Illegal search at Wal-mart?...

[LawDog]

Hmmm...I've heard of court orders and injunctions doing this, but now a cop can? I'd be interested in exactly which law permits LEO's - rather than courts - to do this.

Easily. The LEO is enforcing the rights of the property owner to decide who gets to stay on his property.

The process goes like this: The property owner, manager or other representative of the owner asks the police to 'bar' a subject. The police write (or issue) a Trespass Warning, which informs the subject that he/she/it has been ordered to leave the property by someone in control(owner/manager/representative) of that property. The warning states clearly that the owner (manager/representative) does not want that person to return to the property, and if that person does return to the property, she/she/it will be arrested for Criminal Trespass.

Voila, you have been barred.

LawDog

 

[Scott Conklin]

Damn, Lawdog, isn't that basically like hanging a great big sign on yourself saying "SUE ME!" No crime, no theft, no stolen goods BUT you didn't do it OUR way so you're now BRRED! Expelled I say!

There's gotta be attorneys just sitting around hoping for a case like this...

 

[bastiat]

There are attorneys waiting to take any case, that's why most people think if them in less than flattering terms.

Walmart, sears, etc. operate on the same basic principle as any of your homes. You can have guests over, and they have to abide by your rules if they want to stay. If they don't want to, they are free to leave.

If your friend gets out of line, you ask them to leave, and they refuse, you can call the cops. You let the friend know that they're no longer welcome in your home or on your property. After going through the appropriate steps with your local police, if he tries to enter again he's hauled off to jail.

Why should you have to go to a judge to force someone to stay off your property? And why should walmart, kmart, s-mart, or any other store have to go to court to keep someone they don't want off their property? The answer is they shouldn't, because it's their property.

 

[Scott Conklin]

The flip side to this is if I treated my customers as some of these have been known to do I'd be out of business. People would not come back...but then I wasn't big enough to run all the other auto dealers out of town when I showed up, unlike Wally World did to the downtown...of every small city they invade. So my customers, at least, still have a choice which doesn't involve a 60 mile drive.

Regardless, the home comparison is actually completely absurd here since it is unlikely any friends home any of us might be in is going to electronically brand us theives as we leave, be known to be in error a vast percentage of the time, nor is this friend likely to drag you down on your way to your car and hold you for cops.

In short, it's unlikely there's going to be a presumption of guilt. And that IS the whole basis for being irate over this sort of thing. I truly resent the presumptiveness. Sadly it seems we as a people have come to the point where we accept the idea of being guilty until proven innocent in more and more things.

I will admit I do get a good laugh from some of the testiness revealed in the answers to some less sheeplike questions.

 

[HankB]

The LEO is enforcing the rights of the property owner to decide who gets to stay

I can see how a shoplifter can be barred - I've heard some stores still agree to drop charges if the shoplifter agrees to stay away - but in the absence of charges, I DO believe there are some limitations to the LEO's authority. For example, if the owner of a business wants to exclude someone because of race, religion, gender, etc. I can see the cop getting in a world of hurt if he starts barring people if it looks like the store is involved in, for example, racial profiling. In fact, newly-built stores have to operate under the ADA, so they can't, by omitting ramps, for example, exclude the handicapped. The store can't exclude everyone they want to - not if they're open to the public for business.

Walmart, sears, etc. operate on the same basic principle as any of your homes

Not quite. My home isn't open to the public and licensed to do business with the public.

Don't get me wrong - I am NOT sticking up for shoplifters. And I will accept reasonable precautions and procedures on the part of the store. My point is that the store better be REAL sure before accusing anyone of shoplifting. And searching a lot of people because they have an alarm that goes off with every other customer is NOT reasonable, and they should not have the expectation of cooperation with unreasonable procedures.

 

[bastiat]

I said the same _basic_ principles, which is that it _is_ private property.

It's amazing that so many here compain left and right about government and their lack of respect for private property, and then are completly indifferent or even hostile to the property rights of businesses.

I'm sure there are even some here who are in favor of laws outlawing smoking in restaurants because they're a 'public' place.
:barf: But that's another topic entirely.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I am proud to live in a country where people have such a good set of rights as to start complaining about how their rights my be violated by another private entity (publically owned company, but acts for all practical purposes and rights as an individual and is on private property) with whom they chose to do business voluntarily and on whose premises they entered voluntarily.

The alarm system at Wal-Mart and many other places is multifold. It serves to protect against shoplifters and also to keep accidental losses down as well. The accident may be on the part of the customer or on the part of the checker. Such business have no obligation to allow you to leave with belongings for which they have reason to believe that you have not paid (for whatever reason, by accident or intent). You are free to leave, but not with said goods until they can verify status. The alarm going off indicates that some goods may not have been rung up and the alarm deactivated.

For those who wish to push the point about illegal searches, the fact that the alarm goes off can be construed as giving them probable cause to believe that property is leaving that has not been paid for and in that light, they can stop you.

Danno is in a sticky wicket on this issue. I don't know his circumstances, nor do I necessarily care, but he does shop at Wal-Mart voluntarily and it happens to be one of two stores within an hour's drive of where he lives. That is his decision to live out in the boonies. If Wal-Mart isn't blowing up your skirt, then maybe it is time to consider moving or adopting a new provisioning plan. I know people in Alaska that travel more than a day each way to get supplies and they get supplies for three months at a time. Danno is welcome to adopt such a policy so that he can then has access to many other vendors for which to supply him. Sure the argument can be made that he should not have to go that far, which might be okay, but I see traveling for a hour to go to Wal-Mart being outrageous as it is. It all comes down to perspective.

Rereading Danno's original post helps to shed some light on the problem. My guess is that part of the reason he shops at Wal-Mart is the same reason I do. They have a large supply of a large number of ideas and are generally cheaper on many products than other places. How can Wal-Mart do that? It is not just by buying in bulk. Let's face it, Danno's Wal-Mart doesn't sound like it is exactly in the main stream commerce corridor, so shipping will offset some of the bulk buying benefits they receive and pass on. The other way they keep prices down is by hiring large numbers of people who work for relatively low wages. So, many of the workers are far from cream of the crop Einsteins, although they have a few, and many are retired or semi-retired folks who work for extra income and for something to do. These are not the people you want running your local or regional nuclear power plant. So, there will be some problems failures to scan items or even sometimes a failure to ring up items.

And Wal-Mart is not involved in any sort of Big Brother scheme to look in your bags to see what you are buying. They already have that from the register (especially if you pay with a check or credit/debit card). All they are doing is protecting their property and they are within their rights to do so.

 

[RenegadeX]

You stopped and let them search you, boy are you a chump!

I never stop for a door buzzer, so what? What are they going to do? What does a buzzer mean anyway, end of the 4th quarter? Or a new cell phone ringer? 1,000,000 customer? I don't think so. Sure they may yell a couple of times, but who cares? I keep walking to my car, seemingly oblivious to it all. No one has yet followed me to the car, I guess it is too far a walk for them.

I do stop for a receipt checkpoint, like in Sams. That is stupid too, but it is only for a few seconds. Only once have I been asked for a receipt check in Wal-mart, and that was 3 feet after I paid for a single can of spray paint ($0.88), which I had in my hand along with the reciept and the moron watched me pay for it. I showed it to her and told her the items I was stealing were hidden in my pockets. She just gave me a dumb look.

They are not cops, so there ain't much they can do. Besides, do you really think it is Wal-mart policy to have senior citizens detain people with force?

If you want to have some fun, don't stop next time, and put your new metallic thing inside your shoe.

 

[RenegadeX]

I agree that no constitutional protections exist when dealing with private parties on private property. I also agree that these stores have the right to post "we reserve the right to search all bags" signs, and that when I enter the store, I'm agreeing to that policy.

Really, "no constitutional protections exist" so you can shoot, rape, torture, etc., private parties at will as long as it is on private property? And they have no constitutional protection? That is a new one on me.

You think those signs are binding and legal? So if they put up a sign that said "no jews allowed", I guess you think that would be legal too?

Where do you live, Havana?

This has been an interesting thread. I didn't know there were so many people that didn't know their rights on this issue. There is an old saying, "If you do not know your rights, you do not have any."

 

[bastiat]

Really, "no constitutional protections exist" so you can shoot, rape, torture, etc., private parties at will as long as it is on private property? And they have no constitutional protection? That is a new one on me.

Ugh. None of those are 'constitutionally forbidden activities', unless you want to somehow tie them into the 10th ammendment, which woud be one HECK of a stretch, and run in direct opposition to the other 9 ammendments of the BOR (restriciting individual acts instead of restricting government)

Please remember, or be informed, that the BOR are there to establish limits on the government, not to make laws that are to be enforced by states or municipalities. The things you listed are activities that are crimes as defined by state and local governments. There is not one mention of them in the constitution. They are crimes. If you do them, you will be arrested, whether you do them in public or private.

You have the right to free speech and freedom of religion, but you can't start yelling how bad walmart is in their store and expect to stay. You can't set up a temple in a kmart photo booth and argue religious persecution when they take it down.
Your 2nd ammendment rights, including your right to ccw, are dependant on the policies of the owner of the property as well.

Conversely, if you are raped, tortured, shot, etc, by an employee of walmart, they won't be charged a violation of the constitution. They'll be charged with violating local and state laws. Also, your 'no jews allowed' example wouldn't be covered by the constitution, but by the civil rights act of 1964.

Please study up on the constitution and the BOR before you start making claims about what it does or doesn't do.

 

[RenegadeX]

Please study up on the constitution and the BOR before you start making claims about what it does or doesn't do.

I never made any claims about what the US Constitution or the BOR does or doesn't do. Before you sound off, maybe you ought study my post first.

 

[stringj]

quote:

Really, "no constitutional protections exist" so you can shoot, rape, torture, etc., private parties at will as long as it is on private property? And they have no constitutional protection? That is a new one on me.


RenegadeX,
It appears that you are asking a question which I think bastiat answered. To say it again, the Constitution does not give people protection from the above listed crimes. The Constitution is about protecting citizens from the government.

Jerry

 

[bastiat]

I never made any claims about what the US Constitution or the BOR does or doesn't do. Before you sound off, maybe you ought study my post first.

And to re-quote:

Really, "no constitutional protections exist" so you can shoot, rape, torture, etc., private parties at will as long as it is on private property? And they have no constitutional protection? That is a new one on me.

You made a claim relating to shooting, rape, torture, etc, being somehow being constitutionally prohibited activities, or people having protection from those acts being perpetrated by individuals or businesses. Look at your quote above if you forgot what you wrote.

I get tired of people making up new areas of 'constitutionally protected freedoms' where none exist, just like I get tired of liberals trying to claim that the 2nd ammendment only applys to the national guard.

 

[RenegadeX]

I get tired of people making up new areas of 'constitutionally protected freedoms' where none exist

Then your beef is not with me, but with over 200 years of US Supreme Court opinions which have ruled that we do have these "constitutional protections". You do not have to like it, but that is the way it is.

 

[deanf]

Simply put, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game simply because you feel like it.

I can't decide, at some point while on store property, that I don't like the way they do business (and don't agree to their policies), and then leave via the quickest route available? Who says? What am I supposed to do, remain in the store?

Such business have no obligation to allow you to leave with belongings for which they have reason to believe that you have not paid (for whatever reason, by accident or intent). You are free to leave, but not with said goods until they can verify status.

Well I guess we need to find out at what point transfer of ownership occurs. I say it occurs as soon as the store accepts any form of payment for it. In other words, at the checkout. Would they also like to see the receipt for the hole ridden underpants I'm wearing (if I choose to that day)? No "obligation" to "allow" me to leave? They'd better have a pretext a lot less flimsy that a bell going off before they seize my person.

The alarm going off indicates that some goods may not have been rung up and the alarm deactivated.

The alarm also indicates that there may be a malfunction, or that the other person who passed through the detectors at the same time I did is the real criminal, or that the software that runs the thing wasn't coded properly, or any of a number of other circumstances where the machine would go off, but there's been no malfeasance. Even an attorney fresh from law school could easily win that argument at trial. Does anyone really believe that the detector going off is a reliable method of determining that a theft is occuring?

 

[Joel Harmon]

>You think those signs are binding and legal? So if they put up a sign that said "no jews allowed", I guess you think that would be legal too?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This brings up a stimulating debate question: A homeowner holds a house party open to the general public (in his house) and charges $3 to help pay for the kegger. He might come out a few bucks ahead or behind but he's really not worried about making money. He lets everyone in and see someone wearing a beenie and denies entry to the party. He says "this here's private prop'ty and yuuuur not allowed in the house 'cause yuuur a Jew". Is this legal?

Why wouldn't a small business (or any business for that matter) not be allowed to do the same thing? If Joe Bob owns a business and doesn't want to serve black folks his greasy burgers and fries then why doesn't he have the right to deny service to blacks? It's private property isn't it? It's him loosing money and getting bad PR over the whole deal right? I know what the law says...but what good reason is there to tell Joe Bob what to do on his own private property?

Which also raises the question of how in the world did they get Afirmative Action passed. I mean, your telling people who they can hire now? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this sound like parts of the communist way of thinking?

Just playing devil's advocate here and presenting this as a strict property rights supporter.

Joel

 

[Smurfslayer]

private property vs. public accomodation

Your house is your property, you set the rules. Your business must comply with all local, state & federal laws because they're a place of public accomodation.

I would think that if you pay, get receipt (or even not, if the cashier remembers you) go to the door, alarm goes off

Then

Sec. guard attempts to detain you.
IF he is a private citizen, with no 'authority to detain', or a regular store employee, that is probably some form of criminal assualt and a civil violation of illegal imprisonment

IF he is a paid security guard, there will likely be no criminal charges against him if he's wrong UNLESS he attempts to use violence to detain you. THEN he'd be criminally liable, most of the time you can't use violence to protect property unless repelling an attack. generally.

IF the guard is a peace officer, conservator of the peace, with limited LE powers for that property, then it gets stickier.

If sworn by a Government entity, he is an agent of the state. An alarm going off MAY not survive 'reasonable suspision' or probable cause if it's been going off all day, or several people left at once and you were the only one detained - which will be verified on tape. I would not allow a search, I would not consent, and in this case, I probably would react with force if grabbed by an 'undercover' or plain clothes type until identified. Not any firearm force, just don't like being touched by an unknown.

IF the guard is an off duty LEO, regardless of on or off duty, he is an agent of the state, and you Constitutional protections apply, you need not talk, and they must meet at least 'reasonable suspicion' to search. etc...

What does it all mean ? pay & leave quietly. if assaulted, defend yourself. if approached by LE show receipt, leave.
No need to stop for any BUT LE.

 

[legalhack]

A lot of tough talk going on. This thread is pretty funny. I don't understand why someone would take an innocuous occurence and make a bigger issue out of it. Of course you are free to continue walking. I wouldn't lay hands on you to stop you. I would ask politely that you stop. If you continued, I would follow you and call the police with your description and model/make/license of your car. You would then be visited by the
gendarmes and be asked to answer a lot of questions as to why Wally-World suspects you of shoplifting. Your actions would be indicative of guilt, (you "fled the scene.."). It would have been easier to sort it out at the scene than "tough-guy" your way out of the A/O.

In anticipation of those of you who would then state they would go on to sue me for harrassment, etc., go get basic law 101 and do some reading.

Point being: Relax people, this ain't a big deal. Big Brother isn't going to come and use this as an opportunity to steal your toys.

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, seems like a lot of emotion over not much importance.

I had my first buzzer and "Inventory control..." experience a couple of days ago. Took me a moment to figure out what was going on. I stopped, still holding the receipt to the Wally bluebag. I waited a few moments; nobody from within the store seemed interested; I left.

Had somebody come to look into the blue bag, so what? They're doing what they're reasonably expected to do, given the warning of a possible shop-lift. They see the receipt, they see the stuff, and I'm out the door. What's the big deal?

I've shopped in large chain stores all over this country. I've yet to meet willfully rude or discourteous people. Tired, yes; harassed-looking from the numbers of customers, yes; and quite stupid, yes. But by and large I have few if any complaints. Mostly, I'm there with a happy-go-lucky attitude: I by golly got enough money to be there, and buy whatever my little pea-pickin' heart desires!

Some customers seem to bring their problems onto themselves. From some of the comments in some of the above posts, I'd have to say, "We've met the enemy, and he is us!"

Y'all be good,

Art

 

[Skyhawk]

Lawdog states: If you do ignore the alarm and the store security, you are liable to be seized and held for the local cops, where you'll have to prove that you bought the items in question.

No offense to you, Lawdog.

It would be a very unfortunate situation for the individual that attempted to “seize and hold” my person for any reason, guilty or innocent.

citizenguardian states: Wal-Mart's employees are subject to the law just like everyone else. If they are going to lay hands on you, they had better have a good reason. There's no law against walking out of a store. And Wal-Mart can't threaten you or use force to detain you against your will just because they drew up some sign for their window concering their "rights" to search your bags. Their blue vests and name tags don't give them any special powers.

It's not just a criminal matter, either. If someone is detained and inured, the store faces stiff civil liability unless they can justify the actions of their employees.

Smurfslayer states: I would not allow a search, I would not consent, and in this case, I probably would react with force if grabbed by an 'undercover' or plain clothes type until identified. Not any firearm force, just don't like being touched by an unknown.

I have felt very strongly about the general messages contained in the above two posts for a long time. Refer to my statement above in bold.

Ironic that this subject comes up as a similar situation happened to me last night at Home Depot.

Alarm went off and I hardly noticed. I kept on walking. Nobody bothered me.

When I got home I found a hidden tag on an item that the cashier failed to deactivate.

Skyhawk