[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The issue is whether the refusal to show receipts and allow inspection is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If so, then yes, detention is permitted. It is similar to provisions for "citizens arrest".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what you just wrote?

You are saying that refusing to consent to unlawful search is grounds to be searched.

You really hate freedom. It's scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been no demonstration that its unlawful search. If it is then I agree. If thats your opinion say so. If you have facts, show them.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU were the one asserting such a search is legal since refusal qualifies as reasonable suspicion. I pointed the absurdity of such logic. So it is nonsensical for the onus of the legality of the search to be on me -- I never asserted anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said was that in states where reasonable suspicion is the standard I could find no court cases where inspection of packages has been challenged. It isn't my opinion of whether its legal, just what is readily available on Lexis as case law. If it were so clear that refusal to allow inspection is illegal, you would expect at least one case to pop up. This one may break new ground and thats what the courts are for.