# Man arrested in connection with ignoring "bag checker" at Circuit City **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2007, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863 "2007-09-03T00:50:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/181 "2007-09-03T20:33:51Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] I don’t think that’s true either. [/QUOTE] If you don’t think that’s true, you should read _Mayo v Satan_. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/182 "2007-09-03T20:39:39Z")
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer] If you don’t think that’s true, you should read _Mayo v Satan_. [/QUOTE] Well, yeah, but that’s Romanian law. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/183 "2007-09-03T20:43:49Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] From my youth, I recall electronics stores where you would pick out what you wanted, and take a ticket to the register. You would pay at the register and be given a receipt. Then you would take the receipt to another station and they would check it, call your item in to the stock room, and the item would show up on a conveyer belt a few minutes later. Then they would stamp your receipt, hand you your item, and you’d be on your way… [/QUOTE] Didn’t Soviet department stores do something similiar? Not so much for security, but to employ as many people as possible? Allowing customers direct access to merchandise does increas the risk of theft, but it decreases the amount of staff needed and is more efficient. Depending on the merchandise the resulting savings make up for increased shrink. I can’t recall ever seeing a self-service jewelry store for instance, but neither have I ever been to a grocery store where I must give my list to a clerk and wait for them to fetch everything. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/184 "2007-09-03T20:47:53Z")
Question. I don’t drive. Therefore I don’t have a driving licence. So if that was me in that case (and it wouldn’t have been me driving in the first place, it seems), would I have had to show ID? I DO have a state-issued ID card, but I rarely carry it with me. Haven’t for quite awhile actually. It sits at home. So I guess my main question is, if I get asked for ID in a situation like the one in this case (and NOT one where there might be good probable cause for suspicion), would I have to have it or risk being arrested? This guy who is a pharmacist across the street told me, just a few days ago when I was picking up meds for my neighbor that it was illegal to go around without your ID on you. I laughed a bit inside but is what he says true? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/185 "2007-09-03T20:57:27Z")
[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts] So I guess my main question is, if I get asked for ID in a situation like the one in this case (and NOT one where there might be good probable cause for suspicion), would I have to have it or risk being arrested? [/QUOTE] [http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=106](http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=106) ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/186 "2007-09-03T21:02:09Z")
Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/187 "2007-09-03T21:02:42Z")
[QUOTE=An Gadaí] Explain this to me- What’s the exact set up of the receipt check? Is the store laid out [merchandise] -\> [cashiers] -\> [exit] or are there significant amounts of merchandise beyond the cashiers desk? I just don’t understand why you’d check peoples’ receipts as standard. Cultural difference hijack alert but I was really shocked in NYC when I was asked to check my bag in before entering a store. I found it offensive and at odds with their supposed boho coolitivity that half these stores tried to project. They also had those alarms at the door so I thought it excessive. Checking of bags has never happened to me at a store in Ireland, the UK or any other European country I’ve been in. That isn’t to say these things don’t exist but they may be rarer than in North America. [/QUOTE] Yes, that layout seems right. Asda and B&Q both do it around here (Bristol). Funnily enough, I’ve noticed that if you are unshaven and dressed in a football shirt you’re more likely to be asked if they can check your bags than when you’re in a suit. Go figure! Also interestingly, the response ‘yeah, sure. Can you take them out to my car for me too’ isn’t met with amusement at all… ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/188 "2007-09-03T21:18:38Z")
Just wait till someone posts about a Drunk Driving arrest that occured at a check point. You know the kind the police frequently set up and stop every driver ask them a few questions and sniff for the odor of alcohol?They are definitely state actors. They definitely do not have probable cause. The majority of the arrests are fine. And the ones that are not are not dismissed simply because there was a lack of probable cause. As long as the store can articulate that shoplifting is fairly common, that they have frequently found shoplifted items in store bags and that checking the receipts is a reasonable and unintrusive method then I doubt any jury is going to hold them liable. Granted a few misguided psuedo civil libertarians may want to stick it to the man, but I doubt a majority of jurors would buy this silly argument. And if they did it would most likeley be dismissed in a judgement notwithstanding the verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/189 "2007-09-03T21:30:00Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] I don’t think that’s true either. [/QUOTE] Cite ? ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/190 "2007-09-03T21:38:02Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] Just wait till someone posts about a Drunk Driving arrest that occured at a check point. You know the kind the police frequently set up and stop every driver ask them a few questions and sniff for the odor of alcohol?They are definitely state actors. They definitely do not have probable cause. The majority of the arrests are fine. And the ones that are not are not dismissed simply because there was a lack of probable cause. [/QUOTE] Random police check points are unconstitutional. They are regulated by strict sets of rules. They may be used to gather information of a recent crime, that’s about it. Drunk driving check points may not be random, unannouced or by surprise. They must be filed with the clerk, advertised of location and the stated purpose of the check. They may only check for the prestated purpose: License, etc. Any charges made at check points other then the stated reason for the check point and not found by reason of a violation of the check points purpose, is illegal and made without probable cause. The SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. Random check points are illegal due to lack of probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/191 "2007-09-03T21:41:48Z")
“While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited.” “In approving “properly conducted” checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.” ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/192 "2007-09-03T21:51:19Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] Cite ? [/QUOTE] You are the one that claimed, “you very well **can** sue anyone you want. You may not win, but you can sue”. Shouldn’t you be the one providing a cite? Anyhow, I’ll play along. Take your pic: > **[Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cannot+be+sued%22&btnG=Search)** > **[Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cannot+sue%22&btnG=Search)** ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/193 "2007-09-03T22:06:44Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] You are the one that claimed, “you very well **can** sue anyone you want. You may not win, but you can sue”. Shouldn’t you be the one providing a cite? Anyhow, I’ll play along. Take your pic: > **[Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cannot+be+sued%22&btnG=Search)** > **[Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cannot+sue%22&btnG=Search)** [/QUOTE] Each of those google hits is using the phrase “cannot sue” as shorthand for “cannot successfully sue.” ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/194 "2007-09-03T22:08:55Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] You are the one that claimed, “you very well **can** sue anyone you want. You may not win, but you can sue”. Shouldn’t you be the one providing a cite? Anyhow, I’ll play along. Take your pic: > **[Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cannot+be+sued%22&btnG=Search)** > **[Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cannot+sue%22&btnG=Search)** [/QUOTE] “In deciding a case closely watched by free speech groups, the court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits not only to” Being immune does not affect anyones ability to challenge or sue. You can test that immunity over and over again by sueing. Sooner or later the right or wrong judge will hear it. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/195 "2007-09-03T22:26:28Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Each of those google hits is using the phrase “cannot sue” as shorthand for “cannot successfully sue.” [/QUOTE] No, they’re not: [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5DE1E38F93AA15751C1A962948260](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5DE1E38F93AA15751C1A962948260) [http://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/issues/ljn\_matrimonial/24\_7/news/146858-1.html](http://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/issues/ljn_matrimonial/24_7/news/146858-1.html) > **[eBay Buyer Can't Sue Out-of-State Seller in Home State, Says Court](http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/ebay-buyer-cant-sue-out-of-state-seller-in-home-state-says-court/)** > > In what is believed to be a first of its kind lawsuit, a court has held that a person who buys something through eBay from an out-of-state seller cannot sue the seller in the buyer's home state. [http://www.pr-inside.com/us-judge-rules-us-airline-comair-r193617.htm](http://www.pr-inside.com/us-judge-rules-us-airline-comair-r193617.htm) ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/196 "2007-09-03T22:27:31Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] “In deciding a case closely watched by free speech groups, the court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits not only to” Being immune does not affect anyones ability to challenge or sue. You can test that immunity over and over again by sueing. Sooner or later the right or wrong judge will hear it. [/QUOTE] See above, Iknewit. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/197 "2007-09-03T22:36:46Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] Random police check points are unconstitutional. [/quote] Yet you go on to post this?: “While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution” You don’t see that you’re contradicting yourself? [QUOTE=Iknewit] Drunk driving check points may not be random, unannouced or by surprise. They must be filed with the clerk, advertised of location and the stated purpose of the check. [/quote] Okay, let me get this straight: The police must file the drunk driving check point with a clerk, but it can’t be random? Who then are they allowed to stop at the checkpoint? Only those driving up to the checkpoint that seem to be intoxicated? Where are you getting this from? I believe the Supreme Court has found the random check points are constitutional because they are random. [QUOTE=Iknewit] The SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. Random check points are illegal due to lack of probable cause. [/quote] Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/198 "2007-09-03T22:38:01Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] You don’t what you are talking about. The social security card and number are used for identification. [/quote] I suggested earlier that you attempt to be polite in your comments to me. This is my last comment to you in this thread. Any further insults from you to me will be dealt with in the Pit. > [@](#): > > From **this vedry website** , a guy named Cecil Adams says: > > “In 1943 a presidential executive order directed the military and other government agencies to use the number for identification purposes, and in 1961 the Internal Revenue Service began using the number for taxpayer identification. Eventually states began requesting the number on driver’s license applications and the like. \ As a result of all these changes, the “not to be used for identification” line was dropped from the cards and a lot of places will accept them as proof of identity. You just can’t call them national identity cards, or at least the feds can’t, because if they do the right wing will freak.” So, you’re saying what I’m–and the feds are–saying: The **number** is used for identification, not the **card**. In case you’ve missed it, the **social security card** does not have a picture. It’s kind of hard for a copper to look at your mug and then compare it to the non-existant picture on the social security card, don’t you think? Regardless of what “a lot of places” do, the simple fact of the matter is the official stance of the government issuing the thing is that the social security card is not an identification card. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/199 "2007-09-03T22:40:30Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] See above, Iknewit. [/QUOTE] I read them each. In each case, the cases were before the courts and the courts decided. Each defendat got sued. The courts ruled that the cases would not be heard but in any case, they were sued. No one can stop you from going down to the clerks office and filing a complaint against anyone you chose. It may not be successful, a judge may strike it down, but you still sued. Show me a clerk that refuses to commence an action, then you got a case. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/200 "2007-09-03T22:40:43Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] “While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited.” “In approving “properly conducted” checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.” [/QUOTE] By your own “cite” 39 states do allow checkpoints. The Supreme Court in Michigan Dept’t of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444 gave its approval to the use of roadblocks to enforce drunk driving laws. The guidelines you refer to can be found in Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 C3rd 1321, there are eight of them. Do I need to list them for you? My point was and it still stands is that right to privacy is not absolute and that checkpoints set up for valid purposes operated in a reasonable manner are not necessarily improper whether they are set up by local businesses to curtail shoplifting or the police to arrest drunk drivers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863.md?page=11)