Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illegal Search and Seizures. Fourth Amendment
vanity...question ^ | n/a/ | n/a/

Posted on 02/02/2006 6:14:17 AM PST by television is just wrong

Went into Kmart yesterday. Purchased my item. Walked to the door and a clerk wanted to go through my bag. Her position is called 'loss prevention'

Is This Illegal Search and seizure??? When I have purchased something, it is paid for put in a bag, is it not considered then my personal property? Then why am I subject to having that purchase inspected upon leaving the store???

this practice is expanding. It started at Costco, many years ago, and now it is at many discount stores. Is this actually illegal search and seizure? Do I have a right to refuse to let them look at what are now my belongings???


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 5fingerdisc; costco; fourthamendment; illegalsearch; kmart; lightenupfrancis; lossprevention; pilfering; quityerwhining; searchwarrant; shopkeepersprivilege; stealing; target; walmart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 next last
To: KrisKrinkle

I have no idea what you just said.


141 posted on 02/03/2006 6:15:36 PM PST by wizardoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong
I just find this insulting.

I feel empowered by it. I feel like I am assisting them in finding the shoplifters -- the ones who won't stop and offer their bag.

142 posted on 02/03/2006 6:17:09 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong
It is a growing problem for those of us who choose not to commit crimes, but they assume that we have committed a crime.

Why do you think it's a problem? Aren't you helping them in preventing shoplifting? Just the presence of the bag check acts as a huge deterrent.

143 posted on 02/03/2006 6:19:59 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
But as you say, the main point everyone here seems to ignore is that neither governments nor individuals have the power to search or detain another person ~ unless ~ that individual can reasonably be seen to be in the process of commiting a criminal act.

How do you square that with the searches that occur at airports and sporting events? There's no "public safety" exception in the 4th Amendment.

144 posted on 02/03/2006 6:37:50 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Its fun to get $32 in gas and pay with a $50, if they refuse it you are free to go.

No, at that point you are not "free to go." You have to return the gas first. If you leave with it, you are committing theft.

145 posted on 02/03/2006 6:40:30 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
I don't know that you'd just be free to go in this state.

You would have to return the gas first.

146 posted on 02/03/2006 6:43:09 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
They probably thought it not worth it, but if thay wanted to they could have taken that to court and won. The presence of the sign makes it a contract that you were in violation of. You would have to return the gas to be in the clear.

Cops are not lawyers and are not a valid source for interpretation of laws. If they were, then no one would ever be found not guilty.

147 posted on 02/03/2006 6:46:56 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz
"I have no idea what you just said."

That reaction may happen more often than I am told about:)

Ok, in post #59 you wrote: "You do, however, have the right to shop elsewhere"

Why do you think there is a right to shop elsewhere?

148 posted on 02/03/2006 6:48:01 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

"I feel empowered by it. I feel like I am assisting them in finding the shoplifters -- the ones who won't stop and offer their bag."

I have the feeling you are just dying to share something with us, skip the search question and just open up.


149 posted on 02/03/2006 6:49:15 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

"The presence of the sign makes it a contract that you were in violation of."

Please (I'm not being sarcastic)address the part about "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private."

How can the presence of a sign in contradiction to that not invalidate any presumed contract to begin with?


150 posted on 02/03/2006 6:59:44 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More

"I think there might also be the right of the shopkeeper to be secure in his effects against seizure from a thief."

I meant to respond earlier that that's a good point.


151 posted on 02/03/2006 7:01:37 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Why do you think there is a right to shop elsewhere?

Because the government cannot force you to shop at all, much less at any particular store.

152 posted on 02/03/2006 7:48:17 PM PST by wizardoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz

"Because the government cannot force you to shop at all, much less at any particular store."

???

Now I don't have any idea what you said.



153 posted on 02/03/2006 8:22:37 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
You are free to go if you go inside to pay and they refuse payment.
You can't pay for $32 in gas with a 20.

If all you have is a 20 and a few 50's they can accept the 50 or pound sand.
154 posted on 02/03/2006 8:31:00 PM PST by Beagle8U (An "Earth First" kinda guy ( when we finish logging here, we'll start on the other planets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Please (I'm not being sarcastic)address the part about "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private."

Sure thing. Right here from the U.S Treasury itself:

QUESTION: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

ANSWER: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Quoting Snopes: "That's it. All this means is that the Federal Reserve System must honor U.S. currency and coins, not necessarily anyone else. U.S. currency and coins can be used for making payments, but a debtor does not have to pay in legal tender, nor does a creditor have to accept legal tender. If a shoemaker wants to sell his products for 8000 jelly beans per pair, he's entitled to do so; the buyer cannot demand that he accept the equivalent value in legal tender instead."
155 posted on 02/03/2006 8:38:30 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
How can the presence of a sign in contradiction to that not invalidate any presumed contract to begin with?

The sign is not in contradiction to the promise that the Federal Reserve System will honor your Federal Reserve Note as legal tender. See my response quoting the appropriate statute above.

156 posted on 02/03/2006 8:40:24 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
If all you have is a 20 and a few 50's they can accept the 50 or pound sand.

They can demand that you return their gasoline. If you don't it's theft.

157 posted on 02/03/2006 8:42:29 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

" unless there is a State law which says otherwise"


158 posted on 02/03/2006 8:42:46 PM PST by Beagle8U (An "Earth First" kinda guy ( when we finish logging here, we'll start on the other planets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
" unless there is a State law which says otherwise"

You want to move the goalposts. This was about whether or not the phase "this note is legal tender for all debts public and private" meant that the gas station attendent MUST accept your fifty or the gas is free. The presence or absence of a state law won't change the fact that that phrase mandates only the Federal Reserve to accept it. But, I'll play anyway. Is there such a law in your state? Can you quote the statute please?

159 posted on 02/03/2006 8:47:42 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
You may do a search for laws referring to "refusal of payment" for any state you wish.

BTW..The quote I posted was from your previous post.
160 posted on 02/03/2006 8:54:24 PM PST by Beagle8U (An "Earth First" kinda guy ( when we finish logging here, we'll start on the other planets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson