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
Conducting an inspection
By roadman
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:36am
after midnight. WTF?!?
Agreed
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:40am
Can't say I don't blame for not letting them in right away either
Really?
By johnmcboston
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:57am
After they're closed? Not sure I'd let them in either. (Isn't this what happened to the Gardner? :)
They weren't really closed
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:26pm
Yes, the dining room was, but the place was still in the business of serving food then. You still need a permit for that.
Yes, just like the Gardner heist
By Section77
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:35pm
30 years from now we could still be wondering where those missing chalupas and meximelts were spirited away to. It could happen.
Makes perfect sense
By E
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:58am
When least-expected.
Why are police 'inspecting'
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:01pm
Why are police 'inspecting' private property without a warrant when said private property is closed for business?
Are BPD detectives acting as health inspectors?
No, they were acting as permit inspectors
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:25pm
I know in this day and age it's hard to believe, but if you open a restaurant in Boston, you have to get all sorts of permits. And if you don't renew them, yes, the police might pay you a visit to check. There are other things they check for as well, which didn't apply in this case (locked emergency exits, overcrowding, underage drinkers, etc.).
If people don't like living in a city where things are so highly regulated, run for City Council in a couple years (probably too late this year, although there's always a write-in campaign) and get the rules changed. And then wait a few years until your decision results in some sort of awful thing that results in people demanding you bring the regulations back.
How do you check for
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:28pm
How do you check for overcrowding at a closed restaurant at midnight?
All of the things you list could be completed during normal business hours with the side perk of having management present. Better yet you will not have to wait in the rain for 5 minutes... those poor things.
Deliberately Argumentative?
By ElizaLeila
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:43pm
So why are inspections being
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:45pm
So why are inspections being done at a time where they have the least efficacy? (Not to mention almost certainly at higher cost to taxpayers)
I can think of a few possible
By Scratchie
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:16pm
I can think of a few possible reasons (pure speculation):
It's less disruptive to the business.
General practice in a well-run restaurant is to clean up and put stuff away when things are slow, whereas even well-run restaurants might be tempted to let things slide when they're in the middle of a rush. So by inspecting during slow periods, they're actually giving the restaurant a break, assuming the restaurant has its shit together (because health violations are health violations whether you're in the middle of a rush or not).
Their schedule may be so full that they have to work late hours to get everything done.
" So by inspecting during
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:13pm
" So by inspecting during slow periods, they're actually giving the restaurant a break"
If they were giving the place a break we would have never heard about this in the first place because waiting 5 minutes to get into a building when the building is closed to the public is hardly onerous.
Because...
By erik g
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:11pm
Probably the licensing enforcement cops don't have a lot else going on at 12:00 on a weeknight, (and I'm guessing it's not a 9-5 job) so I don't see the issue with them going to check on a place that the city knows didn't renew its mandatory license.
Makes perfect sense
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:02pm
For cop impersonators planning a robbery.
Thinking back to what I've been taught about "fake police"
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:04pm
Unmarked car, but has lights - doesn't mean this is a cop
Flashes badges ... but most people have no idea what those should look like
No uniform ... no warrant ... VERY strange time of day ... and no law says that you have to let cops in anyway
I'd have a fairly high index of suspicion. Too bad that they didn't call BPD or 911 and report this suspicious activity. An inspection after midnight at a place that doesn't serve alcohol? I can't fault the employees for smelling a rat here.
Ditto on the badges
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:07pm
I had plainclothes cops pull badges on me once at Suffolk Downs. They thought I was using drugs as I returned to my car. The presence of the Daily Racing Form on my front seat ended the inquiry.
Sounds like management really
By dd808
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:46am
Sounds like management really "dropped the Chalupa" on this one.
Someone comes to your door after midnight
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:56am
They say they are a cop, but aren't wearing a uniform.
Do you let them in?
No, but do you call 911 or your regional "coach"?
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:21pm
Me, I'm calling 911, but, hey, I've never worked at a Taco Bell (McDonald's, yes, but I was never high enough up on the chain of command to be in that position; only once did they let me even make the fries, and that was in what passed for an emergency).
I mean, that Taco Bell is
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:44pm
I mean, that Taco Bell is largely staffed by high school kids from Dedham/Westie. I don't really blame an 18/19 year old for not having the presence of mind to 1) ignore what they were told in training and 2) come up with an alternate solution when the whole situation is definitely out of the ordinary. The manager probably should have told them to call 911 to confirm it was the police, because how is the manager making that decision over the phone, but overall I think the person not opening the door is well within common sense actions.
For cripe's sake...
By whyaduck
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:02pm
Per the article: "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."
No "authorized decision maker", no "regional coach". End of discussion.
For Cripes Sake
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:53pm
BPD shouldn't be going around barging into closed restaurants at weird hours and terrorizing the staff while acting like fake cops. End of discussion.
Except, again, it wasn't closed
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:02pm
There were people working in there and they were cooking food and selling it.
What are the chances
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:56am
Of something going on in the establishment that requires immediate police attention that no one in the establishment knows about?
So if you own a restaurant
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:58am
So if you own a restaurant you have surrendered your right to protection from warrantless searches and seizures? Food inspectors, during business hours, I get. Cops? WTF?
Owner? Was it the CEO
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:30pm
Owner? Was it the CEO working that night? Restaurant? I mean, sure it sells food but not exactly a fine dining Restaurante...
Presuming the restaurant is a
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:16pm
Presuming the restaurant is a franchise the owner is probably quite local, if not the owner there are other people to make the decision within the company, 911 is not part of that management process.
Be an interesting case, I suppose ...
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:14pm
But in the meantime, if you apply for and get a Boston food serving license, that's one of the conditions you have to accept. Possibly relevant: Restaurants are not private clubs, by their very nature, they're open to the public. I'm no lawyer, but I'd think that makes them a different beast than, say, the locked trunk of a car or the basement of your house.
Chap. 138 is the state law that gives municipalities the right to issue permits, basically.
"they're open to the public."
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:19pm
"they're open to the public."
Except at midnight when they are not.
Except they were
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:27pm
They were selling at a drive-thru. They were still open to the public, just not in the dining room.
"God forbid something could
By roadman
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:03pm
In such a case, I suspect the store manager wouldn't have an issue with letting the police in - because the store manager likely would have called the police in the first place.
Did Mulvey actually say
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:08pm
"They made me wait in the rain?" Sounds like you would have been made to wait even if it wasn't raining. What my dad used to call a "whine-ass."
EDIT: Let this be a teachable moment for police departments. That's a little intimidating, guys, and it didn't need to be. Self-awareness goes a long way.
" Taco Bell should really
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 12:14pm
" Taco Bell should really change its policy to require workers to call 911 instead of a Taco Bell manager."
Why should Taco Bell call 911 regarding a warrant-less search? Asking the state how to proceed on a warrant-less search seems like a good way to get warrant-less searched. Managers and property owners should be the logical first call.
Really?
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:18pm
There are two strange guys in suits flashing lights and badges at you from outside your locked restaurant at midnight demanding to be let in and you think the best course of action is to call a "coach"? If so, been nice knowing you - you've just made a poor life choice. Me, I'm going to dial 911 and ask for help (at which point, in this particular case, I'd be told yes, those are really cops).
If I believed them to be
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:23pm
If I believed them to be police I would contact an authorized decision maker before letting them in, if for some reason I did not think they were police I would indeed call 911.
Regardless of whether or not they are police I am not letting them in without someone authorized to make such decisions being present.
What public good is served by warrant-less searches of private property?
You keep using that phrase
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:29pm
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Warrants apply to criminal investigations. Permit violations are civil infractions.
Warrants apply to the search
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:37pm
Warrants apply to the search of private property, exceptions to this have been made WRT alcohol businesses and firearm businesses, but those exceptions are quite limited.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/52...
(d) Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified on the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants;
Warrants apply to the search
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:38pm
dupe
https://supreme.justia.com
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:43pm
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/30...
3. Search warrants which are required in nonemergency situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused.
a) The rule that warrantless searches are generally unreasonable applies to commercial premises as well as homes. Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, and See v. Seattle, supra.
911 would know?
By Gary C
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:37pm
I don't know the inner workings of what info 911 operators are privy to, but it would NEVER occur to me that 911 could tell me if the guys standing at my door really are cops.
every city is different
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:26pm
Many will call in when they are attempting to serve paperwork or something not prompted by a specific call from dispatch, but I don't blame the employees at all for being skeptical.
FROM THE BLOG POSTING YOU ARE REPLYING TO
By Scratchie
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:31pm
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CLICK THROUGH TO ANYTHING!!!1!11ONE
You are 18 years old
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:42pm
You have two "cops" who claim to be "cops" banging on the door after midnight.
Do you REALLY think that 911 will tell you if they are REALLY cops?
The employees did the right thing. Go pound sand - and maybe demand that your cops not act like idiots, too.
Yes, 911 in Boston would
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:21pm
Because this is Boston, not some town in [name the state].
WHAT YOU AREN'T GETTING
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:51pm
YOU DON'T GET THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T KNOW THAT. THEY WOULD DO WHAT THEY WERE TRAINED TO DO.
And that's really the whole point
By adamg
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:00pm
Nobody at the hearing criticized the store manager for making a phone call. What the police and the licensing board asked was that Taco Bell change its training so that instead of training people to call some other manager first when unknown guys demand entry at midnight, they call 911 first. Is this really that impossible a request?
YES, BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS....
By Gary C
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:10pm
Until I READ THAT in this blog post, it would never have occurred to me that 911 would have that info. As such, on a rainy night, past midnight, I wouldn't call 911 unless I was feeling threatened by the plain-clothes guys at the door.
Yes, but if you owned a
By Scratchie
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:11pm
Yes, but if you owned a restaurant, you might know this fact, and share it with your employees.
Sure they would.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:28pm
Two police officers tell dispatch that they are at 1560 VFW parkway doing an inspection. The people who work at 1560 VFW parkway call 911 and ask if any police officers are there doing an inspection. The dispatchers tell the workers that yes, there are police officers there.
Whoosh
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:32pm
All of you. Whoosh.
It isn't that we don't believe this now. It is that your typical citizen working late doesn't know this.
Read for comprehension, please!
Y'all are expecting a lot
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:48pm
Y'all are expecting a lot from 18 year olds who've probably never called 911 in their life and know it only as IN CASE OF EMERGENCY number. The amount of people who've come out of COLLEGE and I've had to explain that 911 is the right choice for x y and z is staggering. I don't blame the employee for deferring to their manager.
not sure what point you're trying to make
By anon
Thu, 06/15/2017 - 9:00am
Yes, we know this, by reading this after the fact. The whole idea is that the kids working at Taco Bell maybe didn't.
That is the point
By adamg
Thu, 06/15/2017 - 10:59am
The kids at Taco Bell were trained to call a manager. The city asked that manager to train them to call 911 instead.
Count your blessings
By anon
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 2:26pm
You have clearly never worked late night fast food.
These guys did as they were trained to do. The cops acted like morons, behaved unprofessionally, and whined about the rain. Tough. Fast food workers are killed far more often than cops.
It IS dangerous, but maybe not as bad as being a cop
By Gary C
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:29pm
It isn't a search, and it isn't a criminal procedure.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:24pm
Read the laws regarding administrative inspections (MGLs chapters 138 and 140). Lots of stuff in there.
Workers have to let police officers and inspectors in. That is the law, it really isn't that complicated.
A) They waited 5 minutes in
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:31pm
A) They waited 5 minutes in the rain and were let in.
B) Read Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. lots of stuff in there. Entry into private property to inspect the property is not legal without permission of the property owner or a warrant. Even if your name is OSHA. That is the law, it really isn't that complicated.
No you don't need a warrant for administrative inspections.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:31pm
This wasn't an OSHA inspection that made it's rules up as they went along.
I am curious where you came
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:36pm
I am curious where you came to that conclusion after reading the case law?
(a) The rule that warrantless searches are generally unreasonable applies to commercial premises as well as homes. Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, and See v. Seattle, supra.
(b) Though an exception to the search warrant requirement has been recognized for "closely regulated" industries "long subject to close supervision and inspection," Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U. S. 72, 397 U. S. 74, 397 U. S. 77, that exception does not apply simply because the business is in interstate commerce. Pp. 436 U. S. 313-314.
(c) Nor does an employer's necessary utilization of employees in his operation mean that he has opened areas where the employees alone are permitted to the warrantless scrutiny of Government agents. Pp. 436 U. S. 314-315.
(d) Insofar as experience to date indicates, requiring warrants to make OSHA inspections will impose no serious burdens on the inspection system or the courts. The advantages of surprise through the opportunity of inspecting without prior notice will not be lost if, after entry to an inspector is refused, an ex parte warrant can be obtained, facilitating an inspector's reappearance at the premises without further notice; and appellant Secretary's entitlement to a warrant will not depend on his demonstrating probable cause to believe that conditions on the premises
Those cases do not have state statues.....
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:48pm
You do know that businesses in Massachusetts and Boston apply for permits and abide by the rules of those permits right? You are citing building/fire/OSHA codes which are similar in Massachusetts where you need administrative warrants (most have to do with burned buildings and fire inspections) All of these cases you can get an administrative warrant pursuant.
Camara v San Fransisco I am very familiar with. Those are about housing code violations and you would need an administrative warrant for those in Massachusetts as well.
You could also use See v. Seattle to back your irrelevant case. This is where the Fire Department needed administrative warrants to inspect fire code violations.
Want to inspect a pharmacy? You need a warrant (backed by administrative probable cause)
Want to inspect a gun shop? No warrant
Liquor Store? No warrant
Fast food? No warrant.
Citing a SCOTUS case
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:51pm
Citing a SCOTUS case specifically regarding administrative searches is entirely appropriate in the context of the conversation.
Gun stores and liquor stores have a clear carve out in case law, I am not aware of a carve out for food stores, could you cite one?
It is in those chapters I cited....
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 4:10pm
Milk, eggs, and fish etc. Look them up there are about 30 of them involving food.
Another SCOTUS case which actually involved criminal proceedings.....
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/579/
Why are you quoting maritime
By RyanM
Wed, 06/14/2017 - 3:55pm
Why are you quoting maritime law in a case about fast food? That's totally irrelevant and the exception to the 4th amendment comes from the power of the government to control the borders.
Because this is the case.....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 06/15/2017 - 9:20am
cited in almost every administrative search law there is, and is included in most administrative search case laws in the US.
Here is case law for your
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:42pm
Here is case law for your perusal specifically regarding 'administrative inspections"
(c) Contrary to the assumption of Frank v. Maryland, supra, Fourth Amendment interests are not merely "peripheral" where municipal fire, health, and housing inspection programs are involved whose purpose is to determine the existence of physical conditions not complying with local ordinances. Those programs, moreover, are enforceable by criminal process, as is refusal to allow an inspection.
(d) Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified on the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants;
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/52...
If you think you are right....
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:50pm
Go get an attorney and file a federal lawsuit for a 4th amendment violation. You and the lawyer can make a lot of money.
Ever wonder why attorneys don't fight these?
"Ever wonder why attorneys
By DPM
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:52pm
"Ever wonder why attorneys don't fight these?"
Because it costs more money than it is worth and is asking for backlash from inspecting authorities.
is asking for backlash from
By roadman
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:55pm
Like having them show up after your business is effectively closed to check if your food and ISD permits are valid.
A federal 4th amendment violation?
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:56pm
Are you kidding? Attorneys love those.
Pages
Add comment