Regency Theaters - Sterling 6 Theater Attempted 4th Amendment Violation

Washington, District Of Columbia 9 comments
Not resolved

I went to Sterling 6 Theaters in San Bernardino, CA today. Imagine my surprise when I was told they "had" to check my handbag! Of course, I asked questions: How does "corporate policy" supersede federal law (4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure)? Why wasn't my handbag checked last night (I saw a different movie)? Why wasn't the "policy" uniformly enforced? I kept getting the same excuse - corporate policy - and was actually threatened with a "unit" (she'd call the police) if I didn't leave the theater without watching the movie for which I'd paid. I was also told they were checking for alcohol. REALLY?! While I was standing there, three other women walked in, their purses unchecked, and into the theater they went! No men or their jackets were checked. Sterling can watch their bottom line drop by $11 every time a new movie premieres; I will pay more and drive further to protect my Constitutionally-guaranteed privacy and get good service.

Another black eye for Corporate America. I can remember when respecting and satisfying your customers was the way to do, and stay in, business.

My husband and I are combat veterans. This is NOT what we fought for.

People: read this and use an entertainment chain which will respect your rights! Your 4th Amendment Right against unreasonable search and seizure is guaranteed by the US Constitution! Avoid Sterling 6 movie theaters and its fellow theaters! Use Krikorian, AMC, ANY THEATER CHAIN BUT REGENCY!!

AE Hubbard

Review about: Handbag Check.




***, read the part where it says, "...we are combat vets." That means, OMG, that we SERVED IN THE MILITARY. Like I said, another black eye for Corporate America. Also discussed in previous posts.

It's been settled.Move on.


Nobody seems to understand that the constitution are rules and rights designed to protect you FROM THE GOVERNMENT, not private parties. If you had served in the military you would know this.


Amazing. I ALWAYS ask questions, because something is ALWAYS omitted, intentionally or not. And, you are correct; it isn’t your job. You chose to comment without seeking clarification. No one forced you—oh, perhaps they did, I don’t know for sure. Let me ask the question: were you forced to comment without first seeking clarification?

I would like to be the first to shake your hand. You must be the only person on the planet who gives all information all the time. I especially appreciate your ability to ask without specifically asking. "Maybe...", "…it’s likely...", "Again, likely...” I’m going to help you out and answer your questions. I don't recall seeing you there while the manager and I were talking; how do you know I was arguing? In fact, I was not “arguing with the staff.” The manager did not ask if I drank or had been drinking (just for you: I don’t), nor did I have the scent of alcohol on me. How do you “act like you were hiding something”? Some staff know me, some don’t. You must cause a scene when things don't go your way, so everyone focuses on you; I don't. Not all staff was focused on me while I was watching when the ticket taker let people enter without searching them--wait, I believe I said, "...I was standing right there...".

What do you call it when you are the only one treated in a specific manner? Once again, NO MEN OR THEIR JACKETS WERE SEARCHED. THREE WOMEN ENTERED WITHOUT BEING CHECKED. (Clarification/Note:...

Teens leaving their bags at the door to a convenience store is not discrimination; when you are chosen out of a crowd, and you are the only one, THAT'S discrimination.

Show more

It shouldn't be the readers job to ask questions to get more info from you when reading a complaint, all the info should be in the original post.Just because other people were not searched, doesn't mean you were discriminated against.

Actually, since you were arguing with the staff, it's likely that all staff was focused on you and what was going to happen, so other people got a pass. Again, it's likely that the employees know who you are and maybe had a suspicion about you bringing in alcohol. Maybe you carry a large purse, maybe an employee saw you acting like you were hiding something, even if it wasnt true. Businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone and they also have a right to protect their business interests.

They don't have to have reasonable suspicion.That's not considered discrimination anymore than convenience stores making teenage kids leave their backpacks at the door.


Read it again.I said no men or their jackets were searched.

And, you clearly missed the part where I wrote that there was no reason for what happened.

You are easily led.

You should ask more questions before you exhaust yourself jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I was the only one subjected to the treatment because I was the only one who complained about it.


Your complaint is completely centered around your 4th amendment rights to not be searched, even your title is about your 4th amendment rights. You didn't talk about what kind of discrimination you encountered other than it was only you. Considering you were a patron at this same theater the night before and weren't searched then leads me to believe that maybe they had a suspicion about you personally bringing in items that they don't allow such as the alcohol they were claiming to be searching for.


Fascinating.Not a single comment on the discriminatory actions; simply a direct quote from court decision.

It still doesn't speak to the entire episode; simply one facet of it.

It's like harassment; if you feel violated, you are.

If you feel threatened, you are.There was no reason for what happened, especially since "policy" was randomly enforced right while I standing there.


I am aware of what the 4th amendment states.However, case law has supported that the 4th amendment does not provide protection from civilians, only the government.

This assertation has been upheld in the Supreme Court. For example United States v. Jacobsen - 466 U.S. 109 (1984) The Supreme Court stated in regards to the 4th amendment, "This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

Attempted or otherwise, it's not a violation of your rights.

Calling the police in to remove you after you from private property after being asked to leave is also not a violation of any law, it's then called trespassing.Like I said, I don't agree with the treatment, but they didn't violate any rights either and I'm sure there's a dozen theaters who would be happy to have your business.


You have a valid point. However, the Amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Check the title: "...Attempted..."

View more comments

You May Also Like