ACLU sues over NFL pat-downs

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.rawstory.com/

In a release issued today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today announced a that seeks to stop officials from conducting pat-down searches of persons entering Raymond James Stadium. The search policy, enacted by the Tampa Sports Authority on September 13, calls for pat-downs of all persons entering NFL football games, with or without cause.

When many 2005 - 2006 season ticketholders made their purchases, the policy was not in place. Claimants say that the Buccaneers have refused to refund the cost of the tickets.

Claimants also maintain that the policy fails to make game attendees any safer. Patrick Manteiga, Sports Authority Chairman, has publicly characterized the pat-down searches as intrusive, and charged that they provide a false sense of security. The ACLU also claims that an attorney for the Sports Authority told officials before adopting the plan that the searches would be unlawful if imposed on season ticket holders without their consent, unless they were offered refunds of their tickets if they objected to the searches.

[truebrit71]

1. Good...

Screw the Suckaneers...

[Dr.Phool]

3. That's been going on since 2001 in places

I went to a Browns game in Cleveland in 2001 and they patted down everyone then.

I went to a Dolphins game in Miami last season, and no pat-down.

I think this year it became league policy, but Cincy refused.

And I said "Cincy" 'cos I can never remember how to spell Cincinn however the hell you spell it.

[LeftyMom]

8. No pat downs at the 'stick either

they didn't even check my bag last time I was there at this year's season opener.

[KitchenWitch]

15. There are pat downs at the Metrodome

:mad:

[High Plains]

2. Thank you, ACLU

Gawd, I hate "security" people.

[Jokerman]

4. Interesting

I'm a long time member of the ACLU and I rarely question their actions but this seem a little strange to me. I've been frisked by security more than once when entering concert venues and I just figured it was their prerogative to search people entering a private venue.

I'm not saying the search is a good thing, I just never thought of it as a violation of my rights.

[wrathofkahn]

17. "private venue"

Bingo! You've hit it exactly. These stadiums are not places of public accommodation. If they were, then the NFL couldn't exactly get away with charging admission, could they?

Of course, I don't know what the ACLU is actually seeking in terms of damages (if any at all). I can see a class-action suit by season ticket holders to get their season tickets refunded (and maybe their PSLs if they bought them in the last year), but that's not really an ACLU issue.

I think that the ACLU is probably out of place on this one.

[jayfish]

20. Nice Try, But Raymond James Was Publicly Financed. -NT-

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/TampaBayBucs/

Jay

[Bill McBlueState]

31. that's an excellent point n/t

[Democrats_win]

5. "Monopolies can do whatever they want" said Adolph Hitler Bush.

"Today the pris...ah...stadiums, tomorrow the concentra...ah... FEMA relocation centers."

[Captain Hilts]

6. I hope they continue to do so at games in Washington, DC.

It's an ideal target for anyone wanting to stir up trouble, whether it's for bottles, cans and liquor or bombs.

[MrSlayer]

7. I don't find it to be that big of a deal.

I've been getting frisked at concerts long before 9/11 and at Eagles games as well. It's no big deal, the search is nothing, they pat under your arms, around your waist and make you take off your hat.

[The Sushi Bandit]

9. They are just doing it to stop bottles of BOOZE coming in the stadium

been to a few games there and they see $$$$ in making the Alcoholics by it in the stadium and not at the local liquor package store!

[Voltaire99]

10. For once, I oppose the ACLU on a case

Yes, I'm all for right wing fans being subjected to inconvenience and intrusion.

With few exceptions, these fans constitute a prime slice of Bush's roast beef. They wanted the security state. Now let them soak in its gravy.

Here's hoping they one day have to undergo colonoscopy to get into the stadium.

[jayfish]

21. Oh Bullshit.

Are all sports Republican or only NASCAR and, now, football. Should this policy extend to college athletics too? You know, cause everyone who enjoys sports is a * supporter. :eyes:

Jay

[Voltaire99]

26. What's bullshit?

That I don't care if right wing fans get searched? Or that football isn't a right wing sport?

If the former, fine, we disagree.

If the latter, you're not paying attention very well. Obviously you haven't noted all the pro-war messages during a Fox football broadcast; or perhaps you don't care that taxpayers are expected to buy stadiums for millionaires. Here's a clue: it ain't liberalism behind that.

[jayfish]

30. A Fox Football Broadcast Is To Football As...

a Faux News broadcast is to news. Fox Sports is not the NFL and Faux News is not the news. I'm not paying attention very well huh? Thanks for helping me refocus. Only one small problem though. Most of these financing plans are voted on by the public and represent a minimal expense on a per-taxpayer basis. In the case of Raymond James Stadium, which is the subject of the OP, the public approved financing for the stadium with a 6% margin of victory. The public portion of the financing came from a 1/2% sales tax increase. Oh, and I pointed that out in another post above. Who's not paying attention?

Jay

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/TampaBayBucs/
http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/superbowl2001/RJS/Stadium_rose_despite_.shtml

[Voltaire99]

34. Defending public funding of stadiums?

Maybe you're more right wing than you think.

It's well-established that stadium funding costs cities more than it earns, produces worse performance from teams, and most unfairly of all, shifts the burden to the poorest through regressive taxation.

Football's fine, but have the decency not to ask for welfare for millionaires. They're playing you for a sap, which, again, is your issue--just don't try to impose it on everyone else.

[jayfish]

37. That's Hilarious!

This coming from someone who over the span of one weekend has come out against the ACLU, against public funding for public broadcasting, for unwarranted search and seizure and most troubling at all, against direct democracy. Who might be more right-wing than they think?

Jay

[Psephos]

25. Say what? Me an' about ten of the boys say you oughta rethink that...

There are more dems in those stands than repugs, and more dems drinking MGDs on Sunday watching football on tube, too. Football is *our* religion.

[Voltaire99]

27. Your MGD posse has me shaking.

Shaking in disgust over your taste in beer.

As for the political identity of football fans, what evidence do you have that football fans are Dems? The huge numbers of Kerry bumperstickers at the stadium? Get real.

[salin]

28. I live in a red state, but lots of "blues" that I know go see the colts

play. Same was true in Blue Michigan with the Lions, and Blue bay area with the Niners. Point being - NFL fans aren't really defined by their politics.

[Voltaire99]

35. Truth to tell, I know plenty of fellow blue Packer fans...

...although "blue," if you follow the Pack, has more than one meaning. ;-)

Still, we're very far from a majority. So I grant you, it all depends.

[Psephos]

36. LOL

Good point about MGD...of course we only drink that if we can't get Stroh's.

Seriously, I don't know of any objective measure of political affiliation of NFL fans, but in my circle voting Dem and swearing vigorously while watching the latest Lions debacle go hand-in-hand. My guess is that in old-line blue-collar cities (such as Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, and so on) blues outnumber reds in the stands by a respectable margin.

[jayfish]

38. OMG!!!

The latest in a long, long, long, long line of debacles. The Sox ain't got nothin on the Lions. I just hope Garcia make a speedy recovery so we can have someone behind center who can throw more than 15 yards. Harrington has to have one of the weakest arms in NFL history. At least we're still on top of the Norse.


Jay

[Bill McBlueState]

32. civil liberties are civil liberties

Cute as you think you're being, civil liberties aren't contingent on who you voted for in the last election.

[MADem]

11. Oh, for a second there I thought this thread was about all the

ass patting that goes on after a touchdown!!!

[RFK LIVES ON]

18. That was my first thought. haha. I also think...

...that pat downs, although coming late in the game, are in everyone's best interest. They should offer a refund, but not having pat downs at all is worse, IMO. Metal detectors don't catch everything.

BTW, glad to be here. :-)

[MADem]

22. Welcome!! nt

[RFK LIVES ON]

23. Thank you very much for the welcome MADem.

I truly appreciate it.:)

[MADem]

24. RFK was a favorite of mine

Take it slow here, and you will make some fine friends. It is tough being new, so go easy and bide your time. I joined up right after this joint was established, but forgot my damn name and password, and besides, I was in government at the time, so it was way better to just look and not contribute, seeing as it was NOT MY COMPUTER!

When I finally got free, I could not, for the life of me, figure out what my correct name and password was, so I had to 'begin agin' as it were.

You will find a wide diversity of opinion here, from way left to butt up against the GOP, and all of it is interesting. Many smart folk, many interesting opinions, a lot of heart as well!

The big tent lives! Again, welcome...

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Good. About time they challenged these mislabeled security searches

The principal motivation for the pat-downs is keeping stadium and franchise revenues high. It's about selling Cokes and preventing image piracy. The second motivation is liability, say if someone brings in drugs to sell to kids, and lastly it's about security. Private businesses think profits first, other things later.

In this case, season ticket holders should have been informed before they renewed or offered full refunds once they became aware of the policy. Same deal with single game ticket holders who refuse at the gate.

Most people over 40 can remember when pat-downs were rarely done by anyone other than cops when they detained you or when you visited a jail or prison. Bag checks are one thing, but pat-downs are over the top. As long as there are enough people who are willing to go through it in order to see a band or sports event, business has no incentive to act differently. I hope the ACLU prevails. It would be a nice start to force businesses to be upfront about such policy changes affecting their paying customers.

[Bill McBlueState]

33. it is over the top

There's been a long push, massively escalated by 9/11, to make everyone comfortable with the idea of being subject to monitoring and searching in any environment. These searches are so unproductive, and I really doubt the hayseeds doing the searches have any idea how to respond if they actually do find a bomb or something.

[ozarkvet]

13. Reponse to the nutcase who blew himself up in OK

Who blew himself up outside of the Oklahoma/Kansas game a week ago.

Rumors are flying --- convert to Islam, Pakistani roomate, went to same mosque as Zach. Mousoui, had more explosives, tried to buy ammonium nitrate, refused search of bag, etc.

They also upped all security at Big 12 games --- no bags essentially.

[underpants]

14. Well there is a story I completely missed

:shrug:

[mikita]

29. here ya go...

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2005/10/03/TopStories/Bomb-Explodes.At.Ou.Game-1006674.shtml

[IA_Seth]

16. Got a Link to that?

I must have missed that one completely...

I can't imagine that not making headlines.

[mokawanis]

19. Speaking of the ACLU...

CRAVE, Christians Reviving American ValuEs, wants Congress to investigate the ACLU's "policies and true intentions".

And this: a petition drive spearheaded by the Center for Reclaiming America (CRAVE) is mobilizing more than 100,000 Americans to urge Congress to pass a bill to curb the ACLU by denying plaintiff attorneys the right to collect attorney fees in lawsuits that target religion in the public square.

Finally, this: John Hostettler (Rep.-Indiana) calls for "a stand against the ACLU's radical agenda, which undermines our nation's moral and religious heritage."


Last time I checked our religious heritage called for a separation of church and state, and I'd submit that Hostettler's attempts to attack that important part of our heritage is downright immoral, one might even say un-American

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/132005e.asp