Were two black men legally removed from a Philadelphia Starbucks? Recently, two black men who were not patronizing a Starbucks - but waiting inside for a friend - were arrested for trespassing. Starbucks Philadelphia arrest: CEO apologizes to two black men arrested in a store after an employee call to police - The Washington Post I recognize that a business owner has the right to remove a person from their property who is trespassing and that a business does not have the right to refuse service to someone based on their race. However, if you are a business like Starbucks that goes out of its way to make its environment welcoming and inviting for customers to stay, do you have the right to kick people out because of their race after you serve them? Is the ability to stay in the store considered part of the purchase; or did the manager who called the cops to remove the two black men still had that right if they had purchased something from the store?
Were two black men legally removed from a Philadelphia Starbucks? Maybe - its complicated. The crime of trespass in Pennsylvania relevantly involves: 3503 (b) Defiant trespasser.-- (1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: (i) actual communication to the actor; At face value, the store manager asked them to leave and by refusing to do so they committed the crime. However: (c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or If the condition imposed was &quot;buy something or get out&quot; then that would be a lawful condition and trespass would have been committed. If the condition was &quot;because you're black&quot; then that would be an unlawful condition and trespass would not have been committed. Now, the evil and insidious thing about unlawful discrimination is that there are lots of perfectly lawful masquerades that it can wear. Indeed, except in egregious cases, the unlawful discrimination can only be inferred by a holistic look at a large number of interactions to see where any particular one falls on the scale. That said, this particular case feels like racial discrimination. With respect to Starbucks, if they could show evidence that it routinely asks people of all ethnicities who did not make a purchase to leave then this would not be racial discrimination - just bad business practice. However, given the particular business model of providing a place to rest along with an opportunity to buy sub-standard coffee it seems unlikely that this was the case (I'm Australian so I completely fail to understand why Americans insist on drinking bad coffee). With respect to the police, this is a little less clear. It is not their job to determine how a court (or DA) might decide a case: its their job to determine if they have probable cause to believe a crime is or has been committed. They have a store manager who has asked people to leave and people who are refusing to do so - probable cause for trespass. That said, police have discretion as to how to handle the situation: they could talk to the manager, they could ask the patrons to leave or they could arrest them. They can use their discretion however they like: unless it is based on unlawful discrimination. Which brings us back to the beginning.
With respect to disciplining its students and employees, a private school can basically do whatever it wants. There's more freedom to do so with respect to students than with employees, who have greater protections derived from anti-discrimination laws, collective-bargaining agreements, and the like. If a private school wants to impose a No Burger Tuesdays and a complete ban on political activity, that's probably going to be permissible. The First Amendment will protect the school's right to associate with only those who meet its standards, as absurd as those standards may be. Again, there are exceptions to this rule, like Title IX, which requires equal educational opportunities regardless of sex, but they don't have much bearing on your question. Even for a public school, there will be quite a bit of latitude here, because these rules don't actually regulate off-campus conduct. If a student wants to attend an off-campus public gathering, the campus police aren't going to lock him in his room or arrest him for leaving campus. The rule is simply that if you attend a public gathering off campus, you may not come back on campus afterward to threaten the lives of your classmates.
No this is not a violation of discrimination law as there is no official language (de jure) in the United States at the Federal Level even though English, as the most common language is considered the National Language (de facto). Language is not a Federally recognized basis of discrimination for private business (your local state may require it though). Compared to Canada, where all services must be in English or French to comply with their Official Languages being English and French. It could be argued that, given America's very liberal Freedom of Speech laws, that requiring catering to a specific language by law could be challenged as a violation of your First Amendment Rights (after all, if you have freedom of speech, then you should have freedom of speech that others do not understand). Since there is nothing stopping an English Speaking American from learning the language you wish to do business in, nor is it confined to any race or religion (I, as a predominotly European descent, am perfectly capable of learning Arabic... or Japanese... or Navajo...). Where the confusion comes from is that in the United States, courts will often provide a linguistic interpreter for those who are not native English Speakers (even if they are conversational, given how technical legal terms can be, it may people who speak English as a Second Language will avail themselves of this service for the sake of making sure the nuance is properly translated).
Not all discrimination is illegal. For instance, landlords discriminate against those who can't afford to pay the rent. They might discriminate against former tenants who destroyed several walls during their lease period. They discriminate against those with bad credit, and often might discriminate against the unemployed. Landlords often do discriminate against frat students/college students in general. In fact, at least in the US, discrimination is generally allowed unless it's discrimination for one of a few specifically prohibited reasons (such as race). A lease is a negotiation on both sides; it requires both the landlord and the tenant to be satisfied with each other. As for why different places have different laws: Toronto is not actually in the United States. That means it has different people, a different culture, different primary values, and a different legal tradition. It's not surprising that laws are different; if laws were the same everywhere, the world would be a boring place indeed.
&quot;Does the needlessly obnoxious and antisocial manner in which they're behaving and clearly drugged intoxication create any kind of charge like disturbing the peace or something like that?&quot; Probably. But you don't want to take the law into your own hands. Call the police and have them make the judgement. There is a lot of discretion involved; some police officers may simply tell the preacher to move on; others may detain him on public intoxication or being a nuisance, according to local and UK laws, as well as check for permits and licenses for street/public performances. Many people gathered around the busker to express support and appreciation for him as well as disgust toward the preachers unnecessary disrespect. That's well within rights, as long as the behavior doesn't degrade into the same type(s) that the preacher is exhibiting and possibly be a nuisance or worse (i.s., assault) as per the law.
Trespassing requires that you be on someone else's property without their permission. The supervisor has explicitly given you permission, so it's not possible for you to trespass. You are correct that someone with the proper authority could revoke this permission at any time, at which point you would have to leave or be guilty of trespassing. The only way this situation could constitute trespassing is if they revoke your permission and you ignore them. You can't trespass somewhere that the property owner has allowed you to be and you observe the rules they have set (which may be implied) for you being there.
I can't prove a negative, but it seems quite clear from my research that providing name and badge number is policy, not law. i.e. Many departments have a policy that their officers will provide name and badge number on request, but the punishment for failure to do so would be at the employment level not the legal level. This site has a fairly good selection of various police department policies I will note that Massachusetts appears to be an exception as mentioned by jimsug in his comment to another answer, they do require police to carry and show ID upon legal request (I did not look up what a "legal request" is)
Let's deal with the somewhat misguided notion of "public space": what it means and what it doesn't: "publicly owned" is not equivalent to "public space" - No 10 Downing Street is "publicly owned"; it is not "public space". "privately owned" can be "public space" - the publically accessible parts of shopping malls are privately owned public spaces. "public space" does not mean you have unconditional access. Access may be limited or subject to restrictions placed on it by whoever has lawful authority over it. For example, the aforementioned shopping mall is not public when the mall is closed, roads may be closed for maintenance, street festivities or emergencies etc. So, people with legal authority over the space can restrict or ban your access if, for example, you repeatedly flaunt the rules that they impose on the space. Their private security can request that you leave. If you refuse, you are trespassing and subject to arrest, either by security as a citizens arrest or by the police.