Stadium Security: Necessary or Invasive?

Chris Graham of the Augusta Free Press has an extensive piece on the legal implications of new techniques in stadium security. The article also addresses a recent preliminary injunction imposed by a state judge in Florida prohibiting officials at Raymond James Stadium -- home of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- from conducting searches (the case is now being heard in federal court). (Graham, "At What Price Security?," Augusta Free Press, 2/20/2006). I was interviewed for the story. Last October, Greg wrote an outstanding post on this topic and the constitutional implications of pat-downs and other searches.

Here are some excerpts from Graham's story: (I debate the issue with a lawyer at the ACLU):

"I think since 9/11 we've become more tolerant of intrusions on our property and person - that we recognize that times have changed, and that we have to give up some of our personal freedoms to ensure security," said Michael McCann, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law and a regular contributor to The Sports Law Blog.

That has generally been the case in sports venues across the country in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But there has been something of a blowback that has gotten going in recent months - with suits filed against stadium authorities in Tampa Bay and San Francisco related to patdown searches of fans attending NFL games in those two cities.

"The immediate legal issue is our Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures," said Rebecca Steele, the director of the ACLU of Florida's Tampa office, which is acting on behalf of a Tampa Bay Buccaneers' season-ticket holder to challenge the patdown-search policy at Raymond James Stadium.

"The law is really pretty clear - that a suspicionless patdown search is presumed unconstitutional unless certain exceptions exist. What we said, and the court agreed, is that those exceptions just don't exist here," Steele told The Augusta Free Press . . .

McCann, for his part, agrees with Steele that "there's a limit that we don't want to cross where it gets too invasive."

"But I think there's a general consensus that times have changed, and we've been more fortunate than anything else that we've only had 9/11," McCann told the AFP.

"Sporting events, perhaps more than any other venue, would appear to be a prime target for a terrorist strike. And one terrorist strike in a stadium could change everything - be it a bomb, be it any type of attack," McCann said.

"The fact that we haven't had that type of event is a tribute to the security," McCann said.

Does stadium security go too far? Is it unnecessary? Does it deter? Is it really about teams not wanting to be sued later? And if God-forbid a terrorist group struck at a sporting event, how would that change the world of sports? Would people still go to games?

Posted in: