This is topic Patrons 'reel' mad about theater food searches in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002341
Posted by Tom Doyle (Member # 1474) on 03-20-2010, 04:14 PM:
From last weekend's Stamford (CT) Advocate:
Patrons 'reel' mad about theater food searches
By John Burgeson
When Devon Pfeifer visited the Bow-Tie Cinemas in Norwalk recently with two friends to see "Alice in Wonderland," she was subjected to a staff search of her handbag.
The Fairfield resident's friends, Westporters Barbara Reynolds and Harriette Heller, had their handbags searched, too. And, according to Pfeifer, most of the women at the movie complex that night had their handbags searches, too.
"They weren't searching the guys with the big, bulky coats, just the women," she said.
"And they were just searching the people going to the highest-attended movies, not the ones that had been playing for three weeks." She said the people "who were doing it were doing what they were told to do."
Pfeifer, the chairwoman of Fairfield's Democratic Town Committee, said bag searches "made a mockery" of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The searches were being made not for weapons or other contraband, but to prevent patrons from sneaking food into the theaters.
The CEO of Bow-Tie Cinemas, Joseph Masher, last week apologized for the episode and admitted that "perhaps the staff was a bit overzealous that evening." He said he would like "to offer my sincerest apology to the three ladies and to anyone else who felt violated. I can assure you it will not happen again."
But Masher said that the problem of people smuggling food into theaters is one that plagues movie complexes from coast to coast.
"For instance, we have had incidents in the past where guests have accidentally spilled piping hot coffee onto another guest, guests who have left food containers and pizza boxes on the floor that have caused slipping hazards and ice cream containers left on floors that others have slipped and fallen over," Masher said. "Additionally, the air in the theater is often permeated with offensive odors from outside foods, and we strive to ensure our guests have a positive experience."
As a result, Masher said, it's "the policy of Bow-Tie Cinemas to not allow outside food or drink to be brought into the theater."
Jeff Meyer, a professor at the Quinnipiac University School of Law, said last Friday the Fourth Amendment applies only to searches performed by government personnel.
"Shopping malls and movie theaters are free from Fourth Amendment constraints," he said.
"So then the question would be whether she would have claim under invasion of privacy laws, for example, whether the search was not adequately announced," Meyer said. "And to the extent that they're drawing gender classifications, well, that could also be trouble."
A check of the Bow-Tie Cinema in Trumbull, which has 16 movie screens, last week revealed that there are no signs announcing any policy that prohibits patrons from bringing in food from the outside. And this reporter attending a matinee screening of "Alice in Wonderland" was able to bring in his own 8.75-ounce bag of Honey Nut Chex Mix without being questioned by theater staff.
Pfeifer said that there also are no signs about the outside food ban at the Norwalk Bow-Tie Cinema.
Pfeifer, who wrote about the episode in a letter to the editor that was published in the Fairfield Citizen, said that she didn't intend to pursue the matter further.
Leo Redgate, who operates the nonprofit Community Theater in Fairfield, said that his theater does not check moviegoers' bags.
"We do realize that we are in a tough economy that the price of concession food is exorbitant," he said. "But that's where these theaters make all of their money. We only charge $2 for a large popcorn and a large Coke. They charge $6.75. That's part of our recipe of success. We don't have a problem of people bringing food into our theater because we have made a conscious effort to keep our concession prices low."
Redgate said that profit margins for concessions at large movie complexes are "crazy," especially the soda. The cost to the theater, he said, for the cup, the ice, the lid, straw, carbonated water and soda syrup is about 10 cents, he said.
The Community Theater, he explained, is an "intermediate run" theater, which means it plays films a few weeks after they've made their first runs at big theater complexes across the nation. Because of this, it pays a lot less to the movie studios ---- about 30 percent of the gross receipts -- as opposed to 80 percent.
Tracy King, a spokeswoman for National Amusements, one of the largest theater chains in the U.S., with 1,047 screens, said that it "does not allow outside food or beverage in our locations, and we do not search women's bags for outside food. We hope that our patrons respect our policy."
Bow-Tie has 124 screens in Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Colorado and Virginia.
As for Pfeifer, she said that she and her two friends were not the only people taken aback by the bag searches. "The people sitting next to us were very upset, too."
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-20-2010, 05:06 PM:
Here's the thing, the people who get angry are the same ones who SNEAK it in. You know that you are doing something wrong or else you would openly carry it.
Plus at least at my theater we search bags/etc but usually not purses unless they are large. We are searching for weapons, alcohol, spraypaint etc. for others safety, but we will also not allow people in with food in their bag.
Plus I laughed out loud at the 4th amendment rights argument, as the reporter clearly pointed out, it only applies to government searches.
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-20-2010, 06:06 PM:
Checking large bags is OK, but searching purses or bodies is not. If any place tried that on me or my companions, I would demand my money back, leave the theatre immediately and take my business somewhere else. I would then email everyone I know in the area and encourage them not to patronize that location.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-20-2010, 06:56 PM:
The person talking about the costs of a soda are a little out of touch with reality.
The cost of syrup is about 8.9¢ per ounce. A 44oz drink with the free refill would use about 65-70 ounces of mixed soda with about 11 ounces of syrup for a syrup cost of about 98¢.
44oz cup is about 12¢
44oz lid is about 2.5¢
Straw is about 2¢
That's a cost of about $1.15 on a $4.50 drink - assuming the customer gets the refill. Yes, that's still a large markup, but it's a long ways from a 10¢ cost.
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 03-20-2010, 07:12 PM:
Sorry, but I only ask to look in a lady's purse if there's steam coming out OR it's ticking loudly. Of which I've had both happen.
Anyways, a golden rule to live by would be "NEVER GO INTO A LADY'S PURSE, ESPECIALLY YOUR MOMMA'S". Even if they ask you to.
Remember that rule and you will live longer.
Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 03-20-2010, 07:28 PM:
quote: Tom Doyle
Leo Redgate, who operates the nonprofit Community Theater in Fairfield, said that his theater does not check moviegoers' bags.
"We do realize that we are in a tough economy that the price of concession food is exorbitant," he said. "But that's where these theaters make all of their money. We only charge $2 for a large popcorn and a large Coke. They charge $6.75. That's part of our recipe of success. We don't have a problem of people bringing food into our theater because we have made a conscious effort to keep our concession prices low."
Uh-huh. And a large part of his being able to charge $2 for a large popcorn and coke is the non-profit status. If I could not pay taxes, use completely volunteer staff, raise money from people whos only interest is the deduction, I could probably charge $2 for a large popcorn and soda.
-david
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2010, 08:45 PM:
Yeah they did no favors to the industry by interviewing that guy. For one thing, why all of a sudden is it everyone's business what a theater (or any organization) pays for the ingredients of a snack food item? They don't take into account any of the other costs that go into that item.
I also get steamed at all the news media saying "The concession stand is where the theater makes all its money." First of all, that's not true. Second, they always word it in a negative way, using terms like "rake in" and "the take" and so on. The idea of "making a profit" is always shown in a bad light. People who aren't in business think that the retailer should charge what they pay, and any more than that is a ripoff.
And finally the guy says that major theaters pay "80 per cent" of their ticket revenue to the film company which of course is complete nonsense. The real figure probably hovers closer to 55% for a multiplex. Here, we are around 49% on the average because we play about 75% of our movies off the break.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 03-20-2010, 09:25 PM:
quote: Stamford Advocate
Pfeifer, the chairwoman of Fairfield's Democratic Town Committee, said bag searches "made a mockery" of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Clearly, this woman is a moron. This constitutional protection is from the government, not private entities whose property you are entering. If I wanted to search her purse before letting her in my house, I'd be well within my power to do so. The 4th Amendment is also principally designed to keep the government from kicking down your door and rummaging through your stuff. It is well established by now that this protection is limited once you enter certain public places. I have to empty my pockets when I enter the courthouse or go through airport security. The law professor they quote does not fully elaborate this distinction of place, nor does he go far enough in condemning this woman's stupidity in making such an idiotic claim.
That being said, this company is really stupid, too. If the aim is to prevent people from sneaking food in, they're going to do more harm than good from pissing people off. If the goal is to prevent pirates from sneaking in cameras, that is impossible, given that cell phones now take video. That "problem" can only be solved by auditorium checks and vigorous enforcement of a strict no cellphones/electronic devices policy.
This is a very poorly written article, and the writer is also stupid. Let's just take any claim about a commercial theater made by a guy who works at a nonprofit theater and assume that it is true and publish it. Also, let's take a bunch of extraneous quotes and other random crap and cram all of this into one poorly written article with no unifying theme. Was this article about how stupid this woman is who thinks that the 4th Amendment was written about movie theaters, or about how evil commercial movie theaters are for trying to scrape out a living by selling popcorn and pop, or is it about the prevalence of "no outside food or drink" policies? Or is it about the huge decline in the quality of local dailies, where this is now newsworthy enough to publish (with a bad pun for a headline)?
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-20-2010, 10:18 PM:
quote:
This constitutional protection is from the government, not private entities whose property you are entering.
They actually explain this in the article, but it happens 2 paragraphs after the woman's statement. Seems like it had to be done on purpose, so that they can both get the people going "The theater is trampling our rights" while saying "We told the truth and explained she was wrong."
Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-20-2010, 10:42 PM:
Do people in the US often bring up the Constitution and get it wrong when they complain about something?
This incident sounds like over-excited management at that location. The time they probably spent dealing with complaints could have been used to influence their retail spend positively.
I have started to avoid some of the cinema-related pieces in the UK press, it just pisses me off. The journos usually could have walked in to any half-decent multiplex and asked a general manager a few questions and got a better answer on the record than anything their sources come up with.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-20-2010, 10:57 PM:
quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Do people in the US often bring up the Constitution and get it wrong when they complain about something?
People complain about lots of stuff and get it wrong. Why would something about the Constitution be any different? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-20-2010, 11:08 PM:
The theatre has a right to check anything they want or refuse admission.
The customer has a right to refuse the theatre's request and not enter their private property.
The theatre has a right to be stupid.
The customer has a right to be stupid.
Theatres have brought this upon themselves for ignoring their own rules forever, for fear of bringing the customer's wrath upon them.
The customer has taken full advantage of the above. The customer has also noticed that they can stay in most theatres all day... the staff is that restricted from offending them.
I know of one drive-in whos owner won't let you in unless you open your trunk. His right to ask, your right to refuse.
The stadiums around here all search bags and purses. Nobody gets offended, because they all know they can just stay home if they don't like it.
Frankly, I don't see why any of you are so wound up over this.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-20-2010, 11:35 PM:
If you want to do a 'Shakedown' have them pat themselves - don't touch them...
quote: Tom Doyle
have left food containers and pizza boxes on the floor
Happened to me last month: two kids both carrying "Little Caesar's" jumbo boxes in and the manager missed them, but I caught them and told them "...either in the trash, or out to the car...!"
Upset as they were, but out to the car those boxes went.
This fight has been going on for years. Now, with Cinema Grill theatres popping up - could be the magic ticket...
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-20-2010, 11:43 PM:
I really hate when people bring food into the theater, its distracting to others. How hard is it to eat beforehand?
Whats even worse is when they try and argue it, read the policy on the window when you buy tickets.
Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-20-2010, 11:44 PM:
Chris I meant more is it something people try use against you a lot when complaining? Like I said, nothing to compare it to here.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-21-2010, 12:04 AM:
The Constitution of the US is misunderstood by more than it is understood.
It does not "give" any rights. It is 100% about RESTRICTING GOVERNMENT. It was created by people that felt they were oppressed with a Monarchy that was too intrusive.
As others have said, it has no application to a private entity. We have laws and acts to deal with those. The laws/acts, since they are government created, must also not infringe upon the Constitution.
Another misconception is that it has to be written into the constitution (or amended) for a "right" to exist. We are created with "certain inalienable rights and AMONG these are". It does NOT state that "and these are." The ones printed are the ones that have been deemed needed to be actually stated. They were never meant to be the entire exclusive set of rights.
Steve
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-21-2010, 12:16 AM:
They can search me if they want but they better call the cops first. If the cops don't find anything they'd better get out their check book! A written apology to go along with that might be nice, too.
Yes, the Constitution does only apply to the government but most states have laws that make violating the Constitution a civil offense. So, no, it's not a crime to violate somebody's civil rights but you can sue somebody else for it.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-21-2010, 11:49 AM:
quote: Tom Doyle
"So then the question would be whether she would have claim under invasion of privacy laws, for example, whether the search was not adequately announced," Meyer said. "And to the extent that they're drawing gender classifications, well, that could also be trouble."
I don't see how. No one forced anyone to attend a film at this establishment they have the free choice to turn around and walk out when they noticed others being searched.
It is like driving because you have the choice to not drive the police have more leeway to search vehicles without warrants/permission.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 03-21-2010, 01:26 PM:
Interesting point, Sean.
Along the same lines, it could be argued that when that individual turns over the pocketbook, she consents to a search (and in some jurisdictions this has been interpreted that "silence is consent" if no verbal objection is made). Then effectively one would waive their protection from said search.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 03-21-2010, 03:02 PM:
quote:
44oz cup is about 12¢
44oz lid is about 2.5¢
Straw is about 2¢
You need to remember though that bigger companies have better negotiated prices for their concessions. For them it probably does total out to about $0.10 - $0.20 each.
I would still love to see a good analysis of a theatre that has reasonable concessions prices to see if the volume of sales makes up for the lower price. Problem is most small theatres with low prices don't take the time to sit in front of excel and figure that out.
Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 03-21-2010, 03:22 PM:
Speaking of searches....several years ago Six Flags Over Georgia would search EVERY woman's purse before allowing entry through the gates. No difference between that and searching purses belonging to theatre patrons. Of course Six Flags claimed search was for weapons, not food but that really doesn't matter. A search is a search.
Don
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-21-2010, 03:40 PM:
Sorry Randy...name the state that has the Constitutional Rights apply to private situations...I doubt ANY have such a clause as it would be silly in many instances. Do I have a right to free speech in a movie theatre? Not too likely. We won't even get into the second Amendment which clearly has state-by-state laws governing guns.
What a ticket grants the purchaser is a LIMITED LICENSE to see the specific movie at the specified time. If you do not agree with the rules of the establishment, you are free to not patronize it. If they fail to fulfill their end of the license (show you the movie at the specified time, you are also free to demand your money back...not just get a readmit. It would be a breach of contract.
What you may be confusing as "rights" are "Acts" like the ADA and Title 9 stuff (non-discrimination). These are mere laws that the Federal government imposes on all jurisdictions....they are also subject to Constitutional revue and nullification if they are brought to the Supreme Court and found to, in some way, be unconstitutional.
When it comes to cars...it is a sticky one...thus far, it has been ruled that your car (I don't know about mobile homes or the cab portion of a mobile home) does not have the same constitutional protections as your home. The 4th amendment specifically states "home." It does not mention a car...which considering there were no cars, it would not. However, it does not mention carriage either. The idea though is that when you are home, you are "safe" and the government must jump through some hoops to gain access to you and your property.
What I think has been a wrong interpretation of the Constitution is that one should have a right to drive. State governments have taken the stance that it is a privilege because it makes their live a lot easier...you don't need to check the constitution on anything once you loose that "right" status. However, it not being a right has shown the abuses the States have done since they know you want/need your license and thus can get the citizenry to do anything they want to keep it. Foolish people will tout that making it a right would allow unsafe people to drive. It is a dumb statement. All that a right really does is GUARANTEE "Due process." That is, before the government may remove your right (to even life) is to let you have your day in court and be judged by your peers. We have a 2nd amendment right to guns and convicted felons tend to loose that right. If we had an expressed right to drive, you would find that about the same number of people would loose that right as those with suspended licenses but you would also find things tied to your license that have nothing to do with how well you drive, would pretty much vanish.
Steve
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 03-21-2010, 05:29 PM:
quote: Sean McKinnon
It is like driving because you have the choice to not drive the police have more leeway to search vehicles without warrants/permission.
That's not entirely the case. Per the 2009 SCOTUS ruling in Arizona v. Gant, "Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
A police officer cannot pull someone over for one offense and search their vehicle for evidence of unrelated offenses. If an officer stops and arrests someone for driving on a suspensed license, then it would be unreasonable to conduct a warrentless search for drugs. However, if the officer stopped someone for driving under the influence, than such a search would be reasonable under the ruling.
There is another 4th Amendment exception related to impounded vehicles where police are legally allowed to conduct an inventory search if it is departmental policy to do so. However, procedures for this have to be specific on how and when to impound a vehicle adn do the search. Deviations from those procedures will likely result in any evidence obtained being surpressed.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-22-2010, 05:42 PM:
If someone asked to search me, when entering some place like a theater, I would just say NO. The kid would be stuned, and let me into the theater. If the kid told me to leave, seeing how they already sold me a ticket, wouldn't that be breach of contract?
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-22-2010, 06:07 PM:
quote: Jim Ziegler
A police officer cannot pull someone over for one offense and search their vehicle for evidence of unrelated offenses. If an officer stops and arrests someone for driving on a suspensed license, then it would be unreasonable to conduct a warrentless search for drugs. However, if the officer stopped someone for driving under the influence, than such a search would be reasonable under the ruling.
Have you ever watched the T.V. show "COPS"? All the police have to say is that the search was for thier safety and that while searching for weapons they happened to find drugs. Unfortunately it happens all the time. I don't think it's right. I have had my car searched and been questioned about the "Gizmo" in the box (My oscilloscope) and why did I need to carry all these tools etc... That was after getting stopped for speeding. I don't think it's right but it happens all the time.
quote: Bruce Hansen
If the kid told me to leave, seeing how they already sold me a ticket, wouldn't that be breach of contract?
No, it would not. Steve said above...
quote: Steve Guttag
What a ticket grants the purchaser is a LIMITED LICENSE to see the specific movie at the specified time. If you do not agree with the rules of the establishment, you are free to not patronize it.
The flip side to that is that if you do not follow the establishments rules they can ask you to leave. With or without refund.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-22-2010, 06:22 PM:
quote: Bruce Hansen
If someone asked to search me, when entering some place like a theater, I would just say NO. The kid would be stuned, and let me into the theater.
I would think the kid would call security. Seriously, what do most people have to hide? Nothing. Providing the establishment has proper notice (signs) that searching is taking place, anyone who balks at a simple bag search would raise a red flag.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-22-2010, 07:29 PM:
quote: Sean McKinnon
Have you ever watched the T.V. show "COPS"? All the police have to say is that the search was for thier safety and that while searching for weapons they happened to find drugs. Unfortunately it happens all the time. I don't think it's right. I have had my car searched and been questioned about the "Gizmo" in the box (My oscilloscope) and why did I need to carry all these tools etc... That was after getting stopped for speeding. I don't think it's right but it happens all the time.
You have to remember that just because something happens on the TV show doesn't mean it was legal. I know that a similar show that was on in California before COPS went into syndication had a follow-up on the arrests, where a lot of them were thrown out specifically for the things the cops did that they caught on tape. And when you were pulled over, did the cop ask you to allow him to search your car? Because legally, they can only do a search based on reasonable suspicion or based on what is seen in plain-sight.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-22-2010, 08:04 PM:
Oh I know Chris I was just saying that even though it isn't right or always legal it still happens a lot in the real world... I have been to court to fight traffic violations and got to see first hand a hearing where evidence (a bag of weed) got tossed because the cops went to a persons house to arrest a third party on an arrest warrant. According to the law the cops can arrest the wanted person but have no legal standing to search anyone else in the house. They went in lookinfg for the wanted person who wasn't there and searched everyone else at the house. Unfortunately that was a rare case where the cop wasn't familiar with the law. I have seen a lot of cops lie (I am sure the majority don't) but a law enforcement officers testimony holds more weight than the average person. If they say I gave them permission to search my car and then changed my mind after they found something who is the judge going to believe?
The trooper asked me if he could search my car and I told him "no, I don't see any reason why you should" so at that point he asked me to step out he detained me in handcuffs and searched anyway. He told me it was for his safety. When he did not find anything he let me go.
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 03-22-2010, 08:07 PM:
quote: Sean McKinnon
Have you ever watched the T.V. show "COPS"? All the police have to say is that the search was for thier safety and that while searching for weapons they happened to find drugs.
Pre Gant there was more leeway to search for officer safety concerns, but only incident to an arrest. Post Gant, the rules are much more strict. BTW, any episodes of COPS you are watching were probably pre-Gant, which was handed down in 2009.
quote: Sean McKinnon
I have had my car searched and been questioned about the "Gizmo" in the box (My oscilloscope) and why did I need to carry all these tools etc... That was after getting stopped for speeding.
You do not have to consent to the search. If they ask, say no.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-22-2010, 10:36 PM:
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. Theatres don't get to make their own laws with respect to refunding money though they may WISH to be able to keep the money and just issue a re-admit. Company policy does not trump the law.
Steve
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-23-2010, 11:31 AM:
In certain situations for example if a patron assaults a staff member, vandilizes theatre property, assaults another patron, creates a disturbance you do not have to issue a refund, at least in the localities I have worked we have been backed up many times by law enforcement that if a patron breaks our posted "code of conduct" we do not have to provide a refund.
However, If we do not live up to our part or the customer refuses a search (we never did these but I am guessing here) before the film starts we would provide a refund.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 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.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-23-2010, 09:08 PM:
In 1978 we opened a new twin in a small town where teenage bullys managed to drive the old theatre to close.
Opening night, I hired the high school principal, a State policeman, a teacher, my wife who is a teacher and myself. We sold tickets and threw out 48 customers without a refund in 22 minutes. Order was established and the phone calls were all positive. Names were posted and these folks were locked out of the theatre for 5 years. Louis
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-23-2010, 11:17 PM:
"Bow-Tie Theatres"? That is the best name you could come up with for your theater chain? Really?
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 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.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-24-2010, 12:52 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
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.
No it doesn't. It specifically says that you have to interfere (or attempt to interfere) by use of "threats, intimidation or coercion."
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-24-2010, 02:24 AM:
Being threatened to be thrown out of a theater because you did not want a stranger rooting through your personal belongings isn't intimidation? What if I don't want to leave because I'm not doing anything wrong? Will you call the cops? Isn't that coercive?
While I worked as a security guard at a large hotel in Boston, I had a bellman come to me and say that he saw a guest walk out with a suitcase full of hotel property and put it in his car. I went and confronted the guy but he denied it. I said to him, "If I looked in your car would I find those things?" The guy just cussed at me and drove away.
Later on, I told my professor (Norman Bates) this story and he literally stomped his foot and pointed at me; "You're lucky you didn't get your employer into a lawsuit!" he shouted.
Those are the statutes that Bates quoted to the class when discussing civil liablity. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about. He now makes his living suing people who do things like violate other's rights and commit other acts of negligence.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-24-2010, 05:30 AM:
If a Wal*Mart greeter demands to check the receipt for goods you just purchased on your way out of the store, are you required to stop and show them anything? Nope, you are not yet you are still on Wal*Mart property. They cannot legally force you to show them what is in your bags.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-24-2010, 06:02 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Later on, I told my professor (Norman Bates)
And he had to consult his mother, right?
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-24-2010, 06:34 AM:
.... might have been his son, Master Bates.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-24-2010, 10:26 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
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.
It also applies to civilians who say they are enforcing the law, which doesn't apply in the immediate circumstance, but people are known to say things are law which are not, like enforcing the ratings.
Actually getting someone to sue and win is a whole other problem.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 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.
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.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-24-2010, 02:14 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Being threatened to be thrown out of a theater because you did not want a stranger rooting through your personal belongings isn't intimidation?
1) Telling a person that you want them to leave isn't a threat and telling a person who refuses to leave that they will have someone remove them also isn't a threat. See, you have to use the legal definition of the word, not the colloquial one.
2) Nope. It's not intimidation either. Again, legal definitions trump your own.
quote: Randy Stankey
What if I don't want to leave because I'm not doing anything wrong?
If I ask you to leave and you refuse, you are by definition doing something wrong. Hint: It's called "trespassing." It's illegal and I can have you arrested for it.
quote: Randy Stankey
Will you call the cops? Isn't that coercive?
How is me calling the cops when you refuse to leave upon request a form of coercion? Especially, since the calling of the cops is entirely legal?
Again, you don't seem to remotely understand the legal definitions of the words.
Also, you should consider that confronting a person about property located inside a trunk of a car is entirely different than refusing a person entry to a business.
There's also a difference between asking to search someone's stuff to allow entry and attempting to search after the guy already left.
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 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.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-24-2010, 03:20 PM:
You can not search people who did nothing wrong. Period.
You can not arrest people who did nothing wrong. Period.
You can not call the cops on people who did nothing wrong. Period.
If you are the employee of a theater you are in a position of authority and you CAN coerce people.
If you invite the public onto your private property for the purpose of doing business with them they can not trespass simply by being on the property. They have to do something WRONG. You can't simply say, "You didn't follow my rules." then declare them trespassers.
You can't even touch somebody with a feather unless you have proof that they did something wrong.
Go ahead and run your theater like the "Soup Nazi."
Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 03-24-2010, 03:53 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
You can not call the cops on people who did nothing wrong. Period.
That's why our "House Rules" and "Parking Guidelines" are clearly posted and handed to each vehicle in printed written form each time they come thru the gate. If a patron refuses to abide by our written house rules which were handed to them before they passed the boxoffice, if they are in blatant violation of them, disrespectful to or use profane language to either my staff or my other patrons , THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG and they will be asked to leave the property without a refund. If they refuse to leave, I do call the cops, and usually as soon as the police cruiser pulls in the driveway one of two things usually happens -
a.) their entire attitude changes (but they are still leaving - because I said so),
b.) they take off out of the parking lot before the cops can reach them.
Our police officers eagerly respond to the calls, and we don't put up with any BS from anybody. We don't run our theatre like the "Soup Nazi", but we do maintain a civil order about the place, while at the same time providing a safe place for families and friends to hang out and enjoy an evening. I like to think there is a reason why the local 10-plex is over-run by foul-mouthed texting teenagers and has to have 3 uniformed police officers on duty every Friday & Saturday night and we don't.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-24-2010, 04:37 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
If you invite the public onto your private property for the purpose of doing business with them they can not trespass simply by being on the property.
Reading comprehension fail.
I said that the person would be trespassing by REMAINING on the property after being told to leave.
Here's the pertinent Texas law
quote:
§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
quote: Randy Stankey
You can't simply say, "You didn't follow my rules." then declare them trespassers.
I didn't say you could. I said you could say "You aren't following my rules. You have to leave." And when they don't do so, then you declare them trespassers. You've actually never heard of this?
And note that Texas is definitely not the only state where refusing to exit private property after a request to do so is trespassing.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-24-2010, 04:42 PM:
Randy,
The difference is no one is forcing a customer to be searched. If they do not want to be searched they are free to leave. The are under no obligation to patronize that busniess. That is different from someone coming into your home and searching it, or grabbing your bag on the street. If you are notified of or asked to be searched you can refuse and leave.
It is like flying on a plane you do not HAVE to fly on a plane if you do not want to be searched you are free to choose another mode of transportation.
quote: Joe Redifer
"Bow-Tie Theatres"? That is the best name you could come up with for your theater chain? Really?
For what it's worth I beleive they called the chain Bow Tie because the first theatre they had in New York was named the Bow Tie Theatre and was a legacy in the area. I may be completely wrong here someone filled me in on it recently but I may have gotten what they said wrong.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-24-2010, 05:23 PM:
You can not force invited customers to give up their rights just because they set foot on your property.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-24-2010, 07:04 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
You can not force invited customers to give up their rights just because they set foot on your property.
First of all, where does the term "invited" come into play here? Maybe I'm inviting people to be my patrons, but that doesn't confer or deny rights on either side, as far as I can tell. The implied invitation is persuant to my rules. So long as I'm not discriminating by not applying my policies evenly, I don't see the argument.
You're not taking away anyone's rights. You're setting conditions upon which they may be present on your private property.
You could invite someone to dinner at your house, then stop them at the door and ask to see the contents of their belongings because you don't want certain things in your home. Your guest could comply or turn around and walk off. Where's the lawsuit there?
I just don't see why you can't grasp this. When I attend a game at the Mariners' field, I see bags being checked. When I attend a Washington Huskies game, I see two sets of lines... one for people with bags & the other for those without. The University of Washington has a damned fine law school. Chances are, if those kind of searches were illegal, they wouldn't be doing them.
On a federal level, they're going to be doing full body scans on you at the airport. Refuse and they'll show you the door just as fast. I really doubt that the threat of a lawsuit will get you on the plane. On the other hand, you're free to avoid the search by driving your car... or walking... or whatever.
I think the whole point here is that you are not being forced to do anything. If you do not wish to be searched, you are free to leave and nobody will touch you... not even with a feather. Theres's no force or coersion going on here. Don't like my policies? Fine. Go somewhere else. If I had a search policy that nobody would put up with, the worst that would happen would be that I'd have an empty field.
I'd bet that if you detailed your questions to your law professor friend more in line with the debate at hand, you might get a somewhat different answer... either that, or there's a whole lot of us in Washington State that are dancing with danger... which I sort of doubt.
quote: Barry Floyd
I like to think there is a reason why the local 10-plex is over-run by foul-mouthed texting teenagers and has to have 3 uniformed police officers on duty every Friday & Saturday night and we don't.
Well said.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-24-2010, 07:19 PM:
I also don't understand the debate. From what I have learned*, if you tell a person to leave your property and they refuse, then they are a trespasser. And you have the right to call a cop to have them escorted out, if necessary. But you cannot put your hands on a person.
*Legal education obtained from years of watching Judge Wapner and Judge Judy
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-24-2010, 07:32 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
*Legal education obtained from years of watching Judge Wapner and Judge Judy
Well, there you are. Definitive opinions from established experts in the field! ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Here's another term that hasn't been presented, as far as I've seen... If I ask to see your stuff as a condition of being admitted (or staying) on my property, and you let me do that instead of leaving, you have then given your consent to said search... absolutely above board and legal, thank you.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-24-2010, 10:27 PM:
Perhaps there is a simplier way. . .
At the gate is posted a set of rules.
To cross into the theatre through the gate you must:
1. Pay a toll.
2. Agree to the posted rules.
Think of it as a toll booth. You do NOT have any right to "pass through." Louis
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-24-2010, 11:17 PM:
I am not saying that you can't enforce rules on your company's premises. I'm not saying you can't eject people who break the rules. I'm not saying you can't call the cops if people commit crimes or disturb the peace. You can and you should.
However, even though your business is private property it is not treated the same as your home. You invite the public to your business and you don't invite the public to your home. (Normally.) Once you invite the public to your place of business things change.
You can not require a person who has not broken the law; who has not committed an infraction of the rules; who has not disturbed the peace to give up his rights just by virtue of setting foot on your company's property.
You can not search people who you don't have a damn good reason to believe have done something wrong or who you have a damn good reason to believe are in the process of doing something wrong. You can not create arbitrary rules and tell people that you will call the police if they don't obey.
If somebody has done something wrong, call the cops. You can use my cell phone if you want to but it is wrong to call the cops if the person is not guilty.
Airlines are different. A teenager sneaking a bag of Doritos into a movie theater can't kill 3,000 people but a terrorist can crash an airliner into a building and kill that many people in just a few moments.
Searching people at an airport usually involves the use of metal detectors and X-ray machines. This is a lot less inconvenient and a lot less invasive than searching peoples' bags by hand and/or patting them down.
The use of Senrormatic anti-shoplifting gates at a retail store is different because it is less invasive and, presumably, does not inconvenience a person who has not broken the law. Most stores also have consistent policies for handling incidents when the alarm goes off. That's a lot different than arbitrarily searching people.
Again, you have the right to enforce rules. You have the right to stop people who are breaking the rules. But, by virtue of inviting the public into your place of business, you can not make them submit to a search without good cause.
We're talking about a movie theater not a federal nuclear research facility.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-24-2010, 11:40 PM:
Here's my 2 cents, legally I've taken a couple of courses of college, but i'm no expert. Not even close, degree in hospitality, not law.
Either way,
At my theater it is posted at the box office that we reserve the right to search packages, backpacks and similar items. However, if they would prefer that we do not search their belongings, we simply ask them to leave it at customer service or in the car. The reasoning being that we have found loaded handguns that are left in auditoriums, plus we have a big issue with the "middle school mafia" bringing in spray paint and other things to deface the theater.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-25-2010, 12:07 AM:
quote: Manny Montes
At my theater it is posted at the box office that we reserve the right to search packages, backpacks and similar items. However, if they would prefer that we do not search their belongings, we simply ask them to leave it at customer service or in the car. The reasoning being that we have found loaded handguns that are left in auditoriums, plus we have a big issue with the "middle school mafia" bringing in spray paint and other things to deface the theater.
Yah... that's pretty much how we handled that, too.
quote: Randy Stankey
You can not require a person who has not broken the law; who has not committed an infraction of the rules; who has not disturbed the peace to give up his rights just by virtue of setting foot on your company's property.
You can not search people who you don't have a damn good reason to believe have done something wrong or who you have a damn good reason to believe are in the process of doing something wrong. You can not create arbitrary rules and tell people that you will call the police if they don't obey.
OK, we've made some progress here.
Perhaps we're debating semantics. Actually, I don't disagree with what you've said, except maybe on the point of arbitrarily making rules. I actually can do that to some extent, because I have ultimate authority over who gets to stay or go. If I ask you to leave for any reason and you refuse, the police will escort you to the gate, period. Your recourse, if you feel strongly enough about it AND I had not refunded your money, would be to take me to court. You would have your say, I'd have mine and the judge would decide. With that in mind, I'd say most all of us would tend not to arbitrarily toss you for no good reason AND keep your money.
I'm not getting your take on the concept of inviting people. It seems to me that any commercial attraction invites patrons, yet we still have cases (noted elsewhere) where searches are commonly made before admission is granted. Personally, I tend to look at this more as making my business available for the public to choose. For the good of my business and my patrons I have a set of rules. Most of them are unpublished, but are pretty much common sense.
If I was to confront you for no seemingly good reason and demand to search your person, threatening the police if you didn't comply and somehow attemtpting to prevent you from leaving my place unless you submitted to the search, I'd say you'd be in a very good position to cause me serious grief, though I'm not sure what law you'd use. Frankly, if someone did that to me, I'd make that business my personal project.
Our use of law enforcement isn't quite as draconian as it might seem. If I catch you sneaking somebody in, I might call the cops. If I ask you to leave and you refuse, I'd probably call the cops. If you were causing a distraction that I was unable to resolve and I couldn't get you to calm down and/or leave, I'd probably call the cops. My personal policy is that if I do call the cops, your exit will be part of my intended result. I hope we have no disagreement there.
I don't do vehicle or bag searches here. However, if I did and you attempted to get in past my policies, I think a call to 911 would be appropriate. I get the impression your view on unreasonable searches goes way beyond what would likely happen at the typical theatre.
I don't think there's ever any harm in calling the cops, though I do so very rarely. The reason for that is I can't guarantee they'll see things my way. For that reason, I tend to call for situations we're both familiar with and which I have a generally good idea how they'll react. The police are bound by their own set of laws and rules, and they have to decide whether my problem falls within their scope of authority. I don't think you can sue me for merely calling 911, because the ultimate decision whether the police have an actionable cause is theirs, not mine. If you're really involved in something they can do something about, it is ultimately their decision to act accordingly. Their actions are also tempered by a general knowledge of what the local prosecutor is likely to take seriously. Amazing as it might seem, not all of them would prosecute the same offenses with equal vigor.
There are cases where civilian business owners can physically detain a person for things like shoplifting. However, I've never been involved in anything like that, so I'm unfamiliar with the applicable parameters.
I agree on the point that I can't just drag you out of your seat and search you by force, though I'd never do that and I don't think any of us were trying to justify on this thread.
If you're ever in Washington state, I cordially invite you to attend my business! Please don't put anyone in your trunk. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-25-2010, 12:58 AM:
If you put an ad in the newspaper, post a billboard, put up a sign or just unlock your doors in the morning you are inviting people to your business. When you invite people to your business they have the right to expect that a law abiding citizen who behaves in a reasonable manner will not have to give up his basic rights as a condition of entry.
As with anything there can be exceptions. If you give fair notice you might be able to require people to do certain things but, certainly, fine print on the back of a ticket or a sign in the box office window will not hold water. Furthermore, you will need to give this notice before the person pays money for a ticket. He has to be given a chance to refuse.
Let's say, for instance, you own a night club where rowdy people have been known to start fights. You have the right to enforce rules to keep the peace and, in fact, you have the duty to protect innocent people from getting hurt because you invited THEM to your establishment and they also have the right to be free from unreasonable harm while they are there. You can absolutely have a security policy where people might be searched for weapons and contraband but you need to have a consistent policy. Putting a bouncer at the door who rejects people who look drunk or who are too rowdy is a good idea.
If a car pulls into your drive in and you hear banging in the trunk you certainly have the right to question the person and reject them if they don't give a satisfactory answer. If you have reason to believe that they are sneaking people in you could very well have the right to search the trunk.
If somebody comes into your theater lobby carrying a backpack that makes a crinkling noise like a cellophane bag full of potato chips, you can question them, possibly search them and eject them if they don't comply with reasonable requests.
However, as much as I know that there are some circumstances when you are allowed to search, I still wouldn't do it unless I caught somebody red handed. Even then I'd think twice about it. My decision would be based on how bad the infraction is. If it's just a package of "M&M"s I would probably tell the person not do bring in outside candy again. If it was a six pack of beer and a full size bag of potato chips I'd probably call them on it.
I am not saying that a business owner doesn't have the right to enforce reasonable rules. It is the way those rules are enforced that matter.
As I thought about this problem, I had an idea. It's just a spitball idea. I wonder what you all think about it:
What if you had your attorney or legal adviser draft up a form letter that could be kept on file in the office. If you catch somebody sneaking in food or if you have good reason to think that they are sneaking in food you wait until the movie is over and people are leaving. Then you meet the person at the door, tell them that you know they brought in food then present them with a letter which says that they are banned from entering the premises for some period of time ( 90 days, 6 months or a year) or else they will be prosecuted for trespassing.
Do you think that would work? If you find empty potato chip bags or empty beer cans on the floor and you can reasonably pair that litter up with a person who is in your building (or who was there recently) you have a pretty airtight case against them. Don't you?
I think that would be preferable to randomly searching people.
Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 03-25-2010, 03:41 AM:
Cineworld in the UK has a strict no outside food/drink policy. They don't usually do bag searches, but on more than one occasion I have had to leave my bag (containing valuables such as my cellphone, wallet, house key) at the box office before being allowed in.
When people buy things like bottled drinks from the concessions stand, they put a large SOLD sticker on it so the staff know it was bought there and not from outside. Yes, the profit margins are too high - at Cineworld Bradford, a small bottle of soda costs £2.10 as opposed to £1.30 (maximum I've seen) in outside shops!
At VUE cinemas, I've occasionally had my bag searched, but they're mainly looking for cameras and other recording devices, not outside food. If the concession stand actually sold the kind of soda I like in small bottles (not just giant 'buckets' of Cola), I might buy some there. For the time being though, I'm going to continue taking outside drinks (not food) in until they put up large signs saying you can't.
I try to go to showings which will not clash with the time I have to eat lunch or whatever. On the occasions that's not possible, I try to pick a showing that will allow me to eat lunch during the adverts and trailers, and be finished by the time the movie starts ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-25-2010, 12:28 PM:
I think the other issue too is that the person is not being pat frisked or stripped searched. They are asked to open thier bag for a visual inspection, If a person wants to see a movie but does not want thier bag inspected they are free to leave it in the car. I don't think it's a good idea to check every single bag but I know from experience that it is legal. The Loews Boston Common 19 is in a sky scraper in down town Boston along with the Ritz Carlton hotel. After Sept. 11th they hired detail cops to visually inspect any bags/packages before allowing persons on the escalator. I think the Loews lawayers and the Boston Police would have not allowed this if they had been openeing themselves up to a law suit.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-25-2010, 01:03 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
tell them that you know they brought in food then present them with a letter which says that they are banned from entering the premises for some period of time ( 90 days, 6 months or a year) or else they will be prosecuted for trespassing.
Yes, you can do that. The cops call that "trespassing someone". We've had a couple of cases where we've asked someone not to come back. When they did, and would not leave, we called the cops. They escorted the patron to the gate and handed them a "trespass notice", basically formalizing the consequences they'd face if they returned.
I think we're just dancing around the fine points now, Randy. You're not saying anything I basically disagree with, though our thresholds for action are a bit different. The areas where it probably becomes unreasonable are not generally experienced at a movie theatre, at least to the point I've seen.
The observation about the nightclub is interesting, in that we're not talking about totally different issues, yet the nightclub scenario seems easier to accept.
One thing I will point out here, is that you never give up any rights when confronted by a theatre operator. While you may wind up being ejected from the premesis, either willingly or otherwise, you would never actually be searched, unless you allowed it (notwithstanding what a policeman could do in certain extremes). Following your ejection, you would have every right to seek whatever legel redress might be available to you. My opinion happens to be that you'd be wasting your time.
I've always thought that this explains why most large chains have such a hands-off, non confrontational approach to dealing with their patrons. We always risk going to court over something we might have done to piss off a customer. We might rarely lose, but on a scale the size that a company like Regal might face, actively avoiding these situations might work better for them. The problem is that patrons seem to have figured this out, and some of them work it for everything they can get. In a few theatres around here, complaining about the smallest detail will result in several passes coming out of the safe, rather than the manager actually dealing with the issue. That creates problems for independents like me, in that patrons can get a little worked up when they find those tactics don't work out here.
Given that, enforcing outside food bans at the indoor theatres will continue to be challenging, so long as the majority of theatres ignore their own rules. If they all get on track, I think the problem would quickly diminish.
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 03-25-2010, 08:35 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
You can not search people who you don't have a damn good reason to believe have done something wrong or who you have a damn good reason to believe are in the process of doing something wrong. You can not create arbitrary rules and tell people that you will call the police if they don't obey.
Randy,
I think your confusion here is that you are assuming that bag checks are forced. They are not. At my building if you want to bring in a large bag, you have to open it and show us the contents. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but we cannot allow the bag inside our building. You have the right to refuse to show us the contents, and we have the right to say you can't bring it in.
quote: Randy Stankey
A teenager sneaking a bag of Doritos into a movie theater can't kill 3,000 people but a terrorist can crash an airliner into a building and kill that many people in just a few moments.
What about a terrorist smuggling in a chemical or biological agent? How many people could be killed or injured by something lethal being unleashed in a packed house?
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-25-2010, 11:51 PM:
Jim, you know that a terrorist isn't going to sneak chemical weapons into a theater in a knapsack. It's easy enough to conceal enough chemical weapons to kill a theater full of people in the pockets of your jacket. Searching for food and searching for terrorist weapons are two completely different things.
Shootings inside packed nightclubs full of people have happened. Nightclub owners know or should know that this kind of thing can happen and they should take reasonable steps to prevent it and they do. Everybody who goes into that nightclub has to get by a bouncer who throws out people who could cause trouble and, if he thinks somebody has a weapon or is too drunk he can search or question them. This is a consistent policy which does not pose an unreasonable breach of a person's rights. It is applied equally to all people who enter. They have notice of this policy and they are given this notice before they pay the cover charge. In fact, the bouncer usually collects the cover charge.
Airlines are under obvious threat. Everybody who boards an airline is subject to, at minimum, a metal detector scan and a baggage X-ray. There are strict policies as to when a potential passenger is subject to extra scrutiny and those rules are applied to all in a reasonably even fashion.
Many retail stores actually search everybody who exits using Sensormatic tags and security gates but this type of search is so inconsequential and so non-invasive that it is permitted. Further, the alarm should go off only when a non-deactivated tag passes through the gate. Thus, store security has more latitude to search somebody who has set off the alarm provided they have a consistent policy in place to handle these situations.
Where is the danger in sneaking in a bag of potato chips to a theater? National security isn't being threatened. People aren't being harmed. No crime has been committed. The theater is only out $10.00. That does not justify a search unless you have reason to believe that a rule has been broken or is about to be broken.
Where is the consistent policy? Does EVERYBODY get searched or does theater management "cherry pick." Do you search all the time you are open for business or just on some nights? How do you decide when and when not to search? How do you decide who to search? Are the rules applied uniformly to everybody?
Where is notice given? When is notice given? Does the customer have the chance to be informed before he buys a ticket? How are you informing them? Is it just some fine print on the back of their ticket?
Yes, telling people that they must submit to a search IS coercion if they already bought a ticket and they weren't informed beforehand.
How do you know who is breaking the rules and who is not? How do you avoid incriminating people who are not breaking the rules? What do you do when you search somebody but they come up clean? Do you apologize or give them a free pass? What do you do if you catch somebody? Do you call the cops? Do you eject them? Do you give them the opportunity to leave the contraband snacks outside?
I'm not saying that searching is never permissible. I'm saying that, when you do search, you open up a whole series of questions which, if not answered correctly, can get you into a serious mess. You had better have a consistent policy in place which will stand up to scrutiny and you had better have a plan to deal with people who are breaking the rules worked out in advance.
Any law abiding citizen has the right to go on public property or on any publicly accessible property and proceed normally, without breaking any laws and not be subject to having his rights violated unless there is a compelling reason.
If you go against that right you had better have all your "I's" dotted and all your "T's" crossed or else you could be getting yourself and your company into a lot of trouble. I say it's not worth it. I suggest you rethink that policy. I think it would be better to teach your ushers to look for people who have sneaked in with food and bring them to management attention so that they may be warned not to bring in food again or be faced with being banned and given a trespass order.
If somebody at a theater tries to search me I will tell them, "No." I will keep on walking. I will go to the appointed theater. I will sit in a seat. I will watch my movie and, when it ends, I will go home." If somebody hassles me, I will tell them to leave me alone or call the police. If they can't prove that I did anything wrong except disobey some trumped up charge of trespassing it will be THEY who are in trouble and not me!
I don't bring food into theaters, I don't commit crimes, I never hurt anybody, I behave in a reasonably polite manner and I expect that people in a theater will treat me with respect.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-25-2010, 11:53 PM:
The only thing I have to say about trespassing after the fact is that my old building could do 4000-5000 people on a weekend, I cannot plausibly discern in a packed 300 seat auditorium if someone snuck food in, and the proof isnt that great. If I catch them at the door with it in their bag, its undeniable. Plus as you said "they need the opportunity to reject", they have that, twice actually. The posting is at box office and is fairly large, that we search large bags, packages, backpacks, they could refuse to buy a ticket. Also when they go to door and the cast member tells them the policy they can say "i'm not ok with that, id like a refund" and I'd give it to them no questions asked.
Plus my cast members are instructed not to touch the bag, they simply do a quick visual inspection where the customer opens the bag.
Mainly it is for weapons and other stuff, outside food/drink is bad if caught, but I can turn a blind eye. What I can't turn a blind eye to is kids bringing in sharpies, spraypaint, guns, etc.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-26-2010, 11:51 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Jim, you know that a terrorist isn't going to sneak chemical weapons into a theater in a knapsack.
During the Loews/AMC union debacle in chicago maybe ten years ago or so union members (who are now serving federal time) drove to theatres in other areas and used chemical agents mixed in large soda cups and left in auditoriums to terrorize the company and keep customers away.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-26-2010, 01:20 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Yes, telling people that they must submit to a search IS coercion if they already bought a ticket and they weren't informed beforehand.
Except for it not meeting the legal definition of coercion...
Coercion has to involve intimidation and/or threats. The request of the search itself doesn't involve either of those. The most they "threaten" you with is not allowing entry and intimidation would only occur if the representative of the business did something like hold a gun up to them or possibly stare the person down, neither of which automatically occur.
And I know you'll say "But you threaten them with calling the cops" and I say that only happens after the person refuses to exit the building upon request. The search request and any threat of calling police are separate things.
Oh and one more thing, no one tells them they must submit to a search. The option of not submitting to the search is still there.
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 03-26-2010, 06:13 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Jim, you know that a terrorist isn't going to sneak chemical weapons into a theater in a knapsack.
Aren't they? In the 1990s there were several theatres attacked with crude incendiary devices made from chlorine pellets and brake fluid, which, in addition to starting fires, released dangerous amounts of chlorine gas into the air. The building I was working in was one of the ones hit.
quote: Randy Stankey
for food and searching for terrorist weapons are two completely different things.
Actually, when we check we are looking mostly for weapons, alcohol and video equipment. Though if we see a bag of doritos, you will be asked to take them to your car.
quote: Randy Stankey
Where is notice given? When is notice given? Does the customer have the chance to be informed before he buys a ticket? How are you informing them? Is it just some fine print on the back of their ticket?
In our case it's a 3' tall sign that says bags are subject to visual inspection. Irregardless however, we don't have to post signs if we don't want to. We are under no legal obligation to lat in large bags, we do so at our - and only our - discresion. If that's a problem, take the bag to your car or we will be glad to give you a refund.
quote: Randy Stankey
Yes, telling people that they must submit to a search IS coercion if they already bought a ticket and they weren't informed beforehand.
To borrow a movie quote, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." In a legal sense that is not coercion.
quote: Randy Stankey
What do you do when you search somebody but they come up clean?
Well, again, search implies we are making them "assume the position" for a pat down. All we ask is that they open their bag for visual inspection. Afterwards, assuming there is nothing we don't want it, we thank them and tell them them to enjoy the movie.
quote: Randy Stankey
do you do if you catch somebody? Do you call the cops? Do you eject them? Do you give them the opportunity to leave the contraband snacks outside?
Well that would depend on what it is, wouldn't it?
quote:
If somebody at a theater tries to search me I will tell them, "No." I will keep on walking. I will go to the appointed theater. I will sit in a seat. I will watch my movie and, when it ends, I will go home." If somebody hassles me, I will tell them to leave me alone or call the police. If they can't prove that I did anything wrong except disobey some trumped up charge of trespassing it will be THEY who are in trouble and not me!
Well Randy, try that somewhere and tell me how it works out for ya.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-26-2010, 11:26 PM:
Of course, those home made incendiary devices were smuggled into the theater inside knapsacks or shopping bags. Right? They could have just as easily started those fires with a can of Zippo lighter fluid and a pack of matches stuffed into their pants. Couldn't they?
Wasn't there a union dispute in Rochester, NY where a bunch of guys brought air horns into the theater and set them off at random times? Did they bring them in bags too?
As per "Protective Security Law" (Inbau, Aspen & Spiotto) - Page 191:
quote:
A person commits intimidation when, with intent to cause another person to perform or omit the performance of any act, her communicated to another a threat to inflict physical harm, or to make a criminal accusation, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to bring about or continue a strike or boycott, etc.
Yes, simply telling somebody that you might call the police or subject them to criminal accusation if they don't do what you want is intimidation or coercion. You do not have to use threat of physical force or violence.
You do not have to jack somebody up against the wall to search them. Telling them to open their bags is and attempt to make a search. If you go through an anti-shoplifting gate at Wal-Mart, you are being searched. If somebody merely walks up behind you and peeks into your shopping bag, you are searching them because you are trying to see something that is not ordinarily visible. Now, if something falls out of that shopping bag or becomes plainly visible that is not a search. Searching merely means to look into something that a person has reasonable cause to believe is private.
And, yes, I have told store security that they can't search me.
I was walking out of a Borders bookstore and some guy came up to me and told me to open my bag. I asked, "Do you think I stole something?" He said, "No." I said, "Goodbye." and walked out the door. He called to me, "Don't come back here again!" I kept on walking and didn't say anything and didn't look back.
The very next day, I went back and bought the book which I had been looking at the day before. (I didn't have enough money to buy it before.) I saw the same guy. I smiled and waved as I left. All he could do is stare at me.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-26-2010, 11:34 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Yes, simply telling somebody that you might call the police or subject them to criminal accusation if they don't do what you want is intimidation or coercion. You do not have to use threat of physical force or violence.
I seem to remember saying something on this matter.
quote: Chris Slycord
The most they "threaten" you with is not allowing entry and intimidation would only occur if the representative of the business did something like hold a gun up to them or possibly stare the person down, neither of which automatically occur.
quote: Chris Slycord
And I know you'll say "But you threaten them with calling the cops" and I say that only happens after the person refuses to exit the building upon request. The search request and any threat of calling police are separate things.
See, the threat of criminal accusation ISN'T due to refusing the search.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-26-2010, 11:37 PM:
Okay, so standing there and saying "No" while ten other customers and two theater employees look on with contempt isn't coercive?
If a person has done nothing wrong you can not search them without a compelling reason and you can not coerce them to give up their rights simply by the fact that they set foot on your property.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-27-2010, 01:52 AM:
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/store-security-and-your-rights.aspx
This is what i've always assumed was true
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-27-2010, 02:29 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Okay, so standing there and saying "No" while ten other customers and two theater employees look on with contempt isn't coercive?
Didn't you read my post? I covered this already.
I said that if the staff member stares you down then that could easily be considered intimidation and coercive. But, that's a non-sequitur because you've been saying that merely requesting the search is coercive. Requesting a search isn't the same as requesting it, having the request denied, and responding in a coercive manner. From what I see, you're conflating those two scenarios.
Also, if you check your textbook description, it shows that a search is allowed when the visitor gives their explicit consent to the search. Now, doesn't it stand to reason that for one to obtain consent for a search they must ask for it? Again, requesting consent isn't the same as being forceful/intimidating when the request is denied.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-27-2010, 07:27 AM:
Okay, you can search. I never said you can't ever search. But when you do search you have to be careful. Very careful In fact, you have to be so careful that I recommend you don't do it at all. However, if you're going to search you need to know:
1) Your customers are your invited guests.
2) Just by walking onto your property, you can not require your guests to give up their right to privacy.
3) If you search, you need to give fair notice and you must give it before the customer buys a ticket. Fine print on the back of the ticket is not good enough and a sign in the box office window MIGHT be good enough but it also might NOT be good enough. That is something I can't answer. You will have to check that out for yourself.
4) When you search, you need to have consistent policy in place. You can't just cherry pick. You must apply that policy fairly at all times when you search. You need to scrupulously avoid the appearance of discrimination. You need to be clear on what you are searching for.
5) You need to realize that, as an employee of the establishment, you ARE in a position of authority and you CAN coerce people into doing something that they wouldn't ordinarily do. Simply requesting a person to open their bag could be considered to be coercive.
6) If you find something you need to be clear on how to proceed. It would be a good idea to give the customer an "out." Let them have a chance to take the items out of the theater and return empty handed. You need to be clear when you are going to call police or building security. You need to be clear whether you are going to eject somebody and when.
7) You need to be prepared to defend yourself if or when somebody challenges you in court and you can't just say, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." Just one lawsuit can be disastrous to your bottom line EVEN IF YOU WIN THE CASE. You should probably consult with an expert to help you devise a policy and a defense in case of a problem.
I'm telling you this shit is tricky! It is so tricky that your average usher or assistant theater manager probably shouldn't try it unless he has been trained in how to do it. As you know, it's tricky enough to train a high school student to pop popcorn, let alone train them on civil liability.
I have had training in civil liability and I won't search people unless I have a damn good reason... Like I think they have a weapon that they might try to use against me.
Do you even realize that simply standing between a customer and the exit could be considered an arrest if there is a size disparity between you and the customer? If you give somebody who hasn't done anything to break the law the impression that they aren't free to leave the premises, that's an "arrest." If you don't understand that you could find yourself in JAIL! I am not joking!
If you still want to search people, go ahead. Be my guest. But don't say I didn't warn you!
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-27-2010, 10:54 AM:
When they searched people at the Boston Common they posted signs at the doors that any bags/packages would be subject to search. The security staff never actually touched anyone or thier property they asked people to open thier bags/packages and to remove anything that was obstructing thier view. If someone did not want to open thier bag they were given the option of returning thier bag to the car and coming in without it.
I see Randy's point that you cannot randomly pick people out and frisk them without warning and if they refuse call the cops on them. But a standard policy applied to everyone evenly with plenty of warning, no hands on searches, and the option to return items to thier car should be ok.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-27-2010, 02:52 PM:
I had two classes in liability from the same teacher. One was at Northeastern. The other was at the hotel I worked at as a security officer. My boss was friends with the teacher. (Bates) He brought Bates in to teach a two day seminar on liability every year or so in order to keep the hotel's ass out of hot water. That's where I got hollered at for chasing after that guy with a trunk full of hotel stuff.
There was a lot of hollering and arguing in these classes. It was a lot like the discussion we are having here. There were people lining up on both sides of the aisle, so to speak.
We had to read a lot of briefs on cases involving civil liability and there was a lot of way out shit that happened in them. Like a said, a guard locked a lady in a closet. Another time a guard almost strangled a man when he reached out and grabbed at him but only got his hands around his scarf. There was a case where a six foot tall guard ran up to an old lady and shouted "Stop!" then stood between her and the door. That was the guard who got sued for false arrest because the size disparity between the two of them made her feel like she was not free to leave.
People will pull a lot of f-ed up stuff on you and the least little misstep could get you into trouble. It's bad enough when people sue for silly little "slip and fall" issues, let alone false arrest and unlawful search. Even if you win the case, you could end up paying thousands in attorney's fees. That could sink your business right there.
If you have a good policy in place and your people are trained, limited searches can be done but you are toying with fire if you're not damn careful.
The bottom line is that it is not wise to search anybody unless you "know" that they have done something wrong or you have good reason to believe that they pose a threat.
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 03-27-2010, 04:54 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Of course, those home made incendiary devices were smuggled into the theater inside knapsacks or shopping bags. Right? They could have just as easily started those fires with a can of Zippo lighter fluid and a pack of matches stuffed into their pants. Couldn't they?
Given the amount of materials that were used on the attack in the building I was working it, it very well may have been smuggled in inside a bag. And a zippo or matches being used to set a trash can or seat on fire does not have the added effect of filling the theatre with chlorine gas.
quote: Randy Stankey
Yes, simply telling somebody that you might call the police or subject them to criminal accusation if they don't do what you want is intimidation or coercion.
Really? So when I ask a person to leave, and they refuse, thereby committing the crime of tresspassing, I am intimidating them when I summon law enforcement?
quote: Randy Stankey
If a person has done nothing wrong you can not search them without a compelling reason and you can not coerce them to give up their rights simply by the fact that they set foot on your property.
You have no right to bring a large bag into my building. Period. If you would like me to allow you to do so, I have to visually verify that there is not something inside of said bag that I do not want in my building. If those terms are unacceptable to you, you may not bring said bag into my building. My checking you bag does not violate your rights in any way, because it is a consentual check. If you do not consent, I don't inspect the bag and you can return it to your car. There is no privacy issue here.
Further, this is a far different scenario to an employee demanding to see your bag when you are exiting, or chasing someone down the parking lot and demanding to see what's in their suitcase.
quote: Randy Stankey
Simply requesting a person to open their bag could be considered to be coercive.
Um, no... Pulling a weapon and demanding they open it would be coercive. Saying, "we cannot allow in large bags without visualing inspecting the contents, can you show us what's inside or return the bag to your vehicle please?" is not, in any way, shape, or form coercive. Any lawyer who tries to argue it is will find himself laughed out of court.
quote: Randy Stankey
If you find something you need to be clear on how to proceed. It would be a good idea to give the customer an "out."
The out is returning the item to their car. I doubt you will find any theatre that insists on searching a bag even if the customer wants to take it out of the building.
quote: Randy Stankey
I have had training in civil liability and I won't search people unless I have a damn good reason...
I have a BS in Criminal Justice... 4th Amendment issues were pounded into my head in just about every course.
quote: Randy Stankey
We had to read a lot of briefs on cases involving civil liability and there was a lot of way out shit that happened in them. Like a said, a guard locked a lady in a closet. Another time a guard almost strangled a man when he reached out and grabbed at him but only got his hands around his scarf. There was a case where a six foot tall guard ran up to an old lady and shouted "Stop!" then stood between her and the door. That was the guard who got sued for false arrest because the size disparity between the two of them made her feel like she was not free to leave.
Gotta love private security...
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-28-2010, 03:59 PM:
quote: Manny Montes
Also when they go to door and the cast member tells them the policy
what, huh? do you work in live theater?
quote: Jim Ziegler
The out is returning the item to their car.
do you provide a car for those who didn't bring one?
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 03-29-2010, 12:02 AM:
"Cast member" is Regal-speak for employee.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-29-2010, 12:06 AM:
yeah, cast member = floor staff
and as for the car, they can leave it at customer service with a manager if they didn't bring a car
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-29-2010, 11:04 AM:
quote: Manny Montes
they can leave it at customer service with a manager if they didn't bring a car
imho this is bad policy. Holding items for guests can back fire big time if something comes up "missing" also if the security check is being performed for "safety" then keeping an unchecked bag in the building is a bad idea because it could have (the very remote possibility of having) an explosive device. I would just let them bring it to thier car.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-29-2010, 11:39 AM:
quote: Emma Tomiak
"Cast member" is Regal-speak for employee.
Just like "Film Crew" is the same thing for AMC.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2