Why are emergency exits that don&#39;t immediately open legal? I was at Costco today and saw an emergency exit that looked like this: Why would an emergency exit legally be able to have a delay before opening? Being hurt in 15 seconds is very possible in an emergency situation (such as an earthquake causing pieces of the ceiling to fall, possibly blocking the exit while it's opening).
Washington's building codes can be found at https://apps.des.wa.gov/sbcc/Page.aspx?nid=14. They have adopted the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC) (with amendments that aren't relevant here). IFC Chapter 10 discussess "Means of Egress". (Sorry for the slightly messed up formatting.) A Costco store seems to be a Group M building under Section 202. The doors you describe are referred to as "delayed egress locking systems" and are explicitly allowed, with the maximum delay specified as 15 seconds: [BE]1010.1.9.7 Delayed egress. Delayed egress locking systems, shall be permitted to be installed on doors serving any occupancy except Group A, E and H in buildings that are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with [217]Section 903.3.1.1 or an approved automatic smoke or heat detection system installed in accordance with [218]Section 907. The locking system shall be installed and operated in accordance with all of the following: 1. 1.The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon actuation of the automatic sprinkler system or automatic fire detection system, allowing immediate, free egress. 2. 2.The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon loss of power controlling the lock or lock mechanism, allowing immediate free egress. 3. 3.The delayed egress locking system shall have the capability of being deactivated at the fire command center and other approved locations. 4. 4.An attempt to egress shall initiate an irreversible process that shall allow such egress in not more than 15 seconds when a physical effort to exit is applied to the egress side door hardware for not more than 3 seconds. Initiation of the irreversible process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door. Once the delay electronics have been deactivated, rearming the delay electronics shall be by manual means only. Exception: Where approved, a delay of not more than 30 seconds is permitted on a delayed egress door. 5. 5.The egress path from any point shall not pass through more than one delayed egress locking system. Exception: In Group I-2 or I-3 occupancies, the egress path from any point in the building shall not pass through more than two delayed egress locking systems provided the combined delay does not exceed 30 seconds. 6. 6.A sign shall be provided on the door and shall be located above and within 12 inches (305 mm) of the door exit hardware: 1. 6.1. For doors that swing in the direction of egress, the sign shall read: PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS. 2. 6.2. For doors that swing in the opposite direction of egress, the sign shall read: PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS. 3. 6.3 The sign shall comply with the visual character requirements in [219]ICC A117.1. Exception: Where approved, in Group I occupancies, the installation of a sign is not required where care recipients who, because of clinical needs, require restraint or containment as part of the function of the treatment area. 7. 7.Emergency lighting shall be provided on the egress side of the door. 8. 8.The delayed egress locking system units shall be listed in accordance with [220]UL 294. The rationale, presumably, is a compromise between safety of occupants (so that people can get out without excessive delay) and security of goods (to hinder people trying to steal goods and run away). I'll also point out that the delay feature is required to deactivate under certain circumstances. If your hypothetical earthquake caused the sprinkler or fire detection systems to activate, or it caused the power to fail, the door could be opened immediately. If Washington's legislators thought this provision was a bad idea, they could certainly create an amendment that would apply within Washington. It seems they have not seen fit to do so.
The key statutory tool is §14-303 of Title 14. Having previously declared a state of emergency, (b) After proclaiming a state of emergency, the Governor may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, or regulations that the Governor considers necessary to protect life and property or calculated effectively to control and terminate the public emergency in the emergency area, including orders, rules, or regulations to: ... (2) designate specific zones in the emergency area in which the occupancy and use of buildings and vehicles may be controlled; (3) control the movement of individuals or vehicles into, in, or from the designated zones; (4) control places of amusement and places of assembly;
Is this interpretation correct? YES Encounters such as this should normally fall within the non-statutory stop &amp; account which covers police-initiated conversations with members of the public to ask general questions about their activities when there are no reasonable grounds to suspect an offence. The terminology varies from Force to Force, but can be summarised as: What are you doing? Why are you in the area? Where are you going? What are you carrying? There is no legal requirement or obligation to answer any of these questions, and the police cannot lawfully detain anyone to ask them - unlike the statutory powers under Stop &amp; Search and Arrest covered by the OP.
How should I proceed? I am asking law friends to recommend some employment lawyers, but other than this, can I do anything else? You definitely don't need an employment lawyer for this. From a legal standpoint, the matter is very simple: If you grant their request (whether by signing or otherwise expressing your acceptance), you would be waiving any remedies currently available to you for their breach of contract. The company's attempt to override its contract with you is quite naive, but the company can always (and evidently does) try to get away with its liability nonetheless. I would not be surprised if the company subsequently tries harder to intimidate you, but that does not change your legal position &amp; merits unless you sign the waiver the company is pursuing. Asking for your post-termination availability reinforces the notion of company's poor planning and subpar management.
Providing the antenna was installed in accordance with the law it's hard to see what basis they could either void their lease or seek damages. The antenna poses no risk to health (non-ionising RF radiation is harmless) and you have no rights in any view it may be blocking there is no damage. The only thing that I can see is if there was misrepresentation at the time the lease was formed. That is, the developer knew that there was going to be an antenna and specifically said there wouldn't be. This falls flat if a) they never mentioned antennas or b) the decision to install it was made after the lease was formed.
This is known as a retroactive or ex post facto law. Such laws are explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution (Wikipedia reference), and are generally frowned on in jurisdictions where the rule of law applies, partly because it is difficult to prove criminal intent when your action was not at the time criminal.
None, if the intention is merely trespassing, unlike burglary which requires intent to steal, commit criminal damage, or inflict grevious bodily harm or if the building is a protected site - neither of which isn't evident from the question. Note, for both offences, the actus reus is entry - there is no requirement for any form of &quot;breaking&quot; Further to ohwilleke's comment, unless the lock is damaged or destroyed etc, then there is no offence of criminal damage
Michigan law say nothing about landlord entry, so whatever it says in the lease is what is allowed. Various sources like this comment on the lack of such statutory regulations. There does not appear to be any relevant case law for Michigan which impose restrictions on a landlord's right to access a rental. Since there is no statutory or case law restriction on landlord's right to access his property, landlord's agent would have the same right to access. That would mean that if the listing agent were authorized by the landlord to enter, then the agent could enter, and it would not be necessary for the landlord to accompany this agent whenever entry was needed. That does not mean that a "listing agent" that happens to work with a landlord has an independent right to enter the landlord's property. The same would go for repairmen. It is actually not clear to me whether there could be blanket permission for any and all with access to the lock box to enter, since pretty much any realtor can enter a house for sale, subject to whatever the stated limitations are, and they don't call the owner for each entry. I suspect that one would not have legal grounds for imposing a particular additional restriction on a landlord's right to access and permit access to the property, since there's no overriding statute, and restrictions on landlord access mainly derive from statutes.