Pubdate: Thu, 19 Oct 2000
Source: Bay Area Reporter (CA)
Copyright: 2000 The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R.
Contact:  
Address: 395 9th Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
Website: http://www.ebar.com/ 
Author: Ed Walsh
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n810/a10.html
and http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1217/a08.html

CLUB'S SECURITY POLICY CHALLENGED IN COURT

San Francisco's most popular dance club, Ten 15 Folsom, is in the midst of a
constitutional challenge to its tough new security measures. Last Wednesday,
October 11, a hearing got under way in San Francisco Superior Court to
decide whether to exclude drug evidence against two men arrested at the
club. 

One man was detained at the gay circuit party Mass on May 28 after Ten 15
security officers allegedly found several ecstasy tablets on him during a
search. The second man was arrested in June after security personnel
allegedly found cocaine. 

Public defender Sujung Kim is fighting to have the charges dismissed on the
grounds that security officials did not have probable cause to search either
man. Kim argues that because of an agreement between city officials and the
club, Ten 15 security officers are acting as police and bound by the Fourth
Amendment prohibition against unwarranted searches. 

The hearing was continued until October 25 to give prosecutors more time to
review a brief submitted by Kim. 

Ten 15's attorney, Joe Wood, was the first and only witness who testified
before the hearing was suspended. Both Kim and prosecutors quizzed Wood on
the nature of the agreement made last May between Ten 15 and the city. Among
other provisions, it requires club security to arrest and detain for police
anyone found in possession of drugs. 

Wood told the Bay Area Reporter that whether Ten 15's security officers are
ruled to be de facto government agents is irrelevant to the charges being
brought against those who were arrested. Wood said Ten 15 security officers
never search anyone without the individual's consent or without probable
cause to suspect the individual is engaged in illegal activity. Wood said he
has taken no position on whether Ten 15's security officers should be
considered de facto public law enforcement officers. 

The Fourth Amendment's protections against unwarranted searches do not apply
to private individuals, only to government agents or peace officers. If
Superior Court Judge Mary Morgan rules against Kim, whether Ten 15 security
had probable cause to search patrons would be irrelevant. 

The managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California, Alan Schlosser, told the B.A.R. that he agreed with Kim's
argument that Ten 15's security officers are acting as government agents.
Schlosser said because Ten 15 instituted its search policies as a condition
of it continuing to operate, those searches should no longer be considered
"private searches." 

"I don't think that the San Francisco Police Department and the city
attorney can come in and force a private club to adopt a search policy and
then kind of wash their hands of it and say the searches that take place,
even if they're unconstitutional, are purely private and therefore the
evidence isn't covered by the exclusionary rule," said Schlosser. 

At the conclusion of last week's hearing, prosecutor Rani Singh hinted of
the complexities of arguments expected when the hearing resumes next week. 

"This case is turning into more than a normal motion to suppress," said
Singh, glancing at her copy of a 250-page defense brief.

MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk