Youth Escort Policy

[Seegtease]

The approach the malls can take is simple. No one under the age of 18 can legally enter into a contract. Since all purchases are contracts, no one under 18 can legally shop by themselves without a parent or guardian.

Even if that worked, they don't want them not buying stuff - they want them out of the mall.

[Kulanae]

You know people like this make no sense to me. They don't want kids to be able to go anywhere and do anything, but then complain when those same kids get into trouble because they don't have anything to do. I guess I'm lucky I grew up when I did because I really do feel for my daughter's generation with everyone taking away all of their privaledges at every turn.

You don't punish all kids because of a few bad apples. Mall security exists for a reason. They should do their damn job and handle the actual problems instead of telling all kids they can't hang out there.

Who's fault is it that the kids "don't have anything to do". I never hung out at the mall and I had plenty to do as a kid. What about the store owners who should be free to make an honest living without having to deal with a bunch of kids loitering at their place of business? There are tons of things for kids to do that don't involve being a pest.

[Seegtease]

Who's fault is it that the kids "don't have anything to do". I never hung out at the mall and I had plenty to do as a kid. What about the store owners who should be free to make an honest living without having to deal with a bunch of kids loitering at their place of business? There are tons of things for kids to do that don't involve being a pest.

Not everybody likes video games.

Point being, the more places you say "sorry, no kids allowed", the less the kid will have to do, which in turn makes it more likely for them to do things involving trouble, as their pool of choices shrinks.

[Kulanae]

Not everybody likes video games.

Point being, the more places you say "sorry, no kids allowed", the less the kid will have to do, which in turn makes it more likely for them to do things involving trouble, as their pool of choices shrinks.

You underestimate my age......thank you, but there were no video games when I was a kid. Perhaps Pong if you were lucky enough to have one. No I played baseball, basketball, football, etc. I had the advantage of growing up outside of the city proper which did open up more choices for outside play. I do feel that inner city youth are dissatvantaged in their choices for play, but it is still no excuse to get into trouble no matter how slim your options might be.

[Dacu]

So me, a 22 year old, my Brother a 19 year old, and my 17 year old sister went to see the Avengers today. Arriving early we figured we would browse the mall to kill time. We started to enter the mall and were asked for ID by a mall cop, an odd request to me since I wasn't entering a bar or anything, we all three provided ID and my sister was denied access to the mall despite her two legal adult brothers being with her. Apparently this is called "YEP" or the Youth Escort Policy and she could only enter the mall with a legal guardian.

Anyone else come up against this, in 22 years I have never seen such a thing. I could see denying her entry if she was by herself maybe, but when with two related adults? Is this just some rule to give authority-less mall cops a power trip? Why would a mall turn away 3 people who have money to spend in a time when most of my age group is shopping on Amazon and not at malls?

None of the mall cops could explain why this rule was in effect only "Its policy". Rules for the sake of rules are pointless.

Up here in Canada we don't have ridiculous laws like this, thankfully. Honestly though that is completely insane, I would not have left but instead protested and made the mall cop look like an idiot.

[Lightwysh]

its becoming pretty common even in the most prominent areas. I used to work at a mall, after 7 PM no one under 18 unless accompanied by a parent. Malls being private owned corporations can and will do what they please in this regard. At one mall in particular they called it "adult shopping time" from 7-930pm every night.

[cherb]

Not illegal in any way for them to do what they did.

I worked at a pizza place where we would refuse orders from people under 18 using credit cards, regardless if they had permission to use it. We also refused to deliver to places that would regularly order large amounts of food and not tip the driver. We just started telling them to come pick up the food.

[Nigeldruid]

Welcome to the free world of America!.. Oh wait.. Things like this is why it's hard to take the "freedom" argument serious in such discussions as weapon accessibility and tax's.

Wikipedia is not a reference, its a blog.

Blogs are explicitly opinionated, Wiki at least tries to avoid that. Scroll down.. 74 refs in that article, 8 of which is the linked section. Take your pick!

[IRunSoFarAway]

Never heard of it, then again I'm in Hawaii so I don't hear much of anything.

Also it's funny to see while reading through this thread that some people just start arguments because they have nothing better to do.

[Exera]

Prove it. Here's mine: http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service
http://www.lifescript.com/soul/self/...imination.aspx



There is mine, now show me yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

It makes no mention of age though, so judging by that any mall can deny anyone they want based on age.

[jahasafrat]

While it can be silly depending on the context, the mall owner is well within his/her rights to set a youth escort policy for their place of business.

Prove it. Here's mine: http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service

From your own source: In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. Barring entrance to an unaccompanied minor can be viewed as mitigation of potential liability and/or an effort to reduce hooliganism.

[bergmann620]

Welcome to the free world of America!.. Oh wait.. Things like this is why it's hard to take the "freedom" argument serious in such discussions as weapon accessibility and tax's.

Seems pretty free to me... People that own malls/businesses have the freedom to choose their clientèle and people that shop have the right to decide to not patronize businesses if they don't agree with said business' policies.

[Bearshield]

You underestimate my age......thank you, but there were no video games when I was a kid. Perhaps Pong if you were lucky enough to have one. No I played baseball, basketball, football, etc. I had the advantage of growing up outside of the city proper which did open up more choices for outside play. I do feel that inner city youth are dissatvantaged in their choices for play, but it is still no excuse to get into trouble no matter how slim your options might be.

And most girls don't play baseball, basketball, football and I didn't have the luxury of growing up in the country. My friends and I went to the mall all the time as kids and we never caused any trouble. About the only other thing we had to do was go to the local roller skating rink which was in a pretty rough neighborhood that got worse as the years went by. We grew up in Phoenix, hanging out outside in 100+ degree weather wasn't exactly the most fun thing to do.

I'm not suggesting that kids are justified in causing trouble out of boredom, but if they have nothing to do they are more likely to get into trouble. Hell I see it in action with my almost seven year old daughter all the time, when she gets bored, that's when she gets into trouble. And as much as the average adolescant/teenager would have you think they are vastly different from a seven year old, there are definite similarities.

[Seegtease]

You underestimate my age......thank you, but there were no video games when I was a kid. Perhaps Pong if you were lucky enough to have one. No I played baseball, basketball, football, etc. I had the advantage of growing up outside of the city proper which did open up more choices for outside play. I do feel that inner city youth are dissatvantaged in their choices for play, but it is still no excuse to get into trouble no matter how slim your options might be.

If you're that old (nothing personal!), and you lived outside the main part of the city, then you probably didn't have to deal with all of the kids turning to drugs and crime at such young ages. But if you lived in modern-day suburbs, you might see it from a different light.

And also, not everybody likes sports. Point is, eliminating non-troublesome options for youth to spend their time is a bad thing. It may not be an excuse, but it's best to keep our youth distracted with decent activities.

[pimpeddakota]

This actual falls under the constitution right of “Free Movement”. The Federal Public Accommodations Law of 1964 made it illegal to restrict access to restaurants, hotels/motels, gas stations and places of entertainment. Clearly most malls would fall under that law as they all have restaurants and some form of entertainment. Any restriction must promote a compelling state interest and be narrowly drawn. The issue presented by juvenile curfews, though, is not simply that freedom of movement is limited. Rather, it is that mall owners have separated people into different categories. On one hand adults and accompanied juveniles are granted access without limitation under these curfew restrictions. The flip side, unaccompanied people under curfew age are denied access under the curfew, but the mall allows 17 year olds to work in the mall past curfew hours.

So you can also argue equal protection under the law at this point. Just because a regulation treats people differently does not make the regulation invalid. Only if the disparate treatment is meted out along lines of limited, well-recognized, suspect class delineations will there lie a cause of action that triggers strict scrutiny. Age is not such a suspect class. To the contrary, although children do have constitutional rights, constitutional protections accorded children and adults have never been the same. For example, there are stringent child labor laws and sale of explicit magazines to minors is criminalized.

The US Supreme Court in Belloti v. Baird 1972 the court set the standard for analyzing the somewhat restricted rights of minors without denying the existence of such rights. Under Belloti the court examined the necessity of regulation in light of: a) a minor’s vulnerability to the harm sought to be avoided by the regulation; b) a minor’s inexperience in decision making that would avoid such harm; and, c) the regulation’s role in re-enforcing parental guidance in childrearing.

Two recent cases strengthened the case of Belloti. Qutb v. Strauss 1993, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and Hutchins v. District of Columbia 1996. In the first case the city won the argument because they presented statistical evidence to support their assertion that juveniles were more likely to be victims of crime during curfew hours BUT there are exceptions for activities such as work, school and recreation. In the second case District of Columbia was unable to show legitimate grounds for treating a minor’s fundamental right to free movement differently than that of an adult.

If the mall uses problems such as juvenile violence or destruction of property then they would have a case in court to keep the restriction. The malls who cite problems of “mall image or ambiance” would lose in court because it is not an issue that serves as a bedrock of ordering a civilized society.

[Deleted]

I was expecting this thread to be about a whoooole another thing..

[Laize]

I was expecting this thread to be about a whoooole another thing..

Same.

Anyway, if malls don't want minors shopping there, that's entirely their prerogative.

Teenagers tend to be noisy and self centered not to mention the primary risk group for vandalism, shoplifting and other undesirable activities.

It sucks for the kids who aren't trouble makers, but there's nothing to be done. Just have the, come with a parent.

[Ebbikenezer]

Our local mall has this. I feel bad for you OP, but at the same time I agree with the policy.

Unfortunately it always takes just one pile of dog shit to make the lawn look bad. I also have a 2nd part time job where I may et sent to malls to work and this policy is a Godsend.

Basically if you're young and you have nothing to do: The mall is not your fucking "hangout" spot. Go out with some friends and socialize at many a venue, but FFS if you're just trolling through the mall? You have much deeper seeded issues than how much angst your youth is causing you. It's a collection of stores, it's the epitome of corporate America, why is it a cool place to do nothing in particular with friends?

---------- Post added 2012-05-07 at 08:58 AM ----------

This actual falls under the constitution right of “Free Movement”. The Federal Public Accommodations Law of 1964 made it illegal to restrict access to restaurants, hotels/motels, gas stations and places of entertainment. Clearly most malls would fall under that law as they all have restaurants and some form of entertainment. Any restriction must promote a compelling state interest and be narrowly drawn. The issue presented by juvenile curfews, though, is not simply that freedom of movement is limited. Rather, it is that mall owners have separated people into different categories. On one hand adults and accompanied juveniles are granted access without limitation under these curfew restrictions. The flip side, unaccompanied people under curfew age are denied access under the curfew, but the mall allows 17 year olds to work in the mall past curfew hours.

So you can also argue equal protection under the law at this point. Just because a regulation treats people differently does not make the regulation invalid. Only if the disparate treatment is meted out along lines of limited, well-recognized, suspect class delineations will there lie a cause of action that triggers strict scrutiny. Age is not such a suspect class. To the contrary, although children do have constitutional rights, constitutional protections accorded children and adults have never been the same. For example, there are stringent child labor laws and sale of explicit magazines to minors is criminalized.

The US Supreme Court in Belloti v. Baird 1972 the court set the standard for analyzing the somewhat restricted rights of minors without denying the existence of such rights. Under Belloti the court examined the necessity of regulation in light of: a) a minor’s vulnerability to the harm sought to be avoided by the regulation; b) a minor’s inexperience in decision making that would avoid such harm; and, c) the regulation’s role in re-enforcing parental guidance in childrearing.

Two recent cases strengthened the case of Belloti. Qutb v. Strauss 1993, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and Hutchins v. District of Columbia 1996. In the first case the city won the argument because they presented statistical evidence to support their assertion that juveniles were more likely to be victims of crime during curfew hours BUT there are exceptions for activities such as work, school and recreation. In the second case District of Columbia was unable to show legitimate grounds for treating a minor’s fundamental right to free movement differently than that of an adult.

If the mall uses problems such as juvenile violence or destruction of property then they would have a case in court to keep the restriction. The malls who cite problems of “mall image or ambiance” would lose in court because it is not an issue that serves as a bedrock of ordering a civilized society.

Let's clarify things to keep it simple for people who don't want to read/know the exact nature of that law: There are a lot of mall shootings, and violence happens frequently at malls all over the country. This overrides any law granting you any sort of "freedom". When human lives are in danger at any given time, whatsoever, the law will overlook policies put into place to supercede those "rights" which, if you are a law student know, are really just "privileges".