Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Well-deserved defeat for pat-downs

By TIMES EDITORIALS
Published July 30, 2006

This scoring update just in: constitutional rights 3, Tampa Sports Authority 0.

On Friday, a federal district court became the third court to rule against the mass pat-down policy instituted by the TSA at Raymond James Stadium during Buccaneer games. U.S. District Judge James Whittemore agreed with two previous state court rulings and upheld an injunction suspending the searches. The federal judge roundly rejected the idea that a generalized fear of terrorist actions can justify subjecting every patron to a frisking before being allowed into a football game.

"September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country," Whittemore wrote, quoting from a federal appellate case. The judge found the pat-downs physically intrusive and not justified by special circumstances, since there was no compelling evidence that "the threat of a terrorist attack on an NFL stadium is 'concrete' or 'real.' "

Whittemore's ruling is refreshingly protective of the Fourth Amendment, reminding us that even in this time of fear, Americans do not have to relinquish their rights to privacy in order to participate in a public event.

The court noted that the TSA adopted the pat-down policy at Bucs games chiefly because the NFL mandated the searches and the TSA felt a legal obligation to comply. Yet the TSA did not require similar searches for other events at the stadium. If there had been a legitimate and immediate fear of attack, the search policy would have been more uniform.

The TSA already has promised to appeal the ruling. Too bad it can't see the fairness of the judge's call.

[Last modified July 30, 2006, 01:13:51]