## Facts

- The Tampa Sports Authority (TSA), a Florida public entity operating Raymond James Stadium and responsible for game-day security, adopted a September 2005 policy requiring pat-down searches of all attendees at Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games.
- TSA hired private screeners to conduct brief over-the-clothing pat-downs of attendees’ torsos and pockets without individualized suspicion; entry was conditioned on submitting to the search.
- Gordon Johnston, a season-ticket holder, had purchased season tickets and paid a seat deposit before the policy was announced.
- When Johnston objected, he was told that refusing the search would risk loss of ticket benefits, including potential loss of a portion of his seat deposit and other adverse consequences.
- Johnston attended multiple games, verbally objected and stated he did not consent, but submitted to the pat-down to enter the stadium.
- Johnston sued TSA, alleging the suspicionless pat-downs violated the Fourth Amendment and the Florida Constitution, and sought a preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether TSA’s implementation of the pat-down policy constituted state action triggering Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
2. Whether blanket, suspicionless pat-down searches of all game attendees were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, including under a special-needs/administrative-search theory based on terrorism prevention.
3. Whether Johnston voluntarily consented to the searches by attending games after learning of the policy despite his objections and asserted economic pressure.
4. Whether Johnston satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest).

## Decision

- The court found the challenged searches were likely attributable to the state because TSA, a public entity, adopted and implemented the policy and retained responsibility for stadium security.
- The court held Johnston showed a substantial likelihood of success on his Fourth Amendment claim; TSA did not justify suspicionless physical pat-downs with evidence of a concrete, specific security threat or adequate tailoring.
- The court rejected TSA’s implied-consent theory at the preliminary-injunction stage, concluding Johnston’s submission in light of threatened financial consequences was not shown to be voluntary consent.
- The court found irreparable injury based on the alleged constitutional violation, and concluded the balance of harms and public interest favored protecting Fourth Amendment rights given the record presented.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining TSA’s pat-down search policy as applied to Johnston while the case proceeded.

## Legal Principles

- Preliminary injunctions require: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury, (3) balance of harms favoring the movant, and (4) consistency with the public interest.
- Suspicionless searches are generally unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless they fall within a recognized exception and are reasonable under a balancing analysis.
- Under special-needs/administrative-search doctrine, the government must show a non-law-enforcement need and a search regime reasonably calibrated to that need; generalized, hypothetical risks may be insufficient to justify a blanket physical pat-down of all entrants.
- Consent to a search must be voluntary under the totality of circumstances; economic coercion and lack of meaningful choice can defeat a claim of voluntary consent.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily barred TSA from enforcing mandatory, suspicionless pat-downs against a season-ticket holder, concluding the searches were likely state action, not justified on the record by a special-needs rationale, and not supported by voluntary consent.


Johnston v. Tampa Sports Authority, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2006)