Would this be unconstitutional in the USA?

[RandomPoster]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

 

[Asclepias]

Doesnt sound like its unconstitutional.

 

[norwegen]

The Constitution formed - or constituted - a new government, not the NFL or any other business.

 

[Vastator]

At knee jerk perusal...? Sounds legal. As long as the event isn't in any way susidized by the government, or happening on governmentally subsidized property...

 

[Jackson]

My guess is ultimately that would be a case that would land in the Supreme Court and the decision would be "Did the president write an EO claiming that the stadium was under a great threat of possible terrorism. And is that claim backed up with actionable evidence that demonstrating that the president acted properly.

It would go down in the SC for the game could have been cancled instead of taking action on the people going to the game.

 

[night_son]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Honestly, I can't tell if this a veiled argument for or against abortion vis a vis the 4th Amendment and due process right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Otherwise, you're looking at a marketing nightmare for the hypothetical team and a raft of lawsuits sure to follow for violations of Political Correctness and anti-hate crime laws.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Why would I submit to that when I can watch on TV?

It would not be unconstitutional.

 

[RandomPoster]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Honestly, I can't tell if this a veiled argument for or against abortion vis a vis the 4th Amendment and due process right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with abortion. Also, I don't see how the Fourth Amendment would prevent you from voluntarily submitting to a cavity search while you were under no threat or obligation to do so, especially if what was being denied if you refused to comply was neither a basic human right, a resource vital to your survival, nor something the owner of the team was obligated to provide you with. This is also assuming the policy was instituted equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[night_son]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Honestly, I can't tell if this a veiled argument for or against abortion vis a vis the 4th Amendment and due process right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with abortion. Also, I don't see how the Fourth Amendment would prevent you from voluntarily submitting to a cavity search while you were under no threat or obligation to do so, especially if what was being denied if you refused to comply was neither a basic human right, a resource vital to your survival, nor something the owner of the team was obligated to provide you with. This is also assuming the policy was instituted equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Then I agree with you.

Nevertheless, can you imagine the racial and gender related outcry over the searches, and accusations of discrimination, sexual assault?

 

[Asclepias]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Honestly, I can't tell if this a veiled argument for or against abortion vis a vis the 4th Amendment and due process right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with abortion. Also, I don't see how the Fourth Amendment would prevent you from voluntarily submitting to a cavity search while you were under no threat or obligation to do so, especially if what was being denied if you refused to comply was neither a basic human right, a resource vital to your survival, nor something the owner of the team was obligated to provide you with. This is also assuming the policy was instituted equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Then I agree with you.

Nevertheless, can you imagine the racial and gender related outcry over the searches, and accusations of discrimination, sexual assault?

How would there be any racial and gender related outcry if everyone is being searched?

 

[Syriusly]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?[/QUOTE

Not unconstitutional.

 

[night_son]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Honestly, I can't tell if this a veiled argument for or against abortion vis a vis the 4th Amendment and due process right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with abortion. Also, I don't see how the Fourth Amendment would prevent you from voluntarily submitting to a cavity search while you were under no threat or obligation to do so, especially if what was being denied if you refused to comply was neither a basic human right, a resource vital to your survival, nor something the owner of the team was obligated to provide you with. This is also assuming the policy was instituted equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Then I agree with you.

Nevertheless, can you imagine the racial and gender related outcry over the searches, and accusations of discrimination, sexual assault?

How would there be any racial and gender related outcry if everyone is being searched?

Perhaps some of them might think they're being searched less or more thoroughly than someone else. For example, a linebacker sized Apache with a steel plated mohawk, versus an elderly grandmother with a walker. Such intrusive searches open both the searcher and searcher's employee up to all kinds of potential litigation by accusation.

 

[my2¢]

I wouldn't believe the NFL owner would have the constitutional authority to do that on their own since the stadiums are on public property and publicly owned. I guess it may not be the constitution directly that limits them, most likely local statutes that are constitutional.

 

[RandomPoster]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Honestly, I can't tell if this a veiled argument for or against abortion vis a vis the 4th Amendment and due process right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with abortion. Also, I don't see how the Fourth Amendment would prevent you from voluntarily submitting to a cavity search while you were under no threat or obligation to do so, especially if what was being denied if you refused to comply was neither a basic human right, a resource vital to your survival, nor something the owner of the team was obligated to provide you with. This is also assuming the policy was instituted equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Then I agree with you.

Nevertheless, can you imagine the racial and gender related outcry over the searches, and accusations of discrimination, sexual assault?

How would there be any racial and gender related outcry if everyone is being searched?

Perhaps some of them might think they're being searched less or more thoroughly than someone else. For example, a linebacker sized Apache with a steel plated mohawk, versus an elderly grandmother with a walker. Such intrusive searches open both the searcher and searcher's employee up to all kinds of potential litigation by accusation.

I assume you would be stripped naked and searched in a private room. They would have no way of knowing unless they all got together and discussed the specific details of the probing afterwards. What are you going to do, lean over and ask the couple in the seats next to you? "Excuse me sir, could I ask your wife a few questions about the way they probed her rectum when she entered the stadium? I need to know if it was as vigorous as the deep, thorough, invasive search my own rectum was subjected to. Maybe we could compare notes while we watch the game or perhaps we could all go out for a few drinks afterwards for a more in depth discussion."

 

[night_son]

Honestly, I can't tell if this a veiled argument for or against abortion vis a vis the 4th Amendment and due process right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with abortion. Also, I don't see how the Fourth Amendment would prevent you from voluntarily submitting to a cavity search while you were under no threat or obligation to do so, especially if what was being denied if you refused to comply was neither a basic human right, a resource vital to your survival, nor something the owner of the team was obligated to provide you with. This is also assuming the policy was instituted equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Then I agree with you.

Nevertheless, can you imagine the racial and gender related outcry over the searches, and accusations of discrimination, sexual assault?

How would there be any racial and gender related outcry if everyone is being searched?

Perhaps some of them might think they're being searched less or more thoroughly than someone else. For example, a linebacker sized Apache with a steel plated mohawk, versus an elderly grandmother with a walker. Such intrusive searches open both the searcher and searcher's employee up to all kinds of potential litigation by accusation.

I assume you would be stripped naked and searched in a private room. They would have no way of knowing unless they all got together and discussed the specific details of the probing afterwards. What are you going to do, lean over and ask the couple in the seats next to you? "Excuse me sir, could I ask your wife a few questions about the way they probed her rectum when she entered the stadium? I need to know if it was as vigorous as the deep, thorough, invasive search my own rectum was subjected to. Maybe we could compare notes while we watch the game or perhaps we could all go out for a few drinks afterwards for a more in depth discussion?"

You definitely make a good point there. Would stadium employees also be stripped before admittance to the grounds prior to their shifts?

 

[RandomPoster]

This has nothing to do with abortion. Also, I don't see how the Fourth Amendment would prevent you from voluntarily submitting to a cavity search while you were under no threat or obligation to do so, especially if what was being denied if you refused to comply was neither a basic human right, a resource vital to your survival, nor something the owner of the team was obligated to provide you with. This is also assuming the policy was instituted equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Then I agree with you.

Nevertheless, can you imagine the racial and gender related outcry over the searches, and accusations of discrimination, sexual assault?

How would there be any racial and gender related outcry if everyone is being searched?

Perhaps some of them might think they're being searched less or more thoroughly than someone else. For example, a linebacker sized Apache with a steel plated mohawk, versus an elderly grandmother with a walker. Such intrusive searches open both the searcher and searcher's employee up to all kinds of potential litigation by accusation.

I assume you would be stripped naked and searched in a private room. They would have no way of knowing unless they all got together and discussed the specific details of the probing afterwards. What are you going to do, lean over and ask the couple in the seats next to you? "Excuse me sir, could I ask your wife a few questions about the way they probed her rectum when she entered the stadium? I need to know if it was as vigorous as the deep, thorough, invasive search my own rectum was subjected to. Maybe we could compare notes while we watch the game or perhaps we could all go out for a few drinks afterwards for a more in depth discussion?"

You definitely make a good point there. Would stadium employees also be stripped before admittance to the grounds prior to their shifts?

The entire group would have to enter a designated building in the parking lot, strip naked and cavity search each other before any of them could enter the stadium.

 

[night_son]

Then I agree with you.

Nevertheless, can you imagine the racial and gender related outcry over the searches, and accusations of discrimination, sexual assault?

How would there be any racial and gender related outcry if everyone is being searched?

Perhaps some of them might think they're being searched less or more thoroughly than someone else. For example, a linebacker sized Apache with a steel plated mohawk, versus an elderly grandmother with a walker. Such intrusive searches open both the searcher and searcher's employee up to all kinds of potential litigation by accusation.

I assume you would be stripped naked and searched in a private room. They would have no way of knowing unless they all got together and discussed the specific details of the probing afterwards. What are you going to do, lean over and ask the couple in the seats next to you? "Excuse me sir, could I ask your wife a few questions about the way they probed her rectum when she entered the stadium? I need to know if it was as vigorous as the deep, thorough, invasive search my own rectum was subjected to. Maybe we could compare notes while we watch the game or perhaps we could all go out for a few drinks afterwards for a more in depth discussion?"

You definitely make a good point there. Would stadium employees also be stripped before admittance to the grounds prior to their shifts?

The entire group would have to enter a designated building in the parking lot, strip naked and cavity search each other before any of them could enter the stadium.

So, then, is the crux of this hypothetical exercise to ensure the safety of the NFL fans in the stands? If so, then more power to them, but myself and family would not be attending. We'd see the game just fine in 4k on TV.

 

[fncceo]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

Perfectly legal. Private place.

 

[OldLady]

Kind of a strange question. Where are you leading us, Plato?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Imagine an NFL football team implements the following policy. Any potential customer that wants to enter the stadium has to be at least 18 years old and must consent to a strip search and full body cavity search before setting foot in their stadium. If they refuse to consent, they simply can not attend the game. The policy might be bad for business, except would it be unconstitutional?

No.

The Constitution concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or organizations.