49ers frisking policy going to CA S.C.

[News Shooter]

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- The case that pits 49er fans' right to privacy against the team's efforts to provide strong security went before the State Supreme Court on Tuesday. It all began with two season ticket holders who objected to being frisked at the gate.

This case has been around for a while. The Daniel and Kathleen Sheehan of Danville filed this suit back in 2005, after the 49ers started patting down their patrons.

If you go to a pro football game, you're going to get patted down before you get into the stadium. It is a policy that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union say tramples our right to privacy
Story continues below
Advertisement

"Neither the government nor a private business has the right to subject people to a full body pat down as the price of going to a football game," said ACLU attorney Ann Brick.

Brick says her clients, long time 49rs fans, filed suit when the pat downs started in 2005.

"They were offended. Why should they have to have somebody, a stranger, run his hands over their bodies in order for them to go to a football game," said Brick.

The 49ners attorney says that's just NFL policy.

"We have certain security measures that we have in place to protect our fans. If somebody doesn't like those security measures, they don't have to go to the games, we don't force anybody to attend our games," said 49ers attorney Sonya Winner.

Winner says it's a policy born from the attacks on 9/11, and a former FBI counter terrorist expert says it's a good policy.

"What we've forgotten is that we don't have Bin Laden yet and we still have a war on terror on going," said former FBI agent Terry Turchie.

But immediately after 9/11, all security was doing at the 49er games was looking in bags. The pat downs didn't start until four years later. The lawyer for the 49ers says the team did inform its tickets holders when the policy went into effect.

"The plaintiffs in this case really wanted to go to the games and they bought tickets knowing that pat downs were a condition of attending the games," said Winner.

So the team argues the ticket buyers gave their consent to the pat down by buying the tickets.

"So if the phone company sent out a notice to all of its customers and said you should be aware that from now on when you use your telephone we're going to be listening in," said Brick.

Brick told the High Court businesses don't have a right to violate privacy rights simply by giving notice. And if anti-terrorism were truly the motive here, why is the NFL standing alone among all other professional sports.

"Not the National Basketball Association, not Major League Baseball, not the National Hockey League -- not one of them requires a pat down of every one of their fans as a condition of attending the games," said

In Florida, there was a lawsuit on this same issue, and the plaintiffs lost. But the ACLU says that case was based on federal privacy rights.

The Sheehans case is based on the California Constitution, Article One, Section One, which guarantees the inalienable rights of defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy.

A decision by the State's High Court is expected within 90 days.
(Copyright ©2009 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

 

[jobowker]

I realize we haven't caught bin laden, but do we really think he's going to go to a 49ers game?

 

[appraiser]

try flying a general aviation aircraft anywhere near a stadium on game day, or a NASCAR event.

Notices To Airmen ( google NOTAM) put the area around stadiums off limits to pilots on a regular basis.

 

[9000S]

Hmmm

Always thought Bin Laden was a bears fan....

 

[News Shooter]

Do they frisk at Patriots games?

 

[vellnueve]

but do we really think anyone's going to go to a 49ers game?

Fixed

 

[drumenigma]

I love the phrase "War on Terror". How can you have a war against a concept? I don't think people should be giving up basic rights in order to enjoy life.

 

[mikem317]

Bin Laden's apprehension matters little. They'll just be another quack out there that puts innocent American citizens in their crosshairs due to our morally bankrupt foreign policy.

There's no such thing as a War on Terror. If there was, why aren't we bombing Ireland (IRA), or Lebanon (Hezbollah), or Chile (Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front), or Egypt (Al-Jihad), or Greece (Revolutionary Nuclei), or India (Al-Ummah)?

 

[Garys]

"Neither the government nor a private business has the right to subject people to a full body pat down as the price of going to a football game," said ACLU attorney Ann Brick.

Why not? It's their stadium, their football team. They should be able to set any policy they want. If the Sheehans don't like it, stay home and watch it on TV.

 

[mikem317]

Why not? It's their stadium, their football team. They should be able to set any policy they want. If the Sheehans don't like it, stay home and watch it on TV.

How do you feel about employer restrictions on firearm possession?

 

[Jose]

try flying a general aviation aircraft anywhere near a stadium on game day, or a NASCAR event.

Notices To Airmen ( google NOTAM) put the area around stadiums off limits to pilots on a regular basis.

NOTAMS do as much good as the stupid signs with a gun inside a red circle.

Anyone with their hands on a Cessna Citation can blow right into the restricted airspace and be in the stands before the stupid AF can do anything about it.

 

[Garys]

How do you feel about employer restrictions on firearm possession?

It's the same thing. A lot of people here, including you, are always complaining about government intrusion. You can't have it both ways, either we want the government to leave us alone or we don't. If you want the government to tell a private company who it should admit under what circumstances, then you have to accept when they tell you what you can do with YOUR property. How about if the government decides that you shouldn't be able to smoke in your own home? (Assuming you smoke)

My employer does have restrictions on carrying at work or on their property. I don't particularly like it, but I knew that when I signed on. If it was enough of an issue, I had the option of not taking the job.

 

[Palladin]

Do they frisk at Patriots games?

yup. at least the ones I've been to...they're looking for people sneaking booze more than anything else. I've gone to a Pats game with a G23 in my waist band...got frisked..they missed it ( heavy clothing) walked right in.
the frisk was concentrated on my outer pockets, etc..looking for beer cans.


We talked about this here for Sox games during the summer, I went with another couple, all of us well dressed, no one touched us...22yo boys behind me got cavity searched..again they're looking for alcohol, especially nips at the Sox games

 

[Garys]

yup. at least the ones I've been to...they're looking for people sneaking booze more than anything else. I've gone to a Pats game with a G23 in my waist band...got frisked..they missed it ( heavy clothing) walked right in.
the frisk was concentrated on my outer pockets, etc..looking for beer cans.


We talked about this here for Sox games during the summer, I went with another couple, all of us well dressed, no one touched us...22yo boys behind me got cavity searched..again they're looking for alcohol, especially nips at the Sox games

I go to several Red Sox games a year and always get a pat down of my pockets. Personally, I try to find the line which has the cute young girls doing the checks. Never seems to work out, though.

I've worn my 5.11s several times and they still only check the pockets in the traditional locations. They never check the waist band, ankles, under my arms, or other places where I might, in theory of course, carry my 442, 3913, or 60.

I haven't been to the Garden since in five or six years, but it was much the same there.

They are far more interested in illicit snacks than they are in weapons. That of course would change if they sold ammunition at the concession stands.

 

[mikem317]

It's the same thing. A lot of people here, including you, are always complaining about government intrusion. You can't have it both ways, either we want the government to leave us alone or we don't. If you want the government to tell a private company who it should admit under what circumstances, then you have to accept when they tell you what you can do with YOUR property. How about if the government decides that you shouldn't be able to smoke in your own home? (Assuming you smoke)

My employer does have restrictions on carrying at work or on their property. I don't particularly like it, but I knew that when I signed on. If it was enough of an issue, I had the option of not taking the job.

I'm obviously not a fan of the government, status quo. However, we have an established government for a reason - To protect our unalienable rights from being usurped by others. By "others" that certainly includes other individuals, but it can include other parties, like private corporations. That's the only legitimate use of government.

If it's my property, I decide what I do with it, how to maintain it and how to dispose of it, insofar it doesn't impinge others' individual liberties. That's it's very definition!

 

[RichM]

How do you feel about employer restrictions on firearm possession?

Does anyone know of someone who carries at work in spite of their employers' prohibitions? Would they be risking anything in addition to the potential loss of their job?

Did you like the use of hypotheticals?

 

[mikem317]

Does anyone know of someone who carries at work in spite of their employers' prohibitions? Would they be risking anything in addition to the potential loss of their job?

Did you like the use of hypotheticals?

No. I don't know of anyone, personally. I would fathom that given the nature of the issue, one would was knowingly disobeying a company policy like this would likely keep their trap shut though.

INAL, but I would think it would simply lead to immediate termination.

 

[Garys]

I'm obviously not a fan of the government, status quo. However, we have an established government for a reason - To protect our unalienable rights from being usurped by others. By "others" that certainly includes other individuals, but it can include other parties, like private corporations. That's the only legitimate use of government.

Then you are a fan of big government. Under your theory, the government can tell private companies who to hire, when to hire, who to fire, when to fire, what the racial make up of a company should be, and who they have to sell or provide services to. The Bill of Rights is a set of constraints on government actions, not a set of entitlements that the government is bound to deliver to your or ensure that others do.

If it's my property, I decide what I do with it, how to maintain it and how to dispose of it, insofar it doesn't impinge others' individual liberties. That's it's very definition!

This is a very liberal definition of rights. The owner of a private venue will argue that by carrying you impinge on it's rights. YOU have no right to enter into a sports stadium and they have no duty to let you in. When you buy a ticket, you buy a license to enter onto their premises, with the restrictions that THEY set, not you, and except for public safety concerns not the government. And by public safety, I mean things like the fire code, not whether or not you can carry.

You don't have a right to a job, to live in a certain building, to go where every you want when ever you want. I know it's in vogue among some factions to think this is so, but it is not.

 

[doobie]

I realize we haven't caught bin laden, but do we really think he's going to go to a 49ers game?

You never know, the pat down might find him. You know they are trained professional pat downers...

 

[mikem317]

Then you are a fan of big government. Under your theory, the government can tell private companies who to hire, when to hire, who to fire, when to fire, what the racial make up of a company should be, and who they have to sell or provide services to. The Bill of Rights is a set of constraints on government actions, not a set of entitlements that the government is bound to deliver to your or ensure that others do.

That's patently false, and I think you know that. Government's obligation is quite clear, at least from an ideological perspective. Clearly, my logic doesn't extend to production decisions of business. Please don't conflate protected individual liberties and the private decisions of enterprise. Government exists insofar to protect these freedoms and to provide remedy.

 

[Garys]

That's patently false, and I think you know that. Government's obligation is quite clear, at least from an ideological perspective. Clearly, my logic doesn't extend to production decisions of business. Please don't conflate protected individual liberties and the private decisions of enterprise. Government exists insofar to protect these freedoms and to provide remedy.

It may be clear, but apparently not to you. You want the government to tell other people what they can do with their property when it benefits you. You can't have the government tell a private company that it has to let you on their property under your conditions and then expect that the same government won't tell you when you can carry a gun on YOUR OWN property. Under your interpretation, the DC law that Heller overturned was perfectly legal.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[mikem317]

It may be clear, but apparently not to you. You want the government to tell other people what they can do with their property when it benefits you. You can't have the government tell a private company that it has to let you on their property under your conditions and then expect that the same government won't tell you when you can carry a gun on YOUR OWN property. Under your interpretation, the DC law that Heller overturned was perfectly legal.

You can't have it both ways.

No. I've never advocated what the government can and cannot mandate to private enterprise or how they can organize their production resources (including hiring and firing select individuals as you mentioned previously). If you can link to a post where I suggested this, I'll stand corrected.

So I guess you're not a fan of desegregation laws, civil rights protection laws or perhaps something more relevant to the forum discussion, "The Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008 (Florida)"?

 

[Garys]

I'm obviously not a fan of the government, status quo. However, we have an established government for a reason - To protect our unalienable rights from being usurped by others. By "others" that certainly includes other individuals, but it can include other parties, like private corporations. That's the only legitimate use of government.

Maybe someone hacked into your computer and wrote this. Or maybe you don't understand what the words mean, I'm not sure.

The way I read this you think it is the government's responsibility to tell private entities what they can do with their property. Such as who they have to let in under what circumstances. You want the government to tell Gillette Stadium (for example) that they have to grant you admission with your firearms even if they don't want to. From there, it's a simple step to tell Gillette that they have to reserve a percentage of their seating for people who can't afford tickets and sell them at a loss so that those people can exercise their "right" to attend a football game. Then the government can set the prices for food, player's salaries, and everything else.

It's all the things that YOU have railed against in numerous posts on this forum. Only this time you want the government to enforce something because it benefits you.

So I guess you're not a fan of desegregation laws, civil rights protection laws or perhaps something more relevant to the forum discussion, "The Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008 (Florida)"?

When it comes to forcing these things on private entities, you are correct in that I don't support them. Which is far different than saying that I support discrimination. I do think that these laws should only be enforced against government entities because rights can only be deprived by the state. If store X puts up a sign that says, "We don't hire Irish, don't even apply", that should be their right. The Irish in turn, can and should, boycott store X and encourage everyone else to do so until store X either goes out of business or changes the policy. Same thing with privately owned country clubs. If they want to exclude any particular group for any or no reason, that's their business.

Once you concede that the government can tell any private entity what to do under Y circumstances, you have now granted the government the authority to tell ANY entity what to do under ANY circumstances.

If you don't want the government to be able to tell you when and where you can have a gun, why do you want the government to tell another private entity that they HAVE to let someone who is carrying a gun on to their premises?

 

[Underwhere]

"What we've forgotten is that we don't have Bin Laden yet and we still have a war on terror on going," said former FBI agent Terry Turchie.

So....when we find Bin Laden, give him a fair trial will all this invasion of privacy stop?

And the Mass Turnpike Toll booths will be disassembled when the pike is paid for.

 

[drgrant]

So....when we find Bin Laden, give him a fair trial will all this invasion of privacy stop?

And the Mass Turnpike Toll booths will be disassembled when the pike is paid for.

...Right around the time that squadron of pigs starts doing flight practice over
Boston, of course.

-Mike

 

[Garys]

...Right around the time that squadron of pigs starts doing flight practice over
Boston, of course.

-Mike

They're warming up right now!

 

[mikem317]

Maybe someone hacked into your computer and wrote this. Or maybe you don't understand what the words mean, I'm not sure.

The way I read this you think it is the government's responsibility to tell private entities what they can do with their property. Such as who they have to let in under what circumstances. You want the government to tell Gillette Stadium (for example) that they have to grant you admission with your firearms even if they don't want to. From there, it's a simple step to tell Gillette that they have to reserve a percentage of their seating for people who can't afford tickets and sell them at a loss so that those people can exercise their "right" to attend a football game. Then the government can set the prices for food, player's salaries, and everything else.

I think it bares repeating: I don't think it's the government's responsibility to tel private entities, either individuals or beings of enterprise what they can do, how they procure, how they maintain, how they use, and how they dispose of their property. I do think it's the government's job to settle quarrels and disputes between private entities and state governments, to repel foreign invasion and maintain infrastructure. That's about it. If the government doesn't serve this purpose (as I understand how the Founders saw it) then it should be abolished, and yes, market forces ought to serve as the invisible hand.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"The purpose of government is to allow for the preservation of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

It's all the things that YOU have railed against in numerous posts on this forum. Only this time you want the government to enforce something because it benefits you.

This doesn't benefit me. I'm not the one going to a 49ers game. I only want the government to serve in it's limited role (if it needs to exist at all). I feel that this is a legitimate role of government, if it should exist at all.

 

[mikem317]

So....when we find Bin Laden, give him a fair trial will all this invasion of privacy stop?

And the Mass Turnpike Toll booths will be disassembled when the pike is paid for.

Actually if Iraq is any indication, we'll stay in Afghanistan, despite bin Laden's apprehension.

 

[Garys]

I think it bares repeating: I don't think it's the government's responsibility to tel private entities, either individuals or beings of enterprise what they can do, how they procure, how they maintain, how they use, and how they dispose of their property. I do think it's the government's job to settle quarrels and disputes between private entities and state governments, to repel foreign invasion and maintain infrastructure. That's about it. If the government doesn't serve this purpose (as I understand how the Founders saw it) then it should be abolished, and yes, market forces ought to serve as the invisible hand.

If the government should settle arguments between private entities, it is the role of the courts to do that, not the executive or legislative. The Constitution is pretty clear in that.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

What Jefferson said it important for historic, not legal reasons.

This doesn't benefit me. I'm not the one going to a 49ers game. I only want the government to serve in it's limited role (if it needs to exist at all). I feel that this is a legitimate role of government, if it should exist at all.

And again you are incorrect. The government should not be telling people how they can behave on their own property. It has, incorrectly I think, in many cases, but it should not do so absent an over iding public safety interest.

 

[mikem317]

If the government should settle arguments between private entities, it is the role of the courts to do that, not the executive or legislative. The Constitution is pretty clear in that.

I never said otherwise. The Constitution establishes a three-branch government. When I was referencing "government" read "court".

What Jefferson said it important for historic, not legal reasons.

Fair enough. But it also serves as the crux of the Declaration of Independence. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are among the "inalienable rights" that are bestowed at our instantiation.

And again you are incorrect. The government should not be telling people how they can behave on their own property. It has, incorrectly I think, in many cases, but it should not do so absent an over iding public safety interest.

No I'm not.

Using your flawed methodology, a man can beat his wife or his children provided he only does so on his property.