Court Storming: Who’ll Stop the Rain?

With March Madness in full swing and the NBA season winding down, it’s a good time to take a closer look at the cultural phenomenon known as court storming. In light of what recently transpired at some NCAA conference tournament games, court storming seems to rank high on the list of collegiate experiences, along with tailgating, toga parties, and beer pong. It is important to understand that court storming cannot be stopped, but it can be controlled.

As a former Director of Security for the NBA, I was only seriously concerned about this crowd control issue during the NBA Finals and, more specifically, following the deciding game for the championship. Because any post-game revelry was a serious security and safety concern, we took the appropriate steps to prepare for this occurrence. With the proper preparation and contingencies in place, risk to the players, coaches, staffs, employees, and spectators can be mitigated.

Strength in Numbers

The first step in planning for this event was training our security and ushers to protect the court. Prior to the opening of the gates, we assembled all of our event personnel and rehearsed how we would secure the floor. The plan centered around two perimeters—an outer to control access to the court and an inner to protect the teams and their family members. We used a nylon rope as a barricade that we extended around the entire court as soon as the game ended. Serving as rope holders, security and usher staff were repositioned from their assigned posts. In order to effectively exercise our plan, we made the determination to pool our resources and reallocate our assets to the floor. I am a strong advocate of strength in numbers because when you have an arena filled with 18,000 fans, you have to be equipped to stem the tide if they decide to rush the court.

Holding Court 

Next in our process was to maintain what we had established. Positioning myself inside the inner perimeter, I was able to personally observe the chaos and frenzy of the rabid fans celebrating a world championship. Fueled by euphoria and mixed with a little alcohol, this dynamic always presented a formidable foe and an omnipresent threat. The image of the little boy with his finger in the dike comes to mind, because as one hole is plugged, another ominously appears. If I saw areas on our rope line being breached, my planned response was to dispatch extra security to those locations from a cadre of personnel I had designated for that exact role. Because my contingency planning had addressed this concern, we were adequately prepared to react and respond to this hazard.

Fluid, Mobile, and Adaptable

The last piece to the puzzle was to get the teams and families off the court, and we used our inner perimeter to facilitate their movement. The use of the nylon rope offered the advantage of moving the barricade and turning the secure zone into a fluid, mobile, adaptable space. Our personnel were able to escort the players, their families, and other people off the court by creating a temporary corridor from the floor to the back-of-the-house. Safety was paramount in this operation for both participants and spectators. By separating the players from the fans, we actually reduced the possibility of an accidental injury or an intentional criminal act, such as a physical altercation.

Education and Awareness    

A comprehensive public service campaign to educate the general public about the arena’s policy on fan behavior can mitigate court storming. If spectators understand that this type of activity is prohibited, violators will be prosecuted, and ticket revocation enforced, then people might think twice before they decide to enter the field of play. Video messages on the scoreboard, announcements over the public address system, posted signage, website material, social media, and specific text on the back of the ticket all offer different means to communicate that court storming poses a safety threat and those storming the court will be dealt with swiftly, sternly, and decisively.


Containing court storming involves evaluating how this transgression is reviewed and investigated post-incident. By interviewing staff to collect evidence and reviewing videotape that documents the event, you may be able to identify patrons who have clearly violated the published protocols and in some jurisdictions broken the law, which could result in a charge of trespassing. As cliché as it might sound, it can be beneficial for the sake of security to make an example of some of these individuals and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

No Silver Bullet

There is no panacea to eliminate court storming, but remedies can be put into place to plan, prepare, respond, and recover from these types of events. By creating security policies, educating staff, conducting ongoing training, maintaining public awareness, identifying discernible boundaries, and communicating consequences, you can put a collaborative and holistic process in place to counter this annual rite of March Madness.

The Erin Andrews Case Exposes Hotel Security

What’s trending in the news this week is the $75 million civil lawsuit filed by sportscaster and television celebrity, Erin Andrews, against three parties: a man who pleaded guilty to stalking her; West End Hotel Partners, franchise owner of the Nashville Marriott; and Windsor Capital Group, which manages the hotel.The jury needs to decide who is responsible for the crime that took take place on hotel property. Their decision will be partially influenced by assessing the security measures in place at the hotel when this criminal action occurred.

The Naked Truth

In 2009, Michael David Barrett pleaded guilty to renting hotel rooms next to Andrews in three cities, altering peepholes, and secretly shooting nude videos of her. Those previous court proceedings revealed that Barrett asked the hotel staff which room she was staying in, was provided the information, and asked to book an adjacent room. This request was granted three separate times, which allowed Barrett to film Andrews in her room through the peephole. Barrett was sentenced to 30 months in prison in March 2011 for stalking Andrews, according to federal court records in California.

Loose Lips

In assessing a security presence in any theater, campus, hospital, stadium, corporation, and, yes, hotel, the four main pillars of security—technical, physical, personnel, and procedural—need to be evaluated. The security policies, plans, and procedures are the most important piece of the four because they don’t only apply to security personnel—but  everyone on the premises needs to be aware of them. Regarding this particular case, the information management procedures need to be reviewed and evaluated to see if they addressed the disclosure of a guest room number, and if they did, were they followed?

Spread the Word

When the front desk is contacted about a hotel guest, staff should be provided specific written directions explicitly instructing what information can and cannot be shared via a telephone call, email, or an in-person inquiry. Simply stated, without a guest’s permission, no information should be shared, especially a room number. This directive needs to be fully disseminated to anyone with access to this information. A common thread to lapses in policy is a disconnect between security and non-security personnel. A continuously updated security plan with regularly scheduled training sessions will protect your organization from both inside and outside threats to maintain the safety of your employees, visitors, and clients.

Asleep at the Wheel

Most hotel floors have a substantial amount of activity during business hours. Between the hotel guests, cleaning staff, room service, maintenance people, and bellhops, enough people are coming and going to observe any unusual activity. Unfortunately, in the incidents involving Erin Andrews, no one noticed that the peephole had been altered or that Mr. Barrett had placed a camera on the door.Another security measure often overlooked in many different situations is the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video surveillance system. Optimally, someone should be monitoring this system to detect any nefarious activity, such as what occurred in this case. It doesn’t make sense to pay for security technologies if they are not going to be used properly.