Thursday, August 2, 2007
SPANISH FOOTBALL TALK
REAL MADRID needs a creative midfield player & that´s obviousto all. Their Nº1 choice is KAKA, but thats a difficult ( nearlyimpossible) dream at this moment. Other players like ROBBEN hascomplicated itself, seeing that Real will not pay the 36M€ asked byChelsea.So Real is now combing the market for alternatives.According to "AS" a viable option & alternative to the difficulties in signningthe
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
On a short hiatus
With a family wedding coming up on Friday, and some relatives in town, I don't really have as much time as I normally do, and frankly I don't want to spend that time blogging (which isn't to say I don't like blogging!)
So I guess I'll just be on a short hiatus, probably through the weekend. That's the power of being your own proverbial boss. So, uh, have a nice weekend and you probably won't see me until Sunday or Monday!
I'm going to try and get a guest blogger or two, but I can't promise anything!
So I guess I'll just be on a short hiatus, probably through the weekend. That's the power of being your own proverbial boss. So, uh, have a nice weekend and you probably won't see me until Sunday or Monday!
I'm going to try and get a guest blogger or two, but I can't promise anything!
FC BARCELONA INVITING CLAUDE MAKELELE?
News from "L´Equipe" & "Sports" say that FC BARCELONA hasapproached French International & CHELSEA midfielder CLAUDEMAKALELE to know his thoughts on a "change" & to make an offer.Makelele does´nt count as much for Chelsea coach Mourinho & Barçasee this as an opportunity to ask for his services. The offer is a 2 yearcontract with a lower wage than Chelsea, but with the chance to endhis carreer in
REAL MADRID GIVES UP ON ROYSTON DRENTHE?
So close yet so far? Has REAL MADRID thrown the towel into thering in its effort to sign young ROYSTON DRENTHE?According to Peter Vogelzang, FEYENOORD "Football Manager", RealMadrid either... "does´nt want to or cannot meet his clubs demands", according to "Marca" & "El Mundo"."We made the conditions of transfer very clear, one more year at the clubor an economic effort"...Peter Vogelzang let
REAL MADRID IN A TOUGH "FIGHT" FOR PATO
This young U/20 Brazilian International & PORTO ALEGREplayer, ALEXANDRE PATO, is the new pearl of Brazilian Football.He is also the center of a "dog-fight" between REAL MADRID &AC MILAN.Pato has commented to "globeesport.com" that his father is in Europespecifically to hear the Real & Milan offers. The highest bidder with takethe prize. No bullshit here, money & only money. Stay tuned!
Troubling Implications in CA Court's Acceptance of Stadium Patdowns
The issue of pat-down searches at NFL stadiums has generated several excellent commentaries in this blog over the last two years. The comments by Greg and Michael on the Fourth Amendment challenges to these searches, notably involving a case from the 11th Circuit challenging the policy at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' Raymond James Stadium, the home of the serve as a good background for those reading about the issue for the first time.
In the last few weeks, two rulings by different courts tested the policies once again. The first, Johnston v. Tampa Sports Authority, involved the 11th Circuit's ruling in Tampa Bay case, which was discussed in Howard's blog. The second, a California Appeals Court ruling on a challenge to the San Francisco 49ers pat-down policies involves different issues and produced a different kind of troubling opinion.
While the conclusions of the 11th Circuit and the California state courts were similar – the parties consented to be searched entering the stadiums -- they took very different approaches to reach their conclusions. While I can understand the need for some limited searches, the broad conclusions troubles me.
Let’s analyze the California case, Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, decided by the state's first appellate district on July 17. The patdown policy was instituted in 2005 at the behest of the NFL to prevent terrorist acts from taking place in its teams' stadium, considered "attractive targets" for terrorists. Two season ticket holders sued the 49ers for violation of the privacy rights outlined in Art. I, sec. 1 of the California state constitution, a broad mandate protecting individuals from nongovernmental entities intruding on an individual's privacy. The Sheehans alleged that the mandatory patdown search of all fans as a condition of entry for the team's home games during the 2005 season violated that provision.
Their efforts failed. In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal the claim outright, without leave to amend because they consented to the search, defeating any reasonable expectation of privacy.
According to state law, a plaintiff asserting a privacy claim must establish three essential elements: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy; and (3) conduct on the part of the defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs failed in the second element because they had notice of the policy and by entering the game, they consented to it. In addition, the fact that they renewed their season tickets for the 2006 season was, according to the majority, an implied consent to accept the policy and defeats any reasonable expectation of privacy and upholds the discretion of the trial court in reject a leave to amend the complaint.
I find several issues problematic. The majority differentiates between actions challenging non-governmental agency searches with governmental searches. It states "the pervasive presence of coercive government power" more gravely imperils the freedom of citizens than action by the private sector.” Think of the implications of such a statement in an age of increasing information technology. Software exists for private companies to track every website, every keystroke and e-mail one makes. Then comes the question, more on point in this case, whether the “private sector” is a de facto monopoly and how that affects the above-mentioned privacy claim?
That was answered in the thoughtful dissent by Judge Rivera. He noted that the Sheehans sought an injunction during the prior season and could have argued (if they were allowed to amend their complaint) that as 40-year ticket holders, they did not want to lose their seniority while the case was litigation. He also crafted a more nuanced approach to the abandonment of reasonable expectation of privacy by consent. He questioned the idea that the mere acceptance of season tickets the following season, without more, is accepting the patdown policy. He rightly concluded that this is a question of fact to determine based on more information.
And, in the piece de resistance, the judge tears away the “consent.” He writes:
In the last few weeks, two rulings by different courts tested the policies once again. The first, Johnston v. Tampa Sports Authority, involved the 11th Circuit's ruling in Tampa Bay case, which was discussed in Howard's blog. The second, a California Appeals Court ruling on a challenge to the San Francisco 49ers pat-down policies involves different issues and produced a different kind of troubling opinion.
While the conclusions of the 11th Circuit and the California state courts were similar – the parties consented to be searched entering the stadiums -- they took very different approaches to reach their conclusions. While I can understand the need for some limited searches, the broad conclusions troubles me.
Let’s analyze the California case, Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, decided by the state's first appellate district on July 17. The patdown policy was instituted in 2005 at the behest of the NFL to prevent terrorist acts from taking place in its teams' stadium, considered "attractive targets" for terrorists. Two season ticket holders sued the 49ers for violation of the privacy rights outlined in Art. I, sec. 1 of the California state constitution, a broad mandate protecting individuals from nongovernmental entities intruding on an individual's privacy. The Sheehans alleged that the mandatory patdown search of all fans as a condition of entry for the team's home games during the 2005 season violated that provision.
Their efforts failed. In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal the claim outright, without leave to amend because they consented to the search, defeating any reasonable expectation of privacy.
According to state law, a plaintiff asserting a privacy claim must establish three essential elements: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy; and (3) conduct on the part of the defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs failed in the second element because they had notice of the policy and by entering the game, they consented to it. In addition, the fact that they renewed their season tickets for the 2006 season was, according to the majority, an implied consent to accept the policy and defeats any reasonable expectation of privacy and upholds the discretion of the trial court in reject a leave to amend the complaint.
I find several issues problematic. The majority differentiates between actions challenging non-governmental agency searches with governmental searches. It states "the pervasive presence of coercive government power" more gravely imperils the freedom of citizens than action by the private sector.” Think of the implications of such a statement in an age of increasing information technology. Software exists for private companies to track every website, every keystroke and e-mail one makes. Then comes the question, more on point in this case, whether the “private sector” is a de facto monopoly and how that affects the above-mentioned privacy claim?
That was answered in the thoughtful dissent by Judge Rivera. He noted that the Sheehans sought an injunction during the prior season and could have argued (if they were allowed to amend their complaint) that as 40-year ticket holders, they did not want to lose their seniority while the case was litigation. He also crafted a more nuanced approach to the abandonment of reasonable expectation of privacy by consent. He questioned the idea that the mere acceptance of season tickets the following season, without more, is accepting the patdown policy. He rightly concluded that this is a question of fact to determine based on more information.
And, in the piece de resistance, the judge tears away the “consent.” He writes:
The majority’s conclusion “effectively relegates to free market forces the acceptable norms of privacy intrusions. In fact, the 49ers argued . . . that they have the right to impose any conditions of doing business and that consumer tolerance would sufficiently temper the more egregious invasions of privacy. In my view, the courts' role in protecting privacy rights should not be so readily abdicated, particularly where, as here, the private actor has an effective monopoly. If you are the only game in town, requiring your customers to either submit to a patdown search or walk away does not present the kind of genuine choice upon which the majority's reasoning is premised.Can there really be knowing consent to a patdown search under these circumstances?
SPANISH FOOTBALL TRANSFER GOSSIP BRIEFS
FC BARCELONA´s Portugues midfielder DECO has voiced hisunease about staying on the bench during the recent friendly games.This has not gone unnoticed at CHELSEA were their coachMourinho has let go with comments that may seduce the player tore-join his ex-coach. Deco has replied that he would not lookbadly at the idea & that Chelsea is a great club.This has "forced" Barça President Laporta to come
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)