Adam at Emergent Chaos has a quick post on the lawsuit against the Seattle Seahawks over physical searches at the stadium.
My response? Get over it.
I performed more pat downs than I care to admit. Sometimes thousands on a given day. It ain’t fun, and I never enjoyed touching all you smelly, drunk, think-you’re-hotter-than-you-are types out there. It was, however, a great workout for your quads after the first few hundred squats to check the ankles.
The main reason for searches at football games isn’t weapons (except at Raider’s games), it’s booze. The biggest safety concern during most sporting events is drunks. More specifically, it’s testostahol.
When selling beer in a stadium there is a minimum level of control and patrons can be cut off when obviously drunk. No, it isn’t perfect, but it’s more effective than most of you realize. When patrons bring in hard alcohol things can get very ugly. Aside from fights, there are a lot of associated medical concerns (drunks like to fall down, pass out, and do other stupid stuff). Based on personal experience, the more you can screen up front (including denying entry for obvious intoxication), the less you have to deal with inside. Some items, particularly cans and bottles, are also very hazardous in a stadium environment. I’ve seen people nearly killed by an errant beer can thrown from the crowd at the crappy ref.
As for the legality, go look at the back of your ticket. Even if built using public money, a stadium during an event is a private facility. Otherwise, technically, anyone could go for free. On all your tickets to any concert or game is the provision that you can be denied entry for any reason. Refusing to subject yourself to a search is a good reason.
Besides, court houses, legislatures, military bases, and all sorts of other facilities are bought with public money and subject to security rules for public or private safety. What makes a stadium any different?
Get over it. No one wants to pat down your ugly ass anyway, so it’s not like they enjoy it.
Reader interactions
10 Replies to “We Don’t Enjoy Touching You”
I’‘m sure you don’‘t enjoy it, but you still need to exercise care and inform people of the areas you will be touching. I prepared myself for the usual under-the-arms/belt line/hip pockets/inside-and-outside-of-legs search the other night, but was shocked to feel the hands of a 20-something little twit brush my *nipples* for Christ’s sake! It didn’‘t happen because she was into me—I’‘m no beauty queen—it happened because she was was negligent and rushed through the pat down. Had I been hiding a knife in my bra area, as they said was common at their club, she never would have found it that way. Plus, she gave me no warning she would touch that area at all and gave me no opportunity to cover/lift the area she should not and would not want to touch. And that’s why that club is going to hear from my attorney.
I went to the Broncos vs. Cardinals game yesterday here in Phoenix (Broncos won, in case you were wondering). On the way in we were subject to a pat down of the type I discussed here.
Gracias. I may be a blowhard, but I try to be an accurate one. People who can’‘t change their opinions in the face of contradictory evidence shouldn’‘t be giving others advice.
Or running the country.
More seriously, kudos on being willing to change your opinion with new facts.
Dude, this is the blogosphere. You’‘re not allowed to change your opinion. 🙂
Yes. It does.
If this was done specifically out of “fear of terrorism”, it’s stupid.
If this was done because they were experiencing the kinds of problems I experienced when running college games, it’s appropriate.
Based on that line, which I missed, I change my opinion for this specific situation. The basic searches I described and performed won’‘t stop a determined attacker/terrorist. If that’s why they are doing this, they’‘re stupid. Only a full, very intense search can limit a sophisticated attack, and there’s no way to do that for the average 70,000+ capacity stadium.
I didn’‘t realize this started in 2005 because of vague fears.
My opinion that searches are a valid physical security tool doesn’‘t change. But their reasons in this case don’‘t seem to stand up. Not every event is the same, and if the crowd wasn’‘t a problem (based on past history) we wouldn’‘t necessarily do searches.
Now if the NFL was noting a rise in incidents in stadiums and implemented searches to help, that’s justified. But even if that move was justified any claims of “terrorism” are totally asinine and ruin their case.
Does your opinion change if you know that “Qwest Field officials follow an NFL policy that went into effect at the start of the 2005 season to tighten security and to prevent terrorism.” (As stated in the article)
So, there was apparently not a sufficient problem before the 2005 season to warrant these searches at the stadium. Is there now? We’‘ll find out that the answer is no. The threat isn’‘t worth the defensive measure (or the offense, or the intrusion.)
I’‘ll never question the god given right of every American to sue.
If they were singled out or abused, they should sue. If they were treated the same as everyone else, and the search was consistent with what’s reasonble and appropriate in the industry, they should get over it.
Anyone who thinks these are always inappropriate or ineffedtive should get over it.
Physical searches are an important tool in physical security. Moving towards an outright ban is not smart. Unlike most of the tech crap pushed on the TSA, they work.
So which is it? Get over it or sue? Because clearly the couple in question considered the activity too intrusive, and is suing. Which you advise, under the heading “get over it.”
1. If there is a law that states they aren’‘t legal, or the legal grounds we use now (condition of entry) no longer apply, the searches will stop. That’s for the courts to decide. What I’‘ve expressed is the legal grounds we used at the facilities I worked at or managed.
2. I think you’‘re giving me credit here, so thanks!
3. Yes. I don’‘t like them either. There are also a lot of other things I don’‘t like and that I consider intrusive, but society (or a company) says I have to do. But I don’‘t think this is germane to the argument, since I won’‘t disagree and the fact that no one (mostly) likes undergoing a search.
4. It is not arbitrary- or shouldn’‘t be. Everyone gets searched equally. Security screening is a common practice to protect a public area. Couthouses do it. Some government buildings do it. Since those are publicly funded should we eliminate screening there? Even at airports pat-downs are used when screening technology fails. Since a large portion of what events are trying to keep out won’‘t show up on an x-ray or a magnetometer, physical screening is the only viable option.
5. The due process is agreeing to subject yourself to the search. You can always walk away when you see the screeners, no one will chase you.
6. A very legitimate question is if the private management can institute controls over a publicly funded venue, and, if so, what are the limits to those controls. The control, in question, is denial of entry and if searches can be used as a condition of entry. If we state that a public facility is not subject to private restrictions then who’s to say you have to buy a ticket? What keeps anyone out? Or off the field?
So I totally agree that it’s up to the state, lawmakers, and judges to define the legality of searches. Where I managed events, at a state university, all the property was public but we were allowed to enforce these rules. In working with law enforcement and the University’s legal and risk management departments these were the grounds given for our screening (and other security controls).
There’s two questions you didn’‘t ask, but should:
First, do screenings work? The short answer is yes- they can significantly reduce the level of contraband at an event. Searches were only one control, and we used other techniques both before the screening and inside the event to provide security. I can’‘t imagine some of the problems at certain events if we couldn’‘t search- they were bad enough even with screening. While weapons aren’‘t a problem at football games, they sure are at other events- often held in the same facilities.
Second, what do I think of screening at a Seahawks game? We rarely performed pat downs at professional football games, more commonly limiting ourselves to searching bags and jacket pockets. A pat down was only if we saw something obvious to check. We performed a few more at college games, especially in the student section, but again, mostly focused on bags and such. The degree of search varied by game- CU vs. Nebraska was a lot worse than CU vs. Fresno State (I htink we lost that one). Concerts also vary greatly- with no searches at Mannilow, and heavy searches at Nitzer Ebb (that nasty skinhead show I mentioned).
In other words, I’‘d need to know more about the game and facility and degree of search to comment. It’s possible their searchers were beyond what I’‘d consider reasonable under those circumstances, but not having been there I just don’‘t know.
My question to you is what’s the difference between a stadium and a courhouse? And if it’s a public space, do we then lose the ability to deny entry for any events? Do you think searches, of any kind, for events should be legal at all?
Specifically I know that physical searches (pat downs) have been a condition of entry at events at the University of Colorado for at least 20 years (and probably longer). This included football games, concerts, and other events. They were performed for a majority of events. It’s probably been longer, but that’s as far back as I can check and verify (since I’‘m still in contact with the security directors who managed before I did). I can’‘t verify back to 1976, but definitely the mid 80s.