

BTW, Chicago has far more autonomy than Texas cities do, and the mayor probably has more influence on state government than any other mayor in the country.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Fancy that. When sports teams get the taxpayers to build them a stadium, the Constitution remains in effect on the taxpayers' property.

The answer, of course, is to get the government (at all levels) completely out of the business of sports and entertainment venues.

When the team owner builds his own stadium, he can set whatever conditions he wants on those trying to enter. The market will tell him quickly enough if his terms are too tough.

Naw, that's too much like true capitalism. Teams don't want the risk. They want to have free stadiums built to their lavish demands, tax breaks, utility breaks, and even --at least in the case of the Saints-- get an annual payment for staying in town.

Soldier Field, where the Bears play in Chicago, is city property. The Chicago Park District is a subdivision of the city government.

Do you know for certain that the Park District is a government agency? I couldn't tell from their web site. Looks more like a business version of a homeowner's association, a quasi-governmental private association.

Ever since I read the article, I've been trying to find out their true status. I thought was odd if they're a government agency, suing their own city.

Ooops, scratch that! I just looked them up on Wikipedia:
"It is an independent taxing authority as defined by Illinois State Statute and is considered a separate (or "sister") agency of the city of Chicago. The CEO of the Park District is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago."

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:The answer, of course, is to get the government (at all levels) completely out of the business of sports and entertainment venues.

I would like to. Unfortunately, it's a race to the bottom between cities.

"It is an independent taxing authority as defined by Illinois State Statute and is considered a separate (or "sister") agency of the city of Chicago. The CEO of the Park District is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago."

I lived there 27 years. I always thought the park district was a subdivision of the city. They act like it.

The mayor of Chicago has his hands on a lot of strings. If things haven't changed, he also appoints the school board.

- Jim