If you don’t think that’s true, you should read Mayo v Satan.
Well, yeah, but that’s Romanian law. 
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.
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?
Thank you.
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…
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.
Cite ?
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.
“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.”
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:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="cannot+be+sued"&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="cannot+sue"&btnG=Search
Each of those google hits is using the phrase “cannot sue” as shorthand for “cannot successfully sue.”
“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.
See above, Iknewit.
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?
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.
Cite?
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.
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.
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.
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.