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???
Wal-Mart is the worse. If they don't cut the tag off something and you walk out, the alarm goes off and the "gray tigers" are right there telling you to step back in the store, please.
They check your receipt against your purchases and then aplogize and tell you the cashier is new.
I ask to see the manager and explain what happened and then ask him to escort me to the customer service counter and give me a refund for everything I bought and then i walk out.
The point is, due to their improperly trained employess, I am made to look like a shoplifter and even though it is a common occurence at (from what i understand) most wallyworlds, people still look at you when the grannies chase you down.
The search at store exits is legal because it is completely voluntary. If you want to be searched, you may allow it. If you do not want to submit to a search, there is nothing the store can do to stop you.
The only way the store can detain or search you is if they have reasonable suspicion of theft. It's a lesser degree of probable cause allowed to stores because of "shopkeeper's privilege."
Bottom line, next time the store asks you to submit to a search, ask the loss prevention clerk to articulate what reasonable suspicion he or she has to justify a search. If they have none, you are free to go. The only recourse the store has is to ban you from the store in the future.
Duh. And my point was that the presence or absence of a state law has no impact on the meaning of "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" which applies only to the Federal Reserve System and was erroneously claimed to be the basis on which one could steal gasoline from a service station. If you have a state law that says a private business must accept Federal Reserve Notes of any denomination at any time, then so be it. But I challenge you to point it out. I suspect that no such law exists. The burden of proof is on you if you want to prove otherwise.
Let's just give it up, shall we?
Thank you.
Agreed. Have a nice night if you're still awake.
Thanks!
“The bill of rights constrains what the government, not what private enterprises, can do.” This is untrue. The 13th Amendment states you cannot be taken as a slave. If your assertion were true, Costco (Kmart, et al) could take you as a slave. Obviously, the Bill of Rights applies to protections of the individual American citizen. The 4th Amendment does not limit or qualify what its words apply to. It does not say only government, an agency, or business. The 4th amendment says what it says.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm is a reference. The explanation provided in the Senate link for the 4th Amendment is:
“Applying to arrests and to searches of persons, homes, and other private places, this amendment requires a warrant, thereby placing a neutral magistrate between the police and the citizen.” Costco et al are private places. I can’t just search you because you may be on my property.
Further, who decides what “unreasonable” means? My policy is that it is unreasonable to be detained by Costco et al, for the purpose of their agent searching my personal effects without warrant or probable cause (which would stand up in the court case I would bring). I am an American citizen covered by this Amendment and fully capable of determining what “unreasonable” means. Costco et al would have to prove in court that is reasonable for it to detain and search all its customers before allowing them to exit its premises. I’d like to see Costco et al drawn into just such a case in court.
“it could be part of the membership terms so failure to allow the check could violate the terms of membership or conduct, “
Costco could make it part of their membership terms that you could be forced to provide 8 hours of unpaid labor per month to them (so they could keep their costs down for you and its other customers). You might sign the agreement. How would Costco peanalize you if you did not provide your allotment of forced labor each month?
The point would be can you voluntarily become a slave, despite the 13th Amendment, just because of a term in a Costco agreement. In that vignette, I’d like to see Costco defend its need for enslavement of its customers in a court, too. Just as in the 4th Amendment, it seems the law follows The Constitution and you cannot be positioned to give up a fundamental right.
“I’m sure you do. They are betting correctly that honest people won’t want the huge hassle that would follow”
Like the British troops who searched homes of the Colonists, the Brits too were betting correctly that honest people won’t want the huge hassle that would follow... . Wrong is wrong.
“Verifying that a shopping bag you are removing from the premises does not contain items not paid for is hardly battery.” It is not Costco’s right to check for stolen items that are not in my bag or on my person. Costco must have a probable cause to check my personal effects, per the 4th Amendment.
The other point is that if Costco takes the bag from you involuntarily or opens it while you are trying holding it, then assault has been committed. This is a third court case I’d like to see Costco et al defend. “Our Costco manager needed to force our customer into an involuntary search because she would not comply with our verbal order and written policy”.
What I keep an ear to the ground for is when Costco et al take someone’s membership away because the American refused to be search by Costco under the 4th Amendment.
“
The blow-back on making an issue is the store can ban you from trespassing on their private property in the future. “
No they can’t. If Walmart et al banned you from their properties right after you made a case of their illegal searches, you would have a great court case. Assuming you didn’t do something actually wrong in the mean time, of course.
The 13th Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights.
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.