Do you think getting patted down entering a stadium is unconstitutional?

I SAY IF YOU WANT TO LOOK IN MY BACKPACK FINE. OR IF YOU WANT TO WAVE A METAL DETECTOR WAND OVER ME, FINE........BUT KEEP YOUR EFFING HANDS OFF OF MY BODY.

GOOD FOR THESE 49ER FANS TO TAKE A STAND.

TERRA TERRA :eyes:

====================================================================================

Suit over Niners' pat-downs of fans is revived

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

(03-02) 15:44 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court reinstated a lawsuit Monday challenging pat-downs of fans entering San Francisco 49ers games, saying spectators don't necessarily agree to be searched when they buy their tickets.

But the court also indicated that ticket-holders could have a tough time showing that the pat-downs, ordered by the National Football League in 2005 to ward off potential terrorists, were an unreasonable invasion of privacy. A majority of the justices said courts should respect private businesses' assessments of their own safety needs.

"The state constitutional right of privacy does not grant courts a roving commission to second-guess security decisions at private entertainment events or to micromanage interactions between private parties," Justice Ming Chin said in an opinion signed by four of the seven justices.

The justices agreed unanimously, however, that lower courts should not have dismissed a suit by two 49ers fans merely because they had bought tickets for the 2006 season after learning about the searches.

Instead, the court said, a judge should consider the 49ers' reasons for the pat-downs and examine whether the husband-and-wife fans had actually consented to be searched. The court returned the case to a Superior Court judge for a possible trial on those issues.

The result could set new standards for privacy rights in California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/02/BA6I167PS1.DTL&type=49ers

Hands off my person.

On his person!!!! -Seinfeld

Patdowns at stadiums are a bit overly paranoid IMO. Can anyone tell me the last time we've actually had a stadium bombing or shooting?

I'm pretty sure stadium patdowns have more to do with stopping fans from bringing in cheaper booze than with any real security concern.

I always get waved through with a minimum patdown or none at all , probably because I'm tiny, female and usually accompanied by a wild-eyed seven year old with some really wicked liberty spikes and a glint of evil in his eyes (he gets that from me.) They don't pat my son down at all the 'stick, though when he was younger we had a harder time getting his diaper bag into Cal Expo for the state fair than we did flying with it cross country. Apparently the terrorists are more likely to threaten our candy corn and has been concerts than our microbrews and garlic fries.

I think maybe the court should demand the stick start patting down the punk rock children of the corn, to make sure they're not going to kill us all in some plot for indigo world domination.

It's just a quick once over at The Linc. No invasion or anything. They pat your lats and your waist, places you might have a gun. They don't make you empty your pockets or frisk you. It's just a formality. Is it unnecessary, probably. Is it unconstitutional? No. It's also quicker than a metal detector. I've visited several NFL stadiums and NHL arenas and never once have I felt that my Constitutional rights were being violated by the pat down. They do it at baseball games, concerts, nightclubs and a host of other places. It's kind of the owner's duty to at least appear to be securing their patrons. I can see if they were doing body cavity searches or full on frisks but they aren't. At least not in my considerable experience. It's a minor inconvenience and done more for show than anything. I'm always able to get my dugout and my pint of Captain in. It's not that tough a search.

unanimous in its writings.

You also don't know where these guards are touching people.

What's next? Pat downs going into the mall? Pat downs getting on the bus?

I'm totally opposed to anyone patting me down going to watch a football game.

Tampa was stopped from doing it for three years until the ruling was overturned in court last year.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/28/Tampabay/Pat_downs_halted___fo.shtml

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/24/me-bucs-fans-face-pat-downs/


I don't feel my rights are being violated but if they halted the practice I wouldn't care.

(yet).

This is California constitutional law, and this is what happened here in 1972:

Voters added a privacy guarantee to the state Constitution in a 1972 initiative that - unlike the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution - covers intrusions by businesses and individuals as well as the government.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/02/BA6I167PS1.DTL&type=49ers

This is why the other cases are not applicable at this time.

California has it's own constitutional guarantee.

is a pretty strong statement that businesses and individuals are not covered by the wording in the United States Constitution.

to handle this.

The Constitution articulates right of the person in relation to what the government can and cannot do to the person. A football stadium has nothing to do with the government carrying out it's work but is private property. If the owner of said property wants to pat you down before you enter his stadium, he has every right to do such. If that's not acceptable to you, and I can see how it might not be, then all you have to do is not attend the game. Problem solved.

Although I do think,as another poster pointed out, this probably has more to do with making sure you don't get any beverages and food inside the stadium and therefore have to buy from the vendors at ridicules prices than it has to do with security.

on a take-it-or-leave-it basis."

"In our society we don't normally expect or want a stranger to tell us to stand with our arms outstretched, to have someone rub their arms over their bodies. Being touched by a stranger in that systematic way is very offensive," said Ann Brick of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

I absolutely agree.

Is the Constitution that of the Third Reich?

come about because of the American Sheeple's complacency. When a company or organization begins using such tactics, it is incumbent on the citizens to refuse to go along. You want to search me to attend your event? I will not attend. Multiply that by a few million and the searches go away, but as long as we're satisfied acting like sheep, we will be treated as sheep, and all sheep share a common destiny.

to sporting events.

People will not stay away in large enough numbers ,, I can predict that right now.

So then what?

is more important to them than their rights, then they will be searched. As the court held, there is no Constitutional issue here, it is a private event in a private space (although in most instances the space was paid for with taxpayer dollars, so maybe that is a tack) that is voluntarily attended. Now, that would not prevent legislation from being passed regarding this issue, but barring that, I don't see how their rights have been violated since they really don't have any.

There might be some compromise about being more clear that the ticket holder has no right to privacy, just like the people that are put on the jumbotron (?) during the boring parts have no right to privacy or compensation. Buying the ticket licenses the team/promoter to pick them out of the crowd and show the world what they are doing.

OTOH, money can change anything so if enough people are sufficiently upset legislators are pretty cheap to buy.

Edit: I was just reading about the California State Constitution, and apparently there may be a privacy provision that might be applied here. In any case, I think the State Court did the right thing in sending back.

Edit #2: To clarify, I find this kind of thing abhorrent and would never submit to it. I just think people give up their rights far too easily.

see you caught it. :thumbsup:

People will put up with it and it will continue.

in most stadia.

But I won't submit to a search like that without being under arrest - I'd sue the shit out of all concerned and I'd find a very greedy lawyer to do it.

mark

to avoid security at a game - don't go to the game.

There were no pat downs.

I'm not sure if the NBA implements the same groping measures.

I don't like to be groped either.

with our Little Brother, who is 15 and mixed race.

They wanded the crap out of him. My wife just got her purse looked into, and I got a cursory wanding that missed my pocket knife completely.

There seems to be a bit of selectivity going on.

By the way, the Wolves lost once again...their usual level of performance this season. But we got to see Yao Ming up close and personal, and the cheerleaders were very decorative.

Then they'd want to sue, I bet.

to infer such a thing.

They don't want people bringing in their own food and beverages.

would be, do the teams (which are a private enterprise) have the right to stipulate this in their contract with the patrons who buy tickets? Again, I would say no.

I saw the artical says that Tampa Bay has been doing this for several years. Is anyone else doing this? Also, if it security is so important, why not install metal detectors?

answer is no.

Voters added a privacy guarantee to the state Constitution in a 1972 initiative that - unlike the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution - covers intrusions by businesses and individuals as well as the government.

We don't need metal detectors.

Is there some ongoing issue of people waving around guns at sporting events that I don't know about?

bringing in their own alcohol and secondarily to keep weapons out of the stadium. Think about it, drunk crazed fans with firearms. :scared:

Considering there are some states that even allow weapons in churches, I wouldn't be surprised. Doesn't the NRA want everyone to be able to carry guns everywhere?

then,imo,it is unconstitutional.
If it is a privately owned stadium then the owners can pretty much do as they please.

How much public financing can a professional sports franchise accept before it's no longer reasonable to speak of it as a private entity?

I'm glad that there is a court case and hope that there is a ruling which enhances the woefully weak privacy laws we have, but if in the meantime football fans just stopped buying tickets (or in the case of season ticket holders, announcing that they would not renew because of this policy) the problem would be resolved rather quickly.

Paranoid and sketchy, maybe, but not unconstitutional.

but I would like the courts to consider whether a stadium built with millions of taxpayer dollars should be thought of as a public building.

But give someone a badge - even a plastic one - and its OK all of a sudden.

I am so tired of these sheep lines waiting to go through metal detectors and pat downs just to watch games. When I stand in line to go through the ones at the RBC Center to watch the Carolina Hurricanes play hockey, I start making noises like sheep going "baaaaa baaaaa" or I make sounds like cattle. Funny, the people around me get it when I do it. How long will we put up with it?

the 4th amdenment only applies if it's a government official doing the search. If you're accused of shoplifting, and mall security pats you down, it's the same thing (since they're not government, but instead private security).

I spent 1/2 a class discussing this last week so it's fresh on my mind.

in the SF Chronicle article I linked in the OP.

Voters added a privacy guarantee to the state Constitution in a 1972 initiative that - unlike the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution - covers intrusions by businesses and individuals as well as the government.

as I live in NJ and am studying the New Jersey Laws. I will bring this up to my teacher on Thursday though.

How? Since for a private citizen to pat you down w/o consent is assault.

Seems to me that a private citizen has LESS authority to run his hands over your body without your consent than a LEO does. What state statute authorizes nonconsensual private-guard patdowns, which states have this statute, and why wouldn't the Exclusionary Rule apply?

you have consented. Or you don't go. You have a choice.

the security guard can ask you to submit to a search or leave, but he/she has no legal right to search you or to detain you, AFAIK. (I was responding to a post about security guards having greater latitude to search someone they accuse of shoplifting than the police do, which I do not believe is the case.)

I (through my family) had been a season ticekt holder for the Niners since Kezar. And the searches are jsut so unconstitutional that I could no longer go to the events that do this. I also have not been to Shoreline Amp in a number of years due to the same tactics and try to avoid music events in general that have a pat down policy.

Used to be you could take whatever int he hell you wanted inside the stadium, they just did a cursory glance in you carry in bag. Then they started rooting around in the bag. Then they banned items. Then the pat downs and that is the last straw.

even if the team goes back to their former glory, I will not be attending any games.

Happened just a couple of weeks ago. I never think much of it.

more people would have a fundamental problem with strangers groping them as they walked in to watch a football game.

Actually, we'd have to file one of our own, right? I wonder if the Washington State Attorney General's consumer division would be interested.

We were patted down at Qwest Field in Seattle last August before a Seahawks game. It was almost 100 degrees that day; we were wearing t-shirts, shorts, and athletic shoes. In other words, there was nowhere to conceal any kind of weapon on our persons without it being immediately visible.

The pat-downs are nothing more than window dressing. If the NFL is so damn concerned with "security", let them install metal detectors. In the meantime, they're doing it because they get away with it.

argued the appeals of the San Francisco case, and did a nice job.

If the venue security frisks/pats down attendees at a heavy metal or rap concert, do they conduct the same searches on people attending a Miley Cyrus or Barry Manilow concert the following week?

If they want to search people, it should be for all venues or none.

I'm sure the hell not going to spend $100 to go someplace to get frisked, to purchase a $10 beer to watch an event that I can see on TV.

Is it unconstitutional? Probably less unconstitutional than getting the pat down search at the airport.

And they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of all the people attending.

Seattle's Qwest Field was built and continues to be paid for by taxpayer dollars.

I think there might be an argument there.

the city and county of San Francisco.

And where is the statute that says they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of all the people attending?

And do you think those quick pat downs would detect a gun shoved into someone's sock if they were really determined to get a weapon inside?

It's ridiculous to think the terrists are coming without the pat downs.

similarly to say an airport? In other words, there may be private groups playing their (Bands, baseball teams, private airlines, etc), so why would frisking or metal detectors not be illegal?

:shrug:

for the safety of aviation, so airports are not treated similarly.

The reason a metal detector would not be illegal is because it's not an unreasonable search and seizure.

One could argue sticking your hands and feeling up a woman's bra -- ooops, sorry maam :eyes: -- is a violation of an unreasonable search without a warrant, and I know there have been plenty of groping complaints and lawsuits.

I believe that issue will ultimately wind up in the US Supreme Court after someone is humiliated above and beyond anything we can imagine.

But overall, I think most people are fine with non-intrusive searches at airports, because there have been four incidents on airliners that brought them down.

There's nothing to suggest there's a security risk at sports venues.

There's more of a security risk at courthouses, and I've never seen anyone patted down. They always use the wand if the magnetometer goes off.

responsible for ballparks (we know what a good job Bud Selig is doing!).

Yeah, it will probably come down to a Supreme Court decision or maybe they will start installing metal detectors.

BTW, did you see my thread about my getting to see a Supreme Court argument, yesterday? It was really interesting to see how the highest level of American justice works.

No one has a constitutional right to attend a football game. Such tickets are usually in the legal form of a revocable license.

Voters added a privacy guarantee to the state Constitution in a 1972 initiative that - unlike the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution - covers intrusions by businesses and individuals as well as the government.

You don't think this pat down deal doesn't fall under intrusions by businesses?

We're talking California law .. not U.S. law.

How would the rest of us know? By the US Constitution, there is nothing unconstitutional about this. I assumed that's what you were asking.

at least scanned through the article I linked on the OP, you would have been able to understand my point.

But it's my fault .. I shouldn't expect that ..

My bad.

But, I would imagine (and this is sheer speculation, not legal advice) that a private function can impose restrictions upon attendees that places that throw their doors open to the public can't.

That the NFL is governed by interstate commerce laws and therefore the rules that govern this fall under the jurisdiction of federal law -- money crossing state line.

The Supreme Court will most likely agree.

I mean, the DEA has been raiding California medical marijuana dispensaries because the federal government does not recognize California's medical marijuana law -- although it sounds like Obama is ordering the assholes to stand down.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but from a California constitutional standpoint, it the 1972 decision seems to favor the plaintiffs.

:evilgrin:

HA

or metal detectors or pocketbook searches (although I never carry one! :)).

If you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about, and I don't feel like my rights are being violated. I feel it's a public safety issue. I'm been at a few places where guns and knives were drawn and it wasn't fun. I feel being patted down and metal detectors are reasonable ways to ensure the public's safety.

Can't believe I am reading this -

"If you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about."

If you're not trying to sneak a knife or gun or drugs or beer or anything else that is not permitted at a public event like a concert or sporting event than you don't have anything to worry about.

I guess you would rather be stabbed or shot at or inhale other people's second-hand weed smoke.
Believe me, getting shot at and having people pull knives is not fun.

Yes, I see people's points about being "patted down", how it could be in violation of a person's rights, but I would rather be safe than sorry.

You see nothing wrong with your statement?

about not being able to bring in this or that. Then there is nothing wrong with that statement.

I do see the point that a "pat down" could be in violation of someone's rights but if it's a private stadium they are allowed to use whatever security measure they feel like. You can choose to obey the rules or not go to the stadium. I do feel that there should be some disclaimer when purchasing tickets to that venue notifying you that you may be subject to a search. Then you can choose to go or not.

But again, I believe in the safe or sorry approach at these events. If people are searched, it can go a long way in preventing some type of issue. It also protects the stadium.

It is a common right wing theme, that has been used to justify the complete dismantling of the Bill of Rights and due process.

It is the age-old apology for tyrants and police states throughout history.

:thumbsup:

We can debate this all night, and you can think whatever you want about me. I could care less.

I feel the need for public safety when large crowds are concerned. And I don't think it's a violation of my rights.

If you do, that's cool. I respect it.

the constitution?

I mean, if you're not doing anything wrong, why worry about unreasonable searches and seizures and the need for warrants.

You could write opinions for the Bush administration with that kind of ridiculousness about, if you're not doing anything wrong ...

I'm blown away to hear that on a progressive board.

on this progressive board. Add me to the list. How will I ever go on now that you think I should go work for BushCo???? :shrug:

BushCo .. I said you sound like someone who could have very easily have drafter the secret memos that were released yesterday.

As another person put it: "It is a common right wing theme, that has been used to justify the complete dismantling of the Bill of Rights and due process."

Your position is outrageous.

That one statement raises red flags. The right wingers have been beating that drum for a long time.

You most definitely have something to fear, even if you are doing nothing wrong, because not all law enforcement is trustworthy or honest, and the authorities are always seeking more control over us. If the authorities are given more power over us, sooner or later it will be used against us. That is the history of the world.

We err on the side of the people, not on the side of the authorities, and our entire system of jurisprudence and our theories and concepts of self-government and human rights and freedom rest solidly on that foundation. Authoritarians are always trying to chip away at that. We resist them and their "reasonable" sounding ideas, if we wish to remain free.

>If you're not trying to sneak a knife or gun or drugs or beer or anything else that is not permitted at a public event like a concert or sporting event than you don't have anything to worry about.<

Hmm. I explained above in the thread that it was almost 100 degrees in Seattle the day we attended a Seahawks preseason game in August. We had on shorts, t-shirts, the appropriate underwear and athletic shoes. I had a small purse over one arm that wasn't even big enough to put a bottle of water in.

There was NOWHERE on either of our persons that we could have stashed ANYTHING and not had it be visible to those who insisted on patting us down.

We weren't trying to "sneak in" anything at all. We were attending a sporting event. Unless there is a documented threat, there is no reason to pat down anyone attending a sporting event in broad daylight.

:9

1. Is the the stadium is owned by the Government?
2. Is it rented out to the 49ers as private organization and they have assumed sole responsibility or arranging safety and security or is it a joint Government/Private Venture?


1. If the first is true, then yes it violate the constitution as it the government has not established probable cause to conduct a search or met the need for exigent circumstances (officer safety is what is used on traffic and investigative stops) to allow a pat down as mandatory, unless it was explained prior to purchase of the ticket.

2.If it is privately owned or privately operated under lease from the City, then it is probably not unconstitutional as it becomes private property and the owned or constructive owner can set whatever rules for entry they desire as the person seeking entry does not have attend or enter said property and has no right to enter the private property of another.

3. The joint venture is where it becomes really trick and is probably the most likely, the City/state may own the stadium and control concessions and ticket takers/ushers and security and then only thing rented by the team is the locker room and field. (Ok I know they probably have a few more perks like clubhouses and box seats as well)

I think it will be an interesting cases.

Of course, I am not a lawyer and this only my opinion.

Voters added a privacy guarantee to the state Constitution in a 1972 initiative that - unlike the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution - covers intrusions by businesses and individuals as well as the government.

You don't think this pat down deal doesn't fall under intrusions by businesses?

We're talking California law .. not U.S. law.

And just FYI, the stadium is owned and operated by the city .. the 49ers operate under a lease.

state constitution..I just think US Constitution when the question is asked. I have not studied California Constitution and I am not familiar with it at all.

The lease makes it a bit tricky (under US Const), as the 49er's would incur some ownership/property rights based on the lease.

However the State Const. makes the issue moot.

Thanks for the information.

is as great a destruction of its intent as any Bush has proposed.

:hi:

The Constitution limits the power of the government, not the NFL. This would be onerous to me, but it isn't unconstitutional. Unless Obama has nationalized the NFL. :)

Voters added a privacy guarantee to the state Constitution in a 1972 initiative that - unlike the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution - covers intrusions by businesses and individuals as well as the government.

so please don't quote CA law.

It's their stadium. You don't have to go if you don't want to be patted down. If you don't like it don't go. You couldn't pay me to go to a sporting event.

mall, and you object, what, do I just say just don't go shopping?

It's their mall after all.

It's their grocery store after all.

because they weren't confident pat downs would be as effective?

No problem with that either?

named all if the isles after famous racists, you'd just say .. hey, if you don't like it, shop somewhere else?

The word protest or the word boycott never would have existed with you in charge.

How can you just blow off injustices so casually?

I don't understand why you feel business has the right to do whatever the hell it wants.

Boycotts don't stop injustices .. otherwise gay people could get married by now, or serve in the military or there would be an employment non-discrimination act in effect.

Some things can't be changed by boycotts. Some things can. You asked about how to deal with a business whose practices I would not approve of. In that case, I would boycott. Now you wander all over the landscape, bitching about other issues. I have no idea what your real issue is.

I find using the *ignore* button is also an effective form of boycott, too.

You don't have to buy tickets
You don't have to attend the games

as a woman I have issues with anyone putting their hands on my body without my consent. :mad:

I would have split the first options into

I don't have a problem with it and I'm male
I don't have a problem with it and I'm female
I do have a problem with it and I'm male
I do have a problem with it and I'm female

I suspect there might be some sex differences in willingness to get pawed over.

I might suspect that some of those overgrown dummies are packing as they walk through the gate.

but you know there are enough pistols in those luxury vehicles to arm a small nation.

Good point, because the players are simply waved through by the gropers.

If they don't make people take off their hats, one could easily hide a handgun there.





If Barry Bonds attended a Niners game, he could personally arm an entire section with the weapons he could smuggle in under the hat he wears on that giant head of his.




:P

:argh: