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

To: Senator Bedfellow
simply being on your property does not extend to you the right to commit battery against someone.

Verifying that a shopping bag you are removing from the premises does not contain items not paid for is hardly battery. (Unless you are one of those types who considers it assault when someone happens to frown in disapproval when they look at you.)

34 posted on 02/02/2006 6:46:00 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: VRWCmember
Verifying that a shopping bag you are removing from the premises does not contain items not paid for is hardly battery.

It is if I say no and they attempt to search anyway.

43 posted on 02/02/2006 6:55:45 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: VRWCmember

“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.


172 posted on 09/26/2010 8:49:55 AM PDT by axial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

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