Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd.
45 Cal. 4th 992 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint alleging a private entity's mandatory, suspicionless pat-down search policy violates the California constitutional right to privacy is not subject to dismissal on demurrer. A full factual record is necessary to conduct the required balancing test between the patron's privacy interests and the entity's countervailing interests, such as public safety.
Facts:
- Daniel and Kathleen Sheehan were longtime season ticket holders for the San Francisco 49ers professional football team.
- Beginning in the fall of 2005, the 49ers implemented a National Football League (NFL) policy requiring all ticket holders to submit to a pat-down search before entering the stadium.
- The search required patrons to stand with arms spread while screeners ran their hands around their backs and down the sides of their bodies and legs.
- Members of the San Francisco Police Department observed the searches from a short distance away.
- The Sheehans objected to undergoing these suspicionless searches as a condition of using their tickets.
- The Sheehans purchased season tickets for the 2006 season, believing the pat-down policy would continue.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel and Kathleen Sheehan sued the San Francisco 49ers in California superior court (trial court) seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The 49ers filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice.
- The Sheehans, as appellants, appealed to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Sheehans could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- The Sheehans petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of California, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint alleging that a private entity's mandatory, suspicionless pat-down search policy for all event patrons violates the California constitutional right to privacy fail to state a cause of action as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
No. A complaint alleging that a private entity's mandatory, suspicionless pat-down search policy violates the California constitutional right to privacy does not fail to state a cause of action as a matter of law, because the reasonableness of such a policy cannot be determined without a developed factual record. The court must apply the analytical framework from Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., which requires a plaintiff to establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy, and (3) a serious invasion of that interest. Here, the Sheehans sufficiently alleged an 'autonomy privacy' interest and a serious invasion. The core question of whether they had a reasonable expectation of privacy requires balancing their interests against the 49ers' countervailing interests, such as spectator safety. This balancing cannot occur on demurrer because the record lacks any justification from the 49ers for the policy. While consent is a factor, a person attending an event does not consent to any and all security measures regardless of their intrusiveness; the policy must be reasonable, and its reasonableness can only be assessed on a full factual record.
Concurring - Werdegar, J.
No. The complaint properly states a cause of action and should not be dismissed on demurrer. While the majority reaches the correct conclusion, it errs by speculating on the weight of the 49ers' security interest, which has not even been pleaded, and by being overly deferential to the judgment of private entities. The purpose of California's constitutional Privacy Initiative was to restrain the activities of both government and business, and courts are obligated to enforce a rule of reason without undue deference. Furthermore, the majority should have affirmatively concluded that the Sheehans sufficiently alleged a 'serious invasion of privacy' rather than merely assuming it. A suspicionless pat-down is a substantial intrusion on physical autonomy, not a de minimis one, and is sufficient to require the defendant to provide a justification for its policy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that claims for violation of California's constitutional right to privacy by private actors are highly fact-dependent and generally cannot be dismissed at the pleading stage. It affirms the vitality of the Hill balancing test, requiring defendants to justify intrusions on privacy, thereby preventing private entities from unilaterally imposing invasive security measures without judicial scrutiny. The ruling ensures that even in contexts where privacy expectations are diminished, such as at a large public venue, security policies must still be reasonable, a determination that requires evidence of the policy's necessity and consideration of less intrusive alternatives. This impacts how private venues, employers, and other organizations in California must approach the implementation of policies that infringe on autonomy or informational privacy.
Unlock the full brief for Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd.