A bad day at Circuit City

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Did a lot of googling and I cannot make heads or tails of differences between various states.

Personally, I would hope that it would be legal for a private business to be able to verify purchases and if someone doesn't like it, they shouldn't shop there.

Nope - they cannot. If they didn't see you take it, they can't do anything about it. This is in response to court cases in which case the store was wrong and used abusinve practices as seen in this circuit city blog to harrass innocent people. It falls under our illegal search and cesure portion of our Constitution. No one has the right to search you without just cause, and in the case of a store, this just cause would be physically seeing you try to leave with product that they watched you take.

-S

[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.

[The Avon Lady]

According to this Nolo Press article, the 4th Ammendment doesn't seem to apply here for a variety of reasons.

[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.

[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.

[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.