Office of the General Counsel

July 30, 1999

Mr. Robert A. Neinast
8617 Ashford Lane
Pickerington, OH 43147

Dear Mr. Neinast:

Secretary I. Michael Heyman has asked me to respond to your letter of July 12, 1999, concerning your unpleasant experience at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History over the 4th of July weekend, when you were advised by Smithsonian Institution security officers that you could not go barefoot in the Museum.

The Smithsonian Institution was established by Act of Congress approved August 10, 1846, 9 Stat. 104, 20 U.S.C. §§ 41 et. seq. Pursuant to the authority of the Smithsonian Secretary to take charge of the building and property of the Institution, 20 U.S.C. § 46, and the Institution's policing statute, 40 U.S.C. §§ 193n-x, the Smithsonian Institution has issued regulations governing its buildings and grounds, 36 C.F.R. Part 504. As you pointed out, there is no provision in the Institution's regulations concerning the wearing of shoes while on Smithsonian premises. However, the Institution has conducted an investigation to determine the genesis of what was apparently perceived by the officers to have been the rule concerning the wearing of shoes. No evidence has been found that such a rule was ever officially issued, nor that an official sign has ever been posted pursuant to the authority of 36 C.F.R. 504.4.

The explanation provided for the conduct of the security officers in question is their duty to ensure the safety of Smithsonian visitors. A major responsibility of the Smithsonian's security force is to be on the alert for any condition that may pose a hazard to the Institution's visitors and to attempt to eliminate the condition, restrict access to the area of the condition, or alert the visitors of the hazard. This responsibility is essential to avoid injuries to the Institution's visitors, as well as to avoid claims against the Smithsonian Institution and the United States for any injury that the visitor may sustain if the Institution has failed to take appropriate action to correct a dangerous condition or to warn of a dangerous condition. The Smithsonian Institution welcomes millions of visitors to its premises each year, and it is through the diligent efforts of the Institution's security force that the number of visitor injuries (and subsequent claims) that occur each year is relatively small.

Throughout its long history the Smithsonian has taken the Constitutional rights of its visitors into, consideration in managing the property that has been entrusted to its care. As you observed in your letter the published regulations governing Smithsonian buildings and grounds are reasonable. It is the Smithsonian Institution's intent that its regulations, and any signs posted pursuant to the regulations, meet the Constitutional standard of furthering a compelling Smithsonian Institution interest that is enforced in the least restrictive, even- handed manner.

Nonetheless, as previously indicated, the Smithsonian Institution does have a responsibility to alert its visitors to potential safety hazards and, in that vein, will be reviewing its incident reports to determine if, consistent with the Institution's enabling statute and policing authority, the Institution may need to post signs cautioning visitors to pay attention to potential hazards throughout the buildings (e.g., escalators, swinging/revolving doors, exhibit platforms), along with such other matters as paying attention to the placing of wallets and packages and using hand rails on stairs.

On behalf of the Smithsonian Institution (including its security personnel), I wish to apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced during your visit to the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. I hope this does not deter you from visiting the Smithsonian when you are in Washington, D.C.

	Sincerely,
	John E. Huerta General Counsel