Are Door Bag Searches Legal? (From Crime Doctor dot com)

[The Straight Story]

Are Door Bag Searches Legal?

Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details

A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who refused to comply with the voluntary search.

Can Merchants Do This?

Yes, as long as the procedure is voluntary. The bag inspection should occur past the last point of payment solely for the purpose of verifying the sales transaction that just occurred. The door bag checker is looking to see that the cashier correctly charged for all items in the shopping bag or cart. Once this is done, the bag checker makes a distinctive mark on the receipt to indicate that it was checked.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm

[MissB]

1. Did you really mean to start a new thread?

:rofl: Just askin'.

[The Straight Story]

2. Yeah, easier than surfing through em all to find a simple answer w/link

:)

[The Straight Story]

4. I was gonna toss in there that you can't tap your feet while waiting...

:rofl:

[valerief]

3. I want the greeters to say, "I love you," like they do in Costco in Idiocracy. nt

[The Straight Story]

5. if they tell me they love me, I will say prove it

:rofl:

[Occulus]

13. Asking that to the wrong person will get you the WRONG kind of proof.

:rofl:

[MissB]

6. I think Costco runs a bit differently.

Mainly, Costco is a membership place. You agree to their terms - including the receipt check - by signing up to be a member.

No Costco receipt-checker has ever said they love me. Buggers.

[valerief]

9. They will in the future according to Idiocracy. nt

[AZBlue]

143. You are correct - it's part of the membership terms you agree to when joining.

If you don't like it, don't join.

Oh...and I think I'd be creeped out if a Costco checker said they loved me. :D

[MindPilot]

39. Did you go to law skool there too? n/t

[valerief]

188. No, I used to work in Starbucks. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. It's perfectly legal for them to ask.

It's also perfectly legal for you to tell them to fuck off and walk out the front door.

It also may be probable cause for a cop to suspect you of shop lifting if you do the above.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Let the cop do that

After it is proven no shoplifitingn occured the 9.11 record and police record can be used for the lawsuit to come

Cops are allowed to make mistakes... the store is not

[Jim__]

36. I don't think that's correct - that refusing to be searched is probable cause to be searched.

It's an obvious catch-22.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Alright, maybe not refusing to be searched.

I guess I was thinking about the electronic tag alarms. You don't have to stop for those either, but it might be probable cause for a cop to search.

[Zodiak]

86. I was thinking about that issue.

And it occurred to me that the electronic device is a different situation than a physical checker. The device is there to detect only one thing.....that magnetic strip. Therefore, it more conforms with the framework of a search warrant, which must name specifically the item to be searched for. It does not detect condoms, dildos, joints, nudie magazines, knives, Anarchist Cookbooks and other sundry items that people may carry. For the non-invasive nature of the search and the limited information gleaned from that elecrnic search, it is far more in accordance with civil liberies than submitting to the physical search of backpacks and handbags (along with shopping bags).

So in my opinion, the Circuit City situation and the electronic anti-theft detectors are apples and oranges.

Not that I'm arguing wth you, but I thought your post was the right place to discuss this difference (I rarely start threads or interject new ideas without some sort of post to respond to).

[John Q. Citizen]

80. Why would that be "probable cause?" That's a legal term not a

that-guys-eyes-are-shifty hunch thing.

[havocmom]

164. Maddy McCall posted about this weeks/months ago

asking people if they showed bags/receipts upon requests from non-membership stores. It was interesting then to see the responses. Today's advocates of rolling over and playing dead when rights are violated just flabbergasts me.

So many of the same people who have been screaming about DEM reps rolling over and playing dead instead of saying no to bushco when THEY violate rights.

I am just amazed.

It IS perfectly legal to NOT allow others to violate one's rights.

[goodhue]

8. the stores typically post signs that they ask, so you consent upon entry

n/t

[Orrex]

11. That is the case with Circuit City

Of course, pointing that out doesn't make for as self-righteously exhilarating a blog entry, so we can see why our beleaguered narrator chose to omit that fact.

[redqueen]

19. You know, I just love the way you write.

:thumbsup:

[Orrex]

137. Aw, shucks!

:blush:

[jayfish]

93. Would You Care To Post Anything That Confirms This Implied Consent Decree?

If it indeed does exist I would bet that it says "upon entrance" not "upon exit". it's a huge distinction. Oh, and if they posted a sign that said you consent to an anal probe upon entering the premises, would that be ok? You know they did let you know about it beforehand.

Jay

[Orrex]

136. Boy, what is it with people and fantasies of contractually enforced sexual violation?

Is it your view that a movie theater can take no action against you if you bring a picnic lunch into their establishment in lieu of forking over big bucks at the concession stand? Your consent to abide by that policy is not granted by signature but is instead implied when you hand your ticket to the flunkie at the turnstile.

And for the last time, there is no equivalence between establishing a policy of searching a customer's bags and a sexual intrusion upon the customer, no matter how mysteriously eager some in this thread have been to suggest it as a viable comparison. One cannot commit to a sexual exchange as part of a business contract; an anal probing would likely qualify as such and would therefore render the contract incompetent.

Failure to see the distinction is indicative of a failure to comprehend the situation at hand. And, incidentally, it's a convenient indicator that I needn't waste further time on someone who can't get past "what if they want to probe my anus?"

If it indeed does exist I would bet that it says "upon entrance" not "upon exit". it's a huge distinction.

Well, you can call Circuit City for yourself, but the signs that I have seen to this effect generally say "we reserve the right to inspect all bags" without stipulating "upon entry" or "upon exit." I suspect that Circuit City's posted policy is much the same.

And why in the world would you think that they would only inspect packages "upon entrance," anyway? Do you think that people are covertly shoplifting merchandise into the store, to plant it on the shelves and thereby add to the store's inventory? Shocking!

[jberryhill]

159. "One cannot commit to a sexual exchange as part of a business contract"

OOoooooohhh!!!!

Can we have another PORN THREAD now?

[mhatrw]

170. You are talking out of your posterior.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/aac30854a1b2745d?hl=en&

The normal principles of contract law require an agreement, and there's no good reason to believe that the shopper has necessarily agreed to the contents of this or that sign, just because he happened to have passed it on the way in. (If you've ever been in a CompUSA, you know it's positively lousy with signs proclaiming this or that wonderful deal. One could easily be forgiven for missing one, however "prominent.")

Signs like this have been pretty consistently declared null and void by courts for decades, though there are a few exceptions. Examples include those "We are not responsible for coats" signs, "We aren't responsible for what happens to your car" in parking lots, etc. Even software shrink-wrap licenses are generally invalid. (That doesn't mean that the software isn't still protected by basic copyright law, though.)

In any case, even if the sign has the full force of law, it doesn't make it into a crime to refuse the search. At the very worst, it makes the refusal a breach of contract, and a breach without any actual damages whatsoever, at that. So as a practical matter, I'd say, no, the sign doesn't affect things at all, really.

[jayfish]

189. Boy, What Is It With People Who Don't Understand A Slippery Slope Argument.?

And who said anything about an anal probe having anything to do with sex? Your picnic lunch analogy is so far removed from what's being discussed that I wonder if you have any grasp what-so-ever of the subject matter. You made that claim about the signage, you need to back it up. The reason that they would only inspect packages upon entry is because they can legally do so and if a person does not comply they can be denied entrance to the store. They have a right to ensure the safety of their customers. They may also take that opportunity to inventory your bags in-case they do suspect you of shoplifting later.

Jay

[LynneSin]

190. Or the opportunity to set up a 'legal fund' to scam money

What we have are causeheads here

:grr:

[gollygee]

14. That wouldn't necessarily be true informed consent

if it wasn't specifically pointed out to people and explained on the way in.

Also, if they had a sign saying that they had the right to kill you if you entered, obviously that wouldn't make it legal for them to kill you. Simply posting a sign doesn't make it OK.

I give these folks my receipt because it isn't their fault and it isn't a big deal, but I am not a fan of stores doing this.

[Orrex]

22. Not a valid comparison

That wouldn't necessarily be true informed consent if it wasn't specifically pointed out to people and explained on the way in.

Well, try that when you next dine at a fancy restaurant. Just walk out without paying your bill and say "I didn't give informed consent, because I didn't see any sign indicating that I'd have to pay for my meal."

If the sign is in plain view, then informed consent is implied, even if the customer alleges that he or she didn't see it.

Also, if they had a sign saying that they had the right to kill you if you entered, obviously that wouldn't make it legal for them to kill you. Simply posting a sign doesn't make it OK.

The difference there, of course, is that the example you cite would require the store's policy to supersede an existing legal statute.

[gollygee]

26. Huh?

1. If you buy something, the law is you'll pay for it, or you're stealing. That is why you can't leave without paying for your meal, not because of any particular restaurant's policy. The issue with receipts is when you have already bought something and they ask you to submit to showing them your property which you at that point legally own. Not the same thing.

2. In the case of having to show receipts, existing legal statute = 4th Amendment.

[Orrex]

28. You're just drawing the line in a different place

1. Okay, then show me where it states that, by ordering and eating the food, you are explicitly agreeing to pay for it. You seem to feel that the customer's contract with the store ends with he or she gets the receipt. Not so. In fact, the contract is ended once the customer has exited the store with the purchased merchandise. Until that point, he or she is still subject to the terms of the contract implied by entry into the establishment.

2. See Xithras' well-written reply to a similar objection below.

[gollygee]

32. I replied to #2 - he was arrested, therefore the government did the detaining

If people are getting arrested for it, then the Fourth Amendment definitely applies.

I believe the customer's legal obligation to the store ends when the customer has paid for whatever he/she was buying.

[Orrex]

47. That's not unlawful detention

Or, if it is, let him file suit.

According to his blog, he wasn't arrested for refusing to stop for the receipt-checker; he was arrested for "obstructing official business." Namely, he called the police and then refused to cooperate.

I believe the customer's legal obligation to the store ends when the customer has paid for whatever he/she was buying.

Really? That's a pretty generous allocation of a private entity's property and resources. While the customer remains on the store's property, even if it's between the registers and the exit, he or she is still subject to store policy.

[Pithlet]

63. He or she is subject to store policy

But the store isn't free to use any method at their disposal to enforce that policy. They can ban a customer for not complying. They can't hold them against their will. If Circuit City did indeed try to physically prevent the man in the story from leaving, then they broke the law. Even if the police officer was correct in arresting him for not complying with the police, the store was still in the wrong.

[Orrex]

68. Agreed, with the stipulation...

That our beleaguered narrator's tale is accurate (and, I confess, I have my doubts as to the veracity of his account; aspects of it simply don't ring true).

But let's say that everything happened as he reported it. In that case, the store manager was certainly wrong to detain him even through use of such "passive" force as simply getting in his way.

Alas, until we see the store's surveillance video or otherwise obtain an unvarnished account of the episode, we have no reliable evidence to support the contention that he was held against his will.

[Pithlet]

73. Of course.

We don't know exactly what happened in this case. I agree with you that we don't have enough facts to judge.

[BlackVelvet04]

79. He most certainly did cooperate.....

he showed the cop the receipt and gave him his name.

[John Q. Citizen]

82. to those who worship authority, compliance is never enough.

[Orrex]

83. If you're contending that he thereby dispelled any reasonable suspicion, I must disagree

Merely showing the cop his receipt would be insufficient to establish that he hadn't stolen anything. By his own admission he had already entered the vehicle, so he would have to submit the vehicle to a search, as well as the people in the vehicle. Otherwise, all he's done is wave a piece of paper at the cop.

His choice to summon the police to the scene and thereafter to impede the investigation is itself suspicious.

Again, this is all with the disclaimer that events transpired as he described them, which is no certainty.

[John Q. Citizen]

96. You have it ass back wards. No one has to prove innocence. The state has to prove guilt.

He was never accused of stealing anything. If the cop wanted to search the car, he would have needed a warrant. Do you live in a foreign country?

What do you base your opinions on?

Or are you just talking through your hat?

[Orrex]

144. Sure, the state has to prove guilt in order to convict

But in order to detain, the state need only demonstrate probable cause. If, for instance, a police officer instructs a driver to pull over and the driver flees in his vehicle, that's a demonstration of probable cause. Calling the police and subsequently impeding the resulting investigation could imply probable cause (though I accept that more information is needed before such a claim can be made).

What do you base your opinions on? A quick scan of your posts suggests that their basis is a sort of kneejerk "the state is always evil" paradigm.

[BlackVelvet04]

98. The cop didn't ask him to submit the car to a search......

the only thing the cop asked him to do that he didn't was give him the driver's license which there was no reason to ask for it in the first place.

[Oeditpus Rex]

72. In the price on the menu

1. Okay, then show me where it states that, by ordering and eating the food, you are explicitly agreeing to pay for it.

You choose something from the menu; the price is next to it. That's a verbal contract.

[Orrex]

77. Right, but...

You choose something from the menu; the price is next to it. That's a verbal contract.

And you thereby agree to abide by the terms of that contract, correct?

Next to the store's entrance is a sign stating something to the effect of "We reserve the right to inspect all packages leaving the store." Continuing with the transaction thereafter is likewise a verbal contract, and you likewise agree to abide by the terms of that contract.

[Oeditpus Rex]

81. That's rather tenuous

A contract, by definition, requires agreement by all parties entering into it. In court, there'd certainly be the argument that shopping in a store with such a sign would not necessarily imply agreement on the part of the shopper, especially since the law apparently does not support the store's policy. Volunteering to shop is not the same as volunteering to have one's bags searched.

"We reserve the right to..." is also not the same, legally, as, say, "No trespassing under penalty of law." As a matter of fact, in California, at least, "no trespassing" and other such signs require citation of the appropriate section of the penal code to be legally enforceable.

[Orrex]

87. So a store has no right to eject someone who, for instance, wears no shoes or shirt?

Barring a specific citation of a corresponding statute?

Does a business have no rights whatsoever when it comes to controlling what goes on within it?

[Oeditpus Rex]

95. I don't know if stores have that right

Restaurants do, because it falls under health and safety codes.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service" is merely a somewhat snarky reminder of the law. I don't believe restaurants are required to post the actual statute, though I could be wrong.

[Orrex]

135. Restaurants, sure. But what about other businesses that have similar policies?

You're getting close to claiming that businesses have no right to do anything about a customer who's doing something that is disruptive to the functioning of the business but which might not actually be expressly illegal.

Is a private citizen similarly powerless to effect a solution when someone creates a disturbance on his or her property?

[Oeditpus Rex]

151. The only thing I'm getting close to

is tiring of watching you stretch further and further for something to keep your argument going.

You wanna know about individual businesses? Go ask 'em. I just got back from The Grocery Store Formerly Known As Albertson's — where they never check receipts or bags, so people must be stealing them blind — and I'm gonna make dinner.

:hi:

[Orrex]

155. Hey, nobody forced you to click "reply"

I'm sure that your grocery store nee Albertson's suffers a lot of loss due to theft of video games, CD's, and small electronic devices. Bully for them for staying in business through it all.

[jberryhill]

160. The rule in my nudist camp is - no clothes or you leave

My camp. My rules.

"Shoes, shirt, no service"

[mhatrw]

173. What sophistry!

Of course a store has the right to refuse service to the customer. The question is whether a store has the right to detain an innocent customer without just cause to which said store has obviously not refused service. And the answer to that is an unequivocal NO despite your corporableating to the contrary.

[John Q. Citizen]

84. What if they said, we reserve the right to have sex with every customer of age.? Sex

isn't illegal.

So, according to you, the establishment could reasonably expect to be able to have sex with any customer they decided to.

After all, it said so on the sign. And by entering the store, the customer consented, according to your fantasy.

You don't have a clue.

[Orrex]

88. I'll type this slowly, so that you can understand

Consent to have sex as part of a business transaction is illegal and therefore does not qualify as "competent terms" for enforcement of contract.

Consent to have one's bag searched is legal and therefore does qualify as "competenet terms" for a contract which can thereafter be enforced.


Any other red herrings you'd care to try?
:eyes:

[Kingshakabobo]

94. You keep talking about contracts and contract law.....

Can you PLEASE point me to the contract case law that allows physical detention to enforce contracts?

[Orrex]

134. Again, you're basing your question upon the one-sided hearsay of our beleaguered narrator

I do not accept his account of the events as complete or unbiased, so I won't bother to refute any claims based upon it.

However, it seems to me that one signs a contract upon entering the military. If one thereafter attempts to breach the terms of that contract by, for example, deserting, then one can most certainly be physically detained. I would imagine (though I'll need to verify) that certain security companies have similar requirements.

I think that your real question, like that of most people who support our beleaguered narrator, is this: who the hell is Circuit City to tell this asshat blogger that he isn't entitled to do whatever the fuck he wants on and/or with the store's property?

[Kingshakabobo]

138. This whole discussion is based on the "case" as it has been presented.

One can still have an opinion on whether a store can detain based on a "search consent" sign, or not, regardless of your "believing" the blogger.

The theory in question is, do you think a store can detain people for not submitting to a search? Don't cop out by now saying - we don't know all the facts of this PARTICULAR case -

Military contracts and submission to the UCMJ have absolutely NOTHING to do with retail loss prevention laws and a store's right to detain. You can't compare the unique power the military has over you once you sign their contract........Nobody has that ability to enforce their contracts with violence except, maybe, a mental hospital, bail-bondsman or the Mafia.....Circuit City CERTAINLY can't enforce a contract by force.

[Orrex]

140. I was responding to your question

Can you PLEASE point me to the contract case law that allows physical detention to enforce contracts?

So I provided examples of contracts partially enforceable by physical detention. I'm afraid that I need to plead "slow dial-up" as my defense for not searching for relevant contract law at this time, but I can search again from work if you think that it's central.

In the meantime, do me this favor: at least several posters in this thread have implied that being subjected a search of one's bags is equivalent to being subjected to sexual violation. Why don't you reply to those posters and ask them to cite the contract law that supports such an intrustion?

on edit: whoops--I forgot to answer the other part
To answer your question in the general sense, I believe that the store can have the right to detain someone if the detention is conducted by someone with authority to do so, such as a licensed and legally deputized security firm. Is the Brinks driver powerless to do anything if someone tries to swipe a bag of quarters from his hand-truck?

Do I believe that the kid standing by the exit has a right to put you in a choke hold when your run out the door with your Wii game and your squid protector? No. I said as much in this post, though I can see how you might have missed it, given the feeding frenzy going on here...

[John Q. Citizen]

97. Based on what. What are you basing your opinion on? Why do you believe

being searched is legal, but having sex is illegal?

What contract? Do you believe the person signed a contract?

[Orrex]

133. Entering into a contract to have sex as part of a business transaction is illegal

Consenting to be searched as part of a contract is not illegal.

The person didn't sign a contract, obviously, but entry into the store is an explicit acceptance of the store's posted policy. Circuit City, as has already been established (though you're welcome to call them, if you don't believe me), posts the sign notifying customers of the "all bags subject to search" policy, right at the front of the store. A customer's alleged ignorance of the policy is not an excuse; shopping at the store equates to acceptance of the policy.

[John Q. Citizen]

150. What's the wording? Since you seem t believe that shopping is giving up your rights, what's the

wording?

All bags subject to seach means they can dump out purses? Is that what you are saying? Can they look at all the credit cards? Reciept from other stores? Letters in the purse?

What's the wording?

No, I don't believe they can dump out purses and rifle through the contents without subjecting themselves to law suits.

Do you? Do you really believe that?

[Orrex]

154. Thanks for informing me of my beliefs

Shopping doesn't entail giving up your rights, but it does entail the voluntary acceptance of the polices of the venue in which you are shopping.

And yes, frankly, if you thereby submit to a policy wherein the store "reserves the right to inspect all bags," then a glance through a purse would certainly be consistent with that policy.

You're saying, in essence, that you have the right to shoplift as long as
A: You're stealthy about it
B: You're carrying a purse

[mhatrw]

175. LOL!

So one must have automatically consented to any arbitrary policy of a public store? What law school did you attend? Who taught you contract law? John Yoo? Robert Bork?

[jberryhill]

157. I dearly hope

That Righi doesn't read the license agreement on that Disney software he bought.

He'll have a freakin' coronary.

[mhatrw]

176. Those generally don't stand up in court, either.

Just saying ...

[jberryhill]

161. Why Do You Call Making Porn Illegal? /nt

[mhatrw]

174. Are you actually schooled in contract law?

I'm only asking because, if so, you obviously failed this class.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/aac30854a1b2745d?hl=en&

The normal principles of contract law require an agreement, and there's no good reason to believe that the shopper has necessarily agreed to the contents of this or that sign, just because he happened to have passed it on the way in. (If you've ever been in a CompUSA, you know it's positively lousy with signs proclaiming this or that wonderful deal. One could easily be forgiven for missing one, however "prominent.")

Signs like this have been pretty consistently declared null and void by courts for decades, though there are a few exceptions. Examples include those "We are not responsible for coats" signs, "We aren't responsible for what happens to your car" in parking lots, etc. Even software shrink-wrap licenses are generally invalid. (That doesn't mean that the software isn't still protected by basic copyright law, though.)

In any case, even if the sign has the full force of law, it doesn't make it into a crime to refuse the search. At the very worst, it makes the refusal a breach of contract, and a breach without any actual damages whatsoever, at that. So as a practical matter, I'd say, no, the sign doesn't affect things at all, really.

[mhatrw]

171. You have no idea what you are talking about.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/aac30854a1b2745d?hl=en&

The normal principles of contract law require an agreement, and there's no good reason to believe that the shopper has necessarily agreed to the contents of this or that sign, just because he happened to have passed it on the way in. (If you've ever been in a CompUSA, you know it's positively lousy with signs proclaiming this or that wonderful deal. One could easily be forgiven for missing one, however "prominent.")

Signs like this have been pretty consistently declared null and void by courts for decades, though there are a few exceptions. Examples include those "We are not responsible for coats" signs, "We aren't responsible for what happens to your car" in parking lots, etc. Even software shrink-wrap licenses are generally invalid. (That doesn't mean that the software isn't still protected by basic copyright law, though.)

In any case, even if the sign has the full force of law, it doesn't make it into a crime to refuse the search. At the very worst, it makes the refusal a breach of contract, and a breach without any actual damages whatsoever, at that. So as a practical matter, I'd say, no, the sign doesn't affect things at all, really.

[Left Is Write]

15. No, the posted signs do not mean you consent to being searched by entering the store.

It might mean you acknowledge that the merchant has the right to ask, but it doesn't mean you are consenting to the search.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. The ONLY store where this truly applies is Costco

and why am I saying this?

Searching you on the way out is part of the CONTRACT that you signed to get the membership card

And I might add... at least they do it with class

Any other, fourth ammemdment applies

[Ravy]

142. Fourth Amendment????

The Fourth Amendment does not restrict individuals or corporations. It restricts the *government* only.

The second amendment may give you the right to keep and bear arms, but not on my property unless I say so.

The first amendment gives you the right of free speech, but (as it comes up here fairly often) that doesn't give you the right to say anything you want on a website without having your speech censored or banned.

[Pithlet]

27. That still doesn't give them the right to detain you.

I think it's good they're upfront about the policy so no one gets caught off guard. But they can't enforce that policy by actual force. I don't personally have a problem with stores having such a policy, and I don't think it makes someone a sheeple for willingly complying with the policy. But, if a store detains someone who doesn't comply and there is no evidence the person has committed a crime, then the store is breaking the law and is indeed infringing on the rights of the person they're detaining. It doesn't matter if any of the rest of us think the person is being an ass for not complying. It's irrelevant to the law.

[Kingshakabobo]

30. You don't consent to being illegally detained.

The intentionally obtuse on these threads refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Let's assume for a minute that those signs have ANY binding effect - At the MOST, it drives the complaint in to a civil court IF the store wants to go through that hassle. Guess what - they don't. that's why they don't normally detain.

The criminal codes are what give the manager the right to detain - it has NOTHING to do with the posted signs. The criminal codes spell out that the store employee must have a REASONABLE belief the customer has stolen merchandise on their person...........

Now, I know the more authoritarian among us will say refusal to submit to a search is "reasonable cause."...........That's bullshit. If you have ANY doubt about that, take a look at ANY retail store's policy and it will spell out very specific guidelines as to what constitutes reasonable cause to make an accusation. Any policy I ever heard of, read or been subject to requires AFFIRMATIVE knowledge of an actual theft - including but not limited to, the item stolen and where it was concealed. I would argue the usual and customary policies are what is "reasonable" not what transpired the Circuit City.

[mhatrw]

168. BULLSHIT!

http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/aac30854a1b2745d?hl=en&

The normal principles of contract law require an agreement, and there's no good reason to believe that the shopper has necessarily agreed to the contents of this or that sign, just because he happened to have passed it on the way in. (If you've ever been in a CompUSA, you know it's positively lousy with signs proclaiming this or that wonderful deal. One could easily be forgiven for missing one, however "prominent.")

Signs like this have been pretty consistently declared null and void by courts for decades, though there are a few exceptions. Examples include those "We are not responsible for coats" signs, "We aren't responsible for what happens to your car" in parking lots, etc. Even software shrink-wrap licenses are generally invalid. (That doesn't mean that the software isn't still protected by basic copyright law, though.)

In any case, even if the sign has the full force of law, it doesn't make it into a crime to refuse the search. At the very worst, it makes the refusal a breach of contract, and a breach without any actual damages whatsoever, at that. So as a practical matter, I'd say, no, the sign doesn't affect things at all, really.

[TahitiNut]

196. Most follks don't have the foggiest comprehension of "adhesive contracts."

Furthermore, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA where it's in the State Constitution that no person can contractually surrender their civil rights and liberties without a separate, signed FULL DISCLOSURE specific agreement that they understand the rights and liberties protections being abdicated and agree ... people treat those rights and liberties like so much throwaway trash, putting them on the curb each week.

[mhatrw]

197. Exactly. Corporations have brainwashed us into thinking that we have about

one-tenth of the rights that we actually have because it wouldn't be "good for business" if individuals routinely exercised their legal rights.

[daninthemoon]

10. My walmart has a guy who sits at the garden exit, and calls for you

to bring him the receipt. he doesn't stand (yes, he can stand) or even really reach to meet you half way. Gets REAL loud, though. I'm always torn about how to respond. I hate feeling like I'm being bullied, but I don't want to BE the bully either. My wife insists the guy's just doing his job, but it feels like there's something personal. I hate either of us is put in that situation by the walmart execs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Next time quote the fourth ammendment and walk

away

you are not being a bully

You know your rights. PERIOD

[daninthemoon]

25. Tried that, but my wife wouldn't leave until I brought the guy the

receipt. Lots of people watching, so I did it to stop the spectacle. Like I said, the guy gets LOUD. Of course, my wife and I had a big fight the rest of the day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Well you did it to quiet your wife

My husband and I agree on this at a fundamental level, so it makes things easier

(we also don't shop at wally world but that is 'nother kettle of fish)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. the fourth ammendment applies to the gov't

not a bag checker at Wal-Mart.

sP

[Zywiec]

12. I absolutely hate it

but I'm visiting a private business. If they don't want me there, they can simply refuse me entry.

[Xithras]

18. Yes, but stores can ban you for refusing to submit to them.

One of my buddies got all bent out of shape when a Best Buy door checker wanted to examine his bags after WATCHING him check out. He refused, and the BB guy let him go with a warning that he was no longer permitted to shop there. If he attempts to go back into that store and someone recognizes him, he can be arrested for trespassing (most stores do the same with shoplifters after they're convicted).

We checked. It's legal. Stores are not obligated to serve you if they don't want to (so long as they aren't discriminating against you based on a protected class status).

He stayed away from the store for about a year, but he does shop there occasionally today. "Lifetime bans" typically only last until they forget what you look like, or until the employees involved have all moved on (which doesn't take long in the retail world).

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Yes, they can ban you for any reason

me, if they do that... fine, I will call the ACLU

By the way, since I refuse to show my receipt at Fryes, every time I go down there these days I grow a tail... aka the security people... and you know what? these days I have noticed that one out of ten shoppers now refuses to submit.

I guess economically for the local store it ain't profitable to ban people

[treestar]

75. It does go both ways and no one has the absolute right to go into the store

They can ban anyone they want but if they are a big chain they will have a hell of a time enforcing it, as you've described.

I've seen smaller businesses with lists of people who bounced checks on them. The seller doesn't have to sell either. Though we have developed the civil rights law based exceptions.

The difficulty is this large store starting to see itself as having quasi-governmental powers. And more interesting to see people just willing to fall in with it.

Banks and insurance companies get like this, too. They are so used to cooperation that when something unusual comes up, the lower level employees don't quite get that they can't MAKE the customer do something, ultimately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Folks YOU HAVE a right to be safe in your papers

and possetions... it is called the Fourht Ammendment

Use it, or loose it.

Yes, it is that simple

With few exceptions (Costco) where it is part of a SIGNED contract... you can refuse, PERIOD

[Xithras]

24. The fourth amendment only applies to government intrusions.

If someone is spouting a political line I disagree with, I have the right to tell them to STFU and shout them down. Nothing illegal about that. If the GOVERNMENT does it, it's a civil rights violation.

Read the constitution. The whole constitution.

There is a real question about the legality of a fellow citizen demanding your papers, but it isn't a fourth amendment issue.

[gollygee]

29. I thought there was a police officer involved?

I didn't read that blog past a couple of sentences though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Yes, in this case a police officer got involved

and the gentleman was arrested. and I sure hope he sues the living daylights out of the store for false detainment (aka kidnapping) and the police for going along

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I have and having talked to Constitutional Lawyers

it does apply as well to these store situations, especially since they may, will involve civil if not criminal proceedings.

Now what the store can LEGALLY do is refuse you service for ANY reason, that includes you refusing to subject yourself to their searches

Study the issue

And you can surrender your rights if you wish

[Hosnon]

35. I don't think that is right.

The first step in a Fourth Amendment analysis is: Did a government official (or government operator) conduct the search?

If the answer is no, there is no Fourth Amendment question. However, that does not mean there has not been a civil wrong committed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. False detainment or forced search is

a violation

That is the issue

If you wish to VOLUNTARILY COMPLY all the power to you

But if that search is NOT VOLUNTARY you have crossed that boundary... and at the very least the store is liable in civil court. If they DETAINED YOU and moved you away from view, it's called kidnapping... which is ILEGAL under any and all state laws.

And yes it is essentially your right to be free in your person and property...

Sorry... that is what CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS have explained this to me

Hell, I expect one of these cases to go all the way to the Supremes one of these days. Now wiht the current supreme court they may take a view that is contrary to any and all precedent but that is another matter.

The only place where the store policy makes you show your receipt on the way out is where YOU sign a contract where this is spelled out in black and white (COSTCO)

As I said, if you are willing to comply, go for it. It is a VOLUNTARY SURRENDER of your rights

[ProdigalJunkMail]

44. it is NOT A RIGHT and NOT protected by the constitution

if you decide to NOT be searched then they can refuse you service from that point forward. if it were unconstitutional in ANY way they would not be able to do that. the only thing wrong is that the man was detained...

if this gets to the Supreme Court it will be rejected and not even heard...this is not about the gov't doing something...it is about a business...

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Go ahead and surrender

By the way, a corporation is now treated as a PERSON, but I am sure you knew that

They can argue for 14th and 1st ammendment protection but we cannot argue for our safety in our persons, papers and property?

Damn it, who taught you history?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

55. this has NOTHING TO DO with corporate personhood

this is about you claiming something about RIGHTS of which you obviously have no clue. This is not about rights...this is about store policy that you can say no to. No one's RIGHTS were violated except in that he was detained.

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Ok once again

They have a right to ask

I have a right to say no

Yes, it is that simple

Why you defend them escapes me

[ProdigalJunkMail]

67. I am challenging your assertion that this somehow violates

the rights described in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as you have previously claimed. It does not...but you won't admit it. I agree with you on the detention part falling under the crime statutes and potentially being kidnapping, but the whole Fourth Amendment thing has me ticked. I just don't get why YOU don't see THAT.

And I will defend their right to ask to look through your bags, just like I would defend your right to say no. But claiming that something IS what it clearly IS NOT is the problem.

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Issues like this are described in case law

both civil and criminal and both come from both the Magna Carta and your bill of rights, but I am sure you knew that

Look... if you believe that your civil rights when you interact in civil society, especially with a business come from nowhere and that corporations can break the law, then have at it.



Me, I will continue to refuse those searches, yes it is THAT simple

It is a very simple matter really

And I can already see how they can justify warrantless wire tapping. You consented to it when you signed on with (insert carrier here) and if they turn records to the police and the feds, so be it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

85. you just can't say it, can you?

this is not a Fourth Amendment issue. You act like in some way that I feel it is ok for the company employee to stop you and detain you when I have said nothing of the sort. Corporations and by extension their employees are not breaking the law when they ask to look in your bag and over your receipt. It only becomes a violation of the law if they physically stop you or seize your property.

And your pulling out the Magna Carta when talking about store searches of your purchases is just laughable. You are trying to compare the rights of Kings and Governments to a voluntary bag search.

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. I'm sorry if you can't get it

I'm done wiht you

And yes there are issues that connect YOUR RIGHTS in civil society to the bill of rights

Now here is a piece of trivia fer you.

If the same request was made in oh I don't know south of the border... I would not only show my recepit, but know they would be justified in assuming I'm guilty of something

Then again Mexico runs under Napoleonic Law and presumes you guilty.

That is what you are assuming we live under.

Sad... '

Truly sad

[ProdigalJunkMail]

187. you obviously have no reading comprehension skills

and your references to the Magna Carta, our Constitution and now Napoleonic Law show that you really are just grasping at straws. Don't bother to read what I have written...it is obvious you are just stuck flailing away with that limp noodle of yours.

sP

[Hosnon]

45. The issue with the cop is different. I am referring only to whether a search

by the employee would have been unconstitutional. The answer is clear: no. The employee is not a government official (or government operator).

Without the involvement of the government, it is nearly impossible for a violation of the Fourth Amendment to occur.

Edit: Grammar.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. the only thing they did wrong in this situation

was to prevent the customer from leaving...THAT is a problem. But asking to see your bags and receipt is NOT illegal and it is NOT in any size shape or form unconstitutional. Your constitutional lawyers are full of shit if they say it applies to non-governmental entities...otherwise they would have been sued into oblivion years ago for continuing to do this.

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. As they said

The store has a right to ask and I have a right to say no

It is that simple

[ProdigalJunkMail]

49. and they have a right to deny service from that point forward

your assertion that they are doing something illegal by requiring that a receipt check be done is bullshit...door bad searches conducted by non-gov't employees are perfectly legal...the only time it crosses the line is if they stop you forcibly or try to seize your goods...

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Look if you are willing to surrender your rights

it is your issue

yes they have a right to ask, they also have a right to refuse service, but if many folks refuse the policy it will eat their bottom line

By the way, that is why where I live, I grow a tail every time I visit the store.

Perhaps they also know that they should not pressure that much

Oh and if they detain and falsely accuse and KIDNAPP I will go ahead and sue them.

Lets see who wins that one

You still call bullshit?

And it is YOUR prerogative to surrender

[ProdigalJunkMail]

58. IT IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS

nor surrendering them. You asked if door searches were legal, and yes they are. They couldn't conduct them if they weren't. You are complaining that this is somehow a fourth amendment issue and it sure as hell is NOT...so yes, bullshit. Now, as to detaining you, you are dead on...THAT is against the law. But that is NOT about the FOURTH AMENDMENT? So, judging from the fact that your started talking about the Constitution and your Constitutional lawyers, I would assume you believed the SEARCH itself was at issue...and THAT is where I am calling bullshit.

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. They have a right to ask

I have a right to say no

They insist on searching that is when it crosses the line...

If I VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT TO THE SEARCH then they can search, If I say no, they CAN'T

Comprende?

I don't know why this is such a complex issue for some

[mhatrw]

178. Yes, they have the right to deny ANYONE service.

What they don't have is the right to detain you without probable cause and just refusing to show your receipt doesn't qualify as probable cause.

[Xithras]

43. I was addressing your point specifically. Not that other thread.

It is perfectly legal for a store clerk to demand to see your receipt. It is not a fourth amendment violation for them to demand that. You were implying that it was a civil rights violation for them to ask, which isn't true.

When the police show up, the situation changes slightly. They CAN arrest you for refusing to provide a receipt to them...but only if they suspect a crime has taken place. If they believe that you stole the items, and you refuse to tender a receipt, you can be arrested for suspicion of shoplifting. At that point you can be legally searched without incurring a fourth amendment violation.

So the real question is this: Is your refusal to tender your papers sufficient reason to suspect you of being a shoplifter? Legal precedent says no. Of course, it only takes ONE dishonest employee to say "I thought he had something in his pocket" to erase any legal standing that argument might provide you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. They have a right to ask

I have a right to say no

If they detain me, we have crossed the line into false detainment, a civil complaint

If they move me where I feel unsafe, we have crossed the line to kidnapping, a criminal complaint

Yes if the officer demands to see the receipt, I will at that point refuse and demand to see my lawyer... yes you can refuse a search... and the cops, unlike the store, are allowed to make mistakes. I will also plainly ask the officer, are you charging me with shoplifting (ranging from misdemeanor to criminal case depending on the amount involved)

By the by you can also stop a search by an officer at any moment by taking away that permission.

Look... I understand the fine distinctions here

But the bottom line is... the company has a right to ask

And once again, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO

And the basis for this, are actually your civil rights.

[northzax]

185. really? awesome

what other amendments apply fully on private property? how about the 2nd? do I have the right to pack heat in circuit city, or do they have the right to prevent me from doing so, on their property? 1st? can I walk through the aisles of a circuit city screaming about how much circuit city sucks? or can they restrict my speech, on their property?

[mhatrw]

177. Correct. It is not a 4th amendment issue.

It is a contractual issue and, if one is detained without probable cause, a kidnapping issue.

[Hosnon]

193. Wouldn't it be a false imprisonment issue as opposed to a kidnapping issue?

Kidnapping usually requires some movement.

[mhatrw]

194. Yes. My mistake. Good point. n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

38. once again...

the fourth amendment applies to the gov't...not companies...who taught you civics?

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. It does not apply to companies

you are right, it applies to INDIVIDUALS and their relationship with authorities

Hell corporations were not seen as persons either at one point

who taught you history?

And once again they have the right to ask and I have the right to say no... PERIOD

if you are willing to comply, go for it.

I will NOT, PERIOD

[ProdigalJunkMail]

53. no...the fourth amendment ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOV'T

not companies...not people who are not in the employ of the gov't...and what does this have to do with the personhood of corporations? Nothing. And you are right, you can say no, but they are not infringing upon your RIGHTS until they detain your or seize your property. They are well within their rights to tell you to bugger off and not come back to that store ever again if they wish. What is this shit about your RIGHTS?

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. We will never see eye to eye

so lets agree to disagree

And yes, I WILL CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO SHOW RECEIPT ON THE WAY OUT OF ANY AND ALL STORES EXCEPT WHERE I SIGNED A CONTRACT.

is that clear enough for you?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

59. and you will continue to claim that your rights

have somehow been violated? Look, we actually agree, I believe. Yes, you can refuse to be searched and they have no legal claim to stop you or seize your property...if they do, then you have some fun stuff to play with. But on the other side of that, if you refuse to submit to this policy, that store would be within ITS rights to deny you the privilege of shopping there. If you would just acknowledge that this is not a Fourth Amendment issue, I would be able to relax a little...but you seem to want to stick to it, and that is what is wrong here. You are talking about something that only applies to the gov't...not persons and not corporations (nor their corporate personhood...even though that has nothing to do with this).

sP

[Hosnon]

61. I believe you want this statement explained (which is the statement that brought me into this):

[The Fourth Amendment] does apply as well to these store situations, especially since they may, will involve civil if not criminal proceedings.

(nadinbrzezinski, #31)

Edit: Content.

[H2O Man]

64. If a person

could show that one specific group of shoppers was being targeted as a matter of store policy, they might have an interesting case that indeed involves civil rights.

[Hosnon]

66. Sure. But the case would not involve the Fourth Amendment. NT.

[H2O Man]

70. I agree.

I think the OP that started the discussion/debate today involved a few distinct issues, including the store policy, the concern that the employee overstepped his "authority," and issues regarding the authority of police officers in general versus in specific situations involving conflict. Both sides have raised a number of valid concerns. However, there are some misconceptions about what "rights" people have, and how these translate in our modern society.

[Hosnon]

76. Yeah, it is a pretty complex situation.

The involvement of the cop makes things a bit stickier. There are several issues involved, as you said, and the emotions of today (full moon?) have made things pretty jumbled.

[H2O Man]

52. It would have been

much more interesting -- and potentially far more important -- had the fellow in question stayed focused on confronting the store policy, rather than "expanding" his conflict to include the police officer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Now if the store called it would have been more interesting

to be honest

We had a flunkie in Hawaii threaten to call the cops... we went go ahead, we have time, we will wait and proceeded to seat down on the bench

He also threated to have us arrested... his supervisor at that point called him off

It would have been fun... really

[H2O Man]

60. Right.

People have valid concerns about the growing restrictions on civil rights in our society. It's important to keep our eyes and ears and minds open. That includes selecting our battles in an intelligent manner.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Read about and you will be amazed and saddened

by how many people think this has nothing to do with your and my rights.

Why the USPA went through with no peep

and why the only people annoyed by warrantless wire tapping are the ACLU and some bloggers on the net

We are doing a horrible job of teaching kids these days

[TreasonousBastard]

51. And another salient quote from that page...

"My suggestion is to be patient with the store bag check procedure and understand that the store is trying to survive by preventing theft. If the bag check still offends you then I suggest shopping elsewhere."

Tempest, meet Teapot.

[Quantess]

71. I was asked to open my purse, once.

I hadn't stolen anything, either.

I granted her request, and she didn't say anything except something like "okay" or "hmph", even though I was buying a small piece of candy from her lousy store. So insulting!

[The Straight Story]

74. Back when I was a little kid, there was a store owner who said - you touch it, you buy it

Mean old man in a small town with a small store, and that was his policy when it came to kids.

We never tested him on it though (this was back around 1969/1970) :)

[canetoad]

92. My standard reply

to those who wish to search me or my belongings in a shop is, 'If you believe I have stolen something then you are entitled to accuse me of theft and call police to arrest and search me,' and then I smile benevolently and go on my way. Works every time.

[ComerPerro]

89. you know what I see in these threads. A bunch of pseudo-liberal posers looking down at others

who actually try to cooperate in society in a civilized manner, grasping onto non-issues like this as though they were essential Constitutional rights, all because they are too motherfucking spineless to actually stand up in cases where there are actual civil rights violations.

They want a fight to prove how liberal and aware they are, and they want to judge others for not being as "in the know" as they are.

But the sick and ironic thing is, they are only proving that they really don't believe in a God damned thing, and that their beliefs are all for show and nothing more.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

91. hot DAMN, I love this post n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

99. What I see is a couple of authoritarian lovers who will bend over anytime they are told too,

and think they are being politie to do so.

Just because you don't subscribe to the rule of law, but rather to the rule of corporate policy is no reason to start name calling.

[ComerPerro]

101. you don't like the store's policy, don't shop there. This is not a civil liberties issue

trying to make it into one just proves how hollow and empty your supposed progressive views actually are.

All that's going on in the world, and this is your cause?

Lazy bullshit pop-culture wannabe activism, and the worst part is people like you are trying to actually see yourselves as better, more informed citizens over this pathetic non-issue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. Alright, I won't.

If you like shitty customer service, by all means, shop there.

"This is not a civil liberties issue trying to make it into one just proves how hollow and empty your supposed progressive views actually are."

Sure it is. Stores have no right to detain a person for not showing their receipt on the way out.

"Lazy bullshit pop-culture wannabe activism, and the worst part is people like you are trying to actually see yourselves as better, more informed citizens over this pathetic non-issue."

You know what? I've no problem if a person has nothing better to do then show their receipt, but people who actually pretend it's not a civil rights issue? Yeah, I think we're better then that.

[ComerPerro]

107. some of the other posters were more correct than they realized when they said "pick your battles"

people like you pick your battles very carefully. You pick battles like this becasue they are easy, and because it makes you feel like a bigshot champion of civil rights when you stand up to a minimum wage employee.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. If a company treats their customers like shit, they probably treat their employees worse.

"it makes you feel like a bigshot champion of civil rights when you stand up to a minimum wage employee."

You think so? I think you stop for receipt checks or when those tag alarms go off because you're the sort of person that needs to be told what to do, rather than think for yourself.

If you thought for yourself you'd realize the minimum wage employee doesn't really give a shit if you walk right out the door.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. I'll admit it, I do stop for the alarms

for teh simple reason that they might have forgotten to remove any of the store tags...

And boy they have a couple times

;-)

One time we didn't and removing that damn cap from the bottle took a hammer, literally

[ComerPerro]

149. if you don't have the right tools, those things are a bitch to get off

[ComerPerro]

147. some people, like many in this thread, only define themselves by how "counter-culture" they are

and that's all this is.

"I don't stop when politely asked, because I'm not a sheep."

Funny how everyone who wants to stand out and not be "like everyone else" does so in a way just like, well, everyone else.

Prove how nonconformist you are by doing what every other nonconformist does! Maybe you can even start a nonconformist club!

[mondo joe]

191. It's the impotent acting out. They can't do anything about real violations of civil rghts

so they make some schlub at Circuit City the surrogate for "the man" and get to feel like they're really doing something.

[mhatrw]

195. If you want to act like a sheep with no rights, go right ahead.

Why does it bother you if I would rather act like an individual who still has a few rights?

[John Q. Citizen]

112. ANd you pick these threads because you may be mentally ill? Or is this your way

of advancing civil liberities?

Great job sport!

We are all more free thanks to your efforts, kinda, yeah.

[mhatrw]

180. It ain't a fucking "battle," dude. It's a simple, typically uneventful, choice.

You know, like paper or plastic. When confronted by corporate security guards accusing them of stealing without due cause, some choose to behave like individuals with rights. Others choose to behave like sheep with none. Different strokes.

[ComerPerro]

200. You call us sheep, but I am not the one who was suckered by an Ayn Rand whorshipping wannabe

[John Q. Citizen]

110. The stores policy isn't enforceable through physical coercion. If they

don't want a customer to shop in the store, they don't have to allow it.

If civil liberties were the only mark of a progressive, then Bopal wouldn't concern progressives, since it was a private criminal matter, not a civil liberties issue.

Same with any crime, until it reaches the authorities. I guess as a progressive you don't care if a person is gang raped, because it is a criminal statute, not a civil liberties issue.

Housing discrimination? You don't care, unless the authorities refuse to enforce the law it isn't a civil liberties issue, it's just a crime.

In this case though, the victim was illegally detained by the store employess, and then the cop illegally refused to enforce the law and illegally detained the person.

If you don't like the thread, my advice is to bug off. You aren't capable of that though.

[ComerPerro]

146. this has nothing to do with housing discrimination, and certainly has nothing to do with rape

the fact that you draw these comparisons so easily might even suggest how little conflict or struggle of that kind you've ever experienced.

[John Q. Citizen]

152. I knew you couldn't resist. but only because you are here overthrowing the empire, right?

[ComerPerro]

158. no, go on. You obviously think housing discrimination and gang rape are trivial non-issues

[jberryhill]

131. Authoritarian Lovers....

Did you notice what the guy bought?

Know much about Disney?

Oy.

[ComerPerro]

148. this whole story just gets more and more pathetic

this guy talks about what a champion he is for individual freedoms.

So what does he do?

He goes to a large retail electronics chain (one that TahitiNut reminded us didn't treat its "high paid" employees well at all) and buys a Disney product!

[jberryhill]

156. And he does it for the purpose of....

...making a child from Dad's second marriage cry, because he resents the birthdays he didn't spend with both of his parents. He thought he was being invited for Labor Day with Dad (note: "Dad and his wife" not "Dad and Mom"), and when he gets there he finds out it is the brat's birthday.

"Oh no, she's not stealing my spotlight with her birthday."

"Pathetic" is the word.

[ComerPerro]

162. there's a new thread on who this guy is, turns out hes a Ayn Rand worshipping libertarian wannabe

[jberryhill]

165. I'm shocked... shocked I tell you...

...to learn that a self-centered prick holds such views.

[mhatrw]

181. Great tag team lawyering, dudes!

What does anything about this guy have to do with the issue of Circuit City detaining an innocent customer without any probable cause for not showing his receipt to exit guards?

[jberryhill]

192. What, pray tell, is "tag team lawyering"?

That guy was out to make a point about his Dad bait-and-switching him into celebrating a birthday for a half sister he doesn't care about. If you think it was about Circuit City, cops, civil rights, and what-have-you, you are entitled to that opinion.

I'll tell you something about lawyering, though. There is a boatload of more substantial injustice that I deal with on a daily basis that I can't muster too much concern about this asshole raising money for his right to be an asshole.

[Seabiscuit]

204. Yeah, it sure ain't no "tag team" until I join in!

Harrrummph!

But yeah, I'm with the other lawyers here in spirit, if not in posting.

:)

[The Straight Story]

102. Meh - just wanted to answer the simple question, not get into the rest

I show mine if asked, but I also see many people not even asked (and I am not sometimes).

The important thing is - I know I have a Choice. Maybe we should just make the people that check it the baggers, problem solved :)

[Pithlet]

103. Since when has it ever been okay

for anyone, individual or corporate entity, to point their finger at you and say "Hey, you. I have absolutely no evidence against you, but I think it's possible you committed a crime, and I'm not letting you go until you prove otherwise"? And when was fighting that a stupid, worthless cause?

It's not the fact that these stupid receipt policies exist. Most of us pseudo-liberal posers have actually complied, after all. It's the fact that any time a store detains a person without probable cause, they are breaking the law. It doesn't matter if you or anyone thinks the person being detained is a complete and utter selfish moron who's just picking a stupid fight. The law is the law, and it's a good one. I appreciate the fact that people can't just hold me against my will because they've decided that's a peachy policy, even if I'm not planning on breaking said policy. They can ask me to comply with their store policies and kick me out an refuse to do business with me if I won't comply. They cannot break the law to force me to comply.

[ComerPerro]

105. if you rush out like the jerk in the now infamous thread did, you are suspicious

plus who knows how suspicious he was acting.

And refusal to even acknowledge a person at the exit is suspicious enough.

Then, of course, acting like an asshole when you're asked instead of just moving on makes it even more suspicious.

The guy who blogged about this did everything wrong, probably on purpose just so hed have something to write about.


But for all these people to come here and belittle those who actually try to cooperate as productive members of society, when no rights are being stripped away or violated, is arrogant and extremely personally offensive to me. Being an asshole is not a virtue, although it is starting to seem like it based on some of the responses here.

And don't even get me started on the racist implications of those comparing people who "refuse to stop" to Rosa Parks. Its been done before, its being done now, and it is completely shameless and disgusting.

[Pithlet]

119. Not from a legal standpoint.

Asserting a right is not evidence of wrongdoing. The stores do not have the legal right to compel a person to submit to the search, they only have the legal right to ask, and if a person knows this and refuses to submit, that isn't evidence of guilt from a legal standpoint. There needs to be evidence a crime has been committed, and refusing to comply with a store policy isn't a crime.

I'm not belittling people who comply. I've done so, myself, though only rarely because stores around here don't seem to practice this aside from Costco. But, if they did, and it's a store I wish to shop at in the future, I'd probably not make an issue of it and comply even if they can't legally compel me to do so beyond banning me from the store. It's possible a person challenges such a policy because they enjoy kicking up a fuss, or they're just being an asshole, but it's also possible they're standing up for a principle, and even if I'm not willing to join them in the fight, I will defend them for their right to do so because it is an important right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. When you joined costco you singed a contract

in the contract there is a clause about this

You agreed to it, aka VOLUNTARILY complied when you accepted the card

COSTCO is a different animal for that reason, and the guys chekcing your receipt are also well compensated et al.

A whole different animal since you agreed to do this... when you signed the contract

[Pithlet]

121. I'm still not sure they could actually physically detain me, though. I don't know.

I'm sure they'd revoke my membership and I wouldn't be allowed back. I'm not sure about the detention part, but I realize it's not exactly the same thing as Circuit City, which is open to the public. I certainly wouldn't feel the same way about a person making it an issue at Costco, since they did know this upfront before becoming a member. But, even the Circuit Cities around here don't check receipts, or at least they didn't when I shopped there. I haven't been to a store in awhile.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. Legally if they detain you and you didn't do a thing

they are liable. Unlike a police officer they can't make mistakes

But they would revoke your membership

After all you should know better

For the record I do NOT show my receipts at public stores, but I know the policy at COSTCO where I do, since I volunteered to do that when I signed my contract

But at circuit city... nope

And a couple times we have been challenged, once in Hawaii and once in San diego

In hawaii, the person threatened to take our plates and call the cops... we just kept walking... after we offered to seat down and wait for the cops. I suspect that even if they called the cops, the 9.11 dispatcher laughed a bit...

In san diego, the fryes employee got cute... I cited the Fourth Amendment, he dropped it

Ever since I have a tail... hell its a fun game of spotting the tail and challenging them with my eyes. They just disappear once they know you've spotted them

In the recent past they have not bothered with the tail... and I have yet to show a receipt

Hell, I am not the only one who doesn't any longer'

I guess people are finally getting tired of the BS...

[Pithlet]

125. I can understand why Costco does it.

I can understand why they do the receipt check thing, because they don't bag merchandise the way most public stores do. That's usually how a missed item that a checker forgot to ring up will be caught. At a regular grocery store I or another employee may notice the six pack at the bottom of the cart that the checker missed because it isn't bagged with the rest. With all the bulky items filling up a cart with no bags, it would be missed. I would have accidentally gone home with some soda I didn't pay for if Costco didn't check receipts, so I'm glad I was saved from the hassle of having to go back to the store and pay for it. I don't feel all that put out when they do it, and I'd have a hard time defending someone who goes to the trouble to get a Costco membership, agrees to the terms, and then makes a stink about the receipt checking.

[mhatrw]

182. That's a Catch-22 and you know it.

"We don't have any cause to search your bags, but if you don't submit to our request to search them, then we do."

That doesn't even fly in China, CP.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Interesting assumptions you are making here

by the way, care to compare notes over the last few years?

I am willing to.

Done far more than just refuse to show a fucking receipt to a store drone, which happens to be MY RIGHT. I know, I know you think this is insignificant, but it appears you would not mind if the system went from british common law to Napoleonic Law... googgle it, presumption of GUILT is part of Napoleonic law.

So care to compare notes?

I'm willing to

By the by, them things I have, according to you, not done, have even cost us some ahem, intersting harrasment by the IRS

So would you like to keep using that broad brush?

[ComerPerro]

108. let me guess, more empty gestures that get you just enough satisfaction without any real risk

you aren't progressive. Youre just a cheap thrill seeker

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Not quite.... an Amicus brief to the United States Supreme

Court over the Hamdam Case

Care to try again?

By the way that cheap thrill took several days to write, and led to a nice encounter with the IRS...

Ah yes, when the Lawyer read the letter from the IRS he said, and I quote... they are pulling this shit again? These types of audits have not been done since Nixon.

Of course the next question was... how do you?

And he said, lets just say the IRS is being used for political punishment.

Not that any of us could prove it... and it was truly one of those... you guys are trying to scare us? It hasn't worked, now has it.

And still wating for the next ahem, opportunity to submit another Amicus Brief, so what exactly have you done?

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Thought so, you really do not want to go down that road

really....

By the way there are other folks out there who have chosen to fight this cheap battle as well

I guess Thom Hartmann, who adressed the issues this morning as well, is also a phony, ain't he?

[AZBlue]

123. If only I could recommend a post within a thread!

[WinkyDink]

172. How would YOU know where we put our money, vs. our mouths?

What I see is a bunch of NON-Liberal spineless posters who are QUITE willing to "wait for something more worthy", proving that they don't really believe in across-the-board rights, not to mention adherence to LAW above ad hoc corporate "policy" and abuse of civil authority.

And your cursing isn't exactly an argument from Oliver Wendell Holmes.

[ComerPerro]

199. you're so caught up in sticking it to "the man" that you forgot who "the man" actually is

you pick your battles becasue they are easy, and because it lets you get the most self-satisfaction.

[mhatrw]

179. You know what I see in your post?

A blatant demonization of anyone who doesn't share your exact value system as a rhetorical trick to avoid the issues at hand. The issues at stake are perfectly clear and perfectly stark even if you personally find them minor and/or trivial. Do you actually believe that stores should have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts? Do you actually believe that innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have no right to refuse a corporate police search?

If you stick to the issues at hand and stop personalizing, you'll notice that what you are actually saying is that any right you personally don't mind having violated is one that no else should mind having violated. And how self-centered (and authoritarian) is that?

[ComerPerro]

198. What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Get over yourself and open your fucking eyes

I am not the one who started the "blatant demonization". It was all of the pseudo-liberal wannabes who started directly saying that anyone who even so much as shows their reciept is a pathetic sheep who doesn't know or deserve their rights.

Don't try to act like I am the one who started making it personal.

There were at least ten threads yesterday that said anyone who doesn't agree with the moron from the article is a Republican, a conservative, or even a closeted freeper. And you wonder why people get personal in response to that?

Get this through your head: no rights are being violated in this case. The person who wrote the article is just a dumbass asshole looking to attract attention and stir up crap, and supposedly well-intentioned fools like you were stupid enough to buy into his crap. But the very fact that you are turning him into some sort of hero on the level of Rosa Parks (which you cannot deny many here have mentioned) really speaks volumes about how empty and hollow your supposed values are.

[mhatrw]

201. My values aren't hollow. I see the issue for what it is.

The guy was completely within his rights to refuse a receipt/bag inspection. The store was certainly not within its rights when the store detained him without probable cause of his shoplifting. The issue is perfectly clear legally.

Does that make the guy a hero? Not even close. Does that make people who show their receipts sheep? Absolutely not.

The only people I take issue with is everybody on these threads who sought to mischaracterize the store as being within its rights. Ignorant, kneejerk corporate toadies scare the bejesus out of me.

[ComerPerro]

202. the guy deliberately started shit so he could have a story, and you believed him

your most important belief seems to be the desire to be seen as "against the man", and it led you to even support dipshits like this guy.

[mhatrw]

203. I don't care about the guy one whit. I care about the corporate cronies

on DU spreading their corporate toady creed that corporations are within their rights to do just about anything they please. It just ain't so -- at least not yet.

Do I think being forced into another fucking line just to prove I'm not a criminal is demeaning? Sure. Do I wish that enough other would see it my way such that this demeaning practice would end? Sure. Is it somewhere in the top 500 on my list of modern outrages and pet peeves? Not even close. But I do find the acceptance with which the average American typically greets "small" demeaning, invasive practices very disturbing. Most people don't even seem to bat an eye when it comes to issues of far greater importance like reading everyone's emails or having a "no fly" list that has no judicial recourse and actually helps any terrorists with enough funding to attempt several "dry runs." And it seems to me that we are like a bunch of frogs in a pot of water and I'm one of a very few who keeps noticing the heat getting turned up.

[DemGa]

90. If you don't comply they'll just get your tag#

I suppose you'll then get a visit from the police and have to prove your innocence.

[John Q. Citizen]

100. Since when do Americans have to prove innocence? I can see we are already

well on the road to a police state when Americans believe they have to prove their innocence, instead of the state having to prove guilt.

[DemGa]

117. Of course;

I was making the point that refusing to comply with this bag check could invite an escalation, which may include giving an explanation for one's actions to the police.

[John Q. Citizen]

118. An explaination for what? Being illegally detaned by a bag checker?

My bet is Circuit City will end up firing the checker and the manager, make a public apology and restitution to the victim.

And all charges against the victim are dropped.

[DemGa]

128. Most people don't break out of the norm

for fear of attracting attention. And yes, refusing the bag check would draw Mr. policeman to such a scene, if one were nearby. This would require an explanation on the part of the norm-breaker. A scene most won't risk.

I suppose it might be extreme to expect a visit from the police at home if this happened. But I'm not certain of that. I guess it would depend if there was a specific accusation of theft, perhaps made in error.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Ok having known many cops

I can tell yout that they are

1.- Way too busy to go to a "scene unless called to it."

2.- Most cities are so strapped that this call is so low in the response-priority list it's not even funny.

Now if you are afraid of the scene atracting a cop, that is a whole different matter

But in the reality I live at... they won't respond

Nor will they go to your house

And if they do... and you were falsely accused... oh boy... the lawsuit is just wonderful against both the officers and the store

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. They can

cops have far better things than to chase than that stupidity.

Hell, I'll even give the person a pen and paper to write it on.

Hell, here is my phone care to make a non priority 9.11 call?

[AZBlue]

124. Everyone who objects to bag inspections: ready to pay higher prices if it stops?

Because that is what will happen. The bag inspections are designed to deter and catch shoplifters. To think anything else is ludicrous.

If it stops, shoplifting will go up. Internal and external theft in retail outlets is already figured into the cost of goods - you're already basically paying for something someone else stole. If shoplifters know they won't even be approached at the door and no one's watching them, watch how fast the cost of all goods rises.

Yeah, good plan! :sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

127. Is there any evidence that's actually the case?

If anyone can point out some numbers showing that these receipt checks significantly reduce inventory shrinkage, then I might concede that stores are justified in implementing them. But I still won't support any changes in laws that give stores the legal authority to actually detain people who don't comply. Lower prices isn't a good enough reason to give up the right to not be detained without probable cause.

[AZBlue]

141. You're kidding, right?

It's basic logic.

But of course you already know you can't prove a negative and you can't mathematically prove psychological deterrents.

Why don't we do this - those who don't like laws allowing stores to detain people can pay the higher prices while the rest of us go on paying the normal cost of goods. Must be nice to be rich and be able to throw money around, but personally I like keeping prices lower. I also like the idea of shoplifters being punished.

[Pithlet]

145. Not kidding.

Why don't we try this? Assuming it's true that it saves them money, no one's rights get infringed simply so that some can save a few bucks. My rights aren't for sale. Guess what? I like the idea of shoplifters getting punished, too, just like you do. I don't like the idea of corporations being given the right to act like the police, judge and jury all rolled into one. Another fun fact. Right now, regardless of how you feel about it, they don't have the legal authority to detain people who don't show a receipt. They can't do it. When they do, they're breaking the law. So, if Circuit City did indeed try to stop that blogger from leaving, they were breaking the law. That is a fact. It's also a fact that there are many ways to prevent loss that don't infringe on anyone's rights. They can choose those, and then we're all happy.

Edit to ask you if you're really okay with corporations trampling on our rights because it makes products cheaper for the rest of us? Is there a line you'd be willing to draw? Saving a few bucks by buying products from unsafe vendors who don't follow safety guideline surely saves us a buck or two. The same argument could be made against people who want to fight that, claiming it will raise prices and it isn't worth it. I don't think it's a compelling argument in either case.

[mhatrw]

184. Would you also like to piss in a jar every day to prove you are clean?

How about having your email, phone calls and mail checked to prove that you are not a terrorist? Maybe you want to stick the rest of us who don't want to comply with this with the bill for "Homeland Security"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. They guys and gals cheking your receipt are

mommy devices. Most of the REAL work happens inside the store by profesional teams.

I thought you knew that.

[AZBlue]

139. Are you referring to teams of shoplifters or teams of store security?

I think you're referring to teams of store security, so I'll respond to that - if it was the other, I apologize. Cutbacks happen everywhere, including security payroll and schedules. A lot of security is electronic, from the security tags attached to items to the surveillance cameras. However, those surveillance cameras are being watched by only one person, if that. Usually at any given time in a store the size of, let's say, a Target, there are 1 or 2 security people working at a time - maybe 1 or 2 more on high traffic days or the holidays. In addition to watching for theft, they have to authorize the check-in of any high dollar merchandise on the loading dock, respond to every customer and employee accident, and monitor the parking lot as well. They can't possibly be everywhere at all times. If they are following a suspect in the store, the three other people stealing at the same time are home-free. If they are on the loading dock approving a shipment of high dollar items, which they have to do, they aren't watching the monitors. And so on.

People checking receipts is probably more of a psychological deterrent than a physical one. If you know you will have to show your receipt at the door, you're less likely to steal, it's just logic. Is it perfect? Of course not and there are dozens of ways to get around it. But, little Johnny who wants a new CD but doesn't have enough allowance saved is going to think twice before stealing it. As is the guy who just bought some items, went back for one more thing with his bag and stuffed two other things into it. It's just one piece among many to deter shoplifters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. I mean the teams

and they are a deterrent, but somebody who INTENDS to shoplift is not usually deterred by that

[WinkyDink]

169. Is that what happened in the past? Is that what happens in other stores today?

[mhatrw]

183. What bullshit. I don't steal. So how could my personal refusal

cause prices to go up? What's so wrong with going back to needing probable cause for invasive searches?

[BlooInBloo]

126. No, the worst thing that could happen is that they TRY to forcibly detain me...

... Good luck with that.

[lonestarnot]

132. Thanka you thanka you thanka you.

[blonndee]

153. You bolded the wrong part. "Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain

a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft."


http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm

[alittlelark]

163. If I wanted to steal something it would be down my pants or

in my bra...... what would a sales receipt have to do w/ MY stealing's?

[Junkdrawer]

186. K&R