This seems the easiest and most likely approach. If they violate the ban and are stupid enough to act out again, they pay the price. If they come and behave, that’s all the team really wanted in the first place, so it’s not an issue that they want to spend a lot of time and money pursuing.
Or more likely, catches a bunch of people it shouldn’t. Amazon’s tool identified 28 members of Congress as people arrested for crimes in a test (insert joke here). There’s no doubt the technology has a long way to go. But it won’t stop people from using it anyway.
In Melbourne, any sports fan banned from a stadium would probably be pointed out to security by the vengeful crowd. Crowds are like that. And they are fairly good at facial recognition.
Has it caught anyone yet? Do we have a report of anyone arrested for trespassing as they were caught? Or is this just MSG using a scare tactic of high tech to scare people off, since they do watch those TV shows? I have no doubt they have it, I have no doubt that they say it’s being used for security and hell they likely even try. But of course it’s there for marketing.
Sure, I’ll buy that, I mean, why not try? But I bet marketing is their first consideration, like they said. “…the customer engagement and marketing capabilities of facial recognition are even more valuable than added security for sports facilities.”
" Insert joke here"… Get thee behind me, Satan… Dont tempt me…
But great cite.
Eh, any test like this will have an adjustable sensitivity, depending on whether you’re more worried about false positives or false negatives. I’d expect that law enforcement would set it for low false negatives. And I note that after Amazon pointed out that the ACLU didn’t use the recommended sensitivity for law enforcement, the ACLU’s response was not to re-run the test (or at least, if they did, they didn’t publish it), but to say that it doesn’t matter, and that since 80% was the default threshold, that was the only one that was relevant.
This bolded part doesn’t seem right to me; you don’t need to be banned from a place on a previous occasion in order to be arrested for trespassing today. You can be asked to leave any time you are getting on the owner’s nerves and if you refuse to leave isn’t that what makes it trespass? So you show up and cause trouble on your first visit you should be able to be dragged out for trespass by police the same as someone who’s been removed 10 times before; I don’t see how there’s a difference on the scene. Maybe there’s a difference going through the system later based on prior trouble the person caused, but that’s separate from getting removed in the first place.
Also in general, isn’t it the police who decide who’s going to be arrested, asked to leave, warned, or ignored? I don’t think property owners get to tell police what to do, but rather ask the police to do certain things and provide reasons why. It would be rather scary if property owners had the power to compel law enforcement to take action… what would stop a bigoted owner from making up false stories about someone they simply don’t like (but never did anything disruptive) being banned before and having them arrested and hauled to jail? Property owners don’t get to make that call, the police do.
I don’t think you know what trespassing is. To be trespassing you specifically not have the legal right to be there. When sports fans go to a venue they are allowed to be there. Being banned is specifically saying you are no longer welcome there. You can’t trespass until there is something stating your a legally not supposed to be there, whether it’s signs on property for the general public or a written notification to a certain person. Coming back after you’ve have been formally banned know constitutes trespassing. A property banning someone has zero to do with the police a property owner has ever right to ask you to leave their property. The don’t need the okay from law enforcement anymore than you need to call the police if you want someone to leave your house. It doesn’t need to be a violation of the law from them to force you to leave. They can tell you to get out for whatever they want as long as their reasoning isn’t against to law. Law enforcement gets involved once someone that doesn’t have the legal right to be there comes on property, then that becomes trespassing. Which is s misdemeanor.
So are you saying when a person has entered a sports venue and done something to compel the owners or security to ask/tell them to leave - and they refuse - that law enforcement is powerless to remove the person unless they’ve been “officially banned” in the past? I don’t know… hundreds of people get hand cuffed and pulled out of sports bars and stadiums every year after causing a ruckus and refusing to leave. What infraction are these people committing that allows this unless they’ve all been banned previously?
What is the legal process for this to occur? How does law enforcement know it’s happened, and what has to happen for it to be done correctly or in an enforceable manner? Do they need to be provided something in writing, and if so what needs to be included (names/dates/addresses/wording); is it like legally serving someone? How is it confirmed that the person got it, and what if the trouble maker doesn’t give their name or ID to the venu wanting to ban them? And what are the limitations on who can be banned why? If this banning procedure actually becomes a “legal reason that person can’t be there” how is it controlled and what’s to prevent stadium owners from (for example) automatically banning everyone living in a certain neighborhood from that property?
Which is what I was getting at previously. Property owners can ask or tell you to leave simply because they don’t like your hairstyle or for pretty much any reason, and likewise “Banning” doesn’t appear to me to be a legal process… declaring in some manner no gingers allowed on the premises" (I don’t think that’s a protected group) is fine and dandy. But it doesn’t allow or force a police officer to take action otherwise not permissible by that declaration.
Still not seeing this… idiot shows up at the game, starts bothering everyone and causing a scene and is asked to leave repeatedly… grabs the gate as he’s dragged out by the security guard and won’t let go, and the uniformed officer standing 5 feet away will just shrug his shoulders and say “can’t do nothing, he’s got a legal right to be there”.
I don’t think there’s been a good explanation of what (or if) "banning’ someone from a place actually means to law enforcement from a legal perspective. It seems to me if police are called they are still going to start from scratch to find out what the problem is, if they need to be (or can be) involved, and then make their own decision about what to do from there. I’m having trouble understanding how the property owner telling the cop as they show up “this guy’s been banned” is going to change the way they do their job in any significant way.
“What infraction are these people committing that allows this unless they’ve all been banned previously?”=after causing a ruckus…starts bothering everyone …
No, they can’t as you bought a ticket. You have a right to be there. ianal, tickets do have clauses on the back.
"When Can You Refuse Service?
While the right to refuse service is not a get out of jail free card allowing businesses to turn away people they don’t want to serve, there are some valid reasons for asking customers to leave. Individuals or groups who are causing trouble or being disruptive may be asked to leave, while restaurants or other businesses with a capacity limit can turn away customers to prevent this limit from being exceeded. Businesses can also refuse service to those who come in just before closing time or to those who are not making any purchases during their visit. There are various other examples – the key thing to note is that in each example, the decision to refuse service is not arbitrary or based upon an individual’s specific characteristics. Declining to serve someone has to be reasonable and justifiable. If customers are not properly dressed, you can ask that they leave, but if a person is wearing reasonable religious apparel and you dislike their beliefs, you can’t use that as an excuse to send them on their way. If there are safety concerns, or someone is harassing your staff members, then a business can refuse service. Likewise, if the way a person is dressed violates health codes, you cannot legally serve them, and if their clothing does not match your business’ clear standards – if someone wears jeans to a black tie dinner, for example – then you have a clear and justified reason for your refusal. For example, a court in California found that a bar was justified in refusing service to biker gangs who refused to remove their “colors” – marks of affiliation to certain gangs – because the bar had a legitimate concern that fights would break out. In this case, the refusal was specific and acted to protect a legitimate business interest."
So in your examples they are commiting “disorderly conduct.”. Generally, unless they cause property damage or hurt someone, they are escorted out and told they can’t come back in.
Trespass laws are generally worded something along the lines of “Whoever enters a premises, or remains on a premises after being given actual notice by the owner of said premises or his or her agent that the person is not permitted on the premises…is guilty of trespass.”
In Massachusetts, there is actually a legally defined process to ban a person from property. You send them a certified letter, as well as sending a copy of the letter and the certified mail receipt to your local police station. You can also deliver the letter in person and make a recording of the service, or have it hand delivered by an LEO, which is more likely what happens at stadiums.
Once that’s occurred, if the person enters the property again, you don’t have to ask them to leave or anything. The mere fact that they’ve entered the property means they’re guilty of trespassing, and you can call the police and have them arrested and charged with a crime, not just removed from the property. Doesn’t matter if they’ve been disorderly, or behaved like an angel, they’re committing a crime.
Regarding the UK and football, pretty much anything that will get you banned from a stadium is actually specifically illegalanyway, so it’s a police matter regardless.
One thing I was not aware of on that link, 'cos it never came up where I worked, is that, for a maximum of 3 months, banned people may actually have to report to the local police station every kick off time. Extreme, but probably effective.
No, it doesn’t mean that law enforcement is powerless to to remove them when they are misbehaving unless they’ve been officially banned in the past. Here’s how it goes:
Fan acts up on Jan 8. He’s asked to leave and does so. He is told in writing that he is not to enter the stadium for either a certain time period or for life- let’s say it’s life. Perhaps he signs paperwork agreeing not to enter the stadium or more likely acknowledging that he was told not to enter the stadium. Perhaps he doesn’t and the team just keeps a record of informing the fan that he cannot enter the stadium.
He then enters the stadium in defiance of the ban on Feb 13. He does nothing wrong- but he was a season ticket holder for years and one of the security guards recognized him as a banned fan**. He gets arrested.
OR
He enters the stadium in defiance of the ban on Feb 13, acts up again and security checks their records and finds he was banned on Jan 8. He now gets charged with trespassing in addition to any charges resulting from today’s misbehavior.
It’s true they aren’t going to catch nearly everybody who reenters after being banned- but I bet that two things do happen. I’m sure a lot of banned fans don’t take any chances since they don’t want to be arrested and spend even a night in jail and I’m sure a lot of the ones who do take their chances are on their best behavior so as not to be noticed. Which I’m sure is part of the purpose of the bans.
It’s not just stadiums and other venues - retail stores also ban people, although they are probably more successful at it.
- Why would he sign the paperwork? Because a lot of things that get you thrown out can result in an arrest or summons and the stadium might agree not to call the police if the bannee signs. Racial taunts probably wouldn’t result in an arrest or summons- but throwing something at a player or on the field could.
** Could happen- I’ve had partial season tickets for the Mets for about 20 years and plenty of stadium employees recognize me.
In Spain, season tickets are usually only available for Club members. There’s people who get their newborn a membership right after registering them, and the only reason they do it in that order is because they need the certificate from the Civil Registry before they can get the membership. Lots of long-term fans would consider losing their membership a worse tragedy that losing their jobs: jobs come and go, a membership in a Club from which you got expelled cannot be regained.