Is this even LEGAL?

[Connonym]

14 year old daughter just called, she and her 2 friends are being held by mall security for -- get this -- being teenagers with no ID. Her dad's at the mall too but let the older kids go do their shopping while he took our younger daughter to a different store. He doesn't have a cell phone so they have to wait for him to figure out to look for her in the security department. The kids aren't accused of doing anything wrong -- no shoplifting, no shenanigans, just being unaccompanied by a parent and having no ID. Maybe I'm as naive as all fuck but it's 5:30 in the afternoon, there's not a curfew in effect, the kids are doing nothing but spending the fucking gift cards they got for Xmas and they're being detained by rent-a-cops for not having ID? Is that even legal? She thinks it's hilarious but as a parent I'm thinking how fucking panicked I'd be when my daughter doesn't meet me at the food court at the designated time. Holy fuck, life has changed a lot since I was a kid. I've been nagging my ex to get a cell phone for emergencies, now maybe he'll finally agree.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. It's private property

So they can probably do anything they want. Did she say why the security people asked for their IDs in the first place?

Oh and yes, if this was my kid, I would be enraged.

[Critters2]

4. You can't do anything you want on private property.

In fact, the fact that it's private property and they're not cops raises more questions. How is this not illegal imprisonment? You and I can't go around grabbing people and not letting them go. Neither can these guys.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I would hope not

But I know if you call the cops from a store or a parking lot to report a minor crime they won't come because it is private property.

I saw two women having a fist fight in a grocery store parking lot one time and called the cops but they wouldn't come since it was private property and I wasn't the property owner. Another time I got hit in a store parking lot and called the cops and they wouldn't come - same reason.

[Critters2]

25. Your cops aren't doing their job. Contact your city council membe.r

Most crimes are committed on private property, obviously. Cops aren't only hired to police public property. We have library security for that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. Both situations happened too long ago to do anything about now

[rocktivity]

96. DING DING DING! Mycritters2, you're our grand prize winner!

You and I can't go around grabbing people and not letting them go.

If the store doesn't like the idea of people being underaged, unaccompanied and without ID, they should be escorted from the premises. It IS unlawful imprisonment.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Kutjara]

6. Private property has nothing to do with it.

Kidnapping is kidnapping, no matter where it's done. I'd be tempted to prosecute the store for unlawful imprisonment. They detained the OP's children for no reason. That's a crime, as far as I can tell. There may even be some "child-specific" legislation that could get the store manager or rent-a-thug put on some register or other as an offender against children. That would just be icing on the cake.

[PeaceNikki]

7. She said in the OP that they contacted her.

This mall has VERY strict rules re: teenagers and has them here: http://www.mayfairmall.com/Mallcoupons/mayfair_pgr.pdf and posted all over every entrance.

[Kutjara]

12. I amended my post to delete that after I noticed.

The guidelines you linked to do not give the mall power to detain minors. They only have the power to ask unaccompanied minors to leave the property. Also, no contract can be made that gives someone the right to commit a crime, and detention without cause is a crime.

[redwitch]

22. I think it's wrong all teenagers are treated as criminals because of the few

I think the kids should boycott. They are the ones with money to burn, the mall would miss them if they stayed away in droves. And they should start a LTTE campaign.

[PeaceNikki]

26. It's been in the works and on the news for a LONG time now.

Google Mayfair Mall teenagers

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS241US241&q=mayfair+mall+teenagers

[Kutjara]

28. Just replace "kids" with "latinos" or "black people" and it's easy to...

...see this policy for what it is: pure discrimination.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

80. Ah, yes, I saw a story on the news a while back

Some malls are limiting teen access on Friday and Saturday evenings because the gangs of teens roaming the malls discourage adults from shopping.

I don't know of any mall in my area that has resorted to that yet.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Sounds like kidnapping to me

But something tells me they will wiggle out of it.

[PeaceNikki]

10. Overreact much?

This mall has VERY strict rules regarding teenagers. They've had a LOT of problems. The rules are here: http://www.mayfairmall.com/Mallcoupons/mayfair_pgr.pdf and they contacted the kid's mom.

Relax.

[Kutjara]

14. Yeah, Relax. It's only private companies...

...imposing private laws on people. Nothing to be concerned about there. After all, corporations always have our best interests at heart.

[PeaceNikki]

15. The mall's rules are very clear. The kids were not with an adult.

Security took the kids and called a parent.

Yes, the rules are stupid - but it's their mall. And they've had A LOT of problems.

[Kutjara]

They had no right to detain the kids, even by their own rules.

They only had the right to ask the kids to leave. In this case, they overstepped their own authority and have thereby exposed themselves to criminal and civil liability.

The excuse that the mall have had "a lot of problems" with kids to justify the exclusion policy only opens the mall to a discrimination suit. Just replace "kids" with "black people" or any other group and you can see likely this policy is to hold up in court.

[PeaceNikki]

30. I am sure they took the kids to contact a parent and the decision was made to hold them

there and wait for dad rather than kick them out into the single digit cold.

They contacted a parent. Relax.

I hate that the rules are the way they are there. This has been in the news and an ongoing issue in the area.

See - Google "Mayfair Mall teenagers"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS241US241&q=mayfair+mall+teenagers

[Kutjara]

39. There are always good reasons for fascism.

"To protect the people," "to defend our children," "to keep the race pure." It doesn't matter what reason is given, the actions speak for themselves.

Private individuals detaining other private individuals in the absence of the narrowly-defined circumstances that justify a "citizen's arrest" is a crime. Any number of phonecalls to the children's parent do not erase that crime. If I walked out of a shop with unpaid-for merchandise and then called the shop to tell them where they could collect the goods, I would still be guilty of theft. The call might mitigate the punishment, but that is all.

[Critters2]

29. Mall rules don't supersede laws. No private citizen has the right

to hold another person against their will.

Defer to the corporations much?

[PeaceNikki]

32. I am sure they took the kids to contact a parent and the decision was made to hold them

RE.LAX.

[Connonym]

35. no actually security didn't call me, one of the girls had a cell phone and they called me on that

I got no call from security at all. Her dad has them and obviously they haven't been harmed or anything but I still see this as a horrible violation of civil rights.

[PeaceNikki]

37. Well, that's shitty. Totally shitty. Security should have called you.

[struggle4progress]

110. Whatever happened to teenage rebellion? If anyone had tried to detain me

or my friends around age 14 without an actual charge or real legal authority, we wouldn't have cooperated: we would all have shown our pockets on demand to prove we weren't shoplifting, but an attempt to detain us for "failure to produce ID" would have gotten a "THAT'S not a crime! We're outta here! Goodbye!" and a determined stroll towards the exit

Perhaps times have changed -- but lots of teenagers during the late sixties and early seventies took advantage of every opportunity to learn about dealing with "The Man"

[Connonym]

112. I've been coaching her on that

She's got a mouth on her and I've previously instructed her what she's to do in the event of encountering recruiters at school or if she gets sent to the principal's office for being political but it never occurred to me to tell her how to deal with mall security. Turns out that she wasn't sure that they didn't have tasers they'd use on her. She has now been coached on her rights in this regard and should anything like this happen again she'll be better prepared to exercise her rights.

[leeroysphitz]

63. Since my home is private property and I have signs on my front and back

doors which state very clearly that I reserve the right to detain any minor unaccompanied by an adult who enters I don't need to worry about having any criminal or civil actions taken against me if I start keeping the paper boy etc... in my basement. That's good to know. Thanks. :sarc:

[LibraLiz1973]

72. SECURITY TOOK THE KIDS

You have no problem with that? Because I do

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Is there a Circuit City at this mall?

:evilgrin:

[Kutjara]

19. LOL!

Maybe we can get two flamewars going for the price of one. :hi:

[PeaceNikki]

20. No. It's Circuit City Free.

But there is a Cinnabon!!

[no name no slogan]

49. I heard there's an Applebee's though...

Or is it an Olive Garden?

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. LOL

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Did she call you or something and give you more details?

Her post said "14 year old daughter just called".

Well silly me, I assumed that meant her daughter called.

And if my kid was being held by security I would be slightly pissed off.

[PeaceNikki]

18. She also said that the dad is there.

The dad should have seen the rules when he brought the kids to the mall. He didn't or didn't take them seriously.

[Critters2]

21. I looked at the link to the rules. Doesn't say kids will be held

against their will. Private citizens don't have that right. Not yet.

[PeaceNikki]

23. I am sure they took the kids to contact a parent and the decision was made to hold them

there and wait for dad rather than kick them out into the single digit cold.

They contacted a parent. Relax.

[krispos42]

62. They can't make the decision to hold them

Not in this case. The security people can give them a choice between leaving immediately or waiting in the security office until a ride come to pick them up, but they cannot be detained without a crime to hold them. And even then it's only until the cops show up.

The teens have the right to walk out of that security office anytime they want to, but if they exercise that right, they have to keep walking right off the property. Rent-a-cops can't do anything more than that.

[GirlinContempt]

86. THey didn't contact her mother

and I'm sure the mall has a PA system, most do, so finding her dad shouldn't be that hard.

[Gormy Cuss]

89. You keep repeating "Relax," as if this is normal behavior.

It's not, no matter how many signs are posted. Detaining teens for merely being IN the mall without an adult? Asking them for ID when their only offense is shopping unaccompanied? Sorry, but neither is time to relax. It's time to raise Cain. As others have said, the mall security can escort them from the building, but anything beyond that is over the top for the "offense."

[PeaceNikki]

90. Please see my post #88 that explains where I am coming from.

[Gormy Cuss]

91. I did. It doesn't change where I'm coming from.

You may feel free to relax. I don't. If well behaved teens are unaccompanied in a mall where some pinheads have decided to ban all teens for the actions of few, the only acceptable recourse is escorting them from the mall. Period.

on edit: the mall may be within its rights to establish such a policy but if enough customers complained, it would change. If instead they relax, the mall owners are emboldened to enact other restrictions.

How about no one is allowed in the mall without showing ID and a valid credit card, because after all if you don't have those on your person you probably aren't planning to spend a lot of money -- heck, shoplifters don't carry ID or credit cards so best to keep all meeting that profile out of the mall.

[PeaceNikki]

92. There are a LOT of malls across the country that are enforcing these rules.

It's not uncommon. It's, dare I say... almost "normal behavior" these days.

[Gormy Cuss]

94. See revised post.

It's only becoming more common because unaffected shoppers think it's no big deal. Wait until it affects them.

FWIW, if I see signs at a mall entrance restricting unaccompanied minors, I assume the mall doesn't have adequate security and is too cheap to pay for it.

[1monster]

33. As I posted below, our rinky dink (and I use that adjective advisedly) mall

implemented a similar policy.

The public and the store owners protested loudly, to very little effect.

Until, that is, a couple of store owners who relied heavily on the teen age demographic, got a law firm who threatened to sue the mall operator for changing the rules mid lease putting their businesses in jeopard of bankruptsy.

The damage was done though. I haven't gone to that mall since, except for a movie (one of the businesses that threatened to sue). The mall businesses lost loads of sales.

The whole thing was ridiculous because the new operating company was trying to get much higher traffic through the mall. It hadn't being do well for years due to competition from bigger malls with better prices.

And the kids hadn't been causing problems.

[PeaceNikki]

36. We did have problems at this mall. Lots.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS241US241&q=mayfair+mall+teenagers

It's been ongoing for a long time. They've actually relaxed the rules a lot in past months.

[rug]

53. Rule 3 states they will be asked to leave. Doesn't authorize detaining them.

[PeaceNikki]

54. This is Wisconsin. In late December.

Seriously. Think about that.

[rug]

56. Seriously. They should have let them stay.

They chose to commit a crime instead of a tort. I'm not impressed.

[rug]

52. Private property doesn't permit you to restrain invitees.

[WinkyDink]

81. Segregationists thought this, too. It ain't necessarily so.

[Critters2]

2. I honestly doubt that it is legal. Even cops can't detain you

without a reason--at least not for long. Or at least not before the Patriot Act. Why would rent-a-cops be able to? My suggestion? Threaten to call a lawyer.

[LeftyMom]

3. And you're not on your way to the mall?

If some random adult thought they could hold onto my kid for no good reason I'd go straighten that shit out. :shrug:

[Connonym]

31. I offered to come get them

but she told me to hang tight here to see if her dad calls here. Just got off the phone with him and he's got them and, as PeaceNikki said, there are signs posted all over the mall that kids aren't allowed unaccompanied after 3 or something. I tend to avoid malls whenever possible so I wasn't aware of this. I'm still upset by it and sure as hell won't be giving that mall any of my business in the future. Too reminiscent of false imprisonment for my liberal ass. Further proof that malls are evil anyway. I'm just relieved that her dad figured it out. What a fucking world

[PeaceNikki]

34. It's totally shitty that they got caught up in this.

Dad should have read the signs and taken it seriously.

Mayfair does NOT fuck around with these rules.

[Critters2]

38. Dad should have...?!

Yeah, how dare people go shopping. That'll teach him!

[PeaceNikki]

40. Yes, he should have read the signs that are posted on every door there.

[Kutjara]

45. Well, if the signs are similar to the PDF you linked...

...the mall may even be in violation of their own rules. The PDF says that children must be "supervised" by an adult guardian while at the mall. That could be read to mean only that a responsible adult need be in the same mall as the children. No mention is made as to how proximate the adult must be to the children.

In this case, the children's father was at the mall and had given them permission to shop as they did. That sounds like "supervision" to me. I can see at least four actionable criminal offenses and three torts here.

Forget petitions, this is a class-action suit just begging for a contingency-fee ambulance-chaser to smell blood.

[PeaceNikki]

55. Actually, it says "accompanied by"

"Visitors 17 years of age and younger are required to be
accompanied by a parent or supervising adult age 21 or older
on Friday and Saturday after 3 pm."

That's subject to far less interpretation than "supervised".

[WinkyDink]

82. Who says this is legal?

[havocmom]

57. Posting a sign DOES NOT give rent a cops the right to hold people

Some private security companies are NOT careful about the people they hire. Young teens in custody of god knows who. Gee, what if Mom missed the call? Amber Alert waiting to happen.

Hope the businesses in the mall get a leash on the security or go belly up. It is irresponsible to allow private police to imprison. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Don't want un-escorted teens? Post people at the door and don't let them in. If kids and parent split up while shopping, a simple foot patrol with instructions to take teens to a specific door and let them stay just inside (out of the weather) and in full public view for everyone's safety or let the kids go outside.

Holding them in a room out of view? I would think any sane security person would understand the danger there. And the kids should be in view to protect them from any insane security person (and, yes, there are some of those out there)

[PeaceNikki]

5. Which mall?

Mayfair?

They have very strict rules and require a parent be with teenagers after 3 PM.

It's here: http://www.mayfairmall.com/Mallcoupons/mayfair_pgr.pdf and posted all over ther entrances now.

[Omphaloskepsis]

11. The kids or you need to call 911 and get real cops there.

Why you are sitting around posting about this is kinda confusing me. You might want to figure out a way to get to the mall.

[Connonym]

43. why I'm sitting around posting is that her dad is already AT the mall

I've just gotten off the phone with him and he's got the girls. If her dad hadn't been there I would have been out of the house in a flash. My kids don't get dropped at the mall unaccompanied to loiter but I would have never suspected you couldn't let them walk out of your sight without them being detained.

[PeaceNikki]

44. Or perhaps they could have accompanied them to go find/meet dad?

That's silly that they didn't do that since dad was there.

[Omphaloskepsis]

84. Well your OP said he didn't have a phone with him..

It also makes it sound like the kids have a phone.. And they called you.

[Connonym]

106. one of her friends had a cell phone, yeah

fortunately because the mall security refused to let them use their phone. She told me not to come pick her up as it was a 45 minute drive to the mall and she had a scheduled meet up time with her dad (who, as I said, was in the mall the whole time) and he got to her before I could have made the trip out there. I still think what the mall did was wrong but I wasn't concerned for her physical harm as I had spoken to her on the phone and was able to call them back and was, in fact, talking to her on the phone as her dad got there. What I hadn't known at the time was that they had already been detained for over an hour before they thought to call me. Needless to say, this has been thoroughly discussed as to A) we're not going to that mall again B) if a similar situation should occur what her rights would be and what she should do and C) She and her dad will both be getting cell phones and D) I'll be talking to the ACLU after the holiday.

The mall security acted like jerks and I think they need to refine their policy because even a freaking criminal gets to make a phone call but, as PeaceNikki said, throwing them out into the cold Wisconsin night wouldn't have been good.

[1monster]

13. Our local rinky dink mall has banned anyone under the age of eighteen

from being in the mall without a parent or designated adult with them. They don't put in a holding cell or in the mall security office.

They put them outside the mall.

They apparently don't care too much about the safety of the kids even though that is one of their excuses for their policy.

They say they are trying to promot "family values." :eyes:

[Deja Q]

24. What are so many kids doing bad that's ruining it for everyone else?

I know the Mall of America (once rechristened "Maul of America") put in policies due to a high volume of crimes committed by unruly children... and, yeah, it's a shame everyone has to pay. We're still a society... at least, in theory.

Outside the mall is a stupid solution, especially if kidnapping is a concern...

Last I recall, from teenage years and later, hanging out with family was deemed nerdy, geeky, sweeby, lame, retarded, et cetera, by teenagers. Of course, that was 11 years ago, but still...

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. In all fairness, there is a mall here that I never go to because of the kids running wild

Also a couple movie theaters.

When my kids were teenagers, I never once took them to a mall and dropped them off to hang out. But apparently many parents do that.

[1monster]

47. The kids were not a problem. It was an outside operating company that decided to "promote family

values and togetherness."

I've always found shopping is better as an single pursuit. In fact, I urge my fifteen year old to go somewhere else when I'm shopping because it irritates the heck out of me to have a nonstop talker shadowing (or cutting me off) me.

He's a good kid. As are most of the kids I know.

[Left Is Write]

58. What about the kids who WORK at the mall?

They can't go down to the food court on their break (for example) without fear of being hassled by security?

[PeaceNikki]

59. The mall in the OP issues employee IDs

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=588284
1 way around mall's no-kid rule: Work

[Left Is Write]

60. Thank you, but I was actually asking about the mall 1monster was referencing.

[1monster]

67. Small mall. Very small mall built in the early seventies when it was the only

mall within fifty miles. It might have 20 stores, but not all store fronts are in use. It did a hopping big business in the old days, and there were loads of kids who worked there.

Now, if they have kids working there, I'm sure everyone knows who they are... And there is no food court. Just one pizza restaurant.

[Deep13]

27. Kinda sounds like kidnapping.

Never heard of that before.

[JanMichael]

46. It shouldn't be but the psuedo liberals will argue that it's "private property".

Which is a pretty lame argument when it comes to the treatment of people.

[Critters2]

50. Most crimes are committed on private property.

How is that an excuse?

How many crimes are committed on public property--parks, libraries, government buildings, etc? Some, no doubt, but police aren't limited to working in those spaces.

[Kutjara]

68. I'm constantly amazed at the so-called liberals who...

...suddenly turn neocon the minute the sacred phrase "private property" is uttered. Those two little words excuse all manner of excesses and illegalities. Of course, this is exactly what the government and the corporations want. The overwhelming majority of public life now takes place on "private property." In future, as our roads, bridges, parks, and, ultimately, city streets are "privatized," there will be no public land left. If we allow corporations to effectively create and enforce their own laws on their property, we may as well throw out whatever legal rights we currently have, since they'll be worthless.

The law is supposed to apply equally to all, and to supersede private agreements with which it is in conflict (i.e. you can't enforce a contract that allows you to beat someone up, even with their consent). Companies can put up any signs they like, but if those signs conflict with basic legal rights, they aren't worth the price of the signboard and paint.

[Scooter24]

69. That's ridiculous...

As an owner of a successful private business, I have every right to set policies which may or may not take away your rights even if my doors are open to the public. Your right to own a firearm does not give you any right to bring it onto my property. Your right to have an animal does not give you the right to have one on my property. Your right to free speech does not give you the right to say what you want when you want on my property. Your right to free association does not give you the right to protest on my property.

So yeah, come tell me that my signs are worthless and ignore my rules, you'll find yourself charged with criminal trespassing.

[Kutjara]

70. So you can put up signs proclaiming your right to detain people...

...without cause? Or take their property? Or assault them? Hey, it's your property, you can do what you want, right? Good luck keeping your business if you decide to test that theory.

And, as for trying to charge someone to whom you've granted an implied license to enter your premises with criminal trespass, you might find you're the one who's charged...with wasting police time.

You know all those signs saying, "the management reserves the right to refuse..." and "the management accepts no responsibility for loss or injury..."? Worthless. The only reason they're effective is because most people don't know their rights.

[Scooter24]

73. You're reaching

Taking property and assault are criminal and is not what I was talking about. And I wouldn't detain anyone, I'd ask them politely to leave, then call the police if they refuse.

However, I do restrict all animals (except service animals) and firearms from the property as well as prevent kids from skateboarding and playing on my parking lots and loading zones. My receptionist will also ask any person entering the building without proper attire to leave. And frankly, I have every right to refuse my services to anyone. If someone couldn't afford my $400/hr. fee, we probably won't even be talking face to face.

[Kutjara]

74. What you were talking about...

...was your supposed right to enforce whatever capricious edicts you dream up, just because your business premises are "private property." What I was pointing out is that you don't have as many rights as you think you do.

The law varies by type of business, of course. If you're running a corner shop, for example, you really can't refuse service without good reason. You can't exclude liability for loss or injury to customers on your premises (which is why liability insurance costs form such a large proportion of retail businesses' budgets). You can't exclude people legally carrying firearms (unless the law explicitly allows such grounds). Pets are a different matter, due to their potential to cause damage and (allegedly) spread disease to food, and there are specific laws entitling businesses to exclude them.

If you're running a business-to-business company or providing professional services of some kind, then you're not granting an implied license the same way retail premises or restaurants are. The ubiquity of controlled-entry systems and/or reception desks in such businesses underlines the fact that license to enter is granted on a case by case basis. So, while you may be well within your rights to impose entry conditions on your clients, general retailers are not.

Of course, if I were paying $400/hour for professional services, I wouldn't expect to see "no shirt/no shoes: no service" or "no pets" signs all over the office, either. Rather lowers the tone, dontcha think?

[hoozyorsugadaddy]

48. police state is here

[krispos42]

61. Call the cops

Tell them that your teenage daughters have been kidnapped.

Maybe mall security would like to face down a SWAT team.

[dembotoz]

64. must be mayfair

they have really gone nuts with rules and regulations concerning kids and the local right wing radio stations cheered them on like they were chasing osama.

I would say that i stopped going there but since i very rarely stepped foot in a mall, my protest is mute.

remember the good old days when people had rights?

[Connonym]

75. Yup it's Mayfair

I rarely go to malls myself and I was really unaware that this was a problem. Her dad, on the other hand, is a right wing mega-dittos sort of guy so if it's been all over Mark Behling I find it hard to believe he wasn't aware of it.

I guess I spend too much time on DU hanging out with reasonable people and not enough time in real life ass backwards Wisconsin.

[Rabrrrrrr]

65. Nope. Call them back and tell them to leave - they can't be held legally.

As they leave, if the rent-a-cop fascists try to keep them, tell your daughter to say "I'll have my lawyer call you tomorrow if it's really that much of an issue. He'll discuss with you the exciting financial award that's coming my way if you continue to kidnap me, but I'm hoping that I'll walk out of here without me needing to resort to calling my lawyer. Thank you."

[GoddessOfGuinness]

66. That's terrible!

I don't know if it's legal or not, but if it is, it shouldn't be. If I were you, I'd consider writing a letter to the local paper, and possibly picketing the mall. I definitely would not shop there until they stop profiling teens.

[sasquatch]

71. Call a lawyer and sue their tits off

[alphafemale]

76. Some malls don't allow unaccompanied minors under a certain age.

That may be part of it.

[Connonym]

79. what's the exact definition of unaccompanied though?

her dad was at the mall the whole time but they had split up because for reasons unclear (lol) he didn't want to go to Hot Topic with 3 14 year old girls.

[HEyHEY]

100. Still doesn't me you can hold them... just ask them to leave

[alphafemale]

111. But they'd be liable if they kicked the kids off the property and something awful happened to them.

This is an issue that will probably have to be settled in court at some point.

The mall owners are really between a rock and a hard place.

I really think most young teens seem to be better behaved of their predecessors of a 10-15 years ago when malls started adopting these policies. In our area mall they got to be a serious problem with stealing and just general meanness where they'd knock people over for sport. So malls adopted these policies where they allowed no kids under a certain age PERIOD. Yeah, it was guilt by association, but it's not the mall's job to babysit, disipline or even entertain offspring of the irresponsible in the first place.

And it turned out that's what some people were doing. They'd drop there kid off at the mall on the way to work. (or send the kid on the bus there) and pick them up on the way home.

Just kicking the kids off the property seems like a bad idea too. And for the worst of the offenders from a few years ago the kids would just come back in from a different entrance. And then act up even worse, out for pure spite. And if a kid was booted out and got hurt, the mall would also be liable.

Holding a kid in a safe spot until a parent can pick them up, when someone has placed them in the unwanted position of being in loco parentis, is probably better than kicking a minor to the streets.

[reformedrepub]

77. As an LEO

Sadly it is. Its private property and the have the right to refuse service/entry to anyone they want.

[Connonym]

78. Granted it's the middle of winter and pretty farking cold but does their right to refuse service

include the right to detain them? I wouldn't want them kicking her out into the cold weather. I suppose the alternative would be to call the police and have the police take them into custody which would be an even bigger mess but... I don't know. And the kicker is that they weren't loitering, they had been spending their Xmas money and my ex was at the mall the whole time. They weren't dropped off and loitering. They were actively shopping. I'm just gobbsmacked.

[WinkyDink]

83. THEY DO NOT. That is EXACTLY what sit-ins in the 50's and 60's were all about.

However, a law ostensibly to protect minors may squeak by, even if it is really to "protect" elders from the minors.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

105. This could involve the tort of false imprisonment

A private property owner, such as a shopkeeper has a privilege to detain someone for a reasonable period of time in a reasonable manner when they have good cause to believe that shoplifting has occurred. However, in most other situations such as this one, where there's no suspicion of a crime, they risk committing the civil wrong of false imprisonment, which could also involve criminal charges. The fact that it occurs on private property is of no consequence. A private property owner does not have a universal right to detain someone for even one second of time when there's no suspicion of any wrongding in their establishment.

[rug]

85. Malls are not spider webs. They cannot wrap up whoever wanders in because it's private property.

It is open to the public, all there are business invitees, subject only to the conditions of the invitation, which does not include detention.

And I am not an LEO, although I have the pleasure of cross-examining them from time to time.

[Scooter24]

87. ...

Private businesses have a right to refuse service or restrict entry if it serves a legitimate business interest. That interest might be arbitrary, but underage children are not a federally protected class under the Civil Rights Act.

The right of public accommodation is not prohibited in cases where a company enacts rules and regulations in its interest to protect its property from damage and provide security to minors.

The way I see it, the parents of these kids are lucky their children and parents weren't escorted out the door.

[rug]

95. They could have escorted them out and been sued if they froze.

But they detained them instead with no contractual or constitutional basis. They fucked up.

[Scooter24]

98. Actually,

liability would fall on the parents because they are the irresponsible party involved. But we are here arguing the point that the security officers actually cared enough not to place them out in the cold.

Back when I was in HS, I flew down with my parents to visit a family friend for a few days. It was my spring break, however, local schools were still in session. I was shopping downtown and got picked up by a police officer because I had no ID on me and was thought to be skipping school. I was taken to the school and had to call my parents to come get me. Sure my parents and I were pissed but the situation wasn't illegal.

Most here would like to think the only option available is to just let the kids run free because it's their "right." You can't detain them against their will, that's illegal; You can't stick them out in the cold, you'll get sued! It appears to be a no-win situation for businesses, at least that's the impression shared by you and many others.

The OP has every right to be concerned, I would be if I was a parent, but I'm not going to fault the mall for enacting policies to curb disturbances and crime on their property.

[rug]

101. Their policies are poorly drafted.

If these kids were unwilling to go with security, security had no authority to force them. All they can legally do is tell them to leave.

This stupid unescorted policy simply needs to include a section stating where unescorted minors can stay until their escort arrives.

No one on this thread knows whether the mall fell into cop mode and illegally detained them or whether they offered these kids a choice between waiting in security or leaving.

[Connonym]

107. they weren't offered a choice

"I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to come with me" was what the rentacop said to them and showed them where to wait. I asked my daughter if she was told that she could leave the mall and she said that option wasn't given to her but that it would have been dumb to go wait out in the cold with no keys to the car. I think their policy is very poorly drafted. They didn't stop the kids from making cell phone calls but they wouldn't let them use the mall phone to call, they refused to page her father more than 1 time (and as stated, he was at the mall the whole time), they didn't tell the kids that they were free to leave the mall (not that it would have been wise in the cold). Other kids who were detained had cell phones and were able to call their parents, who also had cell phones, and were immediately picked up. My kid didn't call me right away, doesn't herself have a cell phone nor does her dad have a cell phone. Even when you're under arrest the cops let you use a phone and don't expect you to have a cell phone at your disposal. I guess one answer is that my daughter and her dad will be getting cell phones but even so, I think the mall policy sucks.

[PeaceNikki]

88. OK, I want to respond one last time to everyone in here who's jumped down my throat,

questioned my position as a "liberal", accused me of being a corporate sympathizer, etc.

First let me clarify that I consider the OP to be a FABULOUS person. Someone who I've met in real life. I consider her a friend.

Secondly I am of the strong opinion that the words "detain" and "held" have been serious overreactions. I speak from experience with the exact mall in question and as a mother of a teenager. Also, living in the area has given me a lot of media exposure with regards to both the problems this mall has had and the decision made with regards to its "Parental Escort Policy".

Calling it "detaining" or saying SECURITY TOOK THE KIDS is a very serious overreaction. I can guarantee you that security would have escorted them off of mall property at ANY point. But again - late December in WI, probably not the wisest move while dad is in the mall. I also believe that if the child did not have a cell phone to call mom, security would have allowed her to call someone.

I cannot speak definitively on this exact situation. However, I would bet dollars to donuts that it went something like this:

* Security sees kids and asks for ID. They have none.
* Security tells them that after 3 they must be accompanied by adult and have ID.
* Kid says - my dad is here in the mall
* Security says - Leave the property. It's late December in Wisconsin, and these are teenagers that are likely NOT dressed to be standing outside for any period of time. A decision was likely made to allow them to go to the security office and try to contact someone and/or wait for dad
* Kid calls mom on cell - and, my guess is that if she didn't have a cell, they would have even let her use their phone
* Decision was made to sit tight and wait for dad - in the warmth of their office rather outside than 20 degree weather a day after a pretty major snowstorm.

I think saying "SECURITY TOOK THE KIDS!" or calling it "detained" is a very serious stretch.

I doubt they were frisked or physically "taken" or forcibly "held" in any way. Again, these rules are well-known in the area. There have been letters and protests and accusations of racial targeting, etc. If these rent-a-cops had let these girls "go" and remain in the mall, there would have been cries of racism and accusations of not applying the rules equally (see http://www.wauwatosanow.com/story/index.aspx?id=565969). And this mall has had these rules in place for most of the year. See: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=564017 and the media have discussed them long before that. Anyone who enters the mall or walks around the mall sees a LOT of signage explaining the policy. Again, I seriously doubt that these kids were physically "taken", "held" or "detained" in any way.

The OP said that her daughter thought it was "hilarious". I really doubt she'd feel that way if there was any physical "taking", "restraining" or "holding". First of all, security there has been dealing with it for a long time and is under a lot of scrutiny. And secondly, a 14 year-old would NOT find any physical detainment "hilarious".

Dad took them to the mall, saw the signs and chose to still allow the kids to go unaccompanied. I'm not sure what he thought would happen, but I still contend that "holding" them at security was far preferable to kicking them to the curb in the cold and snow.

Security was not going to break the rules for these kids and suffer further accusations of racism.

I've recently gotten a call from my son's friend who was "detained" in the exact same manner at the very same mall. She couldn't get in touch with her parents, so she called me. She was stuck there without a ride and no phone. As opposed to kicking the kids to the curb in the cold with no way of caontacting anyone, security let her use their phone and let her and her friend stay with them until I could pick them up. They were not forcibly restrained, or taken into custody using any strong-arm tactics.

Connonym, please correct me if I am wrong. If those girls were forcibly held or detained using ANY strong-arm tactics, please speak up. I know that since you weren't aware personally of the rules and Mayfair's strict enforcement of them, if must have been VERY upsetting to hear that your child was caught up in this mess. I understand from a very rudimentary position that the general idea of these rules seems ridiculous. Especially when your daughter was quite honestly shopping. However, I really think that there was likely no forcible restraint or detainment of your daughter. Your ex should have noted the policy and either let the girls go before the 3:00 cut-off or gone to one of the other malls in the area without the restriction. I don't fault mall security in your case at all (unless I am totally wrong and they were forcibly held). They are constantly accused of racism and letting the girls continue to shop unaccompanied would have reeked of favoritism. I personally choose to frequent a different mall whenever possible. nd, if Time Warner would open an office anywhere else within reason, I'd NEVER go there.

Whew... ok, I am off to buy the book Feingold: A New Democratic Party somewhere other than the mall in question. :patriot:

[Rabrrrrrr]

93. Nice post, Hitler. Buying that book to burn it?

:P

Just kidding - I think you summed it up well.

I, too, have a strong feeling that the "detention" was not an abusive, fascist police state action but a "Jesus, it's cold outside - why don't you wait here for an adult to pick you up?" situation.

Liberals like to knee-jerk just as much as the rightwingers - sad, but true. And the worst of it is, if the security had thrown the girls outside in the cold, those same liberals here would have been decrying the evil antics of the fascist police state. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I would also bet that the security held the girls not only out of compassion, but also out of fear of what would happen to the mall if the kids WERE tossed outside, and they got sick - that would be a great big fucking nasty lawsuit as well.

I'd hate to be in law enforcement or security in this country - liberals breathing down your back all the time, second-guessing everything you do and treating you like shit, but at the same time demanding that you be immediately present whenever needed and provide every possible help that you can.

And on the other side, the republicans who bellicosely shout to the world how much they love and support law enforcement and all police, until one actually gives that republican a fine or ticket, and then the wonderful godly Jesus-appointed celebratory hero policeman is just a tool of the leftwing police state; a bunch of jackbooted thugs. Plus, they're the ones constantly trying to cut your salary and benefits and shitting on your union.

[Oeditpus Rex]

97. Trouble is, you're using logic and reason

with a few facts thrown in to make you even more of an authoritarian.



This is Democratic Underground. If anyone in a position of authority, be it real or imagined, even looks askance at a Law-Abiding Liberal (or, dog forbid, asks to see their receipt), you're supposed to rant and rave and stomp your feet and gnash your teeth and shout "THIS IS ILLEGAL!!!11"*



Anything less, and you're an "apologist."



Cha! Get with the PROgram, girl! :eyes:







*If you can shout while gnashing your teeth, please post pics.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

102. delete - posted in wrong place, sorry

[Connonym]

109. You are almost entirely correct except that they wouldn't let the kids use their phone

Possibly if it had turned out that none of them had a cell phone they would have allowed my daughter to call on their phone but they told her that they couldn't use the mall phone. You are correct that it would have been a bad idea to wait out in the cold but they didn't present that as an option to the kids and their impression was that they were being offered no choice but to stay at security. On further discussing with my daughter today it turns out that maybe her laughter on the phone with me was more of a nervous type of thing rather than her just finding the situation hilarious because she told me that she was afraid to question their authority because she feared them using a taser on her.

I do, absolutely 100%, agree with you that if they're going to have this policy it's only fair that it applies to my kid just the same as it would to any other kid. I don't agree with the mall policy but I sure as hell would be more offended if they only applied it to kids of color or males or whatever. Unfair but at least even handed. I'll give them that. Also, my ex should have fucking read the signs. I don't go to the mall, I didn't know they were at the mall, I had no prior knowledge of this mall rule so it was all just a shock to me at the time. I'm still undecided about whether I'll be talking to the ACLU about the mall's responsibility to tell kids of their rights but for me the point is moot as no way in hell will we be going back there.

[HEyHEY]

99. I would call the police

Get them to go to the mall to retrieve your daughter and scare the fuck outta these bullies.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

103. I'm glad I didn't grow up in these times

I remember being 12 years old and taking the bus by myself or with friends and going downtown to the movies or to stores and soda fountains. I never needed an ID. I don't think I would have enjoyed malls, as I liked the look, sounds, and smell of the city.

[HEyHEY]

104. WIERD, I've been to that mall too

Man, that's strange.

[Hayabusa]

108. Malls where I'm from

Bar teenagers under 16--I think--from being in the mall after 4:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. It's really stupid, IMO.