Posted on 09/02/2002 3:02:49 PM PDT by Sparqi
Recently I was stopped on my way out of KMart by an employee asking to see my receipt and contents of my bags. I asked if I was suspected of doing something illegal to which he replied, "No, it's just our policy to match purchases against your receipt." I told him that unless he had reasonable cause to believe that I'd done something illegal there was no way I was going to let him inspect either one. To his credit, he did not press the issue and allowed me to leave.
The practice of door-checking seems to have started at either Fry's Electronics in California or perhaps at PriceClub/Costco. In the latter case they can enforce the inspection policy because there is actually a clause in the Costco membership agreement which specifically states that a condition of membership is granting them the right to inspect as you leave. (This is why I don't have a Costco membership.) Fry's has been doing inspections for some time, giving rise to the perjorative term "Door-Nazis". Many people such as myself simply walk by the checkpoint and refuse to stop, since Fry's is not a membership store. Essentially they take advantage of your good nature and ask you to voluntarily waive your freedom (and your dignity) to help them control their shrinkage.
Until recently the Fry's policy was really a local issue, confined to California and some western states; so I never really pursued any activism against them...aside from personally advocating to other people that the practice was an insult and explaining that while Fry's can of course *request* that you stop and allow inspection that they cannot *force* you to stop if they don't have probable cause. Now that KMart is doing this, I think it's national enough to warrant a Freep. Here's what I'm proposing:
1. Make it a point to not be cowed into consenting to the search. If they ask to inspect your purchases, ask them if they suspect you of doing anything illegal. This establishes that they do or don't have cause to stop you. Remember; once you've paid for your purchases and they've accepted the payment, you are carrying personal property and they have cannot search you unless they have probable cause such as evidence of shoplifting.
2. If they admit that they don't have cause, tell them you don't consent to being searched and leave. If they press the issue, remind them that the Fourth Amendment guarantees your right against illegal searches. (Sometimes this is hard to explain, because the checker is not an American citizen.) If they try to restrain you, don't fight them or put up a physical struggle. Ask to speak to the most senior manager of the store immediately. Point out to him or her the illegality of the situation and ask if they're prepared to defend their actions in a court of law.
3. Instruct your friends/family/co-workers on the issue. Make sure they understand that what KMart is doing is an insult and a violation of their basic rights.
...dtw
What about them? If you have a trashy house in Hendersonville, NC, and five neighbors complain, and the code enforcers get a warrant they can check out your pig sty and make you clean it up.
I wish we had that ordinance in our city.
I've been in the Wal-Mart in Picayune and the ones in Slidell, Louisiana (near the MS border) and have noticed the same thing as you.
Unfortunately, we have one that is used only to let druggies, burglars, and killers escape punishment for their crimes. The purpose of this amendment was never to let thugs get away with crimes. The purpose was to protect innocent people from being searched without cause. The saddest thing is that so many people are ignorant of the true intent and believe that the amendment was written to help the guilty and not the innocent.
WFTR
Bill
The judges say billions are being denied their rights
Efforts to improve environmental protection worldwide have been boosted by a group of more than 100 senior judges.
They have agreed to work to strengthen the application of environmental laws wherever they exist.
They believe effective laws do exist in most countries, but that they are hard to enforce in practice.
The participants included judges from the United States, Brazil and Russia. Significantly, they were unanimous in endorsing the principles, some of which clearly run counter to the thinking of the administration in Washington.
The legal initiative is the work of the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep).
'Guardian of law'
The high court and supreme court judges met in a symposium held here last week, co-hosted by Justice Arthur Chaskalson, South Africa's chief justice. They agreed a statement, the Johannesburg Principles on the Role of Law and Sustainable Development.
This is an issue affecting billions of people who are effectively being denied their rights
Klaus Toepfer Executive director of Unep One key passage states: "We emphasise that the fragile state of the global environment requires the judiciary, as the guardian of the rule of law, to boldly and fearlessly implement and enforce applicable international and national laws which... will assist in alleviating poverty and sustaining an enduring civilisation."
The principles also "recognise that the people most affected by environmental degradation are the poor".
They say "the inequality between powerful and weak nations" places a greater responsibility on the rich to protect the environment.
Justice Chaskalson said: "The rule of law is the basis for a stable country and ultimately stable world. I am personally committed to realising and taking forward these historic principles."
Need for enforcement
"The field of law has, in many ways, been the poor relation in the world-wide effort to deliver a cleaner, healthier and ultimately fairer world," said Dr Klaus Toepfer, executive director of Unep.
US judges endorsed principles which run counter to Washington thinking
"We have over 500 international and regional agreements, treaties and deals covering everything from the protection of the ozone layer to the conservation of the oceans and seas.
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That's not the issue. They don't do that. Some little old lady or little old man sits or stands by the exit and looks at your receipt, which may say that you bought five items, and they look at your basket and see five items, they check the receipt and you go.
I'm sure that if a shopper wants to be rude and push past the little old lady or little old man at the door, that would be that. You don't think that they're going to chase after someone, do you, or demand that your wife open up her purse? If anything like that happens, it's most likely an over-zealous employee, and a rare exception to the rule, and that person will lose his or her job very quickly.
They do exactly that at the local Fry's. Open the purse, that is. She might have her concealed carry weapon in that purse. She would be required by law NOT to show her weapon. And some private company is going to try to force her to? Not.
We don't accept that situation. They don't have a right to search us. We won't shop there.
/john
Yes. Warrants are obtained, upon probable cause.
Pick up the trash, paint your house, cut your grass...you won't have any problem.
Huh? Has any store manager in your area done this, or are you just erecting a straw man?
And for God's sake vote in someone who's not a statist for local office.
/john
I've never heard of Fry's, but if that is the case (no offense, but I find that questionable), that would be way out of line. I would never submit to that.
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.