Rights Violation or a Complete Jerk?

[Archon_Wing]

Still only ridiculous by degree. There was a time when you could have been shot on suspicion. The point I am trying to make is that they are accusing every customer of being a thief. If they say they aren't, then they have no basis to search.

I don't understand. What do you think of metal detectors then? Are you automatically assumed to be a terroirist if you enter a building with a detector?

I don't think you can just lump them together. If we are overly afraid of the slippery slope, then we'd be arguing against any rules regarding security.

Of course, if I find a place somewhere to have absurd rules, I don't go there. This is far diffrent from government encroachment on rights which can have much widespread effects that I cannot easily avoid. For that reason, I am more critical of the actions of the police than a private entity.

The customer's interaction has already taken place when they went through the checkout. If they truly believe a customer is in possession of items they have no right to, detain them and bring in the authorities.

I think that would cause worse invasions of privacy ( detaining people which IS accusing them to be a criminal), since naturally some groups will get targeted more (that's what suspicous ultimately gets intreprteted as) and you'll have another issue.

[Roland]

Just because the law protects my right to slap a lawsuit on anyone who looks at me the wrong way, doesn't make me a hero for standing up and asserting those rights.

Flawed logic. You actually do NOT have the "right" to slap a lawsuit on anyone who looks at you the wrong way. The law protects all of us by DENYING that "right", and instead requiring the burden of proof. Yes, you technically can slap a lawsuit on anyone who looks at you the wrong way, but doing so will very quickly teach you just how illegal that is, and net you a hefty penalty in the process. Judges look down upon that sort of thing, and will not hesitate to turn it around on you if they feel you are trying to abuse the courts.

Now, as for my own opinion, yes, we could call this guy a jerk and an idiot, and chalk it up to nothing more. Personally, I think he does have a point, in some respects. I definitely think the CC employees were out of line, and thus are deserving of reprimand. The officer, too, in this situation went beyond his authority, and he should also be judged for that.

One point to note: People are being asked to check the contents of their store-given bags, not their person nor their other containers. That, of course, cuts the line on "illegal search and seizure". On the other hand, many people are under the impression that these searches can deter theft. I don't know about you, but when I buy something from one of these stores, the only thing in the bag is what I bought. Furthermore, the only way I get such a bag is through checkout. It's not like they're lying around everywhere for people to just take. Lastly, why would any intelligent shoplifter take something OUT of his person (the only place he could possibly conceal it while going through the checkout process), and then attempt to stick it in his newly acquired shopping bag with his legally bought goods a mere few feet from the doors, and in plain view of security, cameras, and customers? My point is that the checking of receipts against bagged items is, as has been said, more a psychological deterrent (for shoplifters) and insurance (for the company). It does very little actual good against shoplifters, especially in lieu of modern technology (sensor tags, etc.).

Of course, no amount of technology will stop a determined shoplifter, and indeed the only way to truly deter shoplifting is by having watchmen and stopping suspicious people at the door, and even that will have holes big enough to swim a tuna through. When I worked at Wilsons, our biggest deterrent against shoplifting was ourselves. Second came double-tagging all items, to make it more difficult to "cut and run" (cutting the sensor tags and then simply walking off with the items). We would regularly get hit by professional shoplifting rings, with gangs spread across the entire East Coast. It's amazing what those people can do, and not just with small, easily-concealed items.

Anyway, personally, I'm amused by the debacle, especially having worked at Circuit City (they have emulated Best Buy, to their detriment, in a last-ditch bid to survive; sad, really) years ago, before such policies were routine anywhere but BJ's Wholesale Club.:PI want to know how it all ends, and I hope justice is done, even if that includes a slap on the wrist for our "Hero".;)I could see him getting a stern warning from a judge, and would find that appropriate, especially if the Circuit City employees and the officer get what they deserve. I'm not going to laud him as a savior, but I'll cheer him on by raising my drink.;)

Edit:
I should clarify that I am neither for nor against the policy of checking receipts at the door. On the one hand, I empathize with his frustrations. On the other, I don't really see it as a big enough deal to warrant such extreme action as a court case, nor do I feel it necessarily needs to be changed. That is for a court to decide, though, not for me, and I cannot stress enough that it was the actions of EVERYONE involved that brought this incident to such a head, not just Mr. Hero. Bear that in mind when you make your own judgments.

[Munkay]

Flawed logic. You actually do NOT have the "right" to slap a lawsuit on anyone who looks at you the wrong way. The law protects all of us by DENYING that "right", and instead requiring the burden of proof.

Glad to see your post Roland. And while I agree with the rest of your post, here I must draw a line in the sand and fight to the death!:P

But in all seriousness, I don't think I'm wrong here. Certain laws, like those of verbal assault or the qualifications to get a restraining order demand to take into account the perception of the victim - I believe it's called 'perceived threat'. Take for example two people at the end of a very serious relationship. During a particularly messy breakup, man A gets in the face of woman B and starts yelling out of frustration. Even if the words remain relatively benign, that man can look forward to a restraining order and possible assault charges if she decides to take him to court.

The 'burden of proof' can become a very thin line in some circumstances. And although the above example is debatable, there are plenty of people out there pulling the 'assualt, restrain, sue' card over truly trivial matters. Yes, most of those cases do get thrown out of court, but there are also a fair number of cases that stick when they shouldn't.

I don't disagree with your evaluation of what the law states. But I disagree. There is a pandemic of absurd cases bogging our court systems - precisely because some weasels know how to win when someone looks at them the wrong way.

Cheers,

Munk

[Roland]

The truth of the matter is theft costs big companies millions (some billions) of dollars a year.

The majority of all shrink (what they call "loss") is in-house. That applies to EVERY place I have ever worked, including Circuit City, Wilsons Leather, Gamestop, Chesapeake Knife & Tool (nigh-impossible to steal from that place because of the layout, even in a cramped mall store, and doubly so because all of us were armed to the teeth with blades on our person, not to mention an entire array of very usable weapons within arms reach, and several of us trained to use them, although not for security reasons), and Macy's. There's a reason companies like this have excessive amounts of posters for anonymous reporting against co-workers, and the majority of anti-shrink training centering around what NOT to do, rather than what you are allowed to do. I don't know how it is now, but when I was at Circuit City, only managers and customer support personnel were allowed to pursue a shoplifter, and I'm not even sure that extended beyond our doors (i.e. into the parking lot). No other employee was ever allowed to detain a shoplifter, or even attempt such a thing, mostly for OUR safety but also theirs. This policy was also found at every other retail location I've worked at, although at least at the malls there were dedicated security personnel patrolling the hallways, and we had specific instructions to inform them of any suspicious activity rather than do anything ourselves.

Anyway, long point short: most loss comes from employees, not outsiders, and thus most loss-prevention is centered around employees. Again, basic store employees are generally denied any authority to detain or otherwise interfere with a suspicious person, instead relegating all interaction to their superiors or trained personnel. We weren't even allowed to be peripherally involved once we informed someone of our suspicions, for our own safety as much as anyone else's.

[Roland]

I don't understand. What do you think of metal detectors then? Are you automatically assumed to be a terroirist if you enter a building with a detector?

Red herring. Metal detectors are put in place to detect metal objects. Most commonly available weapons, including knives and guns, are made primarily of metal. Thus, a metal detector's main purpose is to detect weapons, thus ensuring our safety.

Checking our shopping bag to make sure we haven't stolen anything is not even in the same league as ensuring our safety, especially in a high-profile area such as a courthouse or an airport. If you're going to draw analogies to shoot holes in an argument, as least stay within reason. Otherwise, you're just confusing the issue.

I'm not arguing the point you're trying to make, even if I perchance don't agree with it. I'm arguing with what you're using to back up your argument. You can do much better, I'm sure.

Edit:
One question I have for you, which I keep forgetting to ask: what happens when ALL stores require these bag checks, as most of them already do? What recourse do we have? You keep touting "take your business elsewhere", and that's all well and good, but it doesn't work when everyone follows one another in practice. True, we do live in an electronic age where we can do virtually anything online, but should I be forced to do all my shopping online just to avoid the hassle of being searched every time I want to buy something? What if I was trying to compare products? What if I had questions? Am I to go to a brick 'n' mortar, gather all the information I need to make my purchasing decision, and then travel back home and purchase the item online instead, thereby wasting the store's time and money and ensuring that not only will their sales suffer, but their internal costs will be for naught? That, to me, is equally as ridiculous. What are your thoughts on that matter?

[Roland]

I don't disagree with your evaluation of what the law states. But I disagree that there is a pandemic of absurd cases bogging our court systems - precisely because some weasels know how to win when someone looks at them the wrong way.

Cheers,

Munk

Naive on your part.;)There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits bogging down our court systems, and it's only getting worse. It is because of this that more and more penalties are being handed out for them, and the penalties themselves becoming harsher and harsher. Case in point: SCO vs. IBM and SCO vs. Novell. Granted, they are not concluded yet, but there have been numerous stern warnings against SCO for frivolity, not to mention the almost certain penalties against SCO pending the resolution of these cases, in addition to the counter-claims from both Novell and IBM.

While I agree that the situation has not reached a critical mass, it is foolish to think that frivolous lawsuits don't bog down our courts. Believe me, I'm witness to a few of them that have affected or currently affect my life (although only peripherally; I am not involved in the actual case, but the outcome of it will affect me, as the matters that brought it to court already have). We have not earned the nickname of being a "lawsuit happy" country for nothing, you know.;)

Oh, and thanks for the kind words. I mostly lurk here these days, usually keeping my mouth shut, but every once in awhile I can be coaxed out.:)

[Munkay]

One question I have for you, which I keep forgetting to ask: what happens when ALL stores require these bag checks, as most of them already do? What recourse do we have?

I doubt that will ever happen, especially after reading this thread. I never thought twice about bag check, but apparently it's something that really gets people riled up.

If it is a big deal to most people, then every store won't do it. Business sense demands that if your customer base is disgruntled by the practice, loosening the slack in your store will steal business from your competitors. Moreover, as Archon_Wing pointed out the practice of bag checking is an alternative to more expensive means. Technologies (like penny cheap RFID chips) are developed all the time. Technology will eventually take over the role of a human being shuffling through your belongings.

Cheers,

Munk

[Munkay]

Naive on your part.;)

My apologies, I worded that entirely wrong. I edited the post accordingly, I actually AGREE there is a pandemic of court cases.

Cheers,

Munk

[Nystul]

Red herring. Metal detectors are put in place to detect metal objects. Most commonly available weapons, including knives and guns, are made primarily of metal. Thus, a metal detector's main purpose is to detect weapons, thus ensuring our safety.

You put magnetic security tags on merchandise, which may or may not be removed upon checkout. Then all customers go through the machine on their way out. Is it not also a loss prevention search? The person could own something that would trip the device, possibly including something they just legally purchased. It is probably less intrusive and more effective, but legally I do not see any distinction whatsoever. Like you said, people don't put their own posessions into a store bag other than what they just bought. What they just bought is already known to the store, so what privacy rights should they against the store double-checking?

If someone walks into a store with a backpack on, they are generally asked to remove it. Is that unlawful seizure of property? Are store employees, who are not acting agents of the government, even bound by the fourth amendment? It seems like this may be more of a common law issue regarding property ownership and the way business is conducted.

Forgetting about whether something is in a bag or not, let's say a person carries a TV to the exit of a store. Is it within the rights of a store employee to walk up to the person and ask them to show a receipt, or can a person walk out of a store with a TV any time they feel like it under the presumption that it was purchased? You know as well as I do that people are bold enough to do it and get away with it depending on the store layout.

[Archon_Wing]

Red herring. Metal detectors are put in place to detect metal objects. Most commonly available weapons, including knives and guns, are made primarily of metal. Thus, a metal detector's main purpose is to detect weapons, thus ensuring our safety.

Checking our shopping bag to make sure we haven't stolen anything is not even in the same league as ensuring our safety, especially in a high-profile area such as a courthouse or an airport. If you're going to draw analogies to shoot holes in an argument, as least stay within reason. Otherwise, you're just confusing the issue.

I'm not arguing the point you're trying to make, even if I perchance don't agree with it. I'm arguing with what you're using to back up your argument. You can do much better, I'm sure.

K, I wasn't really thinking about safety, more of them both being security measures. Of course it might not work, but that is another issue. A security measure against theft or intrusion or whatever does not accuse of people of wrong doing.

Edit:
One question I have for you, which I keep forgetting to ask: what happens when ALL stores require these bag checks, as most of them already do? What recourse do we have? You keep touting "take your business elsewhere", and that's all well and good, but it doesn't work when everyone follows one another in practice. True, we do live in an electronic age where we can do virtually anything online, but should I be forced to do all my shopping online just to avoid the hassle of being searched every time I want to buy something? What if I was trying to compare products? What if I had questions? Am I to go to a brick 'n' mortar, gather all the information I need to make my purchasing decision, and then travel back home and purchase the item online instead, thereby wasting the store's time and money and ensuring that not only will their sales suffer, but their internal costs will be for naught? That, to me, is equally as ridiculous. What are your thoughts on that matter?

Oh it is ridiculous, but what else can you do when a policy offends you so strongly? I sure hope the stores would realize why they're losing money while their customers switch to online venues. The best you can do is get the message out that these measures don't really prevent theft, and perhaps some store will see it and have better sense.

[Roland]

You put magnetic security tags on merchandise, which may or may not be removed upon checkout. Then all customers go through the machine on their way out. Is it not also a loss prevention search? The person could own something that would trip the device, possibly including something they just legally purchased. It is probably less intrusive and more effective, but legally I do not see any distinction whatsoever. Like you said, people don't put their own posessions into a store bag other than what they just bought. What they just bought is already known to the store, so what privacy rights should they against the store double-checking?

Technically, that's not a search. It's little more than an electronic leash. Now, if the person trips the alarm upon exiting, generally people are told to just go (we did regularly at Circuit City, but not at Wilsons). Otherwise, they'll usually stand there and wait for you to come to their aid, or to be motioned over to rectify the problem. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it's a false alarm, caused by a missed tag, or interference from certain objects on the person (cellphones are a hot suspect). I have never witnessed someone resist having an employee rectify the situation to prevent the alarm from going off, and I've seen more false alarms than I can count in a day. However, if one were to resist having your items checked due to sensors, then that would construe suspicious behavoir, and thus warrant a search.

See the difference?

If someone walks into a store with a backpack on, they are generally asked to remove it. Is that unlawful seizure of property? Are store employees, who are not acting agents of the government, even bound by the fourth amendment? It seems like this may be more of a common law issue regarding property ownership and the way business is conducted.

Actually, it's rare that people get asked to remove backpacks, in all honesty. They may be put under extra surveillance, but I've yet to see someone be asked to remove their bags, otherwise where do you stop? Purses? Diaper bags? Wheelchairs?

Forgetting about whether something is in a bag or not, let's say a person carries a TV to the exit of a store. Is it within the rights of a store employee to walk up to the person and ask them to show a receipt, or can a person walk out of a store with a TV any time they feel like it under the presumption that it was purchased? You know as well as I do that people are bold enough to do it and get away with it depending on the store layout.

I do indeed. I also know that all the TVs I've ever seen stolen were done by employees, not customers. Although, I think I heard of one story where I guy tried to grab a plasma TV off the wall and run... but that was mounted to the wall, so he didn't get anywhere.;)Yes, I do see your point about that, but there's a simple solution (a common sense one that businesses already practice, save for BJ's Wholesale Club:P) that doesn't require mandatory searches: keep the merchandise locked up. Simple, effective, non-intrusive. The only thing you have to worry about is, again, employee theft, which you ALWAYS have to worry about and is the number one cause of shrink in retail. Customer searches do nothing against that, too, by the way.:P

Not trying to shoot you down, per se, just arguing you point by point. I don't necessarily have a problem with such methods of theft-deterrent. I do, however, question its effectiveness, and thus necessity, as well as the legal ramifications (if only for curiosity's sake).

[Roland]

The best you can do is get the message out that these measures don't really prevent theft, and perhaps some store will see it and have better sense.

Such deterrents are there for penny-pinchers and corporate entities, nothing more. They put such measures in place to say they have something, and again for the psychological effect (both on the customer AND the company's employees). I highly doubt anyone who actually has any REAL experience in retail believes in the effectiveness of such measures, therefore it's highly unlikely such policies will change unless they are challenged in the very way this gentleman is doing. I'm not going to go out of my way to say he's completely right, as I'm not sure he has a legal foothold in regards to the search (I'm not a lawyer). However, I will defend the purpose of his actions, and his right to execute them within the confines of the law. He may very well be a jerk for not just sucking it up and dealing with it, but then again, one could say the same about a certain ethnic group and their choice on where to sit on a bus.

Think about it for a minute, and tell me if there's really a difference between the two. Not the whole grand picture of civil rights, just the events that sparked such movement and change. Personally, I don't see much of a difference, even if one has a far greater-reaching effect than the other.

[Archon_Wing]

Such deterrents are there for penny-pinchers and corporate entities, nothing more. They put such measures in place to say they have something, and again for the psychological effect (both on the customer AND the company's employees). I highly doubt anyone who actually has any REAL experience in retail believes in the effectiveness of such measures, therefore it's highly unlikely such policies will change unless they are challenged in the very way this gentleman is doing.

Yep, but I really don't know how to get people to stop doing bad business.

However, I will defend the purpose of his actions, and his right to execute them within the confines of the law.

Yes. I still think he is a douchebag/ass/whatever. However, that in itself is not illegal. The cop's actions were clearly wrong if the account is accurate.

but then again, one could say the same about a certain ethnic group and their choice on where to sit on a bus.

I was actually thinking about that when replying to your last post. Certainly that was a case where a boycott accomplished much?;)

Think about it for a minute, and tell me if there's really a difference between the two. Not the whole grand picture of civil rights, just the events that sparked such movement and change. Personally, I don't see much of a difference, even if one has a far greater-reaching effect than the other.

I wouldn't know about that. But I will think about it for a minute.

So my official answer to the thread title: Both

[Roland]

Yes. I still think he is a douchebag/ass/whatever. However, that in itself is not illegal.

He was being difficult, in a situation that we would not have followed suit in. I reserve judgment as to whether he's truly an ass or not about it, given that I was not there to witness it, and that the situation has not been resolved. If, upon winning his case, he goes on to file multiple lawsuits, etc., then yes, I will agree he's a complete jerk. If, on the other hand, he merely uses it as a building block for something greater, a noble goal, then I will not consider him as such.

In other words, not only do his actions up to now affect my judgment, but also his actions in the future. Also, I reiterate that it's a little difficult to decide just how "bad" he truly is without having been witness to it all. From the sound of it, he did no wrong, at worst brushing off a store clerk and their company's policies. On the other hand, he may be relaying the story through rose-colored glasses for all we know, as Bolty (and probably others) have pointed out.

To make my point that I raised in my previous post, to which you replied, I was stating that the act of refusing to move from a designated point on the bus went against that bus company's policy. In defying it, she was defying policy, and perhaps even the "law" back then. Was there any true harm in being forced to sit in the back versus the front? Not really, when you think about it. It's the underlying issues of race and discrimination that made it a big deal, not the action itself. Likewise, defying a store's policy to check your shopping back, for whatever reason, without suspicion of theft is a small matter. At least that's how I look at it. I'm not trying to downplay one of the greatest moments in civil rights history, merely to seperate what made it so significant, instead of someone simply being a jerk.

[Chesspiece_face]

You put magnetic security tags on merchandise, which may or may not be removed upon checkout. Then all customers go through the machine on their way out. Is it not also a loss prevention search? The person could own something that would trip the device, possibly including something they just legally purchased. It is probably less intrusive and more effective, but legally I do not see any distinction whatsoever. Like you said, people don't put their own posessions into a store bag other than what they just bought. What they just bought is already known to the store, so what privacy rights should they against the store double-checking?

There is actually a large distinction between the two. If a magnetic security alarm goes off as you are walking out of a store it is denoting that something is out of the ordinary of normal purchasing procedures. Now most likely, as roland points out, this is going to be a false alarm but it is still in the consumers interest to have it rectified. It may be that the sales clerk failed to remove a magnetic tag. In this case it is in the consumers interest to have that fixed on the spot. If they were to wait until they got home and then discovered that the tag was still on, they would have to come all the way back to the store to have it removed (and even with a receipt that would raise far more eyebrows than if they just fixed it at the time of purchase.)

Checking peoples reciepts as they leave, however, is an entirely different beast. In that situation customers who are taking part in the normal purchasing procedures are being singled out with no reason for suspicion. How would you feel if the next time you bought something from Best Buy the manager was standing at the door and asking each customer, as they left, "Are you a thief? No? Well, Prove it."

The first method of loss prevention offers assistance to customers as they purchase from the store while also working to limit theft, the second method leaves the customer feeling bullied and untrustworthy.

[Jarulf]

The policies are posted clearly in those places - if you don't like it, don't shop there.

I still have not seen anyone posting about the situation in US regarding the legalness of such a policy. That is, can anyone search another person and belongings depending on the circumstances? For example, in Sweden, only the police is ever allowed to make a search of another person or their belongings (and then only if there is at least some supsicion of some wrongdoing). No one else is allowed to. Anyone knows?

[Rhydderch Hael]

... What this guy has an issue with is that the proccess of checking these receipts creates an atmosphere in which the honest customers are the ones who end up on the recieving end of the suspicion not the shoplifters ...

Which makes me wonder if our dear blogger supports the alternative to a universal bag check. You know, where the store only inspects you if you happen to fall within their subjective profile of a likely offender...

...the trick to universal suspicion, even of honest folks, is that it's very unlikely one can be accused of discriminating against particular groups.

[Nystul]

I still have not seen anyone posting about the situation in US regarding the legalness of such a policy. That is, can anyone search another person and belongings depending on the circumstances? For example, in Sweden, only the police is ever allowed to make a search of another person or their belongings (and then only if there is at least some supsicion of some wrongdoing). No one else is allowed to. Anyone knows?

I'm not a lawyer and I doubt that the question has a simple answer. At the hub where I work, I cannot bring a thermos in or out without someone opening it up to check that it is just a drink. If the metal detectors go off, they ask you to empty your pockets and use a wand-style metal detector. There are no police, just private security personnel. I'm sure those policies are voluntary, but if I don't agree to the company's security policies I surely would not be able to keep my job.

In my mind, the more compelling issue is under what circumstances (if any) the store has the right to detain someone suspected of theft until the police arrive. That is really the teeth of the issue. Without that right, anyone can just leave the store like this guy did. So then the search would be moot, because refusing the search would not be sufficient evidence for the store to press charges. But if the store (or a private citizen for that matter) has the right to protect its own property, then how far those rights extend is really the issue here.

[Ashock]

There are certain stores, like Costco, that have 1 or 2 employees standing at the doors and examining every departing person's receipt. If CC is one of them (and I do not know if it is) then he is a real jerk.

OTOH, if he was singled out, then I think it is just a case of him having an attitude and I am not so sure that I do not like that attitude. As far as the cop is concerned, I can't see how arresting him for not providing a license while not operating a vehicle or being accused of a crime is legal. This is the US, not the US.....SR.

I think the cop should be fired or at least severely reprimanded and the guy should sue the PD, and that's coming from a person who hates most lawyers and lawsuites. Then again, I hate cops.

[LochnarITB]

Which makes me wonder if our dear blogger supports the alternative to a universal bag check. You know, where the store only inspects you if you happen to fall within their subjective profile of a likely offender...

...the trick to universal suspicion, even of honest folks, is that it's very unlikely one can be accused of discriminating against particular groups.

That is not the alternative, it is an alternative, and, if I were to consider degree of wrong, I would call profiling even worse. Another alternative, the proper one, is no bag search. I see people talking about the store protecting its merchandise. However, when the customer checks out, they tender the store's price - cash, check or credit card - and the store has accepted it in exchange for the goods. The merchandise is now the customer's personal property, as is the bag given to the customer to carry the goods. How would people react if the store insisted on inspecting everyone's purse and pockets to get out the door? It is no different.

The best solution, for both sides, is in store layout. If the store is laid out so that customers leaving the checkout can only exit the store, then there is truly no basis to search those customers. If they suspect a clerk of passing merchandise then security personnel should be watching that clerk, not falsely accusing every customer passing through that checkout. If a store bag were brought in, such as carrying something for return, it would be proper for the store to question the purpose of bringing in the bag and have a procedure for sealing the package and/or directing the customer to the proper location. I would also then consider it proper to inspect an unsealed store bag, being carried out the non-checkout door, as there should be no valid way for the person to have such a bag.