Does Hotel Staff Have to Report an Adult Trying to Check In With a Minor

My question involves criminal law for the state of: CA

Man, 30, in hotel with teenage girl--she is even carrying a teddy bear! (I know, ick.) It's obvious they are a couple, not father-daughter. Hotel manager calls man to front desk and says, "We don't want this here, we'll refund you, just take your money and go." They didn't even ask, first, to see the girl's ID. That's how young she looked.
SO, HERE'S MY QUESTION:
Shouldn't the hotel have reported that if they were certain enough to kick the man out? I am disturbed by the fact that they were CONVINCED she was a minor child, without even carding her (which, of course, they should have done before telling them to leave, as hotel could possibly get in trouble for that, right?). YET, they were simply going to give the assumed rapist a heads-up that they were onto him, and send him on his merry way? "Hey, we don't want that here, go molest a child at Motel 6, down the street" ? "Go exploit a kid someone else" ? WTH? 17 and 18 don't look any different, and even 16 may look the same. So, I'm thinking, "If you think someone is 16 or 17, you card them, because they might easily be 18." If a girl looks DEFINITELY ILLEGAL, you probably figure she's well under 18. So--especially with a freaking teddy bear!--it could have gone from statutory rape to child molestation. BUT, THEY DIDN'T REPORT IT?

Can someone explain this mentality to me? Is it not their responsibility to report this? Perhaps they were going to report after the couple left? Maybe to avoid a scene on their premises making them look bad--which I feel is immoral because the girl's safety comes first. How is that keeping the girl safe, meantime? Would they have had sufficient info (such as credit card or DL) for police to find this man in time?


Thanks in advance!
LS

What is your part in this drama? How did you come to be aware of it?

You are aware that there are adults who can look like children, especially with the right clothes and makeup? You are aware that there are people who provide fantasy services, whatever our opinion of them might be, that can include these types of scenarios? You are aware that adult males travel with teenage daughters/relatives/etc? You are aware that some teenage girls still like teddy bears?

I'm not saying any of the above is necessarily what was going on here but pointing out that there are scenarios where this person is not a child abuser.

Hotel staff are not mandatory reporters in California. Would it have been the morally correct thing to do to report their suspicions? Yes. Do they have a legal

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

What is your part in this drama? How did you come to be aware of it?

You are aware that there are adults who can look like children, especially with the right clothes and makeup? You are aware that there are people who provide fantasy services, whatever our opinion of them might be, that can include these types of scenarios? You are aware that adult males travel with teenage daughters/relatives/etc? You are aware that some teenage girls still like teddy bears?

I'm not saying any of the above is necessarily what was going on here but pointing out that there are scenarios where this person is not a child abuser.

Hotel staff are not mandatory reporters in California. Would it have been the morally correct thing to do to report their suspicions? Yes. Do they have a legal

---

Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I am absolutely aware of all those possibilities. However, the hotel told them to leave based on their conviction that she was a minor. (I know about it because the guy, himself, told me.) In fact, I pointed out that the hotel should have carded her first, because she may, in fact, have been a young-looking 18-year-old. (Making the guy still a creep, but not a felon, IMO.) My point is that they told the couple to leave based on thinking she was a minor. I suspected that it might not be their legal obligation, but I am wondering about the mentality of such a decision. People on this site seem to have background knowledge of such things. Actually, it would make me a feel a lot better knowing there might have been more thought put into it than simply, "Kick them out." So, I was hoping that, perhaps, itwould be feasible to report the guy immediately after they left. I find it all unsettling that young girls are so easily preyed upon and no one looks out for them. Sending the predator on hs way is not lookng after the minor child. (By the way, he said she was nearly 18, but looked about 13 or 14. Asian kid.)

Also, it they were father-daughter or such, they would have simply said so. Even if they agreed to leave, they would not have done so without asserting their innocence.

You assume a lot about the situation that may not be true. Nevertheless, the law is the that hotel had not legal requirement to card the girl or to report any suspicion (the hotel employees certainly did not know what the deal was; they too made assumptions that may have been wrong) of what might have been the situation to law enforcement. They certainly could have made such a report if they wanted to do so, however. They might not have made the report because, while they thought maybe the situation might have been something wrong, they had no real proof of it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

You assume a lot about the situation that may not be true. Nevertheless, the law is the that hotel had not legal requirement to card the girl or to report any suspicion (the hotel employees certainly did not know what the deal was; they too made assumptions that may have been wrong) of what might have been the situation to law enforcement. They certainly could have made such a report if they wanted to do so, however. They might not have made the report because, while they thought maybe the situation might have been something wrong, they had no real proof of it.

---

Thank you.
Please tell me what you mean by "assume a lot". What assumptions, for instance, do you suppose I make?
I, too, thought it odd that a business would throw someone out without ascertaining the girl's status first because I figure it could cause problems (i.e. lawsuits, complaints, whatever) if they guess wrong.
Wouldn't the proof be the girl's ID? Proof seems easy to acquire, had that been their concern. I agree that you prove it first, then report it. Just as I think you prove it before throwing someone out. (Just like bars. You ID before giving alcohol and before tossing someone out who looks under 21.) Why would it be a big deal for a hotel to do the same? I suppose the hotel staff couldn't prove they were not relatives, but the couple didn't attempt lying about their relationship. Hence, that was not an obstacle. That's an interesting question: How could familial relationship be proven? Even children and parents may have different names. Do you need the child's birth certificate, showing your name as parent? Never heard of that when people I know go to hotels with their kids. What if it's a non-parental relative? Hm. Any hotel staff out there have an answer?
I'm just saying this:
If you're convinced of a crime, especially involving a minor, you report it. If you're not convinced, you don't throw someone out. It is easy for them to prove legal age with a simple ID. So, either way, card the person. Even if the hotel staff saw the guy as a creep for being with a teenage girl, if she's legal, it looks bad on them to have assumed illegal activity and attempted to throw someone out. Cover you back, you know.

The law imposes no requirement on the hotel staff to report this suspicious behavior. Even if one might consider there is a moral obligation to make the report, there is no legal requirement to do so. The hotel may have simply been erring on the side of caution by telling them to be on their way. The staffer may have thought that the girl was of legal age (i.e. 18 or older), but considered the possibility that this was some sort of kinky hook-up (an adult playing at being a little girl) and they did not want the hotel to be engaged in such potentially criminal activity.

Who are you in this incident? If you were at the desk and witnessed this, you could certainly have made the report. If you are hearing this second or third hand, then you may not be getting the whole truth.

You said in your earlier post that it was “obvious” that they were a couple, yet that may not have been the case at all. You said that she looked like a teen, but she may not have been a teen at all, or at least not a minor. You assumed that they would do something sexual or other immoral act in that hotel (you said “ick” as though assuming something unsavory was going to occur) yet you don’t know what they were going to do. I understand what prompted those assumptions and suspicions and I don’t mean to discount the concern prompted by them, but I’m just pointing out that assumptions and suspicions were all that you and the hotel clerk had, there was no proof really of any of it.

The hotel is free to decline business to anyone for any reason other than illegal discrimination, e.g. because of race, color, religion, disability, etc. So the hotel was free to turn them away and would be on solid ground if the reason for doing it was a suspicion (whether correct or not) that they might be up to something illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

You said in your earlier post that it was “obvious” that they were a couple, yet that may not have been the case at all. You said that she looked like a teen, but she may not have been a teen at all, or at least not a minor. You assumed that they would do something sexual or other immoral act in that hotel (you said “ick” as though assuming something unsavory was going to occur) yet you don’t know what they were going to do. I understand what prompted those assumptions and suspicions and I don’t mean to discount the concern prompted by them, but I’m just pointing out that assumptions and suspicions were all that you and the hotel clerk had, there was no proof really of any of it.

The hotel is free to decline business to anyone for any reason other than illegal discrimination, e.g. because of race, color, religion, disability, etc. So the hotel was free to turn them away and would be on solid ground if the reason for doing it was a suspicion (whether correct or not) that they might be up to something illegal.

---

Good points. Thank you for clarifying. It's true that all suspicions, even those based on what seems completely obvious, remain suspicions until proven facts.
I said it was "obvious" they were a couple because the man in the story told me that; said that's why they were asked to leave. He said when staff saw her with her teddy bear is when they called him to the front desk. You're right, all of their assumptions could have been wrong. But, they weren't. And the couple never tried to deny their relationship.
But, your last comment is interesting: Do you mean to tell me that, even had the girl proven with ID she was a legal teen, the hotel could still have turned them away because they took moral exception to a man in his 30s with a teenage girl? I didn't know that.

And, again, if the hotel so strongly suspects statutory rape (at minimum; could even be molestation), WHY wouldn't they simply card the girl BEFORE telling them to leave because she's underage? They made this charge without asking and checking first. If, on the other hand, they wanted these people to leave, regardless of legal status, because they have moral issues with a grown man and a teenager, AND they have the legal right to refuse them service, they could just tell them to go. They wouldn't accuse him of statutory rape when, in fact, they are going to kick him out even if he's not guilty of it.

Again, no law in CA requires them to report this. If you want to know why they did not report the matter or ask her if she was an adult, you can call them and ask. All we can do is speculate.

In CA it would be a felony for a 30 year old to have relations with someone under the age of 18. Even so, there is no legal obligation imposed on a hotel clerk to report that his activity MIGHT be pending. It's not a crime for a 30 year old guy to be hanging with a teenage girl, even if it might be exceedingly creepy. Sexual relations would be criminal, but, hanging out is just creepy.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The law imposes no requirement on the hotel staff to report this suspicious behavior. Even if one might consider there is a moral obligation to make the report, there is no legal requirement to do so. The hotel may have simply been erring on the side of caution by telling them to be on their way. The staffer may have thought that the girl was of legal age (i.e. 18 or older), but considered the possibility that this was some sort of kinky hook-up (an adult playing at being a little girl) and they did not want the hotel to be engaged in such potentially criminal activity.

Who are you in this incident? If you were at the desk and witnessed this, you could certainly have made the report. If you are hearing this second or third hand, then you may not be getting the whole truth.

---

Thank you, that is interesting.
The man in the story told me. I see no reason he would lie or leave anything out since, as it is, he only made himself look like a pathetic creep. He admitted the girl looked much younger than 18, especially with her teddy bear. He admitted he looked like a creep, even if she was 18 (and looked it), because he was still a 30 year old with a teenager--and one that looked like she was barely in high school, if that. So, he looked like someone into girls who are not only super young, but actually look like children.
If it had been ME working at that hotel, I would have definitely reported him. But, AFTER carding the girl to verify, if possible. If, they refused to let me card her, and simply left, that would have made me more suspicious, and I would have reported my suspicions. Exploitation is simply not something I'd risk, or be wimpy about. If the girl is legal, the authorities can sort that out. It's only my job, morally, to report. (If I hear screams coming from my neighbor's house, I don't need to investigate the source and have certaintly before calling the cops. If it turns out to be nothing, that's great. If it's something, thank God I called.)
And, the hotel staff made clear they thought the girl was underage. Whether they also thought whoring was involved, who knows? But, underage, certainly was expressed clearly.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Again, no law in CA requires them to report this. If you want to know why they did not report the matter or ask her if she was an adult, you can call them and ask. All we can do is speculate.

In CA it would be a felony for a 30 year old to have relations with someone under the age of 18. Even so, there is no legal obligation imposed on a hotel clerk to report that his activity MIGHT be pending. It's not a crime for a 30 year old guy to be hanging with a teenage girl, even if it might be exceedingly creepy. Sexual relations would be criminal, but, hanging out is just creepy.

---

Wow, are you saying an adult can be in a HOTEL ROOM alone with a minor kid and it is legal as long as they're not having sex (or, caught)? Sooo creepy. I mean, this isn't just "hanging out", it's getting a room together! Also, if it's out of town (which it was), aren't there kidnapping charges?