California's Constitutional Right to Privacy
Unlike the US constitution, California's constitution contains a right to privacy. More specifically "an inalienable right" in "pursuing and obtaining" privacy. So two San Franciscan's who seem to have a love-hate relationship with the 49ers sued the team for violating their right to privacy with the team's "pat down" procedures which were implemented after the NFL addressed security issues at games.
The "Department of That's Just Not Right" award goes to the plaintiffs because having been patted down for the whole 2005 season (they are season ticket holders), they sued the 49ers and then proceeded to buy 2006 season tickets and included the 2006 season in the lawsuit because .... well the 2005 season was all over and they wanted an injunction going forward.
This is not only "just not right" on a real common sense basis - I mean honestly, you buy season tickets, go to the game, get patted down, buy another season's worth of tickets and at the same time sue that your privacy has been invaded.
But it's more just not right. In order to win a California invasion of privacy suit you have to prove three things: 1. that you have a legally protected privacy right - and not having your body touched inappropriately certainly is a legally protect privacy right; 2. a reasonable expectation of privacy and 3. conduct on the part of the Defendant that constitutes a serious invasion of that right.
Now these people went to the entire 2005 season getting patted down. They then bought another season worth of tickets. What part of "you no longer have a right to expect you wont be patted down" isn't clear to them by now?
There may actually be plaintiffs who HAVE a valid claim of invasion of privacy based on the pat downs. I personally think it's a small price to pay for increased peace of mind at a football game. But that doesn't mean that it's right. But certainly these plaintiffs are NOT the right people to have brought this suit, and the ACLU should have known that.
