Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
CHAPTER 10
Guests’ Rights
CONTENTS
A. Chapter Competencies
B. Introduction
C. Right to Occupy Assigned Room
D. Right to Privacy in Guest Room
E. Protection Against Illegal Searches
F. Protection Against Insults
G. Protection Against False Arrest
H. Protection Against Credit Card
Fraud
I. Rights Concerning Rates
and Fees
J. Proper Handling of Mail,
Packages, and Facsimile
Correspondence
K. Answers to Case Example
Questions
L. Answers to End-of-Chapter
Questions
Chapter Summary
Guests have a variety of rights, which innkeepers must honor or risk liability for their breach. Those rights include
the right to occupy the guest room without disturbances; the right against unauthorized police searches; the right
against insulting treatment by hotel employees; the right to be free from unlawful arrest or restraint by the hotel
staff; the right to disclosure of information concerning fees and charges for room, phone, and other services; and
the right to proper handling of mail, facsimile transmissions, and incoming packages.
A. Chapter Competencies
After studying Chapter 10, the student should be able to
1. identify at least five of the seven rights the law accords to guests in hotels and inns.
2. explain the guest’s right to occupy an assigned room.
3. list at least three exceptions when an innkeeper is authorized to enter a guest’s room.
4. explain the innkeeper’s obligations as related to the guest’s right to privacy.
5. explain the circumstances under which a hotel can report illegal guest activities.
6. list the circumstances under which the guest loses privacy rights.
7. define a “search warrant.”
8. explain the term “probable cause.”
9. explain the role of the exclusionary rule.
10. explain the hotel’s liability for illegal search of a guest’s room by police.
11. explain the effect of termination of occupancy on the guest’s privacy rights.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_10_Ch10_p106-113.qxd 7/6/07 10:38 PM Page 106
Guests’ Rights ■107
12. explain whether the discovery of evidence of a crime by an employee who enters the room to quell
a disturbance constitutes an illegal search.
13. explain whether the discovery of evidence of a crime by police who are admitted to the guest room
in an emergency situation constitutes an illegal search.
14. explain the rights of a hotel or inn to a reasonable search of a guest’s mislaid or forgotten
luggage.
15. explain the responsibility of an innkeeper or restaurateur when lost property is found and no one
claims it.
16. explain the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
17. explain the concept of false arrest.
18. identify when a hotel or restaurant commits the tort of false arrest or imprisonment.
19. explain when a hotel or a restaurant may be liable for crimes of credit card fraud committed by an
employee.
20. explain the guest’s rights concerning rates and fees.
21. list the procedures that fulfill the hotel’s responsibility to guests’ correspondence and packages.
B. Introduction
❊Explain that the law endows guests with a variety of rights and, if an innkeeper violates any of these
rights, liability can result.
C. Right to Occupy Assigned Room
❊Explain that a guest assigned to a room in a hotel has the right to occupy the room without dis-
ruption from the innkeeper.
❊An innkeeper who refuses accommodations without just cause is not only liable in damages, but is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
❊Ask the students to list the grounds that provide the exception to the rule.
D. Right to Privacy in Guest Room
❊Explain that a guest has the right to occupy the room without intrusion by the innkeeper or any
unauthorized person.
❊There are five exceptions when the innkeeper is authorized to enter the guest room.
❊The guest’s right to privacy obligates the innkeeper to take steps to not only prevent unauthorized
employees from entering the guest’s room, but also unauthorized would-be visitors. Without
authorization from the guest, even the guest’s spouse is not entitled to access.
❊Peeping Toms.
■Employees peeping into guest rooms to observe guests in their hotel rooms intrude on guests’
right to privacy.
E. Protection Against Illegal Searches
❊Explain that sometimes guests engage in illegal activity in a hotel room. A guest might, while in his
or her room, engage in conduct that is bothersome or threatening to other guests, or the guest
may have a medical emergency while occupying the room.
■In these and related circumstances, a guest’s right to privacy in his or her room may conflict
with the interests of the innkeeper and police to enter and search a room as part of an
investigation.
■The particular facts of each case determine whose rights and interests are given priority.
❊Report by innkeeper of illegal activity.
■Permitting criminal activity to proceed unabated may endanger other guests in violation of the
innkeeper’s duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their safety. Tolerating illegal conduct may
also jeopardize the hotel’s license to carry on business.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_10_Ch10_p106-113.qxd 7/6/07 10:38 PM Page 107
108 ■Chapter 10
■The hotel should report the illegal activity to the police. Is the hotel violating any rights of the
guest by informing the police? The answer is no, provided the hotel employee was legally in the
guest’s room when the wrongful conduct was discovered.
■An innkeeper can enter the room of a guest who is “smashing things,” and/or a guest who is
engaging in loud and disruptive conduct, without violating the guest’s right to privacy. The
guest can anticipate that the hotelier will need to investigate to protect the interests of other
guests and the hotel.
❊Search warrant.
■Once the police are called, they cannot legally search a guest’s room on the strength of permis-
sion given by the hotel manager or owner alone. The guest’s right to privacy requires the guest’s
permission for the police to make a consensual search. Without the guest’s approval, the police
must obtain a search warrant.
■If a search is made of a hotel room without the guest’s permission and without a search warrant,
the search invades the guest’s privacy, subject to certain exceptions. Before issuing a search war-
rant, a judge must be satisfied that the police have probable cause to believe the search will un-
cover evidence of a crime.
■Probable cause consists of facts sufficient for a reasonably prudent person to believe that evidence
of a crime is located in the place the police want to search. A suspicion or hunch is not enough.
■The warrant requirement provides a buffer between individuals and the police that helps ensure
that people’s privacy rights are not violated. The exclusionary rule holds that, in a warrantless
search, the prosecutor will not be able to use such evidence to help prove the defendant’s guilt.
In such a circumstance, the criminal charges against the defendant are customarily dismissed
unless the police have other evidence.
■Would the innkeeper be liable in either of these cases if the police, relying on information pro-
vided by a hotel employee, made an illegal search without a warrant? The answer is no. The hotel
is not liable for the acts of the police; they are not employees or agents of the hotel. Thus, while
the search without a warrant constitutes an invasion of the guest’s privacy, the hotel cannot be
held liable for that wrong.
❊Consent to search.
■Consent is an exception to the requirement that the police must obtain a search warrant.
■Clearly, a guest has the authority to consent to a police search of his or her own room.
■Suppose the guest is not in when the police arrive seeking permission to search. If they ask the
innkeeper for approval and he or she consents, is the search valid? The answer is no. During the
time a room is assigned to a guest, neither the innkeeper nor any employee of the hotel has
the authority to consent to a search. If the police make a search of a guest’s room relying only
on consent granted by the innkeeper or a hotel employee, any evidence found will be suppressed.
Will the hotel be liable to the guest? If the guest suffers a loss, a court would likely find the hotel
liable for violating the guest’s privacy.
❊Effect of termination of occupancy on privacy rights.
■In circumstances where the guest fails to pay as agreed or if the occupancy period expires, the
right to occupy the room reverts from the guest to the innkeeper, who is then entitled to enter
the room, remove any remaining property of the guest, and prepare it for the next guest.
■A hotel guest has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a room after the rental period has ex-
pired. This rule applies even if the guest remained physically present in the room after check-out
time.
❊Disturbing the peace.
■Suppose a condition in a guest’s room is disturbing to other guests. A hotel employee enters the
room to quell the disruption and discovers evidence of a crime. Is this an illegal search requiring
suppression of the evidence? The answer is no.
❊Emergency situation.
■Another circumstance under which an innkeeper is permitted to admit police into a guest’s room
is where reasonable grounds exist to believe that the guest is in distress and in need of assistance.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_10_Ch10_p106-113.qxd 7/6/07 10:38 PM Page 108
Guests’ Rights ■109
❊Room registered to another.
■A person who is not a registered guest does not have a right of privacy in a hotel room.
❊Search of items mislaid by guests.
■A related privacy problem involves mislaid or forgotten guest luggage. If the innkeeper fails to
verify ownership of the briefcase and by mistake gives it to someone other than the owner, the
innkeeper will be liable for breach of its duty as bailee, as discussed in Chapter 8.
❊Unclaimed lost property.
■What is the responsibility of an innkeeper or restaurateur when lost property is found and
no one claims it? Many states have statutes that prescribe a procedure for disposing of such
items.
F. Protection Against Insults
❊Though the use of insulting and abusive language is objectionable and can evoke anger, the courts
have been slow to regard it as a basis of civil liability as between individuals. Most states do not
recognize abusive language, without more, as a tort.
❊Some courts have allowed recovery for a lower threshold of abusive language in cases where an
innkeeper and guest are involved. The reason is that the innkeeper, carrying on a business of a
public nature, is expected to extend to guests respectful and decent treatment, and to refrain from
conduct that would interfere with patrons’ comfort or humiliate and distress them.
G. Protection Against False Arrest
❊Neither a hotelkeeper nor a restaurateur is under any duty to prevent the arrest of a guest by
police officers who are seemingly acting within their authority. However, if the arrest is due to a
false statement by the hotel, restaurant, or their agents, the establishment could be liable.
❊Only if the person actually has committed a crime can the establishment legally detain him.
❊Like many states, Massachusetts, the state in which the case occurred, authorizes a restaurant to
detain a person if it has reasonable cause to believe she did not pay money owed, provided the
detention lasts for only a reasonable amount of time and is carried out in a reasonable manner. If,
however, the person is detained without reasonable cause, for an unreasonable amount of time, or
in an unreasonable manner, she is entitled to recover for damages.
❊A hotel or restaurant cannot with impunity interfere with its patrons’ freedom of movement or ac-
cuse them of illegal acts without good cause. To avoid liability, the hospitality facility needs rea-
sonable grounds to believe the patron has acted illegally.
H. Protection Against Credit Card Fraud
❊Guests frequently pay their hotel and restaurant bills with a credit card. They expect employees with
access to their credit card number to only use it for the official purpose of completing the payment
transaction. Occasionally an employee misuses the information and makes unauthorized purchases
charged to the customer’s account, or the employee might utilize the card number to engage in
identity theft, meaning to obtain personal financial information about the credit card holder and
illegally use that information to transfer money from the customer’s accounts to the employee.
❊Explain the importance of good management and supervision of employees to prevent credit card fraud.
I. Rights Concerning Rates and Fees
❊Legal mandates and good practice require that room rates and other fees be disclosed to guests before
the costs are incurred. Further, a hotel cannot impose charges for services that are not provided.
❊Right to advance notice.
■Guests have a right to know, prior to contracting for a room, the fees and charges a hotel will
impose.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_10_Ch10_p106-113.qxd 7/6/07 10:38 PM Page 109
110 ■Chapter 10
❊Right to no extraneous fees.
■Guests also have the right not to be charged for services they did not receive.
■Hotels should ensure that they do not impose fees for services not actually rendered. If the hotel
intends to charge for certain services, it should charge only those guests who utilize those serv-
ices. If the demand for the service is insufficient to cover the costs, the hotel should reassess
whether it wishes to continue offering that amenity.
■As an alternative, a hotel can provide optional complementary services, such as breakfast, with-
out charging the guest an additional fee. Instead, the cost to the hotel is incorporated into the
room rate. The room fee remains constant regardless of whether the guest chooses to utilize the
additional service. Since guests who do not use the service are not charged an extra fare, this
arrangement is permissible.
❊Telephone charges.
■At one time, telephones in guest rooms were considered a courtesy offered by a hotel for
the convenience of guests; there was no duty on the part of hoteliers to supply telephone
services. Today, failure to provide a telephone in the room may violate the innkeeper’s duty
to exercise reasonable care to protect guests’ safety and to provide adequate security.
■A telephone may be the only source of communication in an emergency situation. It might be
used to give instructions to guests trapped in their rooms during a fire, or to summon help by a
guest who suddenly takes ill and is unable to leave the room.
■Local and intrastate calls were regulated by state public utility commissions that allowed only
a very small surcharge. Interstate and international calls were regulated by the Federal Com-
munication Commission, which allowed no surcharge at all. As a result, hoteliers avoided
installing elaborate telephone systems because they lost money on telephone services. More
recently, however, most states have eliminated regulations that limited the surcharge that
hotels may impose on local and intrastate calls, thus providing hotels with a source of
revenue. In states where surcharge regulations still exist, innkeepers are bound to conform
to them and may not impose a surcharge greater than that allowed by the state regulatory
authority.
■In states where the regulations have been withdrawn, only competition limits the fees charged.
Many guests are irritated by the amount of the fee and the lack of uniformity in the amount; the
charges vary significantly from hotel to hotel. Some states, including New York, now have a
“truth-in-dialing act” that requires the hotel to conspicuously display a sign on or “in the
immediate vicinity of ” the phones in the room advising guests that the hotel will impose a fee
when calls are made on the hotel’s phone.
J. Proper Handling of Mail, Packages, and Facsimile Correspondence
❊Hotel guests often receive mail and packages at the hotel. Sometimes mail arrives after guests
depart. The right to have the mail handled carefully can be construed from the nature of the hotel
business. The innkeeper can anticipate that mail will be sent to guests and should develop rules for
processing letters and packages. The hotel may be liable to the intended recipient for negligent
handling of the package if it is mistakenly delivered to the wrong person.
❊If the hotel provides a facsimile machine for guests to use, procedures should be established to
ensure guests can reliably send and receive faxed documents.
K. Answers to Case Example Questions
10-5-1. If the radio had not been playing loudly, would the evidence have been suppressed?
The loud noise justified the innkeeper’s entering Henning’s room and seeking aid from the
police for this purpose. The officer saw what he thought might be a person in need and so en-
tered the room to see if aid was needed. This is a justifiable reason for entering a guest room.
Once legally inside, the officer can seize any evidence of a crime in plain view. Had the facts
been different and the officer’s entry into the room not been for a legitimate purpose, the en-
try would not have been justified, and the evidence would have been suppressed.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_10_Ch10_p106-113.qxd 7/6/07 10:38 PM Page 110
Guests’ Rights ■111
10-6-1. Why was the search of the briefcase not a violation of the defendant’s constitutional
right against unreasonable searches?
It was not a search for evidence but rather a minimum intrusion to obtain a means of identi-
fying the defendant. The briefcase was opened to remove the wallet in response to defendant’s
statement that his identification was in it. This is consistent with the innkeeper’s duty to use
reasonable care to ensure that the lost briefcase is returned to its rightful owner.
10-8-1. What alternate arrangements for payment of the fee might the hotel have made to avoid
liability for returning the money?
The hotel, rather than offering messenger service as a “free service” and adding a two percent
fee to the bill, should have charged all people using the service a reasonable fee for it.
10-9-1. Assume that the hotel employee with whom the Soifers made arrangements for return
of the package was not on duty when it arrived or had been terminated before it was
delivered. What procedures might the hotel have instituted to ensure the Soifers’ wishes
were nonetheless honored?
The hotel should have a system for documenting a guest’s desires concerning a package that arrives
after check-out. The system should include a procedure to process departed guests’ mail and for-
ward it to them, as well as provide money to ensure that costs of transmittal are covered. Employ-
ees who staff the front desk or mail room should be well-trained about the system and procedures.
Key Terms
Exclusionary rule The rule that holds evidence
obtained in consequence of a warrantless search is not
admissible in court.
False arrest The detention of a person without his
or her consent and without lawful authority.
Probable cause A reasonable ground for belief in
certain alleged facts; facts sufficient for a reasonably
intelligent and prudent person to believe the defen-
dant committed a crime or that evidence of a crime is
located in the place the police want to search.
Search warrant An order from a judge command-
ing a police officer to search a designated place for
evidence of criminal activity.
L. Answers to End-of-Chapter Questions
❊Review Questions
1. What obligation, if any, does a hotel have to refrain from using abusive or insulting
language when addressing a guest?
In some states the courts recognize a duty on the part of the innkeeper to refrain from using
abusive language toward a guest. A similar duty is not owed by a restaurateur to a diner.
2. Under what circumstances can an innkeeper enter a guest’s room without consent?
The innkeeper can enter a guest’s room for normal maintenance and repair, upon imminent
danger, upon nonpayment of the hotel bill, or at the guest’s request.
3. What constitutional rights are at risk when the police search a hotel room for
evidence?
A police search of a hotel room could implicate the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures and the right of privacy.
4. If a police search violates a constitutional right, what happens to any evidence that is
seized in the search?
The evidence is suppressed.
5. Who has authority to issue a search warrant?
A search warrant is issued by a judge.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_10_Ch10_p106-113.qxd 7/6/07 10:38 PM Page 111
