Illegal search at Wal-mart?...
- Thread starter Danno
- Start date
Fled the scene of what? One of the first responsibilities of the police is to determine if a crime has been committed. This starts even before officers are dispatched, during the interrogation of the caller in the dispatch center.
So you've got a description of a person. So you've got a license plate number. So you've got a direction of travel. So you've got an alarm that's been tripped, with no proof that the person of interest is he who caused the alarm to be tripped. Where's the crime again? What is the person fleeing the scene of?
Wal-Mart knows and does it anyway!
The buzzer going off allows the store to check you according to the law in most states. However, the stopping and checking of customers as a matter of routine is not.
This is not the case in Kentucky. In fact the Atty General has a handbook on the topic of shoplifting and probable cause....even retailers must have it.
http://www.kyretail.com/shoplifting_handbook.pdf
It depends on the state, in fact a Best Buy was sued for wrongful detention and the lady was awarded a large sum.
See how wal-mart fights such a claim, lying, changing their stories, getting employees to lie in affidavits...So I agree with CitizenGuardian's post. Well said. www.imsuing.com
The buzzer going off allows the store to check you according to the law in most states. However, the stopping and checking of customers as a matter of routine is not.
This is not the case in Kentucky. In fact the Atty General has a handbook on the topic of shoplifting and probable cause....even retailers must have it.
http://www.kyretail.com/shoplifting_handbook.pdf
It depends on the state, in fact a Best Buy was sued for wrongful detention and the lady was awarded a large sum.
See how wal-mart fights such a claim, lying, changing their stories, getting employees to lie in affidavits...So I agree with CitizenGuardian's post. Well said. www.imsuing.com
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Three things must be present in order to have a "search", which is a noun for the sake of the 4th amendment, and not a verb.
1. A government agent
2. Intruding on an area protected by the 4th amendment
3. Observe something that a person reasonably believes to be private.
In this case, there is no government agent involved, and the 4th amendment only protects you against government action, not private. There is no search in this case. The 4th amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.
As far as the law is concerned, the Walmart employee who is going through your bags is not conducting a search unless the police told him to go through your bags and therefore act as their agent.
1. A government agent
2. Intruding on an area protected by the 4th amendment
3. Observe something that a person reasonably believes to be private.
In this case, there is no government agent involved, and the 4th amendment only protects you against government action, not private. There is no search in this case. The 4th amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.
As far as the law is concerned, the Walmart employee who is going through your bags is not conducting a search unless the police told him to go through your bags and therefore act as their agent.
Edward429451
Moderator
Personally, I don't think its a big deal. What if it was your store? Would you want to reasonably protect your merchandise from theft? As long as their reasonable and brief, who cares. I've never had the buzzer thing go off on me and letting the lady eyeball the receipt and count items or whatever is nothing. There's rights, and then there's just having a chip on the shoulder. You guys are probably armed (?) that elbow your way past the receipt lady or keep on walking at the buzzer...Whatever happened to armed society, polite society? Not being a thief...it's a respect thing.
Last edited:
.Since some people got the other thread locked, maybe I can get my questions answered in this thread:
Is there precedent for this in all states?
How common is this? Does this apply to all Wal-Mart locations?
What would be the best way to encounter this situation? I have never ever had my bags checked at walmart.. and I remember when you could get Hamsters and Handguns there. Don't shop there much at all, send my business to K-mart instead now that there's a Wallyworld supercenter here (that I hate).
If I'm walking out the door after my purchase and an employee grabs me, does that count as assault?
Is there precedent for this in all states?
How common is this? Does this apply to all Wal-Mart locations?
What would be the best way to encounter this situation? I have never ever had my bags checked at walmart.. and I remember when you could get Hamsters and Handguns there. Don't shop there much at all, send my business to K-mart instead now that there's a Wallyworld supercenter here (that I hate).
If I'm walking out the door after my purchase and an employee grabs me, does that count as assault?
the walmart near me has a disabled man in a wheel chair working the garden supply entrance/exit. its pretty irritating that he will ask to see your reciept as you leave seeing as how he is in full view of the checkout stand, he knows you just paid for your stuff.
i dont let it get to me though because wal mart is providing a job for the man, something most companies wouldnt do. wal mart gets bashed some, at times deservedly so, but they also have thier good points, jobs for the elderly and disabled being one of them.
i dont let it get to me though because wal mart is providing a job for the man, something most companies wouldnt do. wal mart gets bashed some, at times deservedly so, but they also have thier good points, jobs for the elderly and disabled being one of them.
Glockaholic21
Inactive
Relating to search and seizure
This comment has nothing to do with Walmart, although the search part does come in. I used to work at Toys R Us, and every night we closed, our manager would feel our bags, pat our pockets down, and make us shake our pant legs to make sure no one stole anything. I am a CJ major and this would qualify as an illegal search; however, he never asked us whether we gave our permission for him to frisk us. (AND NO ONE OBJECTED EITHER, EVERYONE WENT ALONG WITH IT) THere was a sign saying the store reserved the right to check bags and that's it. I asked him one night about the frisking ****, and he said there aren't cameras everywhere in the store, and that was the reason. Come to think of it now, I should have refused to be frisked and sued the hell out of Toys R Us. I didn't sign anything agreeing to be frisked. What do you all think???
This comment has nothing to do with Walmart, although the search part does come in. I used to work at Toys R Us, and every night we closed, our manager would feel our bags, pat our pockets down, and make us shake our pant legs to make sure no one stole anything. I am a CJ major and this would qualify as an illegal search; however, he never asked us whether we gave our permission for him to frisk us. (AND NO ONE OBJECTED EITHER, EVERYONE WENT ALONG WITH IT) THere was a sign saying the store reserved the right to check bags and that's it. I asked him one night about the frisking ****, and he said there aren't cameras everywhere in the store, and that was the reason. Come to think of it now, I should have refused to be frisked and sued the hell out of Toys R Us. I didn't sign anything agreeing to be frisked. What do you all think???
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I think you need to pay attention in your constitutional law class if you haven't already had it. Read my earlier post. It's not an illegal search. If he'd have found contraband on you and turned it over to the police, it would have been perfectly admissible in court against you.
Is the search illegal? Well, that depends on the manner of the search.
A shopkeeper certainly has the right to check for stolen property when he has reasonable suspicion that you might have some. And it's certainly a private merchant's prerogative to determine the conditions for sales on his property.
Oftentimes we run into the nexus of where civil law meets criminal law, as the determination of who owns a given piece of property will establish whether a theft has taken place. While you have paid for the items you possess, and you have a receipt for the items that you have in your bag, it is undeniable that a LOT of merchandise "walks out the door" of Wal Marts, Best Buys, etc, every day. It's probably their single biggest challange to profit. While you may have paid for everything, there are many that have not.
So here comes the question: does the system give so many false alarms as to make it unreasonable to search your bags? Or, more appropriately, is it dependable enough that it would be reasonable to detain you on the grounds of suspicion of shoplifting, based on the buzzer? I'm going to have to bet NO, unless I'm the single unluckiest person in the world; I've been buzzed and detained at the door of shopping establishments at least 10 times, and it probably approaches 20. [I haven't stolen anything since a mint chocolate patty that I swiped when I was 4. (Which my mama made me pay for, apologize for, and get spanked for.)]
So, unless they start getting few false alarms, I would have to say that they don't have the right to detain and search patrons merely on the basis of the alarm system. If you're wearing a Tshirt and walking shorts and are carrying a bag that has three items in it and the buzzer goes off as you walk out the store, they're sure going to be pressing the issue if they try to make you come back to prove you didn't steal anything.
Frankly, the fairest way to do it that I've seen (which still, by the way, drives me nuts and makes me want to shout at people) is at Fry's Electronics in Dallas and Arlington (TX): Fry's (a HUGE electronics deep discount joint) has a guy at the exit who stops EVERYONE, without exception, and checks their purchases against their receipt, then marks their receipt with the highlighter color of the day. I'm sure some small stuff gets past him (He's pretty quick), but the big items get checked. The thing is, it's part of the purchase there, just like checking your ID when you write a check to pay. It's a pain, but it is an expectation of shopping there, which you are aware of when you walk in the door. If you refuse to go through with it, you can turn on your heel, obtain your refund, and exit, unsearched.
A shopkeeper certainly has the right to check for stolen property when he has reasonable suspicion that you might have some. And it's certainly a private merchant's prerogative to determine the conditions for sales on his property.
Oftentimes we run into the nexus of where civil law meets criminal law, as the determination of who owns a given piece of property will establish whether a theft has taken place. While you have paid for the items you possess, and you have a receipt for the items that you have in your bag, it is undeniable that a LOT of merchandise "walks out the door" of Wal Marts, Best Buys, etc, every day. It's probably their single biggest challange to profit. While you may have paid for everything, there are many that have not.
So here comes the question: does the system give so many false alarms as to make it unreasonable to search your bags? Or, more appropriately, is it dependable enough that it would be reasonable to detain you on the grounds of suspicion of shoplifting, based on the buzzer? I'm going to have to bet NO, unless I'm the single unluckiest person in the world; I've been buzzed and detained at the door of shopping establishments at least 10 times, and it probably approaches 20. [I haven't stolen anything since a mint chocolate patty that I swiped when I was 4. (Which my mama made me pay for, apologize for, and get spanked for.)]
So, unless they start getting few false alarms, I would have to say that they don't have the right to detain and search patrons merely on the basis of the alarm system. If you're wearing a Tshirt and walking shorts and are carrying a bag that has three items in it and the buzzer goes off as you walk out the store, they're sure going to be pressing the issue if they try to make you come back to prove you didn't steal anything.
Frankly, the fairest way to do it that I've seen (which still, by the way, drives me nuts and makes me want to shout at people) is at Fry's Electronics in Dallas and Arlington (TX): Fry's (a HUGE electronics deep discount joint) has a guy at the exit who stops EVERYONE, without exception, and checks their purchases against their receipt, then marks their receipt with the highlighter color of the day. I'm sure some small stuff gets past him (He's pretty quick), but the big items get checked. The thing is, it's part of the purchase there, just like checking your ID when you write a check to pay. It's a pain, but it is an expectation of shopping there, which you are aware of when you walk in the door. If you refuse to go through with it, you can turn on your heel, obtain your refund, and exit, unsearched.
Well the sensor is probably reasonable grounds....
A store is private property and they can bar you from entering the store.
and I dont know the legality of the search signs if they are not posted in a conspicous place viewable by entering customers....will have to research them.
Our Wal Mart has a Loss Prevention guy that stands out like a sore thumb.
I remember one day at Wal Mart I was shopping the candy aisle for my wife's sweet tooth. I was having trouble deciding what to buy and I was looking at packages and the nutrition lables which I do on every food item I purchase and putting them back in the rack if I didnt like it. My spidey sense tingled I turned to my left to find a store employee watching me....she got that deer in the headlight look. I then noticed another employee watching me. I decided to have some fun. we went on a tour of the store picking stuff up and putting it down and watching them hustle..... They followed me up to the register at a discreet distance. I paid for my merchandise...walked past the security alarm....they were ready to punce but the thing didnt go off because everything had been bought and paid for and scanned and demagnitized...LOL The Loss Prevention Commando Team had long looks on thier faces..LOL
I usually dont like to screw with folks....but just couldnt resist the temptation
for a Spy vs Spy type of confrontation. The only thing that would have made it better would have been some Mission Impossible music in the background.
A store is private property and they can bar you from entering the store.
and I dont know the legality of the search signs if they are not posted in a conspicous place viewable by entering customers....will have to research them.
Our Wal Mart has a Loss Prevention guy that stands out like a sore thumb.
I remember one day at Wal Mart I was shopping the candy aisle for my wife's sweet tooth. I was having trouble deciding what to buy and I was looking at packages and the nutrition lables which I do on every food item I purchase and putting them back in the rack if I didnt like it. My spidey sense tingled I turned to my left to find a store employee watching me....she got that deer in the headlight look. I then noticed another employee watching me. I decided to have some fun. we went on a tour of the store picking stuff up and putting it down and watching them hustle..... They followed me up to the register at a discreet distance. I paid for my merchandise...walked past the security alarm....they were ready to punce but the thing didnt go off because everything had been bought and paid for and scanned and demagnitized...LOL The Loss Prevention Commando Team had long looks on thier faces..LOL
I usually dont like to screw with folks....but just couldnt resist the temptation
for a Spy vs Spy type of confrontation. The only thing that would have made it better would have been some Mission Impossible music in the background.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Unless a government agent is doing the searching, the thing that the guy at Walmart is doing is not a search. If you walked past him without letting him look in your bag and he grabbed you, that might be assault and battery, but when you stop and he looks in your bag, it ain't a search. It certainly isn't unlawful.
A: Yes, it's a search, Frank. Believe it or not, others may conduct searches, too. The laws protecting people from unlawful searches are not generally directed at restraining non-governmental agents, but that doesn't mean that they're not searching.
B: Beyond Assault, there's Unlawful Restraint, and perhaps even Obstruction of Highway or Other Passageway, here in Texas (under our Penal Code). I'd be shocked if the other states didn't have something similar. If the searchee does not submit to stay but the actor grabs his property, then there is the possibility of Theft (from the person of another), or even Robbery.
All of these acts are unlawful, if a reasonable person would not have suspected that the shopper was committing a theft. They are all preparatory to a search.
If an officer commits an unlawful search, he will have the fruit of that search thrown out, he may be subject to civil action, and he may be subject to departmental disciplinary action. But he will not in most jurisdictions be subject to criminal repercussions. Still, his search will be called "an illegal search."
B: Beyond Assault, there's Unlawful Restraint, and perhaps even Obstruction of Highway or Other Passageway, here in Texas (under our Penal Code). I'd be shocked if the other states didn't have something similar. If the searchee does not submit to stay but the actor grabs his property, then there is the possibility of Theft (from the person of another), or even Robbery.
All of these acts are unlawful, if a reasonable person would not have suspected that the shopper was committing a theft. They are all preparatory to a search.
If an officer commits an unlawful search, he will have the fruit of that search thrown out, he may be subject to civil action, and he may be subject to departmental disciplinary action. But he will not in most jurisdictions be subject to criminal repercussions. Still, his search will be called "an illegal search."
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Not within the confines of the 4th amendment they can't. Unless they're acting as an agent of the government.
He didn't ask about all those other things, and "all those other things" have nothing to do with the legality of looking through the bags. He asked about the standard Wallmart situation of the guy at the door looking through your bag as you leave. Question 1.) What law is he breaking by looking through his bag? Question 2.) What part of the 4th amendment is being violated.
Under the circumstances he posted, there is NO 4th Amendment protection, no government agent, and hence, no search with respect to the law, and with respect to the constitution. He framed the question in the context of the 4th amendment, and probable cause. This was not a search as far as the 4th amendment is concerned.
If you don't believe me, read Silverman V. US, Terry V. Ohio, Maryland V. Macon, US V Jacobson, US V. Place, Dow Chemical V. US, Florida v. Riley, US V. Knotts, Smith V. Maryland, US v Karo, and I could go on......
If they grabbed him after he walked out the door with no reason to believe he stole anything, it would be a violation of the law, but it would not have anything to do with a search. If they searched his bag before he walked out the door, and he grabbed the stuff and ran out in the middle of them looking through the bag, it would not make the "search" any more or less legal, because it was never a search to begin with.
Answer this question for me: They could see him walking in the parking lot and snatch his bag away from him for no reason at all, or just because they didn't like the hat he was wearing. If they subsequently found a stolen item in the bag, it would be perfectly admissible in court. How much more of an "unlawful search" can you get? And if that type of search is unlawful, why is the stuff admissible in court? The answer, is that it's amissible because with regard to the 4th amendment, you DO NOT HAVE A SEARCH FOR PURPOSES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN DOING THE LOOKING.
Let me get even MORE severe: A Ku Klux Klan member is working security at Wallmart. He sees the first black Catholic guy walk into the store holding hads with a Rabbi. This really pisses him off, and as the black guy leaves the store through the temporarily unguarded main doors with a Wallmart bag, the Klan guy runs out into the parking lot, calls the black guy the N-word, smacks him in the head with a baseball bat rendering him unconscious, just because he really hates black people, then goes through his Wallmart bag and finds a stolen Barry Manilow CD, having no prior reason to believe that the black guy took anything.
Will the stolen CD be admissible in court against the black guy when he gets out of the hospital in the off-chance that Wallmart decides to sign a complaint? You better believe it will. Why? Because for purposes of the 4th amendment, there was no 4th amendment protection and no search because the Wallmart guy was not acting as an agent of the government.]
In closing, please post what law the Wallmart door guy is violating with regard to the search. NOT the assaut if he grabs him, NOT the false imprisonment. I want to see the law or the constitutional amendment that says the act of looking through his bag at the door is 1.) a search and 2.)unlawful. Also any law that explains how the Wallmart guy nees "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" to look in the bag and seize any contraband he sees in there.
Last edited:
FrankDrebin
Moderator
No. The 4th amendment has nothing to do with a civilian looking through your bag. You have no 4th amendment protection there. The 4th amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT intrusion. That's all. There is no need for a private individual to get prior consent from you in order for any contraband found to be used against you in court.
How about this one:
You're going out the door of Wallmart, and the door guys tells you "You have to let me look in your bag." You tell him to screw himself, he doesn't have permission to look in your bag, you know your rights, and run out to the parking lot and place the bag under your car seat. He waits til you go back into the store and then reaches into your open car window, grabs the bag, finds a stolen CD and arrests you when you come out. Is the arrest good? Yep. Is the CD admissible in court? Yep. Was there any "search" with regard to the 4th amendment? No way.
Edward429451
Moderator
Its well established that the constitution binds the government. Walmart employees are not (usually?) government agents.
If they touched you you can prolly get em for assault, assuming that you have no stolen items for them to find.
If they touched you you can prolly get em for assault, assuming that you have no stolen items for them to find.
Inevitably if I go to wally world, and buy a DVD it will set off the EAS sensor because they can't train the sales people to deactivate them. When the person at the door says "Excuse me you set off our alarm system, I need to check your bags", my only response is "you need to fix your system", and keep walking. If pressed on the issuse I ask 2 questions. 1- Is there someone who has watched me conceal an item, not pay for it, and never lost sight of me in this store? Attendant: "No". 2- Is there a video recording of me concealling an item, and not paying for it? Attendant "No". Me "have a good day then".
Keep in mind that a new law was just passed here "that to attempt to defeat, or deactivate a EAS system shall constitute a felony". Good idea I say, but I am still innocent until proven guilty.
Keep in mind that a new law was just passed here "that to attempt to defeat, or deactivate a EAS system shall constitute a felony". Good idea I say, but I am still innocent until proven guilty.