A bad day at Circuit City

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I would very simply assume that "loss prevention", in this day and age, would itself be considered "just cause", at least in cases where this occurs on private property, with the owner's posted policy notice.

Have a look at the 4th Ammendment. It originally referred to search and seizures within one's own private property. That is not the case here.

I did - and you are wrong. Your person and your possesions in this day and age are still your personal private property. It doesn't matter if you carry your house on your back, in your bag, or at a place of residence. You are reading it with too narrow a mindset when you interpret this to be your home only. I thought you were up and up more than this on American law? You know you don't have to submit to anything without just cause - not even open the trunk of your car to the cops over here. Ever heard of that? The 4th amendment does not simply state your place of residence.

Giving loss prevention this kind of power - that is a scary thought. It is also morally unacceptable.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I did - and you are wrong. Your person and your possesions in this day and age are still your personal private property. It doesn't matter if you carry your house on your back, in your bag, or at a place of residence. You are reading it with too narrow a mindset when you interpret this to be your home only.

No. I'm reading it to be within your private realm, versus someone else's, when the other realm's owner at least forewarns of his reasonable rights to assure prevention of theft, as is "reasonable" in stores, especially in this day and age.

I thought you were up and up more than this on American law?

I've never studied law per se.

You know you don't have to submit to anything without just cause

There is a just cause over here.

not even open the trunk of your car to the cops over here.

Again, this is an invasion of your private realm - your car. And even this is required in cases of just or reasonable cause, no? Or is a warrant always required?

Ever heard of that?

Obviously so.

The 4th amendment does not simply state your place of residence.

But in this case we're talking about someone else's private residence or realm and they should be entitled to dictate such terms of agreement in advance.

Giving loss prevention this kind of power - that is a scary thought.

Nonsense. Receipt checking has been occurring for donkey's years and with exception of cases of outright discrimination, it has been a mostly quiet operation.

It is also morally unacceptable.

Quite the opposite. My property. My terms of sale. Don't like them? Don't buy from me.

Forcing me to risk financial losses when I operate from within my own private property and wishing to dictate reasonable terms of sale, applied without discrimination. I would find denial of such elementary rights to a propietor morally apprehensible!

[Letum]

*dies of quotations*


I know almost nothing about American law so I can't comment on that.
However, from a moral prespective I am totaly with Mr Righi and Subman. I don't want
to live in a country where my personal effects can be rummaged through by any one
employed by a shop.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

No. I'm reading it to be within your private realm, versus someone else's, when the other realm's owner at least forewarns of his reasonable rights to assure prevention of theft, as is "reasonable" in stores, especially in this day and age.

Oh thats smart - if you are in someone else's private rhealm, you give up your rights? Doesn't work like that in the US of A. If you want to practice business in the US of A, you and everyone else are granted certain rights - just like you can't search the mailman if he is delivering mail to you and happens to step in your home. You can put any sign you want - not that it will hold any salt. The only way that this would be considered OK is if I signed a declaration with my own signature prior to entering your premises.

There is a just cause over here.

What? Assuming everyone is a thief? Not good enough. Assumptions hold no salt - its like opinions - and we all know what assume means - Ass U Me.

Again, this is an invasion of your private realm - your car. And even this is required in cases of just or reasonable cause, no? Or is a warrant always required?

And how is your purse not held to the same manner? Reasonable cause is a tricky situation, but can be used to open your trunk, but that reasonable cause has to be something like drugs seen on the drivers seat.

But in this case we're talking about someone else's private residence or realm and they should be entitled to dictate such terms of agreement in advance.

You can - but must be a signed legal document. SO you going to ask your customers to waive their rights simply for entering your store, and spend time reading what would probably amount to a 10 page small typed document of lawyers legal terms? I think not. SImply entering your store does not grant you the right to make me give up my rights.

Nonsense. Receipt checking has been occurring for donkey's years and with exception of cases of outright discrimination, it has been a mostly quiet operation.

Maybe in Isreal, but in the US, no one has ever dared ask me for a receipt ever once in my life to prove what I am holding is mine.

Quite the opposite. My property. My terms of sale. Don't like them? Don't buy from me.

Forcing me to risk financial losses when I operate from within my own private property and wishing to dictate reasonable terms of sale, applied without discrimination. I would find denial of such elementary rights to a propietor morally apprehensible!

Don't do business in the US of A then. To have a storefront or any business incures a certain degree of risk. This is just one of those risks. If you don't like someone though for any reason, you do have the right to refuse service to anyone. That is your only bargaining chip.

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The way I understand it is, say you walk into a shop and purchase a book. You pay for the book at the counter and take it out in a bag. Now I'm no expert on American law, but as I understand it, from the time money changed hands, that book became your property, and thus some jerk from the shop you bought it from has no authority over what happens to it. If you were shoplifting, would you really carry the stolen things in a shopping bag?

I always thought that the authorities (which, I do believe the Circuit City employee is not a member of) needed a warrant to search your belongings. You cant expect your mortgage provider to come around and demand to look through your house.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

If you were shoplifting, would you really carry the stolen things in a shopping bag?

YES! That is just where I would carry it!
Think about it!

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

I always thought that the authorities (which, I do believe the Circuit City employee is not a member of) needed a warrant to search your belongings. You cant expect your mortgage provider to come around and demand to look through your house.

In the UK you need a warrent to search a house (with the exception of some police branches).
However you do not need a warrent or a reason for a body/baggage search.

Of course, that is the case for the police only and not shop staff.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

In the UK you need a warrent to search a house (with the exception of some police branches).
However you do not need a warrent or a reason for a body/baggage search.

Of course, that is the case for the police only and not shop staff.

Same here. If you don't let the shop search you, then they may be a little harsher on whether or not to press charges as you wait for the police to get there. They still can't hold you or stop you unless they have reason to do so.

I have a friend that works for a large retailer that is intimate with the procedures - hence why I know a thing or two about it. If you've heard some of the crazy stories I have about thieves stealing merchandise in store, and then going up to the counter immediately demanding a refund without ever leaving the store - its crazy and the thiefs are both crazy and bold about it too! The store mentality is that they build a rap sheet on each one of them before going in for the take down since shoplifters never only shoplift once. That way there is no wiggle room for the thief to get out of it - they basically ignore them the first few times around before they have overwhelming evidence to prosecute them. The other mentality is that the store (this is a higher end store I am talking about) would rather not upset its customers and allow a theft than to cause a scene for its customers. The idea is keep things pleasant until something must be done. Anyway, there are very strict rules they must follow to avoid a lawsuit from the perpetraitor. Getting sued because of lack of evidence can hit you hard from more ways than one.

-S

[Letum]

The only shop in my village lives in a world of innocence compared to that.

It sells vegetables, newspapers and the like, but has no members of staff.
You just take what you want, weigh the vegetables then leave your money in a bowl
and take your change out of it.

There isn't so much as a security camera!

[The Avon Lady]

Warning to Letum: although you've resurrected, you will die again.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Oh thats smart - if you are in someone else's private rhealm, you give up your rights?

You're forcing the owner of that other private realm to give give his. No one is forcing you to enter another's private property.

Doesn't work like that in the US of A.

Yes, I'm still trying to understand why, not what, thought even the "what" is difficult to google for to get clear legal facts and the rationale behind them.

If you want to practice business in the US of A, you and everyone else are granted certain rights - just like you can't search the mailman if he is delivering mail to you and happens to step in your home.

Prove to me that it is illegal in the US to put up a sign on your private home's front door warning all people who enter that they are subject to search. If that should result in the inability for the mailman to deliver to such a residence, that will be the price such a citizen will pay for what should be his legitimate insistance. You and I might normally despise this but that question is why this person isn't within his rights.

You can put any sign you want - not that it will hold any salt.

Legal code proof, please.

The only way that this would be considered OK is if I signed a declaration with my own signature prior to entering your premises.

Which Constitutional ammendment says that?

What? Assuming everyone is a thief?

No. Dealing with the fact that theft and shoplifting causes billions of dollars of loses annually.

Not good enough. Assumptions hold no salt - its like opinions - and we all know what assume means - Ass U Me.

Again, I am asking for the legal code proof on why this is unconstitutional based on the 4th or any other ammendment.

And how is your purse not held to the same manner?

Here's how it should work:[indent]1. Stores post a written policy noting that they must confirm that what they claim to have purchased is confirmed by a receipt. Incidentally, I don't know if store should need to post this or if this can already be considered a reasonable assumption, given that this has been so common for a long time.

2. Person makes purchase and receives a receipt.

3. Security guard checks that what is being carried out is paid for. Now here, I am not advocating that the guard has the right to inspect your belongings, other than purchased items in the open or store bagged. However, if that was that stated/accepted policy, i.e., that bags are subject to search prior to leaving the store, I still question why this is not allowed, as per my notes above about the rights of the property owner. Again and again, if you don't like the policy, no one is forcing you to enter.

Reasonable cause is a tricky situation, but can be used to open your trunk, but that reasonable cause has to be something like drugs seen on the drivers seat.

Again you gave an example of a search within one's own private domain.

For example, if you visit a VIP's private home, are the guards at the door allowed to search you for weapons? I've never heard that this is illegal anywhere. If you don't like it, do not enter. A store is no different, other than thinking that commercial establishments and corporations have no such similar rights.

You can - but must be a signed legal document.

Again, based on what? There are lots of laws relating to behavior in someone else's private and commercial establishments. Why don't you have to sign to agree to all of those? What is the legal proof of such a signature requirement. Furthermore, can a signed statement wave a Constitutional Ammendment? I wonder.

SO you going to ask your customers to waive their rights simply for entering your store, and spend time reading what would probably amount to a 10 page small typed document of lawyers legal terms? I think not. SImply entering your store does not grant you the right to make me give up my rights.

Once again, proof requested.

Maybe in Isreal

Um no, it's been done in this US way prior to here and is not as common here as in the US.

In fact, here it's 90% the opposite. Personal belongings are checked for weapons and explosives PRIOR to entering a store, a sad fact of life.

but in the US, no one has ever dared ask me for a receipt ever once in my life to prove what I am holding is mine.

I'm a big shopper. I've had receipts checked numerous times in the US.

Don't do business in the US of A then.

What's with the antagoniostic tone, bud?

I'm asking based on US law, not Guatamalen legal codes.

To have a storefront or any business incures a certain degree of risk. This is just one of those risks.

I'm asking what law prevents me from reducing these risks.

If you don't like someone though for any reason, you do have the right to refuse service to anyone. That is your only bargaining chip.

Actually, here you're very wrong. If you don't like someone and refuse to do business with them because of race creed or color, you'll be hauled into court faster than the blink of a CCTV frame.

And if you don't like it, don't do business in the US of A!








Arise, Letum!

[The Avon Lady]

Did a bit more gooling. Coming up mostly with non-professional opinions, like ours.

However, please see this article, for example, written by some attorney, that says pretty much what I've said.

Or maybe he, too, shouldn't do business in the US of A.

EDIT: Oops. This article is the same one I linked to yesterday from Nolo Press. I don't know if you're familiar with Nolo but they're a very reputable and successful US (yes US) company, publishing legal assistance for the masses. My questions still stand.

[The Avon Lady]

Another article indicating that it is a shop owner's right to ask to see a receipt, to confirm goods purchased and that this does not negate 4th Amendment rights of the consumer:

Consumer Rights and Loss Prevention Exit Stops.

The article originally appeared in the Charlotte (NC) Observer and is authored by an attorney.

I'm beginning to wonder, Subman, which of us two is in actuality defending the Consititutional laws of the United States. :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Another article indicating that it is a shop owner's right to ask to see a receipt, to confirm goods purchased and that this does not negate 4th Amendment rights of the consumer:

Consumer Rights and Loss Prevention Exit Stops.

The article originally appeared in the Charlotte (NC) Observer and is authored by an attorney.

I'm beginning to wonder, Subman, which of us two is in actuality defending the Consititutional laws of the United States. :hmm:

THis is not a surprising thing from Kalifornia - the communist state. ALl states have their own laws on this in the US, so you just found an example of a state that permits it.

-S

[StdDev]

Here in So. Kalifornia we have a retail chain by the name of Fry's Electronics.. it is an absolute candy store for those of us involved with computers. They have many bad qualities and many good qualities.. one of the bad ones is the receipt nazi on the way out..
One Day wifezilla and I went shopping at Fry's.. bought a sh&*t load of stuff.. and on the way out we were confronted by the receipt nazi... Wifezilla hands over the receipt and the guy is staring at it.. then looks in the bag... back at the receipt.. then he announces.. "the cashier made a mistake.. charged you for 10 candy bars instead of one" (they have candy bars on the exit lines). He then took it over to the cashier and got us a return of about $3.50 ! Not a big deal or an exorbitant amount of money.. but it goes to show that the recipt checker sole purpose is not just to inhibit theft!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Did a bit more gooling. Coming up mostly with non-professional opinions, like ours.

However, please see this article, for example, written by some attorney, that says pretty much what I've said.

Or maybe he, too, shouldn't do business in the US of A.

EDIT: Oops. This article is the same one I linked to yesterday from Nolo Press. I don't know if you're familiar with Nolo but they're a very reputable and successful US (yes US) company, publishing legal assistance for the masses. My questions still stand.

You just answered your own question with exactly what I write above:

On the other hand, when the police find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (a subjective expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).

Also, if any mall employee touched me - they risk the threat of lawsuit so they never will.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Warning to Letum: although you've resurrected, you will die again.

[...]

Arise, Letum!

Am I being thick?

I really dont understand what you mean at all.
Please explain.