X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a store should be allwoed to have the policy that they search their customer's bags before they leave. If you don't like it, don't shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether or not this is the store's policy, what right does the store have to detain you if you don't comply? Violating a store policy does not cause you to suddenly lose all of your civil rights.

The store's remedy for those who do not obey their policies is to inform these people that they are no longer permitted on their property. If these people return to the store, they can be charged with trespassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the shoplifter move on to the next circuit city that has the same policy. Very effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with shoplifting? This is about the store checking receipts at the door.

The store can detain actual shoplifters all they want. They just need to keep their hands off those of us who haven't actually violated any laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you feel it infringes on your rights doesnt mean they are incorrect that it is an effective shoplifting different. As the poster you responded to said, dont like it, dont shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to continue shopping in a store whose policies you do not agree with and have no intention of following.

I don't see why the store should be permitted to violate my rights if I still decided to set foot inside their premises, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because by setting foot inside the door you voluntarily agree to relinquish that right. The conspicuous posting of the policy creates an implied contract.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a store should be allwoed to have the policy that they search their customer's bags before they leave. If you don't like it, don't shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether or not this is the store's policy, what right does the store have to detain you if you don't comply? Violating a store policy does not cause you to suddenly lose all of your civil rights.

The store's remedy for those who do not obey their policies is to inform these people that they are no longer permitted on their property. If these people return to the store, they can be charged with trespassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the shoplifter move on to the next circuit city that has the same policy. Very effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with shoplifting? This is about the store checking receipts at the door.

The store can detain actual shoplifters all they want. They just need to keep their hands off those of us who haven't actually violated any laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you feel it infringes on your rights doesnt mean they are incorrect that it is an effective shoplifting different. As the poster you responded to said, dont like it, dont shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to continue shopping in a store whose policies you do not agree with and have no intention of following.

I don't see why the store should be permitted to violate my rights if I still decided to set foot inside their premises, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because by setting foot inside the door you voluntarily agree to relinquish that right. The conspicuous posting of the policy creates an implied contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

An implied contract that they are allowed to forcibly detain me? No, it does not.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a store should be allwoed to have the policy that they search their customer's bags before they leave. If you don't like it, don't shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether or not this is the store's policy, what right does the store have to detain you if you don't comply? Violating a store policy does not cause you to suddenly lose all of your civil rights.

The store's remedy for those who do not obey their policies is to inform these people that they are no longer permitted on their property. If these people return to the store, they can be charged with trespassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the shoplifter move on to the next circuit city that has the same policy. Very effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with shoplifting? This is about the store checking receipts at the door.

The store can detain actual shoplifters all they want. They just need to keep their hands off those of us who haven't actually violated any laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you feel it infringes on your rights doesnt mean they are incorrect that it is an effective shoplifting different. As the poster you responded to said, dont like it, dont shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to continue shopping in a store whose policies you do not agree with and have no intention of following.

I don't see why the store should be permitted to violate my rights if I still decided to set foot inside their premises, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because by setting foot inside the door you voluntarily agree to relinquish that right. The conspicuous posting of the policy creates an implied contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

An implied contract that they are allowed to forcibly detain me? No, it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleted An implied contract that they can check your receipt, and if you don't comply then they can detain you on reasonable suspicion within a reasonable distance and time of your leaving the store.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Deleted An implied contract that they can check your receipt, and if you don't comply then they can detain you on reasonable suspicion within a reasonable distance and time of your leaving the store.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deleted How many times do we need to show that refusal to submit to a bag search does not constitute reasonable suspicion before it sinks in?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being intentionally obtuse as usual? An implied contract that they can check your receipt, and if you don't comply then they can detain you on reasonable suspicion within a reasonable distance and time of your leaving the store.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deleted How many times do we need to show that refusal to submit to a bag search does not constitute reasonable suspicion before it sinks in?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's irrelevant anyway. "Reasonable suspicion" is sufficient to detain and question a private citizen only if there is a member of law enforcement involved. A store employee cannot detain you based on "reasonable suspicion" alone.

[Phil153]

You sure about that? From my understanding, anyone can forcibly detain someone who they reasonably believe is in the act of committing a crime.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You sure about that? From my understanding, anyone can forcibly detain someone who they reasonably believe is in the act of committing a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most jurisdictions, a citizen's arrest can only be performed as a result of the witnessing of the commission of a felony, and NOT on the "probable suspicion" of a misdemeanor.

Also, no civil or criminal protections are afford to regular citizens enacting a citizen's arrest.

In other words, if someone is detaining another person, they are taking their chances that they are themselves breaking the law unless they can later show they witnessed the commission of a felony.

No matter what notice the store gives upon entering, they cannot re-write applicable law in regards to other people's rights.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You sure about that? From my understanding, anyone can forcibly detain someone who they reasonably believe is in the act of committing a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

God I hope this isn't true, or at the very least that the definition of "reasonably believe" is absurdly strict.

EDIT: Cleared up later, thanks.

[CallMeIshmael]

All,


if there is a sign in CC that says "We will check all receipts before you leave. If you attempt to non-comply with this rule, we reserve the right to forcibly detain you. If you purchase items at CC, you agree to these terms" in a prominent place, what are people's opinions then? Does anyone know if such a sign means that they DO have the right to detain you (from a legal POV)?


As is (assuming those type signs arent there) CC is really in the wrong (and obv the cop) and deserves whatever they lose. And, if they didnt put up those signs, yet had this policy, they are idiots.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
All, if there is a sign in CC that says "We will check all receipts before you leave. If you attempt to non-comply with this rule, we reserve the right to forcibly detain you. If you purchase items at CC, you agree to these terms" in a prominent place, what are people's opinions then? Does anyone know if such a sign means that they DO have the right to detain you (from a legal POV)?

As is (assuming those type signs arent there) CC is really in the wrong (and obv the cop) and deserves whatever they lose. And, if they didnt put up those signs, yet had this policy, they are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

They absolutely do not have the right to detain you. Just because something is posted does not mean that it's legal. Putting up a sign saying "We will kick you in the nuts before you leave", it doesn't mean that they can actually do it. PERHAPS if there was some sort of membership agreement that you had to sign before you could enter the store, they would have a case. (Although I wouldn't imagine that an agreement like that would stand up in court. It would basically have to say "we can search you at any time for any reason and keep you until we're done")