I can see your point. While perhaps any individual reason brought up (land paid for by the public, the fact that the search is conducted by the Tampa Sports Authority, and the fact that the NFL is basically a government-licensed monopoly) might not be enough to pass the test of it being government doing this, when you put them all together it’s enough.

I think it might still be a gray area, but the judge’s decision may not be as ridiculous as I implied in my post.

As far as the NFL thing goes, I was originally going to side with Brad, but if Eric is right in saying the government is issuing the searches, I may have to side with him.

In your example, btw, if the government doesn’t agree that you can frisk the attendees, I don’t see how you could, since it’s their property, not yours.

I don’t disagree that you should be able to impose requirements you like on your own private property. But your examples don’t deal with private property. Take a look at who owns most stadiums. Almost always it is the city or county, not the sports franchise.

I think I do, yes. And if I’m not satisfied with the explanation, I don’t have to enter the stadium.

Eric,

I understand the argument, but I’m not sure I can buy it. I worry that it goes a little too far down the slope. Government money is in everything these days. Does that mean they have the right to regulate every little thing? If that’s the position taken, it (and we can agree on this) only further underscores the need to keep government out of our financial affairs. But I’m not sure that this is quite analogous to the NYC subway.

I think about it this way. Let’s say that I am looking to rent out the Purdue University concert hall for a heavy metal concert. I determine that to police potential drug use inside the concert hall, I am going to frisk attendees. Am I violating their Fourth Amendment rights because I’m on land owned by the University (and thus paid for by the State of Indiana)? The land was paid for by the public, and administered by a public university, but I am holding a private event renting their grounds.

It fails both the Constitutional test and the effectiveness test. Whether we are talking about a consequentialist position or a position of principle, the court was right and the Tampa Sports Authority was wrong.

That said, if a fan is uncomfortable because other fans aren’t searched, then they have the option to not attend a game.