Friend refused exit at Chuck E Cheese

[WalkingWolf]

There was in fact no abduction, but there's no way to know that if the parent is sudden valley gunner's political twin and going "this is my kid, I don't need to prove it to you" well by using Chuck E cheese you agreed to their stamp system. I've been to several childrens play places in which they had a similar system and it was spelled out in contract that I had to sign to have my younger brother able to use said facility. doesn't need to be a written agreement though, it can be implied contract too by the responsible adult getting stamped.

The signed report of the manager stating he believes there may be a child abduction in progress will more then suffice, someone just reported a crime in progress. Once the cops verify you're a parent or guardian you'll be free to leave. a named report suffices as RAS. There is no law saying a reporting citizen has to be right about the activity they report, only that they reasonably believed said crime was occuring. I'm almost certain in my county a judge would approve a search warrant for the address that the vehicle is registered to as well if the last names of the child and adult do not match.

Cites? Court cases? Something to backup the hogwash above?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What gives them the right to place any type of tracking/identification device on you or your children? Do we get "marked" when we walk in Walmart or Lowe's? No. Why any business would do such a thing is beyond me. I don't believe RAS could be established simply because a stamp on my hand didn't match my child's that were placed on us by a private party. If I am walking out and my child is not causing a scene and yelling, "This isn't my daddy!" or something to that effect, then they have no reason to stop or detain me. If they have reason to believe a felony is happening right in front of them then they could execute a "citizen's arrest," but only if they had no doubt that a felony was in progress.

This policy is ignorant because no court would hold a private company responsible for the abduction of your child. It is the parent's responsibility to maintain a visual awareness of their children at all times, not the private establishment they are visiting. Just because they place hand-stamps on everyone still wouldn't change the fact. All they would have to say is that the parent or supposed parent demanded to leave and they could not stop them.

You agree to the stamp/marking by using the business, use a different business if you don't like it

I assure you the police is not to citizens arrest you or prevent you from leaving, only notifying law enforcement. LE will justify their actions to a judge "we have named report of a child abduction by ......... we need a warrant for the house the vehicle is registered to and a warrant for his arrest." Judge: OK

so you get caught, they investigate, determine you're ok to have the child, and they leave.

you can try filing a complaint with the prosecutor, and he'll ask the manager "why did you phone in the complaint"? and he'll say "becuase the adult didn't show the security stamp or had a mistmatching one in violation of our child abduction prevention policy, and removed the child from the store when we asked for his ID and told him we were calling the cops"

prosecutor: "did you know this individual was the custodial parent or guardian"

manager: "no"

prosecutor: "did you act with malice or give the dispatcher false information"?

manager: "no"

ok, no charges for you then....

 

[WalkingWolf]

You agree to the stamp/marking by using the business, use a different business if you don't like it

I assure you the police is not to citizens arrest you or prevent you from leaving, only notifying law enforcement. LE will justify their actions to a judge "we have named report of a child abduction by ......... we need a warrant for the house the vehicle is registered to and a warrant for his arrest." Judge: OK

so you get caught, they investigate, determine you're ok to have the child, and they leave.

you can try filing a complaint with the prosecutor, and he'll ask the manager "why did you phone in the complaint"? and he'll say "becuase the adult didn't show the security stamp or had a mistmatching one in violation of our child abduction prevention policy, and removed the child from the store when we asked for his ID and told him we were calling the cops"

prosecutor: "did you know this individual was the custodial parent or guardian"

manager: "no"

prosecutor: "did you act with malice or give the dispatcher false information"?

manager: "no"

ok, no charges for you then....

Please provide cites for the above?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Cites? Court cases? Something to backup the hogwash above?

Why don't you do the opposite, you're the one claiming there's no possible way for RAS to exist, you're denying the well established notion that a named complaint alleging a felony is RAS. why don't you back that hogwash up.

A quick google search shows that they've had issues with kidnappings out of CEC before, likely the stamp policy arose as the result of some of those incidents. can't find lawsuit information, but that's not shocking, cases like that are normally settled out of court and settlements usually always have non-disclosure clauses.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Why don't you do the opposite, you're the one claiming there's no possible way for RAS to exist, you're denying the well established notion that a named complaint alleging a felony is RAS. why don't you back that hogwash up.

A quick google search shows that they've had issues with kidnappings out of CEC before, likely the stamp policy arose as the result of some of those incidents. can't find lawsuit information, but that's not shocking, cases like that are normally settled out of court and settlements usually always have non-disclosure clauses.

I am not making these ridicules claims YOU are, it is the rules of the site to back up your claims with cites. Furthermore it is not possible to cite a non existent claim. If it is not cited, and there is not a law against or court case then it is legal. There is no law that I know of to support the claims you have made. I can't cite what is not a law, I would have to cite every existing law to do that, how stupid is that?

In this case it was legal for the man to leave with his son, stamp or not, unless a crime had been committed. And from the OP there was NOTHING to indicate a crime. Further there is nothing that I know of in law that says you must relinquish your parenting rights to a restaurant, or arcade. If there is please cite for us?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Please provide cites for the above?

First: Implied contract

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact

probable cause can be based on heresay United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965)
in this case heresay was deemed appopriate information to obtain a search warrant for a liqour distillery.
could a case by made for heresay of the manager being probable cause to stop a car? I see no reason why not.

RCW 9A.76.175
A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

a report of the information in the that someone who doesn't have the stamp, is combative, leaves with child, would not meet that criteria so the manager would not commit a crime by reporting to police.

*Edited, OP did not simply leave with child....

 

[WalkingWolf]

First: Implied contract

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact

probable cause can be based on heresay United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965)

RCW 9A.76.175
A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

a report of the information in the OP would not meet that criteria

Another of your opinions or do you have case law to back it up?

Reporting an abduction when there is no abduction would be a crime by the above. Your opinion again is unsupported, unless you have something more. And you cannot give up parental rights by implied consent, and probable cause is a man leaving lawfully with his own child? Total dung...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Another of your opinions or do you have case law to back it up?

you mean you want me to cite that making true statements (stamp doesn't match, combative, won't ID himself, took child from restuarant) to a police dispatcher is not a violation of a law prohibiting "false statements"?

Yeah I'll get right on that......

 

[WalkingWolf]

you mean you want me to cite that making true statements (stamp doesn't match, combative, won't ID himself, took child from restuarant) to a police dispatcher is not a violation of a law prohibiting "false statements"?

Yeah I'll get right on that......

What crime was committed? You have not been paying attention on this site have you? Do you understand the premise of rights. Being combative(uncooperative with a pimple faced kid at a eatery is not against the law. Not having a matching fashion stamp from the eatery is not against the law. Not IDing to a pimple faced kid with absolutely no authority is not against the law. Reporting a child abduction when clearly there was no evidence of such IS against the law.

Now if you have cites, to the contrary please step up to the plate?

 

[Redbaron007]

Well....IANAL, but until my youngest did not want to go back to CC (several years ago), I rarely got stamped. Mainly because, my wife and daughter were already there and I just walked in and right by. When I would leave with my daughter, she would ride with me instead of my wife......we just walked out. Only once was I questioned for not having a stamp when exiting...I told them she was my daughter and continued to walk out with my daughter.

Caveat: I haven't been to CC in 3/4 years.

My take on CC detaining anyone is questionable, including the child.

My oldest daughter works at a place in the mall; they have Code Adam. Their protocol is to have a leadership person stand at the door looking for the child with that description. If located, alone, they will ask them for help. However, if accompanied by an adult, they will 'request' them to stop; however, if they don't, they provide the description to the police.....in addition, they will follow them in the mall and premises until the po-po say stop.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What crime was committed? You have not been paying attention on this site have you? Do you understand the premise of rights. Being combative(uncooperative with a pimple faced kid at a eatery is not against the law. Not having a matching fashion stamp from the eatery is not against the law. Not IDing to a pimple faced kid with absolutely no authority is not against the law. Reporting a child abduction when clearly there was no evidence of such IS against the law.

Now if you have cites, to the contrary please step up to the plate?

I just did cite, I cited a supreme court case that upheld a search warrant based on the fact that the property owner was driving crates of sugar to his house and the sounds of a motor pump inside the house. all legal. a combination of factors can equate probable cause.

Draper v. United States

There is a large difference between the two things to be proved [guilt and probable cause], as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them.

again proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed. only probable cause. it does not take the same level to search as to convict. A search in a 7th circuit case (carpenter v stigler, if i remember correctly) based purely on having an out of county license plate was upheld as probable cause for a stop. It is you who is confusing the law. How the pimple faced kid comes to believe you may be abducting the child is irrelevant, only that such belief is reasonable. The report alone will most likely support a stop of the vehicle.

I'm almost certain too that in that case a cop would be more likely to stop and ID you and let the lawyers figure out if someone's rights are violated. there comes a point at which resisting simply isn't worth it. The police officers have qualified immunity, they're not going to lose anything if they try to stop what could be an abduction...

 

[WalkingWolf]

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/does-chuck-e-cheeses-kid-check-program-work/nJ7Lr/

The whole thing is a recipe for disaster~only a moron would trust the safety of their child to some minimum wage restaurant employees.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I just did cite, I cited a supreme court case that upheld a search warrant based on the fact that the property owner was driving crates of sugar to his house and the sounds of a motor pump inside the house. all legal. a combination of factors can equate probable cause.

Draper v. United States


again proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed. only probable cause. it does not take the same level to search as to convict. A search in a 7th circuit case (carpenter v stigler, if i remember correctly) based purely on having an out of county license plate was upheld as probable cause for a stop. It is you who is confusing the law. How the pimple faced kid comes to believe you may be abducting the child is irrelevant, only that such belief is reasonable. The report alone will most likely support a stop of the vehicle.

I'm almost certain too that in that case a cop would be more likely to stop and ID you and let the lawyers figure out if someone's rights are violated. there comes a point at which resisting simply isn't worth it. The police officers have qualified immunity, they're not going to lose anything if they try to stop what could be an abduction...

WHAT? In God's name does crates of sugar have to do with this case. Did the employee hear the sounds of pumps from the child. What you are almost certain of is not case law or law, and certainly lacks credibility. It is just your warm and fuzzy opinion...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

WHAT? In God's name does crates of sugar have to do with this case. Did the employee hear the sounds of pumps from the child. What you are almost certain of is not case law or law, and certainly lacks credibility. It is just your warm and fuzzy opinion...

Well why don't you try it out and see much credibility I lack....

tell me what kind of vehicle you drive so I can verify the AMBER alert put out on your car...

Do you have problems doubting that the police would such a call? do you honestly believe that the employee is going to be charged and tried if a report was made? do you believe that the city or county that employed the officers will be sued? or will such a lawsuit against the employee or company will be successful? well if you're so confident try it out and tell me what happens... I can't wait.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Well why don't you try it out and see much credibility I lack....

tell me what kind of vehicle you drive so I can verify the AMBER alert put out on your car...

Do you have problems doubting that the police would such a call? do you honestly believe that the employee is going to be charged and tried if a report was made? do you believe that the city or county that employed the officers will be sued? or will such a lawsuit against the employee or company will be successful? well if you're so confident try it out and tell me what happens... I can't wait.

Now you have been around here long enough to know better than making threats or insinuations of illegal activity. The rules are to provide cites to back up claims, and you have not done that. You attempted to use cases that have absolutely no bearing on the OP. NOW you want to throw the BS above. Again back up your claims with cites relevant to the OP, and stop with the threats.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Now you have been around here long enough to know better than making threats or insinuations of illegal activity. The rules are to provide cites to back up claims, and you have not done that. You attempted to use cases that have absolutely no bearing on the OP. NOW you want to throw the BS above. Again back up your claims with cites relevant to the OP, and stop with the threats.

You mean I'm advocating activity that you said doesn't even amount to RAS, if you don't beleive RAS exists how can I possibly be advocating you engage in illegal activity, you think there's nothing wrong...

I did provide cites that show Probable cause is a low enough standard that I'm certain it will pass muster. I haven't found a specific case in which a parent was arrested for abduction following a scenario like the OP's, it's near impossible for every forseeable circumstance to have case law in place, do you know what that means WakingWolf? it means there is no clearly established law, meaning under Harlow v. Fitzgerald the police will be free to search and detain on that basis, no clearly established law means officers recieve qualified immunity, and thus even if a court does rule that rights were violated, an officer is not personally liable for any breach of such rights.

Unless of course you argue that there is "clearly established law" on a case like this, then please use cites to refute my argument that QI would come into play.

I don't think it'll even go that far though. the problem with some people and cites is that, when I provide them you dismiss them based on the idea that the circumstances are not same, well yeah... but the court provided a definition of probable cause that I am using.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You mean I'm advocating activity that you said doesn't even amount to RAS, if you don't beleive RAS exists how can I possibly be advocating you engage in illegal activity, you think there's nothing wrong...

I did provide cites that show Probable cause is a low enough standard that I'm certain it will pass muster. I haven't found a specific case in which a parent was arrested for abduction following a scenario like the OP's, it's near impossible for every forseeable circumstance to have case law in place, do you know what that means WakingWolf? it means there is no clearly established law, meaning under Harlow v. Fitzgerald the police will be free to search and detain on that basis, no clearly established law means officers recieve qualified immunity, and thus even if a court does rule that rights were violated, an officer is not personally liable for any breach of such rights.

Unless of course you argue that there is "clearly established law" on a case like this, then please use cites to refute my argument that QI would come into play.

I don't think it'll even go that far though. the problem with some people and cites is that, when I provide them you dismiss them based on the idea that the circumstances are not same, well yeah... but the court provided a definition of probable cause that I am using.

You asked for my vehicle information and then brought up amber alert~What the Helll were you thinking? Do you plan on making a false report on me? You didn't provide anything relating to the OP. If I wanted to play the oranges to apples game I could bring up Deberry V State, where it would be clear that having a child is legal in all states, and that just the presence of a child would not be RAS or probable cause to a crime. But then I didn't know the person mentioned in the OP was leaving with a bag of sugar.

NOW instead of making excuses please back up your BS with relevant cites to the OP.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You asked for my vehicle information and then brought up amber alert~What the Helll were you thinking? Do you plan on making a false report on me? You didn't provide anything relating to the OP. If I wanted to play the oranges to apples game I could bring up Deberry V State, where it would be clear that having a child is legal in all states, and that just the presence of a child would not be RAS or probable cause to a crime. But then I didn't know the person mentioned in the OP was leaving with a bag of sugar.

NOW instead of making excuses please back up your BS with relevant cites to the OP.

No, I stated you should try to leave with a child from Chuck E Cheese after acting how you described because I'm certain that the 911 report from the manager of that location would trigger your local police issuing an AMBER alert. I simply said provide me your info so when I look for one I'll be able to find the one issued against you....

I'm not going to phone in you abducting a child. I'm sure the Chuck E Cheese manager will be able to do that all by himself....

I've cited enough already on the topic.

 

[WalkingWolf]

No, I stated you should try to leave with a child from Chuck E Cheese after acting how you described because I'm certain that the 911 report from the manager of that location would trigger your local police issuing an AMBER alert. I simply said provide me your info so when I look for one I'll be able to find the one issued against you....

I'm not going to phone in you abducting a child. I'm sure the Chuck E Cheese manager will be able to do that all by himself....

I've cited enough already on the topic.

Why would I leave with a child from Chuck E Cheese, considering all my children are grown. Are you suggesting that I break the law. What the heck is your problem? There is a big difference between a actual child abduction and a man leaving with his own child, it has already been determined there was no abduction. The fact that you asked for my information and implied you would report me is completely without justification and against the rules. You haven't cited jack, it doesn't surprise me you would resort to such underhanded tactics.

 

[eye95]

...But if said employee dials 911 and tells dispatch "A male (description) just left our store with a child that did not match our security verification system and left in a (car description) headed (direction)" ...

This would be exactly the right thong for CEC to do. It protects the child as much as possible without breaking the law. It is also likely what happened. From the story, as related, the employee did not restrain the father, just said he'd call the cops if the father took the child before they could establish that he should--as well he should!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>