Yes they do. It's called a road block or sobriety checkpoint which I find unconstitutional too.

So, if a roadblock would help capture a murderer or child molester, you would have a problem with the minor inconvenience?


People who simply accept things as they are will soon be put thropugh another small inconvenience in another year.

Inconveniences are a part of life, and are increasing because of society and the need to maintain order. These inconveniences have a purpose, they are not there to step on your rights. Stop taking it personally. The chip has to come off the shoulder.

cdollaz:
I didn't realize we were talking about murderers?
In reference to the chip on my shoulder I don't have a reply. If you want to be herded around like a sheep for the rest of your life go for it. But don't expect me to be a sheep. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. They are assuming every person that leaves the store is a shoplifter. Plain and simple. Inconveniences are a part of life but that doesn't mean I shoudl accept them. A red light - I can accept. Being treated as if I'm a shoplifter because I shop - I WIL NOT accept.

cdollaz:
I didn't realize we were talking about murderers?
In reference to the chip on my shoulder I don't have a reply. If you want to be herded around like a sheep for the rest of your life go for it. But don't expect me to be a sheep. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. They are assuming every person that leaves the store is a shoplifter. Plain and simple. Inconveniences are a part of life but that doesn't mean I shoudl accept them. A red light - I can accept. Being treated as if I'm a shoplifter because I shop - I WIL NOT accept.

So now I'm a mindless drone that does what I'm told and cannot think for myself. Ha Ha Ha Ha. No one is assuming everyone is a shoplifter, no more than you are assumed guilty when you go thru a metal detector at an airport. However, a certain percentage of the bastards that go into Best Buy are shoplifters, and without knowing exactly which ones it is, everyone has to suffer because of it, which means having your bag checked. Instead of getting mad at the BB employee, why not go and beat the hell out of a shoplifter, they are the root of the problem, not Best Buy.

The problem I thought was having your rights violated by being forced(although they do this in a subtle way) to stop and show them the items I have already bought not more than ten feet away from them. They can easily see me buy the items put them into my bag and walk towards him. Where's the shoplifting part?

Check out this scenario:

Person A is actually seen shoplifting something from the store. When asked to show his receipt at the door, he refuses because the person at the door hasn't checked out anyone else's bags and receipt so he accuses them of singling him out.

Now, if everyone has their bags checked, he cannot say this. That is why everyone must go thru this. They are not accusing you of anything and you are not being called "guilty". This is not a trial. As I stated before, the few ruin it for the many. Do you complain at a game or concert when they ask to see your stub to get to your seat? The bottom line is that there is a certain percentage of people in this country that want to cheat and steal and I am willing to suffer minor inconveniences to combat this.

Well you may be able to give your rights up more easily than me. That's fine. Well agree to disagree then.

Good for you. Just don't confuse "I am willing..." with "I think everyone should be willing..." and you'll be just fine.

Find me something official where it is stated that you have this right, then maybe I'll agree with you. You are assuming that this is a right, and I do not think that it is. When entering a store, you must abide by their policies, whether it is having your bag searched, being forced to wear shirt and shoes, throwing away your drink before you enter, or not being allowed to piss on the floor. The store makes the rules for their store, not you or your presumptions about what is legal or not.

Good for you. Just don't confuse "I am willing..." with "I think everyone should be willing..." and you'll be just fine.


As a matter of fact, I do think everyone should be willing to do this. I think in general people should be willing to be a little less selfish and more willing to do things to help society as a whole. I'm not saying that you have to do it, but I think it is a sign of the times that people are not willing to.

It is a right. Look into consumer rights at your local library.
Good luck. The biggest thing about this situation is that most people don't know their rights so they don't even know better. Ignorance is a great thing for BB or any other company for that matter. It is illegal to detain anyone unless you have seen them actually put items into their bag, not pay for them, and watch them until they attempt to leave the store. At this point you can detain them and you have legal rights to do so. It is however illegal to detain someone that has not done the following PERIOD. So if you have bought your items you have the right to walk right put that door. They do not have the right to stop you to look into your bag EVEN if it is store policy. They can make any store policy they want but they cannot violate my rights as a consumer in doing so.

Here are some societies where people submit(ted) to searches at the will of the state:

Communist China
Nazi Germany

Best Buy has every right to ASK you to search your bags. You have every right to say no. If you choose to submit to the search, that is your business. If I choose not to, it is my business.

Being searched before boarding a plane is a matter of public safety. Having your bags searched at Best Buy on your way out is not (although one could argue that having your bags checked BEFORE you go in is a matter of public safety).

Showing your ticket to get into an event is to show proof that you bought the ticket. The key element here is that you are trying to get INTO an event that you must pay for, not trying to get OUT of a store to go home.

As C_Fletch said, the stores can make any policy they want, but that doesn't obligate you to follow them. Now, before someone starts splitting hairs, if a store doesn't want you to come IN with food or drink or packages, then I have a choice not to go in the store. Some of the other policies like shirts and shoes are matter of law, not store policy.

If the store has a policy that everyone will be strip searched on the way out, even if that policy is CLEARLY posted, that is not legal or enforceable.

For those in NYC, I regularly visit J&R for DVD purchases and never had problems with them till this past weekend. They make you check your bags in when you walk through the door and I have no problem with that. This time, I had a few DVDs I borrowed from the public library in my bag and it sets off the alarm on the way in.

The guard says "What do you have in your bag that's setting off the alarm?". I respond that it was a few items from the library and that I am by checking my bag. He then says "Well, a master thief can easily steal something and expect the alarms to beep when he leaves."

I was a bit miffed about any connotation of being called a thief, but on the way out, I found my bag no longer caused the alarm to beep so I'm wondering whether this security guard actually went into my bag and run the library DVDs through whatever device they have to disable it.

2 other customers leaving with me also made a comment about the security guard stopping them.

Excellent points!! My thoughts exactly. Especially the one point about price clubs, which I thougt of but never seen posted. They do not have a right to search your bags unless they are accusing you of shoplifting. I had a physical tug of war with a K-Mart employee who wouldn't let go of "my stuff". I marvel at how easily so many will act as sheep and give up our rights because it sounds "logical". Maybe we should allow BB or Fry's to frisk us or look inside women's purses. After all, that might prevent shoplifting .,.. and it is the next logical step.


Any BB or K-Mart, however can PREVENT you from entering their store. That is their right. It is private property. If you try to enter without a shirt, they can tell you to leave. If they want to check my receipt and I choose not to let them, they can ask me to leave. But I don't have to abide by their policy. It's not like they have jurisdiction over my affairs when I enter the store.

This whole issue is not about the inconvenience of showing your receipt or whether it is a deterrent to shoplifting. It is about your rights and how they can easily be stolen from you in what seems to be the "right" thing to do.



QUESTION for greenerdog or anyone else who might know: If an off-duty policeman tells you to show your receipt, does that obligate you by law to do it? I had this happen and was not sure of my rights when dealing with a policeman, even an off-duty policeman. At the time he is working as a security guard does a policeman have the same jurisdiction as when he is on-duty?

Yet another fine grey line for us to tread! The answer is yes and no. If he is working as a security guard and is off-duty from the police department, he does not have the right or permission to act as a police officer or use any department issued equipment. HOWEVER, technically a police officer is on-call 24/7 if they should happen to witness a crime. If he is a witness to the crime, he may intercede in the situation until such time as an on-duty officer arrives.

Some departments allow officers to take their squad cars home (Springfield is one). If an off duty officer sees you moderately speeding, the odds are that they will not bother to tread that grey line. If the officer sees that you are driving without regard to your safety or the saftey of others, they will probably try to intervene. If the officer sees that you are in distress (say broke down on the side of the road), I would hope that they would stop, but I have seen them drive on by.

Can he say "I'm a cop" and make you show your receipt? No. He has no legal authority as he is not acting in a official duties capacity. No, if he watched you steal something . . . different story, he is likely going to cuff and stuff you.

Yet another cloud to throw into the situation: Do you have to obey the off-duty officer? The wise choice here is to demand that the police department be called and a UNIFORMED ON-DUTY officer be sent to the scene immediately. Nowadays it is too easy for anybody to get their hands on a badge and claim to be a cop. You will see unmarked cars patrolling (traffic example), but you will not see a plain clothes officer in that car. There have been many cases where an unmarked, un-uniformed police officer has attempted to make a (traffic) stop. In cases like this they are supposed to allow the alleged offender reasonable time and distance to assure the alleged offender that they are indeed an actual officer of the law. This includes driving to a public place (i.e., gas station) without further consequences. If you are ever stopped (or hassled if you think) by an off-duty/out of uniform officer, demand that a uniformed officer be sent to the scene immediately.

This is not an issue of being selfish. This is an issue of individual rights. It drove me up a wall when all the news agencies (after 9/11) were asking "What freedoms are you willing to give up?" My answer: NONE. **** happens, but I am not going to live like this is Communist China or Nazi Germany. Many people have died, both willingly and unwillingly, to give me the freedoms that I have. To them I am eternally grateful. I would never tarnish their memories or trivialize the sacrifice they made by willingly abandoning the very freedoms that they gave me. I would rather become one of them than spit on their graves.

Maybe we are taking this a little too far, after all we are talking about the private sector vs. the Bill of Rights. But there is an underlying point that this becomes conditioning. First we lay down for Best Buy. Then we lay down for the airlines. Since it is so easy, next we lay down for the government. How does the old saying go? I did nothing when they came for the Jews. I did nothing when they came for the blacks. Now there is nobody left, and they are coming for me. Something like that anyway . . .

Let's quickly simplify this argument: Those of you who think that we should just submit to these searches are causing a little too much stir here. Why don't you just give up your right to free speech for the good of the board? I mean, wouldn't we just all be better off if we lived in harmony? It would really be better for all of us if you just kind of toned it down and let it go, OK?

One last thought: (This really is related, think hard about it) WALK ON THE GRASS.

The flaw in this argument is that Person A was actually witnessed committing a crime. He was not merely suspected and targetted.

As for showing a ticket for your seat, that ticket is actually a license for you to be in the location that you are in. It is no different than a driver's license which you must produce when operating a motor vehicle. No where does it say I have the right to trespass or operate a motor vehicle. These are priveleges. Major difference.

I am very happy that I am not alone. When I was conversing with cdollaz it seemed as if I was alone in my convictions. But fortunately I feel I am not alone. I cannot understand why some people do not realize that our rights as a consumer are disappearing. Although this is done gradually and are always very subtle they are becoming more frequent. I am afraid that if this trend continues it will become common practice. Imagine going into your local grocery store and having someone check your bag. I know this will probably never happen but if people do not realize what their rights are(aka sheep) then this may eventually may become the case. It is already happening to greater extents such as Kmart, and I imagine a few more that I do not frequent. And the sad thing about it is when I walk past those security guards, they treat me like I am a criminal because I don't show them my bag. When in fact I simply KNOW my RIGHTS!!! Maybe I should order everything online. Hopefully the sheep will awake........

I still haven't seen anyone post any proof that this is an actual right. Some case law or something.

I won't get into the argument if it's right or wrong but I think one of the reasons they have the security check is to prevent employee theft for one's own benefit or a friends'.

Say if you're working as a cashier and a friend brings up 3 items (2 cheap and 1 expensive item). The cashier scans the 2 cheap items and lets the 3rd slide by. Of course, if the security guy was the guy in on it as well...

Try the Fourth Amendment . . . it is called unreasonable search and seizure.

I am with you on this one C_Fletch! I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but this is a conditioning that we are being taught. I am not saying that our government is evil and out to get us (well, not all of us) . . . but somewhere down the line it would be just that much easier if we were already cowtoed to some extent.

This carries over into many other issues in retail as well. Once upon a time it was "The customer is always right." Well, and I will attest to this, there are some unscrupulous characters who have made it so that this dictum can no longer be true. However, it seems that these mega-coporations have decided that the customers are the ENEMY and should be treated as the ignorant masses that they are. This carries over into ALL of the customer service issues that we have discussed in recent weeks (mispricing, false advertising, bait and switch, store policies, ect.). Until the government steps in (not legislators, I'm talking about Consumer Protection divisions of the State's Attorney's office) and returns consumer rights and protection, we will continue to be at the mercy of greedy megalomaniacal corporations . . . be they electronics retailers, oil companies, software companies, insurance and banking, medical industries, drug companies, or internet web sites.

You need someone to post proof that you have the right not to be searched by a freakin' store employee? Been living in this country long?

You say:

But a store cannot make a policy that is illegal or violates your consitutional rights. A store can't make a policy that they are going to hit every 3rd customer over the head with a baseball bat. They can't refuse service to you based on the color of your skin. A store's ability to make policies has to fall within the laws that already exist.

A store can make all of the policies it wants, but that doesn't make them legally binding. A store has ABSOLUTELY no right to search your bags.

Two other events worth mulling over:

1) At a San Diego high school dance recently, girls' skirts were lifted to make sure that they weren't wearing thong underwear! Also, tops were pulled down to ensure that bras were being worn. Was this done by some notorious gang? Well, apparantly...the Vice Principal was doing it!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cdollaz
[I think in general people should be willing to be a little less selfish and more willing to do things to help society as a whole. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it was for the greater common good...

2) Have you noticed how your credit card companies are sending you change notices to your account that basically say, "You can't sue us in court, you must go through OUR "independent" arbitration process, and it is binding. By using your card again, you agree to these terms."

There are lots of problems with this one. It is bad and should be stopped. I'm ok with non-binding arbitration, but not binding arbitration on THEIR terms.