Resources

“Stadium patdowns are back in play” St. Petersburg Times, FL. 11/2/05
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/02/Tampabay/Stadium_patdowns_are_.shtml

"Testimony Completed in Suit Over Searches in Subways " New York Times, NY. 11/2
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/nyregion/02search.html

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violate, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Questions

1. Why are searches being conducted in NFL stadiums and the New York City subway system?

Due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and in London, England in the summer of 2005, these public places may be potential targets. The searches are an attempt to prevent a future attack and to make the public using these services feel safer.

2. Why are people bringing forth lawsuits claiming the searches in New York and at Raymond James Stadium are unconstitutional?

They say the searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." They believe that the conducted searches are not reasonable.

3. Do you think the searches in New York and Florida are an effective deterrent to terrorists? Why or why not?

Yes, because

• potential terrorists will be stopped by these searches.
• the risk of being caught will deter terrorists from attempting to cause harm.

No, because

• random searches at random stations will allow some individuals through that should otherwise be stopped.
• some weapons can be hidden where patdowns will not find them.

4. Do you believe the patdowns and subway searches are “unreasonable?” Why or why not?

Yes, the searches are unreasonable because

• it assumes that individuals are terrorists.
• there is no reason to believe any individual is carrying a wepon without evidence or reasonable suspicion.
• the original intent of the Founders would consider searches at public events "unreasonable."

No, the searches are reasonable because

• they are performed as a result of past attacks. Both the New York subway system and the National Football League have reason to believe that individuals may see these places as targets.
• random searches have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
• there are alternate methods of transportation/entertainment if you do not want to be searched.

5. Should recent terrorist attacks effect the interpretation of “unreasonable?” If so, why? If not, why?

Answers will vary. Some students may argue that "unreasonable" was defined by the Founders and therefore the context shouldn't change to fit the time. However, other students will say that, while it may have seemed "unreasonable" five years ago, the greater likelihood of terrorist attacks today warrants a new interpretation. Still others may disagree and say even in light of terror attacks, the searches are unreasonable.

6. Are the following situations constitutional?

• Concert-goers must walk past drug-sniffing dogs.
• Visitors to an amusement park must allow police to inspect their bags.
• Students walk through metal detectors to enter their school building.
• Airline passengers must remove their shoes and submit to a random search.

All of the following situations can be considered constitutional.

Extensions

Have students research the following cases that deal with Fourth Amendment rights. Have students begin their research here.

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
• Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)