I went back over the posts and I made a mistake about what I thought you
said, you didn't say they had to be 'right', that was someone else, sorry.
THIS is what you said (in part):

Are you seriously claiming that you would seek
compensation for emptying your pockets? That's a shame if you are.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, what I'm asking is --- does it not
appear that there are such grounds? Not for emptying pockets, but for being
physicaly abducted, manoeuvered into a back room, and forcibly confined,
even though it is "temporary" and you make the valid distinction between
arrest and detention but to some extent, it is still the same thing --- no
matter what happens in the long run, a person has been physically forced
into a room against their will, for what is no reason --- I guess this is
the contention point: I say the beep is NOT enough justification for
physical detention, other perhaps do.
OK, forget the potential for committing injustices by subterfuge and a
transmitter that can trigger beepers, if how I'm reading you is correct, if
you were a judge, you would permit the commission of even greater
injustices --- that of abduction & forcible confinement, let me explain.
Once again, just for the sake of argument, lets I'm a wierdo who gets off on
forcing people into back rooms. Where I get my thrill is being larger than
other people and seeing their reactions of fear and surprise when i accost
them and force them into a room (once again, this is just for the sake of
argument). I open a retail biz and rig up a beeper to go off whenever I see
an attractive woman walk through the scanner, and lets say for the purpose
of this discussion, that the authorities don't ever catch on to the real
nature of the setup, they think its a legit biz and don't know that I'm a
freak (for purposes of argument ONLY).
Are you really saying that, as long as there's a beep-beep noise, I am
justified in "detaining" a person, regardless of the fact that they actually
haven't taken anything?







"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:20:52 GMT, "Tom H" wrote:

Isn't that a contradiction? You say for the detention to be justified,
ultimately the store security people have to be "right" in detaining
you(if
stolen merchandise is found then everyone agrees: the detention was
justified), but according to my hypothetical situation they ultimately
appear to be wrong because when they search, they find no plundered items,
the alarm was triggered by a transmitter.

Being right or wrong with your initial suspicions has nothing to do with
whether or not there is probable cause for a detention. If you set off an
electronic monitoring system, that is sufficient. Even if that piece of
equipment is later deemed to be defective, the PC will still be determined
as
admissible (unless the store KNEW it was defective in advance).

A guy didn't take anything, but was forcibly confined
and searched, for what turned out to be no reason.

And what about someone driving a car identical to that of a bank robbery
suspect who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Would it
be wrong to stop and detain them as well for any period of time?

I don't know, but I
don't think it should be permitted to force people into back rooms and
search them, no matter if they have stolen anything or not, and if some
one
had that happen to them, don't you think they are deserving of
compensation?

Having someone empty their pockets and giving them a rubber glove search
are
two different things? Are you seriously claiming that you would seek
compensation for emptying your pockets? That's a shame if you are.

Why would you say it should not be permissible to search someone even if
they
have stolen something? I don't see the logic.



"Mark" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:25:23 GMT, "Tom H" wrote:

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating doing this at all, in fact
I'm
thinking about it from the perspective of the store owners, truth be
told.
What if scurrilous, frivolous lawsuit-sters built a transmitter that set
the
beeper off and triggered it as one of them walked through? And, just
for
the sake of argument, say the good guys didn't find out about it(which
of
course, isn't likely, given that good always triumphs over evil). The
honest, hard working retail corporation would argue they had PC to
arrest

Whoa. Stop right there. PC to arrest? No. PC to DETAIN, question and
search? Yes.

Depending on what becomes of the search, then there may be an arrest and
not
by a store securtiy guard either. The local police will need to be
involved
at some point.

Let them attempt the frivolous lawsuit. Any judge worth his weight on
the
bench won't allow it.


"Mark" wrote in message
m...
Assuming they didn't have decent video (which most stores don't -
belive
it or
not), they would have to be very inept not to be able to find the
security
tag
on you just short of a rubber glove search. You set off the alarm,
that
is PC
enough for them to hold you and demand you empty your pockets. It
will
hold
up in court, so you can waste your time fighting a CR violation it if
you
want, but...

Once they find that tag, you get a free ride to the Grey Bar Motel.
Even
though it's just a stupid tag - you still stole it.

Think twice about this kind of joke.


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:33:40 +1100, "nana" wrote:

Then they replay the camera videos, catch you in the act, call the
police
and have you charged for causing public mischief, or banned from their
store.
nana

"Tom H" wrote in message
news:0WBEd.45565$8l.26799@pd7tw1no...
what would happen if you stuck a security tag on your shoe, set off
the
beeper, and refuse to voluntarily accompany security personnel to
their
backroom for an 'interview' saying you didn't take anything and
you're
in
a hurry, causing them to physicaly manhandle you into the office
where
they search you (if that was what they did) and find nothing.
Assuming
they don't find out you engineered the whole scenario, do you think
you
would be able to sue them? would they want to settle out of court?
anyone have any thoughts on this?

"Dave Bushong" wrote in message
...
nana wrote:
Lets not forget, an amateur license carries a higher degree of
respect
than does a non licensed device.



With whom? Most people still have no accurate idea what a Ham is!

In regards to this ancient thread - my cellphone has triggered the
alarms at the checkouts more than once. These alarms relied on
reradiation of harmonics and perhaps some non-linear device within
the
phone did just that.

The store did not go into an anti-theft frenzy. The girl looked up
from
her register, I took my phone off my belt, waved it past the
detector,
it beeped, I walked through after it, it didn't beep, problem
solved.
There is no big issue here.

Brad VK2QQ



A friend of mine plucked one of those anti-theft plastic doohickeys
from
a high-ticket item and stuck it onto the back of my belt and I set
off
the detector over and over again as I walked through the exit door.

Some friend.

I wish I had thought of it.