## Facts

- Beginning in the 2005 NFL season, the San Francisco 49ers implemented an NFL-mandated policy requiring all patrons entering home games to submit to a patdown search.
- The complaint alleged “Event Staff” screeners required patrons to stand with arms spread while screeners ran their hands around patrons’ backs, down their sides, and along their legs.
- The Sheehans, longtime season-ticket holders, objected to suspicionless patdowns as a condition of entering the stadium and retaining the practical value of their season tickets.
- The Sheehans alleged the policy violated the right to privacy under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.
- The complaint alleged San Francisco Police Department officers stood nearby and observed the searches.
- The trial court sustained the 49ers’ demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action; the Court of Appeal affirmed on the theory that plaintiffs consented by attending after notice of the policy.

## Issues

1. Whether a California constitutional privacy claim challenging suspicionless stadium patdowns may be dismissed on demurrer on the ground that plaintiffs consented as a matter of law by attending games after notice of the search policy.
2. Whether the pleadings and matters properly considered on demurrer conclusively establish consent so that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held the record at the pleading stage did not establish, as a matter of law, that the Sheehans consented to the patdowns.
- Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the action was not susceptible to disposition on demurrer.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings; it did not decide the ultimate constitutionality of the search policy.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a sustained demurrer, courts assume the truth of properly pleaded factual allegations and determine only whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
- A patdown search alleged to involve physical touching of a patron’s body may constitute a significant intrusion implicating bodily privacy interests protected by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.
- Consent is generally a fact-dependent issue that may not be resolved on demurrer unless it is established on the face of the pleadings and matters judicially noticeable.
- Continued attendance at events after learning of a search policy does not, by itself at the pleading stage, conclusively establish voluntary consent to waive constitutional privacy protections; relevant circumstances can include notice, timing relative to ticket purchase, and the practical availability of alternatives.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court held that, at the demurrer stage, the pleadings did not conclusively show that season-ticket holders consented to suspicionless stadium patdowns, so their state constitutional privacy claim could not be dismissed as a matter of law and had to proceed on a fuller factual record.


Sheehan v. S.F. 49ers, Ltd., 45 Cal. 4th 992 (Cal. 2009)