united-states
Illegal detainment by private citizens when there&#39;s a unlocked but alarmed emergency exit
<p>Scenario: the private citizens in charge of a building (or floor of a building) forbid everyone inside from leaving, and have locked all exits <em>except</em> for the emergency exit.  However, the emergency exit is tied to an alarm, and this is happening in a jurisdiction where it's illegal to set off the alarm of an emergency exit when there isn't actually any emergency.</p>

<ol>
<li>Can those inside legally use the emergency exit to leave, even though it isn't an emergency?</li>
<li>If those inside <em>can't</em> legally use the emergency exit, are those who locked all the other exits innocent of illegal detainment?  After all, everyone inside <em>could</em> leave by the emergency exit if they so desired, so they aren't actually trapped.</li>
</ol>

<p>I am only aware of this in the context of Walmart Night Lockin (<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wal-mart-attacked-for-locking-in-overnight-workers-at-its-stores-74288.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wal-mart-attacked-for-locking-in-overnight-workers-at-its-stores-74288.html</a>).  This article is over 10 years old - so hopefully Walmart has in the meantime changed its shameful ways.</p>

<p>The article says that workers would be reprimanded or dismissed if they used the emergency exits for a non-emergency.</p>

<p>IANAL but I say if you want to leave the WalMart and the regular doors are locked, then it is an emergency.  However, as long as WalMart leaves the emergency exits unlocked they are not holding you hostage.</p>

<p>The people in charge, unless there is an emergency that justifies holding people against their will, are probably violating the fire safety laws. The details depend on the jurisdiction, but there are tables in the fire safety code indicating how many exits there must be depending on the area and number of people on a floor in a building. There are also rules that doors that lead to the outside must be marked as exits, and doors that look like they might lead to the outside but don't must be marked "not an exit" or similar language. ("Code" is a generic term for law or binding regulation in this situation.)</p>

<p>So there are many probable fire safety violations, including</p>

<ol>
<li>A door marked as an exit that can't be opened by anyone from the inside</li>
<li>A door with the exit markings removed to try to game the system and avoid violating rule 1.</li>
<li>The fire inspection was probably passed on the basis that all the doors leading to the outside can be opened by anyone from the inside. Locking the ones that don't have alarms would reduce the number of exits below the minimum required in the fire safety code.</li>
</ol>

<p>If a person decided to leave through the alarmed exit, conceivable defenses are that (1) due to the numerous safety violations, the person who left considered the entity to be dishonest and thus didn't believe the statement on the sign that using the door with no emergency would be illegal or (2) the person set off the alarm as a way of reporting the safety violation to the authorities.</p>
