Dave and Busters behavior
 

Ate at D&B for lunch in Milpitas yesterday, and went to leave to make an appointment, and there were employees stationed at the door who wouldn't let anyone leave. "We're sorry, we are not letting anyone leave because we have a missing child."

I have my own kids, so I could relate, so I hung around for a bit. After 20 minutes (other people had been waiting an additional 10 minutes), we were all itching to get out of there. After all, how could keeping people from leaving help locate the child? Also, it had been 1/2 hour and they had not called the police. I suggested to the employee that they call the police, as D&B could not keep the crowd from leaving, but perhaps the police could.

The employee insisted that he could keep us there himself. I let him know about "false imprisonment" and other potential issues, and he called the GM. The GM tried to tell us all we couldn't leave, and someone else mentioned false imprisonment and he eventually let us leave.

If I thought it would have helped for us to stay, I would have stayed, but I really don't get the point.

I hope the kid got found...

Great chocolate fondue, though!

Actually with the potential for it to be a crime scene it isn't a bad idea if you want to lok at it that way. Of course it doesn't help if they haven't called the police. But if the child was missing 20 mins chances are they would have been gone already.

Maybe I'm just a callous person (without kids), but I would not have waited even 5 minutes if they pulled this on me, and would have called the police to report false imprisonment if they insisted. What good is keeping me there? Am I going to walk out of there with a kid in my pocket?

The GM should contact his corporate lawyer if he thinks that's a valid policy. Even suspects in a questioning room have to be either arrested or released at some point.

Yeah-I would love to have been there.
Just try it :mad:

Why even discuss it with the manager? Why not just walk out the door?

Ditto. I would like to see him lay a hand on someone.

Dave and Busters probably has a Code Adam policy in place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Adam

Keeping the patrons inside may have overstepped the Code Adam rules a bit and they definitely need to retrain their employees.

Having said that, I'm wondering why the parent or another patron didn't just call 911 if there seemed to be a frantic search for a missing child?

I would have, if they had not relented. But I didn't want to seem uncaring, and I wouldn't have been in danger of missing my appointment until then. I also would have liked to know that the kid was okay, so I waited until I really had to leave. I did say, "You can search me for the kid if you want," but that was not received well.

Too bad no one took this course of action, as it would have killed two birds with one stone. The cops could have put an end to the false imprisonment AND worked to track down the missing child. Waiting 20-30 minutes to report such an episode is ridiculous. If the child was indeed abducted, all that does is give the perpetrator(s) a 20-30 minute head start. Awful on all fronts.

I would have called 911 for them - either its an emergency or its not. If it's an emergency and the kid is "gone", then the cops should be called but it shouldn't take them 30 minutes to figure it out one way or the other.

i see the term false imprisonment thrown all over these forums. it is not false imprisonment to keep people for a reasonable period of time to investigate a potential problem. a half hour is hardly a substantial period of "imprisonment". i agree the police should have been called as soon as possible to deal with the idea a child might be missing but to call the police to claim false imprisonment is just silly. i myself would have calmly walked out the door telling management they would be free to take my plate number if they thought it necessary.

A private party can't hold you without placing you under citizens arrest (which would place the business lined up for potential lawsuit) - except in the state of NC where a private person can detain you if they suspect you of a felony.

This very much meets the exact definition of false imprisonment.

absolutely not true...if i am a shop keeper and i suspect you pocketed a twix bar i have every legal right to take you in the back and question you before calling authorities. i do not, however, have the right to hold you for a substantial period of time without cause. only the worst ambulance chasing attorney would side with the people in the dave and buster situation. a half hour of questioning to possibly find a missing child would most definitely fall under reasonable detainment. a citizens arrest is only permitted if a felony has taken place. you cannot arrest someone for jaywalking. false imprisonment is a misdemeanor so citizens arrest does not apply.

The annotated code of my state would classify this as misdemeanor false imprisonment, as there was no evidence that any specific individual should be restrained from leaving the facility, and definitely no indication 100 (or however many were present) were complicit - in fact, D&B wasn't even sure there was a problem when they were curtailing movements . . .

That said, I would have used the Blackberry to look up the non-emergency number for the police and let them know of both situations (child missing with slow response by staff and restraining customers).

On the Twix example above - questioning an individual would only be allowed if there was a reason to suspect shoplifting; eating lunch at a restaurant doesn't make one a "suspect" who can be detained in a missing child instance where ideally no crime has been committed. One cannot question all current customers because someone previously stole a Twix bar from the store . . .

This sounds so wrong - IANAL and have no basis but there is no way I'd assist you here and all I see happening is you being charged with assault. As I see your example, I'd say no and not go anywhere but towards the door. You attempt to in any way touch me to stop that progress and delay in contacting the police, as well? I do believe I get a little settlement out of that encounter .... I don't recommend you following your own advice unless you want to be on the wrong end of the courtroom. You would certainly be found guilty of assault at a minimum for your hands and any force to my person.


Back on the topic of DiningBuzz - I really don't care for D&B's food, but don't mind a bit of time every now and again with the games.

lol. i'm not a d&b fan myself. i am not a legal expert but my attorney/agent is sitting here. we are having a good laugh over this whole thing. first off i am gettiing made fun of for spending time on an internet forum. screw him. i just found this place. he says that false imprisonment is a grey area. the grey being what is a "substantial" amount of time. also the law and real world applications are sometimes 2 different things. luckily i have friends high enough to not need a lawyer except for financial reasons. lol. good thing as i dont know if i would trust the fool sitting next to me.... off to the golfcourse to try to beat the darkness. good night all!

By the way, I had assumed they had already called the police during the whole 20 minutes I was waiting. Anything else would have been ludicrous...which is turned out to be.

They definitely overstepped the rules. Code Adam is about stopping somebody from walking out with a kidnapped child -- they shouldn't be stopping people who don't have a kid. (If somebody does have a kid, they need to try to verify that the kid is with the correct adult; the smart way to do it is to have the missing child's parent at the exit to look at kids.)

But like most complex rules, your typical food service or retail employee probably hasn't been well-trained for a Code Adam. Check out this crazy thread from The Consumerist where a Wal-Mart security guard tried to "rescue" the wrong baby.

Did they find the missing child?

Absolutely and completely wrong. "False imprisonment" is keeping someone from leaving by force or fear of force. Period. There's no, "I've got a good reason" exception. Civilians can detain someone by placing them under citizens arrest (and may use force to do so). They will, however, be liable for false imprisonment, false arrest, assault and battery if they are mistaken (as would have been the case here).

Sorry, but you don't know the law. There is no "substantial period" requirement.

Not so silly if a person was physically blocked from leaving. That is false imprisonment.

As would I and heaven help the person who tried to stop me.

i must be reading the law differently..........
 

Shopkeeper's Privilege
A store owner holds the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.
Rationale
This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge.

So you think the OP shoplifted the child then? :confused:

In a true case of a missing or abducted child, minutes count and it is not time for amateur detective hour. I would have called the police myself to notify them of an alleged missing child and that the Dave And Busters staff were wasting time and resources detaining people who were clearly not in possession of the child. Let trained professionals deal with the situation, not a restaurant GM.

A shopkeeper can only do this for shoplifting not for anything else. So it would not apply here.

lol. no. i was actually responding to ptravel's statement "there is no i've got a good reason exception" to the false imprisonment law. there clearly is. the shopkeepers privilege. how or if it applies to any of this is for lawyers to hack out in court as i'm sure some loser will sue. we wouldnt want to deny any money due anyone for their distress. thank god those folks stranded at the bronx zoo yesterday have already filed suit!!:)

Please see the highlight above. This incident had nothing to do with a "suspected shoplifter."

I wouldn't take that.

They're free to verify I have no children with me and then let me go.

If I had a kid along then I could see some possible justification but if you're a single individual with no kids in tow, what benefit is there for anyone in keeping you around? I'd say none and they can see what you look like via security cameras if they somehow believe you're a "person of interest" after the fact.

Nuts :td: :td: :td:

I was thinking exactly that when I first read that. Why not just whip out a cell phone and dial 911 yourself?

I already answered that question. I had assumed that they had already called. It would be ridiculous otherwise.

D&B is a large, noisy place. I don't find it remarkable that they lose children from time to time.

If the place wasn't crawling with blue uniforms, they clearly hadn't called the cops. Missing children are not taken lightly by law enforcement.

Ahh my bad - I apologize. (When you assume, you make an ... nevermind)

I guess that's a good lesson for all of us. The next time we get detained at D&B, find out if they've called police!

Yes, it's a large enough place to lose a kid. It is not so large that it should take (as OP said) a half hour to fully search the place to either find the child or determine he is no longer on the premises.

Some states explicitly allow property owners to conduct "investigative detentions" without recourse to determine if an unlawful act has taken place on their property

The gaming industry is the worst offender when it comes to abusing those laws.

I don't know about that -- my fiance's son is 26 (equivalent to 7 in reality -- he's mentally handicapped) and we've spent a lot longer than that looking for him in a smaller place. And he's fully grown!