Right to privacy in restroom not absolute

[rainbow4321]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RESTROOM_PRIVACY_APPEAL?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A man found partly disrobed with a woman, cocaine and marijuana in the one-person restroom of an Iowa convenience store in an area known for prostitution had no absolute right to privacy, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

An 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously rejected Lonnie Maurice Hill's claim that police who found him with the woman and drugs breached his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, making the drugs illegally seized and unusable as evidence.

Other courts have held that the right of privacy in bathrooms varies case to case, with some judges holding that a stall in a public restroom is not a private place when used for something other than its intended purpose.

"The Fourth Amendment protects people and not places," Judge Donald Lay wrote for the three-judge 8th Circuit panel. In Hill's case, "it was not a single person using the single toilet restroom but two persons of opposite gender and, under the circumstances, we hold that they had a diminished expectation of privacy which had expired by the time the officers arrived."

[seriousstan]

1. Let's ask George Michaels.

He might have some insight into this subject.

[hector459]

88. So why fine Randy Moss if they want to look at our naked butts anyway?

Moss just pretended to show his butt. But it's ok for the government to peep at our naked butts in the bathroom?

[slackmaster]

2. I learned that when I was married

:argh:

[CornField]

3. In Cedar Rapids?

I didn't know we had an area "known for prostitution" in Cedar Rapids.

[Pirate Smile]

10. It's not too well known if those of us that live here don't know it.

Maybe just the cops do.

edit to add - and the Johns, of course.

[fishwax]

69. lol ... I lived in Cedar Rapids and in Atkins/Shellsburg

just outside of CR for a few summers, and it would surprise me greatly to hear that there is an area of CR known for prostitution.

[BBradley]

4. That makes no sense at all

How would you know whether someone was using a restroom for it's intended purpose unless you already violated their privacy. It's like if a cop pulled you over for no reason and searched your trunk. It's unconstitutional if they don't find your pound of grass, but constitutional if they do...

[seriousstan]

5. I can think of several ways.

If the store worker saw several people enter a one person restroom.

If that same restroom had previously been used for this purpose.

If they were making enough noise doing drugs and having sex for people outside to hear.

There's just a few.

[rabid_nerd]

13. exactly...

but some people around here don't buy the idea of police watching something, noticing a pattern, setting up a sting, and catching a criminal. That's "unfair". What they do in the "privacy" of a "public" :crazy: bathroom..

The police and business are automatically the man and the people having sex and doing drugs on someone's property are automatically the victim to some people here.

You get used to it.

[seriousstan]

45. I thought everyone here could connect the dots.

[SemperEadem]

53. and if I"m having a particularly traumatic episode of constipation

or an "Austin Powers" moment, then I have no expecation of privacy...

I'll remember that the next time I indulge in cheese.

[seriousstan]

55. I guess you didn't read the article. It was clearly stated.....

Hill was arrested after a clerk called police to report suspicious activity, a man and woman entering the store's one-person unisex restroom.

When police arrived minutes later, according to the ruling, the couple twice failed to respond to knocks, and someone inside locked the door after an officer unlocked it. The two finally emerged - Hill with his pants undone - after the officer unlocked the door a second time. He was arrested after he re-entered the restroom, and marijuana and cocaine were found near the toilet.

[SemperEadem]

56. I guess you didn't pick up my sarcasm

though I'm not surprised.

[cincinnati_liberal]

60. but stan is serious

[SemperEadem]

77. lol, hence the name ;)

[tives12]

8. benefits the government

it allows the government to have the kind of invasion they want, but also saves their backs by having that right in the constitution. it seems like it was purposely written to have holes in it that the government could get through.

[Pirate Smile]

14. Here are a couple clues for the cops:

"Other courts have held that the right of privacy in bathrooms varies case to case, with some judges holding that a stall in a public restroom is not a private place when used for something other than its intended purpose.

"The Fourth Amendment protects people and not places," Judge Donald Lay wrote for the three-judge 8th Circuit panel. In Hill's case, "it was not a single person using the single toilet restroom but two persons of opposite gender and, under the circumstances, we hold that they had a diminished expectation of privacy which had expired by the time the officers arrived."

When it comes to restroom privacy, "we have never held that this expectation lasts indefinitely," Lay wrote."

[booksenkatz]

27. Does this 'opposite gender' thing apply when I assist my son in the stall?

Perhaps there could be some exceptions to this ruling. I hope.
:crazy:

[athenap]

30. If your son's anything like mine...

privacy is waay down on the list... :/ especially once it's mommy's turn to go. LOL

[Pirate Smile]

35. I assume they recognize the difference between children and people

who may need assistance from everybody else.

[booksenkatz]

37. But wouldn't they have to open the stall door to find out?

I'm not trying to be an ass, I just want to know how a law like this could be (could be? I mean WILL BE) abused.

[Pirate Smile]

38. Well, I took it as meaning they saw who had gone into the bathroom and

they had been in there an inordinate amount of time.

I don't know the details other then what the article states.

I would assume they would first ask for the people inside to come out but if they are concerned about drugs - they would worry the drugs are being flushed so I don't know if they would ask or not.

How exactly will it be abused? I don't know but I'm sure somebody will abuse it, they always do.

Of course, if you have ever forgotten to lock the bathroom door having someone walk in wouldn't exactly be a first.

edit to add - here are some more details

"Hill was arrested in 2003 after a convenience store clerk in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, called police to report suspicious activity - a man and woman entering the site's small, one-person restroom for use by either gender.

Police who responded within minutes knocked anonymously on the bathroom door but got no answer. When an officer rapped on the door with his flashlight, "he heard a jingle like a belt buckle but otherwise no response," Lay wrote.

When an officer unlocked the door, someone in the restroom relocked it. After the officer unlocked the door again, a woman squeezed out moments before Hill followed, his pants undone and loosely held by a belt. Hill saw the officer and re-entered the bathroom before being arrested.

Inside, police found a small bag of marijuana and two clear baggies of cocaine atop a metal wastebasket near the toilet, along with a metal scale."

and the court included this "Still, the judge noted, each case should be weighed individually, and that "clearly, our conclusion regarding Hill and his companion may stand on different footing than say a child and a parent or where one person because of a disability or some other medical reason may need assistance."

[booksenkatz]

43. But what would be an "inordinate amount of time?"

Are we only allowed X amount of time under the law in order to get our toileting done? Have they never experienced, or known someone who experiences, colitis or constipation? I really don't mean to ride you, PSmile, but I could imagine sooooo many abuses if we start writing toileting into law. What if someone doesn't like my "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." t-shirt and decided to give me hell if I stayed in the stall longer than is "seemly?"

[MADem]

62. In Europe, they have timed crappers

You pay, and after a set amount of time, the door unlocks. You have to "stop what you are doing" I would imagine, go out and pay again.

I've never exceeded my time limit, though, so I do not know how long they give you!

[praxiz]

66. What do you mean, "IN Europe"

I live in Europe, and I've never heard of this before.
:hurts:

[MADem]

67. I've enjoyed the timed crapper in Zurich and

...Frankfurt. This was pre-Euro, but at the time I thought they were very modern and efficient. They also had attendants who would do everything short of wipe your ass.

[tblue37]

46. Your subject line made me laugh out loud!

"I assume they recognize the difference between children and people. . . ."

This is what my grandmother once said about the rigid feeding schedules that mid-century pediatricians used to encourage mothers to enforce on newborns:

"I never thought that was right, you know. Babies get hungry just like people do."

[Pirate Smile]

48. I looked back at it and it made me laugh too.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

54. Not just mid-century peds

Take a look at some of the parenting books today, especially the "Christian" ones from Gary Ezzo. It'll make your hair stand on end.

[tblue37]

58. Yeah,

but some of those Christian parenting "experts" also recommend putting hot sauce on kids' tongues as punishment. I think they are loony.

[MADem]

63. Yeah, and when the kids grow up and move out

...all they serve when those parents come to visit is hot, spicy food!!!

[area51]

64. babywise

Is Ezzo connected to "Babywise"? Those people are mofoing insane child abusers.


"Prosperity is just around the corner." -- Herbert Hoover
"The economy has turned a corner." -- GW Bush

Herbert Hoover = GW Bush

Neither man cared about the Depression their economic policies created.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

65. He wrote them n/t

[TahitiNut]

6. This ruling highlights the ethical bankruptcy of coupling a human right ..

... to property. Notice the heavy emphasis on the "where" and the ownershp of the "where"?

When we equate the viability of a human right to the ownership of some property upon (or withn) which we exercise our rights, we've essentially gone back to the fundamentals of slavery - human rights for sale and purchase.

[seriousstan]

7. You have no right to have sex and do drugs in anyones property

unless it is your own.

The owner of the store could even be charged if it is determined that he knew people were doing drugs and didn't do something about it.

How is it a "human right" to have sex and do drugs in a store restroom?

[Redstone]

9. seriousstan, you're right...

The Fourth Amendment is one of my favorites, but come on, folks...If nothing else, they should have been able to prosecute these people for extreme stupidity and utter lack of class.

I mean, would you want to be the next person to use that bathroom after they were done? Sheesh.

I, as well, am astounded that there is an area in Cedar Rapids that is "known for prostitution." I used to go there a lot back in the mid-Eighties, and it sure didn't seem like that kind of place.

Redstone

[ender]

20. no offense,

but if there's humans living in the area, there's prostitution. one of those simple, uncomfortable facts of life.

i betcha that theres also gays, fetishist and church folks.

[Redstone]

26. No offense taken.

You're absolutely right, and I was pretty naive to be surprised.

People will be people, wherever they are.

Redstone

[toopers]

73. One other thing . . . .

this is not really a "public" bathroom -- it is a bathroom that the public is allowed to use.

[PaganPreacher]

11. Aw, c'mon....

Everybody knows that the 10th Amendment protects the right to have sex and use drugs on someone else's property without their consent.

The Founding Fathers were probably toking up and playing "What's in my pocket?" in the men's room of the Pennsylvania State House in that "summer of love" of 1787.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[TahitiNut]

12. So, unless you're able to BUY a place to exercise a human right ...

... you're not permitted to exercise it? :eyes:

Sounds like "rights for sale" to me. :shrug:

[rabid_nerd]

15. less about property than about public vs. private

it was a public restroom and open according to tha landowner's terms.

You break the law on someone else's property, you don't expect any constitutional rights unless you own the land, NO.

However there should always be strong landlord/tenant laws enforced as there are in many states.

[TahitiNut]

17. "convenience store" sounds like private property to me.

While the restroom was made available to the public, it's still private property.

The question remains: Is a human right actually a right if it can only be exercised by a person having the ability to pay for it??

In my mind, we have a serious problem with our conception of human rights if infringement on the exercise those rights is effectively total for those without the economic ability to pay for property upon (or within) which those rights may be exercised.

Try addressing that point.

[barackmyworld]

40. it doesn't sound so bad if you think of another example

There are other cases where you must buy something in order to have a right to it. For example, you are protected from search and seizure, but the "seizure" part of it only makes sense if you OWN things. The more things you own, the greater the "quantity" of seizure protection you have.

Back in the day, you could build a log cabin and that would be your property. It's not like that anymore, which is the reason why it depends on money.

[TahitiNut]

42. It's not a 'right' - it's (literally) an entitlement.

There's a difference.

[sandnsea]

80. Safety issue, not property

The store owner has a right to protect his safety. He/she has a responsibility to protect the safety of his other customers. I would imagine sufficient probable cause applies here. I don't think somebody has a privacy right to engage in illegal activities when they're in a bathroom, whether in a mini-mart or a state park or my own home. Note, illegal activities that really ought to be illegal, which is a whole other topic.

[Pirate Smile]

16. Well, go ahead and open up your place to anyone who wants

to do drugs and have sex. The rest of us, hhhmmm, not so much ......please don't do it on our property whether it is our business or in our home.

[jayfish]

31. Apples And Oranges.

Of course the owner can bar people from doing drugs and having sex in his restroom. He can even call the cops to enforce this. The question is (IMO); do the police have the right to use evidence discovered, while they are enforcing the owners private property rights, to prosecute a crime that is not related to trespass? It's a huge difference and arguing about the store owners rights is subterfuge.

Jay

[booksenkatz]

28. I have sex in hotel rooms which I do not own... is that illegal? nt

[TahitiNut]

33. Only if you do it wrong ...

... or pay too little. :evilgrin:


"Notice: Copulation permitted herein only in state-sanctioned manners, and only between enfranchised adults of opposite genders."

[booksenkatz]

36. And

only in the missionary position.

And only for those who are married.

And even then, only while attempting to conceive children.
:evilfrown:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

34. That's not the issue. In places where you have an expectation of privacy..

...the government needs a warrant to conduct a search.

You can't do illegal things anywhere. But if you're doing them in a place where you have an expectation of privacy the government has to exceed a very minimal hurdle in order to respect your privacy.

It's a very basic element of life in America.

What the cops could have done without a warrant was sit outside the bathroom and arrest the people when they came out, seizing any evidence they could find. Or, I believe, they could have waited outside, but could have broken in to the bathroom if there was some other established exception to the warrant requirment. For example, if they thought the guy was going to flush the drugs. Ie, I don't think many judges would have required a warrant if the police said they heard them talk about drugs through the door, knocked (announcing themselves as the police) and then immediately broked down the door in order to stop the guy from destroying evidence.

What happened here was probably that the guy was very careful, made no noise, and was discreet, and the police couldn't find any exceptions to the warrant requirement, but the broke the door down anyway.

[primavera]

18. Another view on lavatory privacy...

[TahitiNut]

19. I wonder what it looks like at night.

Particularly if the occupant turns on a light.

[AP]

21. If the door locks and you lock it and there's one toilet, it's private.

That's what I think.

[booksenkatz]

22. Goddamn it, as if I already don't have enough of a shy bladder

Thanks so much, to everyone involved in this ruling!

[TahitiNut]

25. Well ...

... at least you don't have to obediently comply with police state limits on the maximum permitted number of shakes at the urinal.

:evilgrin:

[booksenkatz]

29. That reminds me (sidebar)

The first time my husband took my son to a urinal, my son (who is very meticulous) exclaimed that there was no toilet paper. My husband said under his breath, "Shake it!" and my son dutifully began to try to shake the urinal itself.

Yes, isn't the legal shaking limit three? As a female, I'm not schooled on this stuff.

[TahitiNut]

32. Yup. The maxim is "more than three times is self-abuse."

It also highlights the societal issues of matriarchal potty-training, I guess. :evilgrin:

[deacon2]

51. No matter how you shake and dance...

the last few drops go down your pants.
Words to live by.

[0007]

70. ..too many shakes might be against the law in some places.

[DS1]

23. You'll have to pry my toilet bowl out of my cold, dead fingers

and when shitting is outlawed, only outlaws will shit :hurts:

[Maven]

83. lol.

thanks. thanks for that.

[DS1]

24. This is why FReepers travel with their own private porta-potties

;-)

[VegasWolf]

50. I thought that FReepers used those stalls with the holes in them. n/t

[Megahurtz]

71. LOL!!!

:7

[ticapnews]

39. "The Fourth Amendment protects people and not places"

Is it just me, or does this language essentially end 4th Amendment protection? Isn't your home a place? Your car? The 4th Amendment no longer covers those because they are places, not people.

Or as our about-to-be confirmed AG would say: "This ruling renders the 4th Amendment quaint." And, the need for things like search warrants and probable cause, is now something for us to read about in history books.

Until they are rewritten, of course.

[TahitiNut]

41. It's the Achilles Heel of victim-less crime.

Ordinary understanding of 'crime' is the (extreme) infringement on the rights and /or entitlements of another person: i.e. a 'harm.'. That person, then, is the source of a complaint and facilitator of evidence production.

What we see here is (1) sexual relations between consenting adults, and (2) the victim-less 'crime' of drug abuse. Only under a parental (control-obsessed) view of 'government' are such behaviors deemed criminal.

It (again) brings up the question: How much harm can there be from a specific act if it requires real-time intrusion and surveillance to even ascertain whether a 'crime' has been committed?


This was what I found astonishing about cable TV service claims way back when. The cable TV company asserted a 'right' to a separate fee for each and every device connected ... even though they could not determine how many devices were connected unless they actually came into my home and investigated. How extreme does artificially entitled capitalism get when the provider of a 'service' can't even tell when they're providing a 'service'? (I'd love to get paid for providing a 'service' if doing so required so little effort that I couldn't even tell I was doing it. Not.)

[VegasWolf]

47. The police should stay out of it, at least the prostitute had a job,

albeit temporarily, and was thus helping awol's unemployment.

[northzax]

49. well it seems to me

that the owner of a public accomodation can specify the manner in which he or she wants it used and can act to prevent said misuse. you see it in bars all the time, signs that say "one person per stall" or "one person in the restroom at a time" to prevent this exact occurence.

[genieroze]

52. Can you hear that?........here listen some more........

chip, chip, chip, chip. That's the sound of the constitution being chipped away.

[VegasWolf]

57. Chip, chip, I thought that was the sound of a FREEPER digging a

spyhole in the bathroom cubilce walls.

[Megahurtz]

72. HaHaHaHaHa!!!

That's hilarious! Probably not far from the truth.

[jayctravis]

59. You have the right to privacy in *your* restroom.

This was a convenience store bathroom, not this person's property. Privacy is granted by the owner. Just as emails sent from a work computer are property of the company.

[jayfish]

68. So I Guess The Next...

time you go to a party at someone else's house, you won't mind the live web-cam that they broadcast from the bathroom to the TV in the living-room while your taking a :hurts: ?

[0007]

75. That reminds of a joint in the 50's in Long Beach California

called the "Nut House." I hope someone here on this board remembers that place.

It serve the customers drinks out of a douche bag and used toilet paper to wipe the bar and all kind of crazy stuff. When an unsuspecting female visited the restroom, there was a statue of a naked man with a just a fig leaf covering his thingie. If the fig leaf was moved it would set off an alarm to the bar, so that all patrons knew. The toilet was also wired for sound.

[northzax]

76. not if they tell you they are doing it

you then consent to it.

by the way, say you're over at this party, and in the bathroom, a guest is raping the host's 12 year old daughter. You know this because a 40 year old man just took a 12 year old girl into the bathroom and locked the door. You can clearly hear the grunting and screaming. Everyone can hear it, it's quite loud. Do you simply say, "hey, nothing we can do, they're in the bathroom, that's a zone of privacy, sure hope he doesn't hurt her too much." or do you bust in there and kick the shit out of him?

your only option is to pick option one. In the conventience store option, the owner (through his/her representative) had a reasonable suspicion that his/her premesis were being used ofr illegal activity. He/she is therefore well within the rights of ownership to attempt to stop this illegal activity by calling the police. The police can enter anywhere on the owner's premesis, with the owner's permission. This is the exact same thing as the host breaking down the door of the bathroom to stop his daughter getting raped. same principle. you have a reasonable suspicion that something illegal is occuring, and a reasonable reason to enter the room and check it out.

see how that's a little different from someone broadcasting your bowle movements on the web?

[jayfish]

79. Let's See.

"Hill was arrested after a clerk called police to report suspicious activity, a man and woman entering the store's one-person unisex restroom."

Where is the reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed? Have you ever been to a bar in a college town? The mens' bathroom usually reverts to unisex pretty quickly. Your example would lead any reasonable person to believe that a crime was being committed. I'm not arguing that the property owner doesn't have a right to evict to loiterers from his/her restroom. That right was upheld when the police removed the "couple" from the restroom I'm arguing that the seized evidence should not be admissible in court. If you have no expectation of privacy then the drugs could belong to anyone.

Jay

[northzax]

81. ahh, so they were ok going in?

and according to the article, the man was arrested, not on first leaving the restroom, but when he went back in for his drugs. So the police told him to leave. and he did, but not before going back in to get his drugs. The search from the initial entry did not turn up the drugs, the fact that he self-incriminated himself by going back in to get them did.

They never seached him. Had he put the drugs in his pocket and walked out when the police told him to, he would have been fine. his actions following the entry into the restroom, namely going back inside and picking up a bag of cocaine and marijuana, led to his arrest. There is a right against forced self-incrimination, but not from stupidity.

on edit: long story short, you are right, the drugs could have been anyone's, but he made the link by going back in and getting them.

[jayfish]

84. The Article ...

(which is poorly written)doesn't say he was returning for the drugs or that he even touched them. It just said he went back in. Do you have another source? That story is really bad.

Jay

[cincinnati_liberal]

61. And the moral of this story?

Don't do your drugs and fuck hookers in public restrooms, that's what Motel 6 is for you dumbasses.

[AP]

74. The moral is that the police can bust into restrooms without any good

reason no matter what you're doing in there.

[northzax]

78. er, no it isn't

read the decision, huh? Refusing to answer the owner of an establishment, or the police, when they knock on the bathroom door, is a bad idea. that's a lesson for you.

when, in your opinion, would the owner of the establishment be justified in unlocking the door and entering his own restroom, after someone's in there for an hour? twelve hours? twenty-four? when the cadaver starts to leak fluids into the rest of the store? when does a reasonable right to privacy expire? Had the man simply said "i'll be out in a minute," when the police knocked, they would have waited longer.

[AP]

85. This is a desicion about the admissability of evidence the police

get without a warrant.

It says you don't need a warrant to go into a bathroom in these circumstances.

A warrant requires a very minimal level of protection for potential subjects of police investigation -- basically, you just have to prove to the court that there's a good reason to believe you're going to find evidence of a crime, and lord knows there are all kinds of judges.

Well, now, with this decision, police in this courts jurisdiction know that they can go into a bathroom without a warrant and will not have to worry about evidence being excluded from a trial.

So this means they will be more inclined to act on hunches.

People who are not enganged in any sort of crime should be aware that they don't have to act very suspiciously at all and the police will be able to invade your privacy.

Say you're on a long drive with your girlfriend and you just want to find a nice, private place to fuck. Well, don't pick a bathroom in this jurisdiction.

[northzax]

86. and it seems to me that a business owner

has a reasonable right and responsibility to prevent illegal activity from occuring on his premises. you have a reasonable right to privacy in a rented space (motel room, storage unit, apartment) that belongs to someone else, but you do not have that same right in a public space, or in a space provided for a certain purpose only by a public business. If this was a private club in which people engaged in sexual activity of a consenual nature, it would be a different story. But the owner of the establishment, or his representative) asked the police to investigate suspicious activity on his property. The police knocked on the dorr and identified themselves, with no responee. They then announced they were entering the restroom, and used a key to unlock the door. The door was locked again from the inside. So they tried again. It was not until the man reentered the restroom to get his drugs that he was arrested. He could have walked away, with perhaps a citatino for lewd and lacivious behaviour (sex in a public restroom is probably illegal in Cedar Rapids, it certainly is in Washington, DC)


the guy went back into the restroom to get his drugs. That was his key error.

[AP]

87. I'm not sure I'm prepared to let Gladys Kravits-style business owners

act as the arbitrers of what's legal and what isn't.

I think the police should still be restricted by the standards of the warrant requirement and by the 4th Amendment.

You mention apartments as being a place where you should have a higher expectation of privacy. When you rent a house, you're basically living on someone else's business property. But you still want the owner of that business -- your landlord -- not to be able to call the police everytime he or she thinks you're doing something wrong. And if your landlord does call the police on you, you still wouldn't want the police to be able to enter your property just based on the landlord's interpretation of what you're doing.

I agree that there's a sliding scale of expectations of privacy. And if you're in one doorless stall of a multi-stall public restroom with not locking doors, I obviously think the warrant isn't required.

However, I still feel that if you're in a single locking bathroom doing something that doesn't give rise to any of the established warrant exceptions, there should be some expectation of privacy. I hope that having sex in a bathroom like that isn't illegal, because I know a lot of people who'd be criminals if it were.

[Democrats_win]

82. This proves we need tort reform.

Or something.

[WatchWhatISay]

89. What about right to privacy in a retail store dressing room?

My 16 year old daughter works in a Gadzooks store in a local mall. A few weeks ago they found a two 14 year olds (boy & girl) having sex in a dressing room. They were alerted by the fact that the boy who came in with the girl (its a girl store) had suddenly disappeared and "moaning sounds" were coming from the dressing room. One of the employess looked in under the door and caught them in the act.

All of the store employees are either teens or early twenties. They sell what most every other teenage girl store sells these days - meaning most of their clothes are designed to be sexy. So I was kind of surprised to hear that they all got very angry about the situation and called mall security. Then I figured that the manager just about has to react that way, because if they didn't and word got out that the store was a refuge for young teens with raging hormones, in this community, I can conceive that it would make a big enough stink to close the place down.

Apparently the kids came to the mall with the girls parents, who were shopping in another store, but were called to the store to deal with the situation. Of course the girl was mortified and very upset. But the boy didn't seem that upset, and when they told him that his parents would have to come pick him up, he said, that's OK he would just get a ride home with the girls parents (the mother strenuously objected to that idea).

As far as I know they were not legally prosecuted.