nemein

Will you please make up your mind whether you are arguing about legality/illegality or privacy/liberty. In the grand scheme of thing whether or not the door search is legal and whether or not the person has the right to refuse and what should happen when they do is one thing. That's fine we can argue about it but wrt privacy/liberty issues it's an exceedingly trivial aspect. If you want to argue about privacy/liberty issues then things like bonus cards are a significantly larger risk to privacy, regardless of whether or not they are legal. Again you have to pick your fights and the person who started all this picked the wrong one.

Jeremy517

I doubt he is any of those, considering that one of the sources he cited is Wikipedia's definition for the word "kidnapping".

Jah-Wren Ryel

Have you read the links that nemein posted and that I quoted? Or how about the links that I posted.
They were all written from the perspective of the merchant, not a liberty-freak trying to push the boundries.

After all the stuff you linked to, that's a cop-out.But if you are going to take it, don't even attempt to imply that he wasn't within his rights because you claim you do not know, despite all evidence to the contrary.

So, you want to argue about principles, but "the principle" isn't a valid justification? What, you want me to explain why loyalty card's are less of a problem then mandatory searches, but the fact that loyalty card's are VOLUNTARY and mandatory searches are well, MANDATORY, is off limits?

You are drawing arbitrary lines and saying "this side good and this side bad because I say so."

Toad

No, sure haven't. So how about an answer to my question?

nemein

That's the crux of the issue. Does the section below, and what the policies of CC are (and whether or not they were being followed and their overall legality), give the CC employees the privilege of restraining the prick. You act as if it's an open and shut case. I've been around enough lawyers and police to know that there is rarely such a thing in real life.

Section 2935.041.

(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.


If you are talking about real risks to privacy though loyalty cards (voluntary or not) are much more problematic than limited/restrained mandatory searches done of products that were just purchased. If you can't see that, well I'm not sure there's much else to be said...


Sounds like the same argument you are making to me.

Jah-Wren Ryel

Ok, you got me. A bit over 12 years ago I was involved in very similar circumstances. Stores were just starting to do these inspections and I did not like being treated like a thief immediately after handing over a good chunk of money and not doing one damn thing to raise suspicion. The cops who arrived knew the law and told the store manager he couldn't legally detain me the way he just had - and at the time in that state it was technically kidnapping, thus my use of the term in this case. I filed a complaint, took it to court (have an uncle who is a lawyer) and was awarded a small 4 figure sum. The store manager lost his job.

As I responded to 'polizei' I'm pro personal freedom. The voluntary part is HUGE. I don't use loyalty cards. The fact that is my choice to or not makes a big difference. Sure, they suck, especially for poor people who can't afford to pay the inflated prices that come with not using them. But freedom isn't free and it's not the goverment mandating them.

Toad

Impressive victory!

Hey you don't have to be a lawyer to know "the law." But unless someone here practices in Ohio, we're all doing the same thing: reading and interpreting the statutes and using them to advance our own arguments.

cdollaz

Who do some keep referring to bag searches? Of the dozens of times I have been in this situation, never once have they asked to search my bag nor tried to do it themselves. They merely asked to see a receipt.

NotThatGuy

If so....PLEASE come play in the illegal immigration thread in the political sub-forum, I need some new people to play with!

-p

nemein

I'm pro personal freedom too, but I'm not paranoid about it. I know how to pick my fights, and when my privacy is really at risk and when it is not. I know having someone search my bag of items I just purchased isn't treating me like a thief and likely is part of their store loss prevention plan (which whether or not that "search" is really effective is another story/issue to be debated ).


The Gov't isn't mandating the CC exit search either and again if it's in their corp policy that everyone is subject to a search upon leaving, then it doesn't matter how you feel about it, if you buy something you're getting "searched". If you don't like it, stop shopping there, so in that sense it is also voluntary. Now whether or not that policy (if it even exists and that's what the CC employees were using to justify their actions) is legal in Ohio is one of the questions that needs to be answered. Again we are guessing as to the real incident. So far we just have one person's account of it (the self professed "victim"), you are taking your previous situation and overlaying that to this (which may not be entirely applicable), I'm taking my experience and research and doing the same w/ the same effect. We don't know all the circumstances and since it sounds like neither of us are legal professionals for either of us to state w/ absolutely certainty which (if any) laws have been broken and by who is all layman's guesswork.

NotThatGuy

I never stop for the receipt checkers. I walk from the register with reciept in hand, walk by, wave, and be done with it. Only once was I ever stopped (COSTCO), and the kid just wanted to mark my receipt, and didn't check my stuff. Whatever.

I don't have a problem with what the guy objected to, I just think he comes off a bit whiney and preachy while doing it. He should sue CC and request a written apology by the cop, who obviously did not know the proper procedure.

-p

nemein

I'm not sure what CC does (haven't bought anything from one in years/a decade maybe) but I know at BestBuy they sometimes (not always) ask to see the receipt and they'll make a cursory glance at the bag. I've noticed it happens more frequently (probably even all the time) w/ larger/big ticket items and then they will actually compare model numbers.

NotThatGuy

...but it would make for some fun family reunions!!!

-p

Jah-Wren Ryel

Well yeah, because it's illegal. But if mandatory searches were legal, they would have be backed up by US law. If stores started mandating loyalty cards, at the very least they would face legal challenges.

Again, a total cop-out. To imply he didn't tell the whole story is absolutely bogus, maybe he made up the part about being detained too. The details as he has presented them is all we've got to talk about. If you want to talk about stuff we have no documentation whatsoever for, then that needs to be another thread.

You don't see a contradiction in that sentence?
If they do not think you are a thief, then why are searching your bag?
If they do not think you are a thief, what do they expect to find in your bag?
A midget employee sneaking out for an unscheduled smoke break?

i86time

But that's the whole point (from the legal perspecitive of this argument). Why would any employer (or employee following orders) believe that just because a person refuses to offer up their bag for inspection, that such an action is probable cause for a search or dentention? Why stop at merchandise bag, why not a purse, backpack, fannypack or those small pouches on the sides of wheelchairs? If what Righi claimed in his statements on that blog are 100% true, the manager never accused him of shoplifting and thus did not have the right to stop him or have his employee prevent the car from leaving the parking lot based upon the section you cited.

What I'd like to see is the guy slap the city with a civil suit seeking a huge, yet reasonable, award. When the city realizes they're in a heap of trouble, offer to drop the suit if the officer gives him an oral and written apology as well as agreeing to quit or to re-enroll in the academy to learn the law he is required to uphold. Although many may feel Righi acted like 'a prick', the officer either a) knew the limitations of the law and abused the power that he had or b) clearly didn't understand the laws of his city or state.

nemein

It's not a cop-out at all, or do you not understand that there are at least 3 sides to every two person conversation. So far all our statements have been based on his side of the story. If the CC guys or the cop wrote their side of the story it would add more information. BTW this makes no implication about the veracity of his story at all. I'm sure he told it just like he experienced it.


There's no contradiction at all. They do it because that's what the store legal counsel presumably has told them to do as a prudent loss prevention action. Again whether or not these searches are effective is another story, but they don't represent a significant loss of privacy/liberty.

nemein

That's why we need to know the company policies and what the CC employees were using for their justification of the actions they took.




Because there is a greater expectation of privacy in personal belongings like that. Considering everything in the shopping bag was just laid out on the counter to be rung up there should be little/no expectation of privacy in that situation.

beesonosu

Because they are doing their job. It isn't some freedom-destroying mindless corporation checking our bags...it's regular human employees doing what is required of them to keep their jobs. I have never once had an inkling that they believed I was a thief. They check my receipt, smile and tell me to 'have a good day' or 'thanks for shopping' and I'm out of the store in under 10 seconds.

Obviously some employees take their job a little too seriously and I guess this is what results when a stubborn donkey meets a stubborn donkey. Lawsuits get filed, 911 is called for a non-emergency purpose and ultimately we all have to pay for it.

argh923

Absolutely. It's for emergencies. Throwing a fit because he was above showing his receipt to a clerk is not an emergency.

Yes, I have. I live in a city of about 60,000, and calling the non-emergency police department line has netted an officer for a non-emergency on more than one occasion.

This entire debate is ridiculous. How difficult is it to stop for 10 seconds and show your receipt and your bag? People are acting like the retailers are committing war crimes here. It's not at all a big deal. I don't understand the mindset of people who want to be pricks and refuse to do this. It's not a big deal! Your "civil rights" and all of that crap aren't being violated...it's a freaking 10 second stop. It hurts nobody.

I do a lot of in-store pickups at Best Buy. The guy at the door usually asks for the receipt, to see. After the first or second time doing this, I volunteer it to the guy. It's being friendly, and it's not a big deal. I don't go out every day trying to make things hard on everyone else around me (myself included) just because I can't afford to stand at the door for ten seconds. It's absurd.

benedict

It is not just in post "9/11" USA that the extent to which one's liberties have started being eroded has increased. The British government has stepped on the bandwagon and billions are to be poured into an ID card scheme in the interests of "security".

It isn't simply the fact that a corporation is undertaking such checks without just cause, I think it is more to do with the apparent blind acceptance by the public at large that there is some right for the blurring of what can be done by corporations and government agencies in day to day situations such as these.

If stores in the UK start such shenanigans they won't be getting my custom. They should spend their time spotting the real thieves rather than insisting on ineffectual but insulting procedures such as are being discussed here.

nemein

Stepped on the bandwagon If anything we are behind the British wrt the level of monitoring/lack of privacy/allowance they give their security people to conduct investigations. Also who are these "billions" that are about to be poured into this? The total population of the UK is 60M. Heck to total world population is just over 6.5 billion, so are you suggesting the UK is going to card 1/3 of the world's population?

DVD Polizei

Benedict,

I agree with your hesitation on more rules being administered and I have commented in the past about the "Patriot Act" and other new rules which really haven't added much to being safe.

However, in a society, there are rules you must abide by. This is what keeps society civil. Just imagine, for a moment, if we didn't need ID or any kind of personal identification. Taxes wouldn't be paid, loans wouldn't be paid back to the lenders, and these are just two examples. Just imagine what would happen if this were so.

I don't agree or like a lot of rules, but I abide by them because I know it would just make for a headache and wasted time if I was to make a scene...such as refusing to show my receipt or refusing to show an officer of the law, my personal ID.

Jah-Wren Ryel

So, it's some faceless lawyer that suspects you of being a thief, not the guy doing his bidding. What a beautiful tap dance. It's billions of pounds and I am out of this one.

chrisih8u

So you think it should be mandatory for everyone to carry an ID card and the punishment for not having it on you should be imprisonment?

nemein

Please tell me you really don't live your life being this paranoid...