|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Patrons 'reel' mad about theater food searches
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 03-23-2010 11:44 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
Sean,
If you do not fulfill your part of the license (show the movie in its entirety) because you refused to let someone in or you threw them out, you actually DO need to refund their money. The reason for the removal of the person is immaterial, with respect to the contract/license.
Negative!
There's nothing on any ticket that says the customer has the right to do or see anything. Matter of fact, the signs in most boxoffices merely say "ADMISSION". For the price, we "admit" our patrons and provide them the best show we can. Nowhere does it say we have to give them their money back if we can't run the film to the end of the credits or the show isn't technically comparable to what they might experience somewhere else. About the only "contract" you're cornered into is if your tickets state that you can refuse the license by refunding the ticket price, which ours do not.
As was said earlier, admission is a limited license to be present on our private property. It conveys no other rights to the purchaser. As the owner (or other person in charge of the property), I have every right that you would have in your own home. If I don't want you here, you leave, and that's it. If you like, you may debate that with me in small claims court, which is the balance I have to consider should I eject you. However, no law enforcement officer can force me to allow you to stay if I want you gone, whether I give you your money back or not.
Now, in terms of "common sense", we will refund a ticket if the customer has to leave before the show's been on, say 10 or 15 minutes or so. We'll offer them their money back if, before the show starts, he can't find a suitable place to park or doesn't like where we want to put him and he's otherwise behaved decently. We'll also offer money back or a carload pass if something breaks down before the credits hit. We're likely to give you your money or a pass if someone in your party clearly has some medical condition that forces you to leave (a pr move on our part). That's about it though.
On the other hand, if a customer gets seriously out of line, is belligerent toward a staff member, refuses what we consider to be globally applied common sense rules or is caught sneaking someone in, we may show their entire party the gate with no refund, even if the show hasn't even started. On this point we have been supported by law enforcement and the county prosecutor for 24 years, so I'm pretty sure on that position.
I know of nobody around here who does this, but if your 'no outside food' policy was clearly marked, say at every entrance door, maybe even at the ticket window and if you wanted to take it to that level, on your policy trailer, you would be within your rights to eject a patron without refund if you caught them in your building with a McDonald's cheeseburger in their hand. Whether they got to see the film or not would have nothing to do with it.
I would agree that if, after you bought your ticket, you were asked to open your purse or other bag and you didn't want to, you could turn around and leave, expecting a refund of your ticket. If I asked you to open your purse, bag or trunk before you entered and you refused, I could decline to admit you. On both cases I doubt you'd have any legal recourse.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-24-2010 12:19 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
Sorry Randy...name the state that has the Constitutional Rights apply to private situations.
For federal law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
quote:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983
Yes, this has a provision "Under color of law" so that this only applies to the government and law enforcement but there are state statutes which apply to all persons, regardless of the "Color of law" provision.
Massachusetts General Laws Part I/Chapter 12 § 11h & IIi:
quote:
Chapter 12: Section 11H. Violations of constitutional rights; civil actions by attorney general; venue
Section 11H.
Whenever any person or persons, WHETHER OR NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW, interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, the attorney general may bring a civil action for injunctive or other appropriate equitable relief in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Said civil action shall be brought in the name of the commonwealth and shall be instituted either in the superior court for the county in which the conduct complained of occurred or in the superior court for the county in which the person whose conduct complained of resides or has his principal place of business.
quote:
Chapter 12: Section 11I. Violations of constitutional rights; civil actions by aggrieved persons; costs and fees
Section 11I.
Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in section 11H, may institute and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief as provided for in said section, including the award of compensatory money damages. Any aggrieved person or persons who prevail in an action authorized by this section shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be fixed by the court.
Section 11H says that the Attorney General may prosecute somebody who violates another's civil rights and section 11I allows a citizen to bring civil suit against one who violates their rights.
I also know that other states have similar laws but I can not quote them because I don't remember.
Furthermore...
"Protective Security Law" by
Fred Inbau - Prof. of Law, Northwestern University
Marvin E. Aspen - Judge, U.S. District Court of Illinois
James E. Spiotto - Atrorney at Law, Chicago, Illinois
Page 70.
quote:
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Civil and Criminal Liability of Police Officers
As in the case of an illegal arrest, any person, including a police officer, who makes an illegal search and seizure incurs the risk of civil and criminal liability, by reason of state statutes or state court decisions. Such liability occurs even if the person affected by the search and seizure may be guilty of the relevant offense. Also, as in arrest situations, any person acting "under color of law" (e.g., a police officer) who makes an illegal search and seizure may be sued civilly and prosecuted under certain federal statutes. Civilly, he may incur liability for a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, discussed in the preceding chapter. He may also be prosecuted criminally under a 1948 statute when, while acting "under color of law," he "willfully" deprives a person of a constitutional right or privilege. Moreover, even if not acting "under color of law," he may be prosecuted if he conspires "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States."
A federal officer, although immune from the application of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, may be prosecuted if he becomes involved in a conspiracy to violate a person's constitutional right or privilege, and he may also be sued in an ordinary tort action.
Ifa police officer or other person making an illegal search or seizure damages someone's property, he may be prosecuted in state courts for "criminal damage to property." If entry upon another's land is involved, the offense may be "criminal trespass."
Page 60.
quote:
A Security Officer's On-Premises Right to Search Nonemployees, Absent an Arrest and a Search Incident Thereto
A person who is invited upon another person's premises makes no automatic surrender of his general right to privacy of his person or possessions. Consequently, neither he nor his possessions can be searched at the whim of the inviter or his security officer or other agent-unless, of course, the invitation is clearly coupled with a condition by which the inviter is accorded that privilege. Absent such a waiver, or the explicit consent of the visitor, or a legislative grant of some reasonable and limited privileges of that nature to the inviter, the only search and seizure right possessed by the inviter or his security officer or other agent is that accorded any other private citizen who has made an actual arrest.
And, if you need clarification on any of this you can contact Norman Bates, formerly professor of Criminal Justice and Law at Northeatern University but now a partner in the firm Liability Consultants, Inc.
http://www.liabilityconsultants.com/
He is the one who taught me all of this.
And, don't think that some small print on the back of a ticket which states, "We reserve the right to search..." will hold any water because it's basically bullshit. No small print on the back of a ticket or even a 10 foot tall sign in front of the door can force you to give up your civil rights.
Basically, if you search somebody and you don't have a damn good reason to do it... you SAW somebody steal or you believe somebody has a weapon... be prepared to get out your checkbook.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-24-2010 11:05 AM
quote: "John Wilson"
And he had to consult his mother, right?
He tells that joke on the first day of class. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Martin McCaffery
Actually getting someone to sue and win is a whole other problem.
Quite true! "Section 1983" lawsuits typically occur only after egregious violations. One case we used in class occurred when a security guard accused an old woman of shoplifting but she denied it and tried to leave the store. The guard chased after her, grabbed her, physically hauled her back into the store and locked her in a closet. The woman sued the store, took them to court and won a zillion dollars.
A company doesn't have to lose a zillion dollars to suffer in a case like that. What if that woman WAS shoplifting and the security guard was right to arrest her? The company would STILL have to hire a lawyer to defend the case and they would still have to take the time to deal with it. Then there is the bad publicity of getting sued. Even if you prevail it can still cost a lot of money which you might not be able to recover.
Even a couple thousand dollars to defend against a frivolous lawsuit could put a crimp in a small movie theater's budget!
Joe is right about the Wal-Mart people searching your stuff. You don't have to let them. Just keep right on walking. If they want to chase you, let them. If they come after you, tell them, "If you think I am a shoplifter call the cops." If they still try to detain you they are getting themselves into hot water.
If the beeper goes off on the security gates, they do have presumptive evidence that you MIGHT be a shoplifter and they can ASK you to stop. But, what they should do is hold your shopping bag and ask you to go through the gate again. If the alarm doesn't ring again, they can put your bag through the gate. If it rings this time they know there is something in the bag causing the alarm to go off. The CAN search that bag and they CAN ask you to produce a receipt to prove that you bought all the merchandise in the bag.
However, one thing that allows them to do this is that they follow this procedure EVERY TIME the alarm goes off. If they search some people and not others or if they don't follow a set procedure each time they are getting themselves into hot water.
That's why Wal-Mart has a greeter at the door. That way they can say that they have a consistent procedure in place.
The bottom line is that, unless you KNOW that somebody has done something wrong you can't touch them with a feather, much less search them or detain them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-24-2010 02:40 PM
My view of this, and it may be way off the mark, is that if you are on or in private property - whether it be a department store, cinema, Drive-In Theatre or whatever - then you are bound not only by common law but also by any stipulations as set out by the property owner/operator/management.
Now, searching through handbags and the like is just asking for trouble unless you have undeniable proof that a crime has or is about to be committed e.g CCTV, Security witness, or similar.
To prevent any nastiness from occurring, if the search must be done, then do it with witnesses present, under the eye of the CCTV or use some other degree of valid proof that will stand up in court should the matter go that far.
It must be considered also that doing searches such as this will almost certainly buy you some heavy-duty negative publicity from said searchee but then again, who needs a trouble maker around anyway.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic