Kelly v. United States-Barring
Serena L. Sobolewski
Hospitality 302
American Public University
Kelly v. United States-Barring
Within a three -month period in 1974, Ms. Kelly was observed visiting at the Statler Hilton Hotel on five separate occasions. She was not a registered guest. Security personnel observed her in the bar having a conversation with a guest and she subsequently accompanied him upstairs to his room. She was also seen in the lobby all night. In another instance she followed a guest to his room and was stopped by security when she came out alone. It was at this point that she was read a barring notice and informed that she would be arrested and charged with unlawful entry if she were to return. The final incident …show more content…
Under the Federal Civil Right Act of 1964 and, as such, may not discriminate against any person on the grounds of race, color, religion or nation origin (Sandman 2013). Sometimes they may have to remove disorderly people or people who bring unwanted elements of lawlessness into their establishments. A police vice squad officer had previously warned the security staff of the hotel that Ms. Kelly had a criminal history of prostitution and produced a copy of her mug shot. This in and of itself would be reasonable cause for management to ask her to leave. This act could have a detrimental effect on the reputation of the hotel and they could lose a multitude of business. Since Ms. Kelly was a known lawbreaker and it was for the protection of other guests and their property to have her arrested and taken from the property before an act of lawlessness had taken place. She had been previously informed that since she was not a registered guest that she was not allowed beyond the lobby or lounge. Since she ignored the information and chose to go to guest’s rooms she was asked to leave the hotel and not return. She was legally barred. This was the proper action for the hotel to issue because her presence as a known prostitute could have detrimental effects on the way other hotel guest viewed the hotel and their safety within the hotel …show more content…
Kelly’s arrest she was convicted in a nonjury trial of unlawful entry and filed an appeal with the District of Columbia Court (Jeffries, Brown, 2010). Her reasoning for filing the appeal was that she was barred from the hotel solely on the basis of the conversation between the hotel security officer and the police officer. The court noted and I agree that she had been verbally warned on several occasions about trespassing if she were to go past the lobby and lounge area of the hotel. She was aware of the actions that could befall her if she failed to heed the warnings and she did so anyway. It is of her own doing regarding the arrest. She could have avoided the situation altogether if she chose another place to ply her trade or if she did not use the rooms of this particular hotel for her illegal activities. She is completely to blame and the court made the correct decision in not overturning her appeal. Ms. Kelly had several opportunities to follow the hotel rules and she chose not to therefore, she should have and was arrested and convicted for trespassing. In conclusion, The Statler Hilton hotel had a duty to protect their guests from any foreseeable harm. The security force viewed the activities being conducted by Ms. Kelly as undesirable to the reputation of the hotel and quite possibly harmful to its guests. It was within any reasonable areas of the law that Ms. Kelly was verbally warned and then eventually arrested and prosecuted for illegal
Serena L. Sobolewski
Hospitality 302
American Public University
Kelly v. United States-Barring
Within a three -month period in 1974, Ms. Kelly was observed visiting at the Statler Hilton Hotel on five separate occasions. She was not a registered guest. Security personnel observed her in the bar having a conversation with a guest and she subsequently accompanied him upstairs to his room. She was also seen in the lobby all night. In another instance she followed a guest to his room and was stopped by security when she came out alone. It was at this point that she was read a barring notice and informed that she would be arrested and charged with unlawful entry if she were to return. The final incident …show more content…
Under the Federal Civil Right Act of 1964 and, as such, may not discriminate against any person on the grounds of race, color, religion or nation origin (Sandman 2013). Sometimes they may have to remove disorderly people or people who bring unwanted elements of lawlessness into their establishments. A police vice squad officer had previously warned the security staff of the hotel that Ms. Kelly had a criminal history of prostitution and produced a copy of her mug shot. This in and of itself would be reasonable cause for management to ask her to leave. This act could have a detrimental effect on the reputation of the hotel and they could lose a multitude of business. Since Ms. Kelly was a known lawbreaker and it was for the protection of other guests and their property to have her arrested and taken from the property before an act of lawlessness had taken place. She had been previously informed that since she was not a registered guest that she was not allowed beyond the lobby or lounge. Since she ignored the information and chose to go to guest’s rooms she was asked to leave the hotel and not return. She was legally barred. This was the proper action for the hotel to issue because her presence as a known prostitute could have detrimental effects on the way other hotel guest viewed the hotel and their safety within the hotel …show more content…
Kelly’s arrest she was convicted in a nonjury trial of unlawful entry and filed an appeal with the District of Columbia Court (Jeffries, Brown, 2010). Her reasoning for filing the appeal was that she was barred from the hotel solely on the basis of the conversation between the hotel security officer and the police officer. The court noted and I agree that she had been verbally warned on several occasions about trespassing if she were to go past the lobby and lounge area of the hotel. She was aware of the actions that could befall her if she failed to heed the warnings and she did so anyway. It is of her own doing regarding the arrest. She could have avoided the situation altogether if she chose another place to ply her trade or if she did not use the rooms of this particular hotel for her illegal activities. She is completely to blame and the court made the correct decision in not overturning her appeal. Ms. Kelly had several opportunities to follow the hotel rules and she chose not to therefore, she should have and was arrested and convicted for trespassing. In conclusion, The Statler Hilton hotel had a duty to protect their guests from any foreseeable harm. The security force viewed the activities being conducted by Ms. Kelly as undesirable to the reputation of the hotel and quite possibly harmful to its guests. It was within any reasonable areas of the law that Ms. Kelly was verbally warned and then eventually arrested and prosecuted for illegal