Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies

Sports Authority divided over patdown appeal

Members say the central issue is protection from liability in the event terrorists attack the stadium.

TAMPA - The Tampa Sports Authority likely will appeal a Hillsborough judge's order to halt patdown searches before Tampa Bay Buccaneers games at Raymond James Stadium, its attorney said Friday.

Sports Authority attorney Rick Zabak said Friday that board members plan to discuss whether to fight the ruling and are expected to vote on the issue at a meeting Monday. During a Friday morning hearing before Hillsborough Circuit Judge Perry A. Little, Zabak said he was concerned about the agency's potential liability in the event that terrorists target the stadium while the ban on patdowns is in place. He said an appeal would protect the agency from possibly costly lawsuits.

"I think the Tampa Sports Authority as a public body owes it to its patrons so that we're not exposed to enormous damages," he said.

Sports Authority chairman Patrick Manteiga said Friday he would not vote in favor of appealing the injunction. Manteiga was one of two board members who voted against implementing the patdowns after the NFL mandated the searches this summer. He said he, too, had questions about the policy's constitutionality, adding that plaintiff Gordon Johnston - the civics teacher who sued over the searches - was well within his rights to raise the issue.

"Every citizen should stand up if they think their constitutional rights are being stepped on. I think he did what many Americans should do, and it's those people who won't stand up that should be looked at funny," Manteiga said.

Manteiga estimated that the legal battle has already cost the authority $20,000 to $30,000. Last week, the NFL declined the authority's request to help cover legal expenses. But Manteiga said he recently learned the NFL was considering becoming a party to the lawsuit and had agreed to pay a portion of the costs.

David Banker, a local attorney assisting the NFL in advising the Sports Authority, said that the league continues to provide assistance, but he was not aware of any new agreement to share legal expenses. A NFL spokesman in New York said he couldn't address that question.

The NFL ordered the patdowns at the start of this season at all stadiums where its 32 teams play. The Chicago Bears are currently the only team not conducting the searches.

Banker said the Sports Authority could find itself liable for heavy damages if it fails to enforce the NFL's mandate. He said a federal jury's recent decision to find the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey negligent in failing to safeguard the World Trade Center against a 1993 terrorist bombing was especially troubling.

Judge Little issued a temporary injunction Thursday barring patdowns two weeks after Johnston, 60, sued the Sports Authority claiming the searches were unconstitutional. The ruling means stadium security staff would be barred from conducting patdowns at the remaining five home games.

Under Florida law, a bond must be set to cover any losses or legal claims made against the Sports Authority in the event someone is harmed or injured at the stadium while the injunction is in force. Attorneys for both sides appeared in court Friday to determine the amount of the bond, but no decision was made on how much Johnston would be forced to pay in the event of an attack at the stadium while the injunction is in place.

But before the judge could make a ruling on the bond, the Authority's attorney tried to make an end run around the temporary injunction. Because the authority is a public entity, Zabak argued, civil legal procedures call for the judge to issue an automatic stay on the injunction if the agency appeals. The move effectively allow the patdowns to continue until a higher court makes a ruling on the appeal.

Johnston's attorneys could, however, ask the judge to vacate the stay and keep the ban in place.

Outside the courtroom, Goldsmith's co-counsel, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Rebecca Steele, noted that the injunction essentially protects the authority from any potential liability because the agency is legally bound to follow the court order. Since the judge ruled that her client is likely to prevail in court, it seems unlikely a higher court would rule favorably on the Sports Authority's use of a stay to continue the patdowns.

"Basically, they're trying to do through the back door what they couldn't do through the front door," Steele said.