Man arrested in connection with ignoring "bag checker" at Circuit City

Great Debates
521

[QUOTE=magellan01]

[QUOTE=SaintCad]

Oh by the way, I don’t think you ever answered my question (although I may have missed the post): do you believe that when leaving a store, you have a right of privacy to your purse and pockets but not your bag o’ stuff?
If not, then what exactly is the difference then if they ask you to open up your purse ond/or pocket?
If so, then at what point to you get the right of privacy to your bag? In your car? At your house?
[/QUOTE]

This again? Peeking into the bag of goods that you paid for fifty feet ago does not equal a cavity search. Both are valid steps to be taken, considering the possible offense. Now, you want to make this a slippery slope argument, (though not of the fallacious flavor) saying that because one can “arbitrarily” move the line then we can’t draw any line at all. To that I say bullshit. The apparatus we have for dealing with situations like this is judgement. Again, one most weight the costs of a range of behaviors. Without this the Supreme Court would agree to hear every single case that it is petitioned to hear. Now, granted, not everyone will assess the costs the same way, so there is room for people to not make the choice that I would have made and not fall into the asshole camp. But there are also those decisions that, though while being supported by the law, make someone a screaming asshole. It’s really that simple.

[/QUOTE]

Since you didn’t answer the question explicitly, I’ll assume that you meant that yes you should expect a right to privacy to your bagged goods after you pay for them.

But you bring up reasonableness and it is here that you lose me. You apparently claim that it is reasonable to check my bag but not my purse or pockets. Now, considering that most shoplifted items would be in a purse or pocket and not a bag that the cashier filled up 10’ and 20 seconds ago, why would it NOT be reasonable to search those places. You talked about the arbitrariness of the line but you seem to have drawn your line quite clearly - so Magellen for you specifically, why is the one reasonable and others not?

Another problem I have is with the inconvienence position you’re taking. If this customer is asked to open his bag and he starts yelling, “I have rights! You can’t fucking do this asshole!! I’m going to sue you!!!” at the top of his lungs, I agree with you that he is in the running for asshole of the month. But when he does not submit to a voluntary search and the store personnel chase after him and confront him to comply with the (now) demand, you think he should concent to the search. Although he could have been polite and ended it right there, I don’t think that when confronted like that a refusal is assholic.

522

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
I think those making the “asshole” argument are basically saying that while you have no legal obligation to hold the door open for someone whose hands are full of luggage, you should do it anyway because it is nice to do someone a little favor now and then when the cost to you is minimal and may confer a substantial benefit to someone else. Failure to do so breaches no legal duty, but a social one.

This is why I really don’t mind much when merchant politely asks me for a bag check. I don’t feel as though I am being accused of wrongdoing.

However, if a customer should decline to comply for any reason, even if that reason is that the customer is just not in the mood that day, then maybe that makes the customer a temporary asshole, but the merchant should just let it go.
[/QUOTE]

But don’t you see how that undermines the theft-deterrent policy? If someone can simply opt out of the process, what do you think thieves will do?

I basically agree with the previous part of your post. True story, I was coming home one afternoon with my hand really full, shopping, dry cleaning, etc. As I approach the lobby to my building I see the mailman coming out. Great, I think, now I won’t have to figure what to put down and get my keys out. So, he’s walking out the door and I speed up a little (assuming he’s going to hold the door open for an extra 2-3 seconds—literally, but want to make it as convenient for him to do so). And the fucker didn’t even slow down an iota or an extend a hand to slow the door from closing. It closed, and I was just amazed. This is the regular mailman who takes about twenty minutes every day to sit down in one of the wingback chairs in the lobby and read the paper otr take a nap. I, not too rudely (I know not to fuck with the guy who delivers my mail) ask him why he didn’t hold the door open. He said he was busy. Unbelievable! A clear-cut example of someone announcing to the world “Yes, I am an asshole”.

As an aside, I just read in a thread in the Pit that according to the National Retail Survey, theft in retail stores has reached 34 billion dollars a year. I add that for whatever it’s worth.

523

Missed the edit window

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m sure you can come up with other situations—probably better ones—where the law might technically be on your side, but making a federal case out of it at that particular time would make you an asshole.
[/QUOTE]

But WHO made the federal case out of this? The store did!
If this customer is asked to open his bag and he starts yelling, “I have rights! You can’t fucking do this asshole!! I’m going to sue you!!!” at the top of his lungs, I agree with you that he is in the running for asshole of the month. But when he does not submit to a voluntary search and the store personnel chase after him and confront him to comply with the (now) demand, you think he should concent to the search. Although he could have been polite and ended it right there, I don’t think that when confronted like that a refusal is assholic.
Also remember, the customer called the cops only when the store personnel refused to let him leave as he was legally entitled to do. Again, he could have resolved the situation by showing his receipt, but then your contention would have to be that it is appropriate to sacrifice a basic liberty depending on how antagonistic the other party is.

Lastly, suppose I bought a porn video (Beach Blanket Bango part 3 since parts 1 and 2 were so riveting) and used the self-checkout aisle. The checker at the door is a student of mine. Does that change anything about whether or not I should let him check my bag? Why or why not?

524

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Since you didn’t answer the question explicitly, I’ll assume that you meant that yes you should expect a right to privacy to your bagged goods after you pay for them.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you’d be wrong. Wonder of wonders. Try reading again, for comprehension this time.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
But you bring up reasonableness and it is here that you lose me.
[/QUOTE]

At this point I can’t say that I am surprised.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
You apparently claim that it is reasonable to check my bag but not my purse or pockets. Now, considering that most shoplifted items would be in a purse or pocket and not a bag that the cashier filled up 10’ and 20 seconds ago,
[/QUOTE]

Show me why I should accept this as factual? Especially when many, if not most of the items sold in CC, would not fit in most purses. I don’t accept your premise at all. If you have information to the contrary show it. Or perhaps you’re talking about thefts by Felix The Cat, whose magic bag would expand to fit whatever you put into it.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
You talked about the arbitrariness of the line but you seem to have drawn your line quite clearly - so Magellen for you specifically, why is the one reasonable and others not?
[/QUOTE]

Off the top of my head:

  1. becuase it is clean, the normal course of events is that you pay for your stuff and they put it in one of their bags.

  2. there is nothing persoanl in the bag they just gave you that might be embarrassing or be considered an invasion into your personal life.

  3. as other posters in the industry have already posted, it is a common way stuff is stolen: cashier rings up some stuff but not all, places all in bag and co-worker or friend leave with more stuff than they paid for.

  4. it is the minorest of inconveniences. I don’t thiink it’s ever taken more than 20 seconds. Most times about five.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Another problem I have is with the inconvienence position you’re taking. If this customer is asked to open his bag and he starts yelling, “I have rights! You can’t fucking do this asshole!! I’m going to sue you!!!” at the top of his lungs, I agree with you that he is in the running for asshole of the month. But when he does not submit to a voluntary search and the store personnel chase after him and confront him to comply with the (now) demand, you think he should concent to the search. Although he could have been polite and ended it right there, I don’t think that when confronted like that a refusal is assholic.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that the first guy you describe is a larger asshole, but they’re both assholes. Sheeze, if this kid wanted to make the point he did, all he had to do was come back ALONE and buy a magazine and and then refuse to have his bag searched. If he thought he’s make the point in a low-key way, he could have defused the situation as it escalatedoutside by just opening the bag and showing the receipt. God, the more I think about this I want to track him down and slap him with a mop full of diarreah, skunk juice, three-month-old milk, and bong water.

Come on, man. He was legally within his rights. Big fucking deal. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t ALSO have been a complete asshole. He PROVED that that is possible.

525

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
But WHO made the federal case out of this? The store did!
[/QUOTE]

I do not absolve the store of responsibility, but HE is the one who chose to call the cops instead of, instead of what? allowing them a peek into his precious bag?!!! There’s not enough :rolleyes: s.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
If this customer is asked to open his bag and he starts yelling, “I have rights! You can’t fucking do this asshole!! I’m going to sue you!!!” at the top of his lungs, I agree with you that he is in the running for asshole of the month. But when he does not submit to a voluntary search and the store personnel chase after him and confront him to comply with the (now) demand, you think he should concent to the search. Although he could have been polite and ended it right there, I don’t think that when confronted like that a refusal is assholic.
[/QUOTE]

You just asked this exact thing. It is answered in my previous post.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Also remember, the customer called the cops only when the store personnel refused to let him leave as he was legally entitled to do. Again, he could have resolved the situation by showing his receipt, but then your contention would have to be that it is appropriate to sacrifice a basic liberty depending on how antagonistic the other party is.
[/QUOTE]

I’m glad you brought this up. The fact that the store chose to NOT call the cops at that point pretty much proves that they were NOT treating him like a thief. If they were, they would have called the cops, right?

I do not wish to completley absolve the store employees of fault. But I think theirs, and the cops, was an honest mistake, not knowing the law. I, too, would have assumed that I had to open my bag if asked. But it’s just not that big a deal. Not at all. Except if you’re some angry paranoid type who is just dying for any opportunity to show how THE MAN is trying to make us all knuckle under. And “I won’t knuckle under, no siree!”. Again, let them peek in the bag. Fuve seconds. Done. Everyone goes on with their day. You, your family, the security guard with the shitty job, everyone.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Lastly, suppose I bought a porn video (Beach Blanket Bango part 3 since parts 1 and 2 were so riveting) and used the self-checkout aisle. The checker at the door is a student of mine. Does that change anything about whether or not I should let him check my bag? Why or why not?
[/QUOTE]

No. He is functioning in the capacity as a security person, not your student. You can always choose to go elsewhere or try to laugh your way through it. Your choice.

526

[QUOTE=magellan01]
But don’t you see how that undermines the theft-deterrent policy? If someone can simply opt out of the process, what do you think thieves will do?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I see. Thieves will simply bypass the checkpoint and the merchant will be without a practical remedy. If the fact that the bag check is voluntary, by law, ultimately renders th bag check policy useless, then so be it. Find another way to prevent loss in compliance with the law.

Perhaps you are saying the law should permit mandatory bag checks without probable cause or contract. I, for one, believe this goes too far and gives undue power to merchants at the sacrifice of the personal privacy of the public.

Also, for those of you who are concerned about the line between bag checks and body cavity searches, the merchatnts’ privilege, in California anyway, permits a merchant to make a limited and reasonable search of any packages, shopping bags, handbags, or other property in the immediate possession of the person detained to recover an item, but may not search the clothing worn by that person. (Penal Code § 490.5(f)(4)).

I think the legislature has struck a good balance between the merchants’ property rights and the public’s privacy rights here.

527

Most of your post seems to stem from some sort of asinine assumption that the store maintains a right to the property one has already paid for, as thought aura of their ownership has not yet cooled. Good luck with that one in court.

You also seem to think that this lingering aroma of possession gives them the right to rifle through my personal belongings, which, yes, includes their newly former merchandise, as long as it’s not “personal” or “embarrassing”. Mind if I come to your house and rifle suspiciously through your belongings? I promise to stay out of the medicine cabinet, the nightstand, and your underwear drawer.

Puh-lease.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
…
3) as other posters in the industry have already posted, it is a common way stuff is stolen: cashier rings up some stuff but not all, places all in bag and co-worker or friend leave with more stuff than they paid for.

…
[/QUOTE]

Since you’ve already pointed out that non-accomplice-achieved shoplifting is nearly impossible with the standard CC items, given that it’s unlikely that even without a search, no one will notice the extra portable TV you stashed in the bag, here’s another list for you.

BETTER WAYS TO PREVENT THE ACTIONS YOU DESCRIBE THAN VIOLATING THE PRIVACY OF ALL YOUR CUSTOMERS:

  1. Raise your clerk salary so you can hire a better class of people. The increase can be absorbed by firing or cutting back the duties of the douchebag at the door (who takes as little as five seconds sometimes because he can’t be bothered carefully checking a large order, the kind most likely to hide unpaid merchandise, which defeats the whole purpose of the searches), and by reduced shoplifting costs, so that prices do not have to go up.

  2. Make your HR people do their job on their pre-employment screening.

  3. Make your security people earn their salaries and actually develop some knowledge of the cashiers, and notice if there seem to be people who come in surprisingly frequently and always make a point of going to the same cashiers, and just search them. You already have cameras that will help you collect that information.

528

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Most of your post seems to stem from some sort of asinine assumption that the store maintains a right to the property one has already paid for, as thought aura of their ownership has not yet cooled. Good luck with that one in court.
[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. The difference of opinion is about when the transaction is completed: does it end at the cash register, or at the exit door?

I still do not get how you see this is a violation of privacy, any more than the cashier him/herself seeing what you’re buying as you’re paying for it.

529

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
You also seem to think that this lingering aroma of possession gives them the right to rifle through my personal belongings, which, yes, includes their newly former merchandise, as long as it’s not “personal” or “embarrassing”. Mind if I come to your house and rifle suspiciously through your belongings? I promise to stay out of the medicine cabinet, the nightstand, and your underwear drawer.

Puh-lease.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, brother. How did you go from searching a bag inside a store, one that was just given to you seconds ago, to coming to mu house and searching whatthefuckever? I’ll see your " Puh-lease" and reaise you a PUH-LEASE!

It’s quite comical how a five-second peak into a bag fifty feet from where it was handed to you is being related to cavity searches and now, searches of underwear drawers.

To those to whom it concerns: words to look up:

  1. reasonableness
  2. proportion
  3. analogy
  4. asshole (to the point that it has nothing to do with having the law on your side or not)

And to all those who are so hung up not seeing the distinction in Number 4. Can a cop be both acting within the law and still be an asshole?

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Since you’ve already pointed out that non-accomplice-achieved shoplifting is nearly impossible with the standard CC items, given that it’s unlikely that even without a search, no one will notice the extra portable TV you stashed in the bag, here’s another list for you.
[/QUOTE]

Another reading problem, I see. I was not talking about TVs and refrigerators, as those things don’t even get bagged, but video games, stereos, telephones, etc.

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
BETTER WAYS TO PREVENT THE ACTIONS YOU DESCRIBE THAN VIOLATING THE PRIVACY OF ALL YOUR CUSTOMERS:
[/QUOTE]

My privacy concerns were never violated. The same with others in this thread. Probably most of the millions of customers who have had their bags checked and have not whined about it. Try another avenue. One that is truthful. Just a thought.

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]

  1. Raise your clerk salary so you can hire a better class of people. The increase can be absorbed by firing or cutting back the duties of the douchebag at the door (who takes as little as five seconds sometimes because he can’t be bothered carefully checking a large order, the kind most likely to hide unpaid merchandise, which defeats the whole purpose of the searches), and by reduced shoplifting costs, so that prices do not have to go up.

  2. Make your HR people do their job on their pre-employment screening.

  3. Make your security people earn their salaries and actually develop some knowledge of the cashiers, and notice if there seem to be people who come in surprisingly frequently and always make a point of going to the same cashiers, and just search them. You already have cameras that will help you collect that information.
    [/QUOTE]

Again, as has been pointed out in this thread that you either chose to not read or weren’t able to digest, these stores are working a=on super-thin margins. Sincve they can’t cut prices any more, they cut where they can. They hire a lot of kids and people who won’t be there for the long haul. Now I have the choice to go a store in my neighborhood that has super-knowledgeable people that have been working there for years. But they charge a lot more. They have to. For those itmes where I don’t bnecessarily want that deep level of expertise and service, I trade that for low price and go buy stuff at CC or Best Buy. I’f suffered the horrible indignity of having my receipt and bagged checked countless times, but somehow I’ve survived. I guess oyu can say that I am, at the core, a survivor.

530

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Not exactly. The difference of opinion is about when the transaction is completed: does it end at the cash register, or at the exit door?
[/QUOTE]
What? Are you suggesting that the ownership of the goods is still in question *after *money has been exchanged for them? So, if I sell you a lamp at a yard sale, I still own it until you have left my property? Good luck getting that one to fly.

531

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
So, if I sell you a lamp at a yard sale, I still own it until you have left my property
[/QUOTE]

That’s why you should always order your food to go. :wink:

532

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
That’s why you should always order your food to go. :wink:
[/QUOTE]
Better yet, have it delivered. Than tackle the driver and take the money back before he gets to his car. And be sure to search him while you’re at it.

533

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oh, brother. How did you go from searching a bag inside a store, one that was just given to you seconds ago, to coming to mu house and searching whatthefuckever? …
[/QUOTE]

Because there is nothing that remotely suggests that items that are newly, legally mine and still on my person in the place of purchase are any less MINE than items that currently enjoy residence in my home.

It is clear your whole point of view rests on these two classes of items being somehow different. We await your justification for this distinction.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
…Another reading problem, I see. I was not talking about TVs and refrigerators, as those things don’t even get bagged, but video games, stereos, telephones, etc. …
[/QUOTE]

Yes. You declare that these items are not easy to conceal on one’s person, but somehow easy to conceal in an issued bag. If I’ve just bought one stereo, how is the cashier not going to notice me carry another through checkout and slip it into my bag? Your very explanation of the difficulty in stealing these items negates the likelihood that receipt checks at the door are an effective way of dealing with them.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
My privacy concerns were never violated.
[/QUOTE]

You have already demonstrated sadly low standards in this area.

I too, have submitted to the receipt checks, but thankfully I do not suffer self-aggrandizing delusions about what this says about my ability to make my way in the world. I do it on the understanding that I am assisting the store in their security efforts here as a courtesy. There have been many times that the checker was swamped and I have not extended this courtesy, walking on out the door with my new property. I have never been detained for this, because whoever runs the franchises I frequent is apparently not stupid enough to think they have a legally-defensible right to pore over my stuff.

534

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Maybe because airport security is authorized by law and designed to promote public safety, including the safety of the person being checked, whereas bag checks are voluntary by law and designed to promote the interests of a private business.
[/QUOTE]

Seems logical. So, if a judge decides that shopkeepers privilege should be extended to cover bag checks and running a bag check is sufficient cause for being detained then we’re good. No rights violation as long as they make a law that says violating it is okay and with good reason?

535

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
I think those making the “asshole” argument are basically saying that while you have no legal obligation to hold the door open for someone whose hands are full of luggage, you should do it anyway because it is nice to do someone a little favor now and then when the cost to you is minimal and may confer a substantial benefit to someone else. Failure to do so breaches no legal duty, but a social one.

This is why I really don’t mind much when merchant politely asks me for a bag check. I don’t feel as though I am being accused of wrongdoing.

However, if a customer should decline to comply for any reason, even if that reason is that the customer is just not in the mood that day, then maybe that makes the customer a temporary asshole, but the merchant should just let it go.
[/QUOTE]

Hear Hear!! The guy was in his car with an older man and two younger kids. It was a bad call to flag him down and create the incident. To try and detain him without any evidence of theft or any intention of calling the cops was really stupid.

But that doesn’t mean the guy wasn’t an ass for his role in making it worse than it had to be.

536

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Because there is nothing that remotely suggests that items that are newly, legally mine and still on my person in the place of purchase are any less MINE than items that currently enjoy residence in my home.
[/QUOTE]

Nor are they any less your than the funds in your IRA of the stuff in your safe deposit box or the stuff you have in boxes in your mom’s attic.. Yet, and this might come as a surprise to you—no one is talking about ANY OF THOSE THINGS. It appears that you didn’t look up the words I suggested. Try being reasonable. Try it right now in this discussion. You mean you see no difference between items you just purchased in the bag before you leave the store and those tucked under your mattress. Try. Don’t focus on the similarities, the differnces. Think, man, think. No one has suggested checking anything beyond the bag the store gave you. THAT is what the discussion is about. If your question is then, “But, ah, if you allow that, what is to prevent the line being moved to purses, then pockets, then cavities, then underwear drawers?” And the answer, which is evidently outside your experience, is reasonableness. I gave you 4 distinct reasons that sets the bag apart. You ignore them and myopically focus on a gestapo-like worst case scenario. Do you know why they call it a worst case scenario"? Because it is the worst case, the extreme of the extreme cases—which is NOT what we’re talkiing about here. Here we’re talking about the opposite end of the spectrum. Your argument is akin to not giving cops guns because they could break into your house and rape you and your family at gunpoint. Now if anyone wants to argue that if a bag search is at some point allowed by law, then that should mean that cavity searches and searches of underwear drawers should therefore be allowed on the same grounds and in the same instances, I will be the first to print the ASSHOLE T-shirt up for him, too.

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Yes. You declare that these items are not easy to conceal on one’s person, but somehow easy to conceal in an issued bag. If I’ve just bought one stereo, how is the cashier not going to notice me carry another through checkout and slip it into my bag? Your very explanation of the difficulty in stealing these items negates the likelihood that receipt checks at the door are an effective way of dealing with them.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Please, please, please try to read for comprehension. That means taking the entire passage and determining what the point being made is. Now that I see that you’ve fixated on one word, “stereo” like a monkey with a stick on an ant hill, I will withdraw that one word. Now, focus on items that would fit in store bag but not in your average purse. Additionally, checkiing the bag ids half the equation. One must check the contents of the bag against the receipt. If there is no bag, half the battle is over, just—Gulp,oh the indignity—show the receipt. Maybe that helps, as uyou only half to sacrifice being half as unreasonable as if you had to show both bag contents and receipt.

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
You have already demonstrated sadly low standards in this area.
[/QUOTE]

If not paranoid equals low standards in your book, you got it right. Next we can explore your comprehension of “reasonable”. Or it’s root.

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
I too, have submitted to the receipt checks, but thankfully I do not suffer self-aggrandizing delusions about what this says about my ability to make my way in the world.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? Translation please.

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
I do it on the understanding that I am assisting the store in their security efforts here as a courtesy.
[/QUOTE]

If you will supply your name and address I will recommend you for The Bestest Citizen in The Whole World Award. Seriously, dude, good for you. You were “reasonable” in those instances. We need more of that behavior. We need less of the behavior that is assholish. Why you are defending it is beyond me. We agree on what the law is. Where we disagree is how to characterize this perticular guy’s action in this particular instance. Which is easy: 1000% asshole.

537

[QUOTE=magellan01]
But don’t you see how that undermines the theft-deterrent policy? If someone can simply opt out of the process, what do you think thieves will do?
[/QUOTE]

You’re right it does undermine it which is why I think the bag check will go away and we’ll see more products that customers have much less access too. Shoplifters depend on the stores and employees reluctance to offend a customer to get away with their crime, so playing the offended indignant customer is part of the game. They get good at it. I had an older well dressed black man try to buy two laptops with a bogus credit card. When I questioned his ID because it looked bad he played the race card and claimed to be a lawyer for the NAACP. when I held my ground and invited a manger to hear his complaint he got nervous and bolted.

The other option is that courts declare that stores have every right to expect people to stop and let them compare receipt with bag contents so customers can either shop there and cooperate or not. Their choice.

Holy Crap,… but let’s keep in mind it’s not Mr. Righi’s problem. The dick.

538

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The other option is that courts declare that stores have every right to expect people to stop and let them compare receipt with bag contents so customers can either shop there and cooperate or not. Their choice.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s hope.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Holy Crap,… but let’s keep in mind it’s not Mr. Righi’s problem. The dick.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no. It’s our collective problem. If given the choice between A) lower prices and/or a more enjoyable shopping experience (access to the actual stuff), but having to take ten seconds to have your bag and receipt looked at and B) the opposite of A, I’ll bet heavily that people choose A. I resnt the asshole working toward B. Fuck him and the shetland pony he rode in on.

539

I’ve following along here and I have to come down with the guy being able to do as he pleased or did not, with regard to an oradinary citizen demanding to search his bag, produce title to his belongings or otherwise. If they had a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, they may file a complaint or effect an arrest and ask him to provide his title to the merchandise to refute any evidence they may have of shoplifting. Again, he is innocent and unless there is evidence that he is guilty of a crime, he has no obligation to prove innocence. Whether or not he was an asshole has zero to do with it. Being an asshole is not a crime, even if you think he was. Anyone can demand proof of anything from anybody, as most people here seem to be familiar with. We are also familiar that no one is obligated to do such by any kind of law. The only reason to ever have to legally provide a receipt is to rebutt some evidence of guilt. If you have no evidence of guilt, you simply can not demand he prove himself innocent. That’s just how we do it here. Store policy may ba an issue but if he signed no agreement or even if he technically entered a contract, it was not a contract he willingly entered with knowledge of such a contract. It’s a moot point.

Should he have shown his receipt ? That’s just a matter of opinion. That’s all it comes down to. No one is right or wrong on that issue. Was he required by any law to ? Certainly not, as he was not charged with any crime for refusing to do so.

540

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Seems logical. So, if a judge decides that shopkeepers privilege should be extended to cover bag checks and running a bag check is sufficient cause for being detained then we’re good. No rights violation as long as they make a law that says violating it is okay and with good reason?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure I follow this. A judge would not decide the shopkeepers privilege should extend to permit bag checks absent probable cause because deciding whether to extend merchants’ rights to conduct bag checks is the role of the legislature. Also, a judge would not decide a customers’ skipping a bag check creates probable cause to conduct a bag check for reasons already discussed.

This sentence is confusing:

“No rights violation as long as they make a law that says violating it is okay and with good reason?”

Something is either a rights violation or it isn’t. There is no rights violation when the legislature decides what the rights are by statute and people do not then violate those statutory rights as those statutory rights are interpreted and applied by the courts.