Deputy McDonald

So, in our little town of 5,000 people, the McDonalds franchise has been deciding whether drive-thru customers may be DUI/DWI and sending them to the curb to "wait on those fries" while they dial the police. Problem is, they're not always spot on in their window-side sobriety tests, and in at least one recent case nailed a car with some drunks ... and a sober designated driver. What do you think of this?

Is it good business to let your customers know that you are spying on them and calling the police if the window clerk thinks she sees an infraction?

Here's the local thread, if you are interested: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/little-falls-...

That is an excellent example of how McDonald's is a great, caring neighbour and friend of the city. I used to do the same thing whenever I observed/thought someone was in the restaurant was breaking the law.

Unknown27 wrote:

That is an excellent example of how McDonald's is a great, caring neighbour and friend of the city. I used to do the same thing whenever I observed/thought someone was in the restaurant was breaking the law.

Dude, you spilled some of that koolaid on yer shirt. Do you train your order takers on field sobriety testing? Is that a NO? And you are playing cop? Detaining customers on vague suspicions of intoxication? And some of them are not in fact intoxicated when the cops arrive? I hear the vulture wings of plaintiff lawyers circling already.

I go to ... used to go to now ... McDonalds for a burger or a coffee, not to be spied on and judged and busted if I don't pass the judgment of a minimum wage clerk for being sober.

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude, you spilled some of that koolaid on yer shirt. Do you train your order takers on field sobriety testing? Is that a NO? And you are playing cop? Detaining customers on vague suspicions of intoxication? And some of them are not in fact intoxicated when the cops arrive? I hear the vulture wings of plaintiff lawyers circling already.
I go to ... used to go to now ... McDonalds for a burger or a coffee, not to be spied on and judged and busted if I don't pass the judgment of a minimum wage clerk for being sober.

I have very rarely detained customers; only if I have witnessed them commit a crime do I ever try to detain them until police arrive. I would never detain them simply for the suspicion of them maybe or maybe not committing a crime.

Of course, everyone loves McDonald's and I hope they continue to frequent McDonald's. This display and my response is a sure sign that you can continue to count on McDonald's to be an excellent neighbour in assisting the police keep criminals locked up and away from our restaurants.

Unknown27 wrote:

This display and my response is a sure sign that you can continue to count on McDonald's to be an excellent neighbour in assisting the police keep criminals locked up and away from our restaurants.

Does McDonalds call the cops on their customers when they SUSPECT any or all of these illegal activities:

* DUI?
* Use of a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle?
* Not wearing a safety belt?
* Smell of marijuana?
* Expired safety inspection?
* Expired vehicle registration?
* Possible illegal alien?
* Brake light out?
* Emissions violation?

All are equally illegal, and with the exception of the illegal alien and the emission violation, all are imminently dangerous. Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line? More importantly, who made the window clerk or her manager the judge on where to draw the line?

And do you feel it is right to detain your customers under false pretenses ("Please pull over, your fries are still cooking") while waiting the arrival of the police for all of these violations?

I am going to feel like I'm on TRIAL every time I pull into the drive thru from now on, aren't I? Gee, I hope I don't look too suspicious to the window clerk ... and if they ask me to pull into a waiting spot because my french fries are still cooking ... like a bat out of hell I'll be!

I was liking it better when the Clown stuck to flipping burgers. The Clown as a deputy cop, not so much. I'm not liking it.

I really think your corporation should give us some clarification as to what we can expect in the future vis a vis McDonalds and its policy of reporting its customers to the police for suspected infractions of the many and sundry laws of the land?

Slippery Slope wrote:

And do you feel it is right to detain your customers under false pretenses ("Please pull over, your fries are still cooking") while waiting the arrival of the police for all of these violations?

Yes. Thats it. Detaining somebody with a lie is totally different than just calling the police. Then you are becoming a part of the policing action, and not just a citizen.

Mountie Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. Thats it. Detaining somebody with a lie is totally different than just calling the police. Then you are becoming a part of the policing action, and not just a citizen.

No you're not. Any citizen has the right to make a citizens' arrest.

Slippery Slope wrote:

<quoted text>
Does McDonalds call the cops on their customers when they SUSPECT any or all of these illegal activities:
* DUI?
* Use of a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle?
* Not wearing a safety belt?
* Smell of marijuana?
* Expired safety inspection?
* Expired vehicle registration?
* Possible illegal alien?
* Brake light out?
* Emissions violation?
All are equally illegal, and with the exception of the illegal alien and the emission violation, all are imminently dangerous. Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line? More importantly, who made the window clerk or her manager the judge on where to draw the line?
And do you feel it is right to detain your customers under false pretenses ("Please pull over, your fries are still cooking") while waiting the arrival of the police for all of these violations?
I am going to feel like I'm on TRIAL every time I pull into the drive thru from now on, aren't I? Gee, I hope I don't look too suspicious to the window clerk ... and if they ask me to pull into a waiting spot because my french fries are still cooking ... like a bat out of hell I'll be!
I was liking it better when the Clown stuck to flipping burgers. The Clown as a deputy cop, not so much. I'm not liking it.
I really think your corporation should give us some clarification as to what we can expect in the future vis a vis McDonalds and its policy of reporting its customers to the police for suspected infractions of the many and sundry laws of the land?

I want to note that I in no way speak for McDonald's or any of its restaurants.

For me, I'll call the police if the threat/crime/action is immediately dangerous and has the potential to harm someone right now, or they're committing an obvious crime right now. If someone walks into my restaurant and they clearly have a bag of marijuana (for example), then I'll call the police. If someone walks into the restaurant and it later turns out that they had a knife in their pocket, I'd have no way of knowing that they did until an incident occurred.

It is not my requirement, as an ordinary, good citizen, to determine where to draw the line. I can report whatever crimes I want, and I can even ignore certain crimes if I want. It is the job of the police to respond to my complaints and then determine whether or not to press charges. I am simply reporting crimes that I know of that need to be stopped in my restaurant.

If you think you can just come in to McDonald's and commit crimes and we won't call the police, then we don't want you as a customer.

Unknown27 wrote:

No you're not. Any citizen has the right to make a citizens' arrest.

But be careful. In most states there is severe liability for false arrest, as in the case of the car with several drunks and a stone-sober designated driver. That said, I am not sure that this little act of deception constitutes an arrest. I do wonder about liability even for the deception, however. This is a slippery slope, and were I the designated driver in that car, I would be furious beyond measure over being deceitfully detained in such a manner.

Again, this is an interesting matter of corporate policy and training, and especially of public relations. The flippant initial answer you gave that the Clown was just being a good neighbor is utterly inadequate.

Unknown27 wrote:

It is not my requirement, as an ordinary, good citizen, to determine where to draw the line. I can report whatever crimes I want, and I can even ignore certain crimes if I want. It is the job of the police to respond to my complaints and then determine whether or not to press charges. I am simply reporting crimes that I know of that need to be stopped in my restaurant.

That is all very interesting. The bit about ignoring some crimes raises equally interesting questions of corporate responsibility, if you know what I mean. But let's refocus this on two meaningful issues that impact the McDonalds experience:

* How do we feel, as individuals, and as a corporation, about untrained clerical help DETAINING customers on suspicion of DUI, and then being wrong? Again, my initial question approached this primarily from a public relations aspect (or that was my intention, at any rate).

* From a customer relations viewpoint, as it becomes more widely known that McDonalds restaurants are in fact reporting their drive-thru customers for various infractions, is there a need to reassure customers that they will not be reported for other infractions, such as using a cell-pone while operating a motor vehicle (which is illegal where I live, and yet exceedingly common) or driving on an expired safety sticker (mounted prominently in the drivers windscreen where I live)? Why should this be important? Such things as anxiety, guilt and perceived levels of personal privacy do matter, you know, when people decide where to shop or eat.

Let it be known that the Clown is not alone in this; other fast-food chains are dabbling in it as well. In fact, have read of recent instances where police officers wanted to mount traffic checks from inside the drive-thru window by stationing cops there! How do you think that would play out, customer relations wise?

Careful wrote:

<quoted text>
But be careful. In most states there is severe liability for false arrest

If you were to try and have me arrested for false arrest you'd have to prove that I knowingly and maliciously made up these charges against you in order to purposely have you arrested. Simply telling the police "Hey, I think he's drunk and driving" when observing the driver being surrounded with open alcohol and fellow drunks is certainly not grounds to say that person was malicious in calling the police.

This is a slippery slope, and were I the designated driver in that car, I would be furious beyond measure over being deceitfully detained in such a manner.

You keep saying that the person was "detained" by the McDonald's employees. He was never detained; he could have left at any time. He was told that he was waiting on his food - at the advice of the police dispatcher nonetheless.

The flippant initial answer you gave that the Clown was just being a good neighbor is utterly inadequate.

How so? This is just proof that McDonald's cares about its communities, even to the extent that it will involve the police when it believes there is a crime being committed on or around the grounds of its restaurants. That's a good thing. It lets criminals know that they are not welcome to commit their crimes on or around McDonald's property, which keeps the customers and staff members safe. Sounds like an excellent neighbour to me. If everyone did that, criminals would soon have nowhere to hide.

Unknown27 wrote:

If everyone did that, criminals would soon have nowhere to hide.

Are you really in Canada? The way it works here is that false arrest is a civil tort. I wonder if the shop keepers privilege could extend to cover this case? I doubt it.

I do maintain the driver was detained, albeit through fraud (or rather bad faith dealing) not force. Money was tendered, a contract was entered, and something else entirely was delivered. This matters more, of course, in the cases where the presumption of intoxication by the cashier was in error. What do you say to that very angry customer?

You did not really answer the question about how the company ought to approach this as a PR matter. I for one think it is an interesting question, and would like to hear what others have to say on it.

LOL wrote:

I do maintain the driver was detained, albeit through fraud (or rather bad faith dealing) not force. Money was tendered, a contract was entered, and something else entirely was delivered. This matters more, of course, in the cases where the presumption of intoxication by the cashier was in error. What do you say to that very angry customer?

One of the people involved in the incident has posted of her experience on the local thread, here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/little-falls-...

In summary, a car driven by a sober designated driver but containing seven drunken passengers went to the McDonalds drive thru and ordered food. The cashier took their order and their money, and asked them to pull into a spot to wait, and then called the police. 5-to-10 minutes later the cops arrived and administered a full field sobriety test to the designated driver, and then released her since she was in fact sober. But the young women was thoroughly humiliated, and furious about being deceived by the McDonalds staff and falsely reported.

Sounds like a total and complete customer relations disaster to me. And it sounds like some sort of clear and reasonable standards and training are necessary if the company is going to go down this road, especially with the detaining of "suspected" drunks.

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you really in Canada? The way it works here is that false arrest is a civil tort. I wonder if the shop keepers privilege could extend to cover this case? I doubt it.

False arrest, even in the U.S., means that you called the police knowing that you were falsely and maliciously creating charges that did not otherwise exist. It means you called the police knowing very well that a person had not robbed a bank, but you call anyways and say they robbed a bank. If false arrest torts were used against anyone who reported a crime that turned out to not be a crime, citizens would have no incentive to report crimes.

You did not really answer the question about how the company ought to approach this as a PR matter. I for one think it is an interesting question, and would like to hear what others have to say on it.

PR-wise it would be messy. I certainly recognize that people like you would bring up the same issues as you did, regarding why it is the responsibility of the restaurant's managers and employees to "decide" to call the police on someone who is breaking the law.

I maintain that these people called the police, not as employees of McDonald's, but as committed, loyal, honest members of their local community. They acted not as employees with an interest for the company, but as citizens in their local town. They saw a criminal, and they reported his crime. The fact that he was seen while they were working is irrelevant.

Slippery Slope wrote:

<quoted text>
Does McDonalds call the cops on their customers when they SUSPECT any or all of these illegal activities:
* DUI?
* Use of a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle?
* Not wearing a safety belt?
* Smell of marijuana?
* Expired safety inspection?
* Expired vehicle registration?
* Possible illegal alien?
* Brake light out?
* Emissions violation?
All are equally illegal, and with the exception of the illegal alien and the emission violation, all are imminently dangerous. Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line? More importantly, who made the window clerk or her manager the judge on where to draw the line?
And do you feel it is right to detain your customers under false pretenses ("Please pull over, your fries are still cooking") while waiting the arrival of the police for all of these violations?
I am going to feel like I'm on TRIAL every time I pull into the drive thru from now on, aren't I? Gee, I hope I don't look too suspicious to the window clerk ... and if they ask me to pull into a waiting spot because my french fries are still cooking ... like a bat out of hell I'll be!
I was liking it better when the Clown stuck to flipping burgers. The Clown as a deputy cop, not so much. I'm not liking it.
I really think your corporation should give us some clarification as to what we can expect in the future vis a vis McDonalds and its policy of reporting its customers to the police for suspected infractions of the many and sundry laws of the land?

Why wasn't I invited to this party? Love the new thread....ANYWAYS...

1) All crimes are not "equally illegal" Felony/misdemeanor....we would not need a judge. If all crimes are = then all punishments would be =. So you are WRONG....

2)The above listed aren't all crimes.....not wearing a seatbelt in a parking lot is not a ticketable offence....and there is certainly an arguement that talking on a cell phone while NOT driving and sitting for 20 minutes in a drive thru may not be an offence.....this has not been tested in the courts to the best of my knowledge...although I would love the case, call me!

3)Ethically and Morally the line was drawn when the arrogant drunks (of which both cars pulled over had open containers) were in public and in plain view. IF the alchol not been seen the calls may not have been made.

This happened early in the evening....we have kids working the windows and frankly they aren't paid enough to deal with drunks. You may not like what was done and that's your right but NOTHING was illegal about it! I think the message is clear here.....don't drink and drive...the public isn't going to take it and you never know who is going to place that call!

Finally, just how much in alcohol related damages have these fast food joints have to endure? I have seen cars drive through numerous establishments in this area. I'm not saying that corporate is sanctioning the actions....but when is enough enough? Someone will get hurt, it's just a matter of time.

If you are going to argue the law at least know it, if you are arguing ethics at least argue logically...there isn't a slippery slope here...more of a fallacy!

Unknown27 wrote:

PR-wise it would be messy. I certainly recognize that people like you would bring up the same issues as you did

<<snip>>

I maintain that these people called the police, not as employees of McDonald's, but as committed, loyal, honest members of their local community. They acted not as employees with an interest for the company, but as citizens in their local town. They saw a criminal, and they reported his crime. The fact that he was seen while they were working is irrelevant.

LOL.'People like me'. I am amazed at how much you know about me and my motives! ROFL.

AND ... so again, you refer to the can of worms ... they are acting as employees, or they are not. You can't have it both ways. If they were NOT acting as employees, and yet used bad-faith dealing (took the order and the money, lied to the customer, did not deliver the product and probably did not intend to deliver the product given the prejudgment of a DUI offense) to WRONGFULLY detain a car full of innocent people for 5 or more minutes, then why are they still working there? That's really bad customer service. Why are they not warned or terminated immediately?

AND if they ARE doing this as employees, then where is the corporate responsibility? The training? The standards? The setting of expectations for current and potential customers and stakeholders? Where is the damage control? Has anyone examined the potential liabilities and pertinent case law?

LOOK, someone in the McDonalds world is DROPPING the BALL with this issue. And it could bounce back to hurt something.

I lurked this forum a bit before posting this, and I have to ask, what is your stake (in general terms only, of course) in McD's? You are too flexible to be a bot, too smart to be a mindless Koolaid drinker (despite all the Koolaid stains on your lips and shirt, LOL), and yet claim not to be a PR employee ...

P.s., false arrest is a 'bunny trail' in this case, since I think there was no genuine arrest per se (but that is just my opinion, and a good tort lawyer might successfully construe it otherwise perhaps). But you are incorrect in your statement of the matter: civilians in the US expose themselves to massive civil liabilities in cases of wrongful arrest, and the details vary from state to state. More importantly, DUI by itself is in many if not most states usually a MISDEMEANOR and not a felony, so a citizens arrest is already on the very shakiest of grounds. I think that encouraging your cashiers to use citizens arrest to detain people they think might be intoxicated is a recipe for corporate disaster. Extending the shop-keepers privilege is the better route to take, perhaps.

DUI wrote:

1) All crimes are not "equally illegal" Felony/misdemeanor....we would not need a judge. If all crimes are = then all punishments would be =. So you are WRONG....

<<snip>>

we have kids working the windows and frankly they aren't paid enough to deal with drunks.

DUI all by itself (i.e., no damages or injuries or repeat offenses) is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, is it not? That certainly rains on the "let's have citizens detain 'em!" parade. But again, the lawyerly stuff is secondary to my main concern, which is the customer relations impact of all this.

And as to not paying the kids enough, THAT is precisely my point! The drive thru clerk is NOT qualified to make these calls as aggressively as this clerk was doing! He/she seemed to be taking it personally rather than objectively and seems to have retaliated by calling the cops! If McDonalds is going to start enforcing traffic laws, they had better do it RIGHT by training and supervising the personnel, and by setting and managing the expectations of customers!

"Would you care for a side of traffic law enforcement with your order, ma'am?"
"Errrr ... no thanks?"

When the vehicle drove onto McDonald's property they gave up their rights to do what they wanted. They are now subject to the rules McDonald's wants enforced. It might be a public business but it's still private property. There's nothing wrong with an employee calling the cops if they think someone on McDonald's property might be committing a crime. And if the driver thinks she was humiliated just think how humiliated she would of been if they had started handing out tickets to her for having open containers in the car. And it doesn't even matter who's car she is driving. She'd get the tickets and her insurance would go up as would the owners of the car. Plus there was no false arrest since no one was arrested and there is no law saying she can't ask you to pull over and wait for your food. They could of left at anytime so nothing was done illegally.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
One of the people involved in the incident has posted of her experience on the local thread, here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/little-falls-...
In summary, a car driven by a sober designated driver but containing seven drunken passengers went to the McDonalds drive thru and ordered food. The cashier took their order and their money, and asked them to pull into a spot to wait, and then called the police. 5-to-10 minutes later the cops arrived and administered a full field sobriety test to the designated driver, and then released her since she was in fact sober. But the young women was thoroughly humiliated, and furious about being deceived by the McDonalds staff and falsely reported.
Sounds like a total and complete customer relations disaster to me. And it sounds like some sort of clear and reasonable standards and training are necessary if the company is going to go down this road, especially with the detaining of "suspected" drunks.

Well no one was detained. They were free to leave at any point. And there weren't suspected drunks. You stated their were 7 drunk passengers. Is the employee just supposed to assume the driver hasn't been drinking when there was an obvious smell of alcohol and people in the car that were drunk? Better safe than sorry.

That's plain silly. You don't give up your rights when you step on private property!

But your point about humiliation is the problem with this whole thing! Who is gonna go to McDonalds if you think you might get humiliated if the clerk is on some vigilante crusade? I go to McDonalds for the fries and coffee ... not for Law and Order! Or rather I used to got to McDonalds ... now I'm afraid of being hassled by the help... If the cops let that designated driver go, that just shows how out of control and how out of line the McDonalds Cashier-Vigilante was ... corporate needs to set some policy guidelines and training standards before giving the help license to enforce the traffic laws in this nation!

Dolgefan wrote:

When the vehicle drove onto McDonald's property they gave up their rights to do what they wanted. They are now subject to the rules McDonald's wants enforced. >>snip<< And if the driver thinks she was humiliated just think how humiliated she would of been if they had started handing out tickets to her for having open containers in the car.