General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Starbucks thing... [View all]Ms. Toad
(34,427 posts)A trespasser does not have to create imminent danger for the property owner to be entitled to call the police to have them removed.
I am not disagreeing that this particular Starbucks (or manager) seems to be picking and choosing who to have removed in a discriminatory manner. The post you linked to is correct that it is a violation of the civil rights laws regarding public accommodations to choose who to eject in a manner that discriminates against individuals in a protected class.
The problem is when you insist the police the mechanism for enforcement.
Whether trespass is being used a tool for discrimination is not a police decision. it is a judicial matter. When a property owner requests the removal of a trespasser, it is the job of the police to remove them - unless, for example, the property owner says, "remove this person because they are black." (That would be a blatantly illegal, so - police carrying out a request expressly based on race would be violating the constitution.)
This request was not expressly based on race. It was based on the manager's assertion that the individual was trespassing (because they were on the premises and not purchasing anything).
I hope these two do file a lawsuit (class action, if merited). It would appear to me to be an easy win.
But it is not up to the police to make that determination - their job (in part) is to remove individuals the property owner designates as trespassing.