Boston's only free-standing Taco Bell had to explain to the Boston Licensing Board today why its late-night manager left two detectives standing in the rain for five minutes before he let them in for an inspection last month.
Sgt. Det. Robert Mulvey testified this morning that he and his partner, Daniel MacDonald, drove up to the Taco Bell, 1560 VFW Parkway in West Roxbury shortly after midnight on May 14 to conduct an inspection. Because the dining room was closed, they pulled into the drive-thru lane and when they got to the take-out window in their unmarked white Crown Victoria, MacDonald activated the blue lights, showed his BPD badge and announced they were there to conduct an inspection and to let them in.
Mulvey said they then drove around to the front where the manager met them at the door - but refused to let them in, even as they both showed their BPD badges and as they stood in the rain. After about five minutes, and a phone call to his boss, he let them in - where they found the restaurant had an expired food-serving license and ISD inspectional certificate. They then wrote a citation for that and for refusing entry to police after identification.
A Taco Bell "regional coach" told the board late-night Taco Bell crews are told to never let anybody in under any circumstances after closing without first checking with a manager. Outside of New England, he said, the chain has had problems with late-night robberies.
The detectives and board Chairwoman Christine Pulgini acknowledged the concern, but said Taco Bell should really change its policy to require workers to call 911 instead of a Taco Bell manager. Mulvey said he and MacDonald always check in with BPD dispatchers before they do an inspection and that 911 could have confirmed he and his partner were, in fact, cops and not would-be robbers.
State law requires restaurants to let police in. "God forbid something could be going on in your establishment" that requires immediate police attention, Pulgini said.
The regional coach said the failure to renew the license was a simple oversight at the franchise headquarters in Tennessee and won't happen again.
The board decides Thursday what action, if any, to take.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Actually most don't and
By ACLU PLZ DO SOM...
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:01pm
Actually most don't and recommend taking a plea or settling rather than getting into a prolonged fight with entities which often claim sovereign immunity. Hence why civil asset forfeiture and bonded warehouse extortion are lucrative enterprises for police departments.
Some PDs grab everything they can know very little will have to be returned even if a judge eventually says so.
They do fight them
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:55pm
That's where the precedents enter the case law.
What cops "believe" isn't always what the actual law says or what the courts have demonstrated.
You can't pretend to know the law and then answer clearly appropriate challenges with "what I'm not a lawyer" and "well then, why don't you sue"?
Classic copspeak nonsense.
That was a last resort.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:16pm
Show some Mass cases where the court ruled administrative searches were overturned because of this. The 4th amendment and Article 14 (stricter than the 4th) allow warrantless administrative searches of "closely regulated" industries. These owners understand (and sign off on it when they apply for the permit) this and they accept a reduced expectation of privacy in order to participate in certain commercial activities NY v. Burger 482 U.S. 691 (1987)
Thrulow v. Crossman 1957
Comm v. Tart 1990
Comm v. Bizarria 1991
Comm v. Blinn 1987
"and sign off on it when they
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:21pm
"and sign off on it when they apply for the permit"
You cannot sign away constitutional rights.
Have not opened the cases you cite, will do so later.
Lighten up Francis
By dd808
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:01pm
Lighten up Francis
Police have to behave themselves professionally
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:29pm
If they want access to closed places after hours, they need to avoid acting like would-be robbers.
Isn't a search?
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:58pm
Semantics.
Two guys show up to your house and claim to be cops. It is 1am. Do you let them in because it's "not a search".
Only if you are stupid. Even if they are cops, they have no right to "just look around" or "inspect" your property without a warrant.
Heck, maybe they "just wanna be friends" or "want to kiss your dog" or whatever. No warrant, no entry.
And when they insist on coming in anyway ...
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:01pm
What do you do?
You call 911.
A few thoughts:
By PeterGriffith5
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 9:53pm
A few thoughts:
Police should be uniformed in marked BPD cruisers. Inspecting restaurants does not require going undercover. Uniforms and marked police cars assure the public that they are dealing with police and not a few armed men - especially at midnight in an isolated area.
During the 5 minute wait, did the offjcers advise the restaurant manager to call 911? It's perfectly reasonable to verify that the two plain clothes officers are indeed police.
Whether it was raining, or not, has no bearing on the case. Hopefully BPD officers are prepared for weather.
What was the tone of the conversation? I'm assuming that the two officers have much more training and experience than a closing manager at a Taco Bell. Too many police come on too heavy, choosing to intimidate and pressure citizens. The fact that the store manager called his/her area coach may indicate that the manager was overwhelmed and needed guidance - something the Police should have provided as part of the inspectional visit.
Pages
Add comment