[television is just wrong]

The problem is that more and more stores are doing this practice. It is a growing problem for those of us who choose not to commit crimes, but they assume that we have committed a crime.

Just wanted some insight into this. Wanted to hear others views. Not about to make a j.A. out of myself at this point, rather, I want to hear what rational human beings have to say about it.

[Enterprise]

I think Dartoid in post 50 gives it pretty succinctly. In my non-lawyer opinion I agree. Unless we are talking special circumstances dealing with public safety like airports, courtrooms, etc., the Constitution gives no one the right to search you or your property or detain you without probable cause. The loss prevention person(s) and security guards are just paid civilian employees of the company, nothing more. Now they can certainly ask and you can certainly refuse. At that point they have a choice. They can let you go or physically restrain you. If you are restrained, and you have not committed a crime, and there is no reasonable cause to believe that you have, you are being physically assaulted. And you have the right to use reasonable force to stop the assault. Hopefully you would have excellent witnesses or have something like this recorded for the pending lawsuit against them. (More than likely they would settle out of court.)

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"It is a growing problem for those of us who choose not to commit crimes, but they assume that we have committed a crime."

Principles are expensive and growing more so all the time. Like most things of value, they are worth the cost.

Michael Frazier

[FreedomCalls]

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.