"Mark" wrote in message
...
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...


Hold up in court??? Maybe not! If you can show that there is a high
instance of false detections by the type of security system they are using,
it can be shown that it is not reliable. Heck, lie detecters are not
allowed in criminal court...The FAULTY security systems most retail stores
use are, in my opinion, less reliable than a lie detector.

Randy

Not arrest so much as detain for further investigation.
You can also be detained for failing to comply with the store policy
requiring receipt checks. You could later be arrested and held by
police for refusing to identify yourself--and yes you will be held until
you can be positively identified either with or without your
cooperation. If you don't have time to stand in line--shop elsewhere or
don't shop at all. I'd rather have a bit of inconvenience than higher
prices due to theft.

Aside from that I once benefited from the item check at a Costco. It
turned out that the clerk hadn't put several items into my cart after
ringing them in. Small items but about 200 bucks worth of stuff none
the less. Had they not checked the receipt, I'd have been out 200
bucks. Next time you rush the lines give thought to that option. It
could save you money.

Tom H wrote:
There most definately IS a point to all of this --- one relating to the
legal balance between privacy vs protection of property (seriously OT, I
know), a very important point to the loss prevention dept and not
superfluous or trivial at all.
OK, if the penalty for refusing to permit a search is being banned, every
crook in town will show up one after the other and be subjected to banning,
whilst making off with a ton of plunder in the process.
Lets leave the question of whether or not there is another method of
detecting theft aside (which, duh, of course there is, this is simply a
"just for the sake of argument" question), lets just say the only method of
detecting theft was the beeper. OK, a guy goes through, beep beep, "No, I
didn't take anything, I'm not submitting.", "You are banned.", "Fine, see
you later ...", and another couple hundred dollars worth of stuff walks out
the door? That doesn't sound right.
My question is: doesn't the fact that the beeper went off give security the
right (Probable cause) to make an arrest, in the event that the person
refuses to submit to a search?

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"69FLH" wrote:


There's some ****ing people that just have too much time on their
hands.....

Yeah, I don't. That's why I didn't want to wait in the receipt check
line.


"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

In article , "nana"
wrote:


It is a condition of entry and there will be a Notice somewhere
stating
the
fact. If you do not wish to comply, then don't go in. Since you want
to
kick
up a fuss, they can ban you from the store.

How? Not sure how they'd even know who I am. If I don't stop for them
to
check my receipt, I'm sure not going to stop for them to take down my
name and information for future banning purposes and there's no law
that
says I have to.


I understand all these "what if" scenarios, but WHY would you want to
make a
complete ass of yourself, make yourself known as a troublemaker, get
yourself banned from these stores and besmirch your reputation?

Because it's just one more damn line to stand in. Shopping at Best buy
this past Christmas, I stood in line to get to the register for over 30
minutes, then when I finally get there and pay for my stuff, I walk
toward the doors only to find another line 20 people deep waiting to
have their receipt checked. At that point, I'd had enough of it and
just
walked around it and out the door.

The clerk guy didn't catch up with me till I was already at my car and
said he had to check my receipt. I said, no he didn't because if I
hadn't paid for what I walked out with, the alarms would have gone off.
Since they didn't, I don't need to be searched. I got in my car and
drove off. I broke no law so there's nothing they could do. [And they
had no clue who I was so it's not like they could "ban" me, either. Of
course, I don't even live in that city so even if they did figure a way
to ban me, so what?]

And how is that going to "besmirch my reputation"? It's not like the
whole world is going to know I decided to rebel against the receipt
search policy and even if they did, how that makes me look bad such
that
my reputation is besmirched, I'm not sure.

Somehow I think I could live with the "shame".

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. Do you really want to assert that
this is frivolous? A guy didn't take anything, but was forcibly confined
and searched, for what turned out to be no reason. 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?
I do.

Again, for the sake of argument lets say that the authorities never realize
the alarm has been deliberately triggered expressly for the purpose of
causing security to act in a manner that creates grounds for litigation.

"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
. ..
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.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:26:35 -0500, Mark wrote:

}They will still be found just in making their original detainment based on
}their "good faith" judgement.

Maybe, maybe not. A good faith defense in this case depends on the
assumption that the equipment used is reliable. Daily or even weekly false
alarms do not add to good faith beliefs -- especially enough to detain and
search indiscriminately.

My wife had a purse that would set off the alarm at Border's while she
walked INTO the store from the parking lot (it was embarrassing as hell).
Would that give them the right to "detain and search" her? No. Every court
goes on the premise of what is reasonable (and there are arguments here for
both sides). You do have to be careful when putting any legal issue into
one basket or another as it often depends on the "totality of the
circumstances" (and sadly, sometimes the deeper pockets)...

Depending on the state laws, good faith does not even play a part when it
comes to citizen's arrests. You have to be correct or risk serious civil
penalties. As a cop, I have a whole lot more latitude in being mistaken (at
least in this situation)...

Good discussion even though it is probably way off topic...

Later,
Dave

In article ,
anti spamjm wrote:

Not arrest so much as detain for further investigation.
You can also be detained for failing to comply with the store policy
requiring receipt checks.

No, the store can't legally detain you for anything that isn't a
violation of the law. Store rules don't count.

If the store had a rule that you had to dance a jig before leaving and
you chose not to do it, could they detain you? Nope.

And they can't detain you for not getting your receipt inspected, either.

BTR1701 wrote:

No, the store can't legally detain you for anything that isn't a
violation of the law. Store rules don't count.

If the store had a rule that you had to dance a jig before leaving and
you chose not to do it, could they detain you? Nope.

And they can't detain you for not getting your receipt inspected, either.

Don't quit your day job to open a law practice, sonny. You (and a few
others here) think you know what the law is. Think again. If you hadn't
persisted in your ramblings on the subject, I'd have simply written you
off as a garden variety troll. The fact that you cross posted your
incoherent ramblings to so many newsgroups tends to support that
conclusion. But now I think that you may be brain damaged - maybe it is
the crystal meth. You might want to consider giving that stuff up.


--
Milepost 11.7 - UPRR Jeff City Sub - N 38°34'53", W 90°22'32", 680'
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
visit violence on those who would do us harm"

In article ,
Dan Morisseau wrote:

BTR1701 wrote:

No, the store can't legally detain you for anything that isn't a
violation of the law. Store rules don't count.

If the store had a rule that you had to dance a jig before leaving and
you chose not to do it, could they detain you? Nope.

And they can't detain you for not getting your receipt inspected, either.

Don't quit your day job to open a law practice, sonny.

LOL! I already am a lawyer, boyo. I've practiced criminal law for years.

But if you think I'm wrong, then by all means, pony up the legal
citation that says that a store can detain you merely for a violation of
their rules (absent any violation of law).

This ought to be good.

You (and a few others here) think you know what the law is.

And amazingly enough, I do.

Think again. If you hadn't
persisted in your ramblings on the subject, I'd have simply written you
off as a garden variety troll. The fact that you cross posted your
incoherent ramblings to so many newsgroups tends to support that
conclusion.

I didn't cross-post anything. I didn't start this thread. I merely hit
the "reply" button. Whatever groups were posted originally, got replied
to.

But now I think that you may be brain damaged - maybe it is
the crystal meth. You might want to consider giving that stuff up.

Oh, wow. Schoolyard name-calling. And it's not even very creative.

Well done.

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.

Nyah nyah. I know you're a meth-using, incoherently rambling cross-poster,
but what am I? Can we watch cartoons now?

I hope I did that right, it's been so long since I was involved in name
calling I'm not sure I remember how to do it properly.


"Dan Morisseau" wrote in message
...
BTR1701 wrote:

No, the store can't legally detain you for anything that isn't a
violation of the law. Store rules don't count.

If the store had a rule that you had to dance a jig before leaving and
you chose not to do it, could they detain you? Nope.

And they can't detain you for not getting your receipt inspected, either.

Don't quit your day job to open a law practice, sonny. You (and a few
others here) think you know what the law is. Think again. If you hadn't
persisted in your ramblings on the subject, I'd have simply written you
off as a garden variety troll. The fact that you cross posted your
incoherent ramblings to so many newsgroups tends to support that
conclusion. But now I think that you may be brain damaged - maybe it is
the crystal meth. You might want to consider giving that stuff up.


--
Milepost 11.7 - UPRR Jeff City Sub - N 38°34'53", W 90°22'32", 680'
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
visit violence on those who would do us harm"

Sorry,

BUT YOU CANNOT be detain for further investigation by a store security.
Only police can detain for further investigation.

The store security cannot id you, he can just banned you from the store.
Either he places you under arrest because you shoplift or he let's you go.
He cannot stop you just because the alarm goes off at the exit of the store.
AND NO you cannot be held by police because you refused to identify to a
security gard. Only a police officer can detained you for failure to
indentify to a police officer. If you were arrested by a security guard and
you did not steal nothing, you could bring the company in civil court.

The receipt checking ant the exit alarms are there to help prevent
shoplifting not give a reason for the security agent to search you.

I work for a police department.




"anti spamjm" wrote in message
...
Not arrest so much as detain for further investigation.
You can also be detained for failing to comply with the store policy
requiring receipt checks. You could later be arrested and held by police
for refusing to identify yourself--and yes you will be held until you can
be positively identified either with or without your cooperation. If you
don't have time to stand in line--shop elsewhere or don't shop at all.
I'd rather have a bit of inconvenience than higher prices due to theft.

Aside from that I once benefited from the item check at a Costco. It
turned out that the clerk hadn't put several items into my cart after
ringing them in. Small items but about 200 bucks worth of stuff none the
less. Had they not checked the receipt, I'd have been out 200 bucks.
Next time you rush the lines give thought to that option. It could save
you money.

Tom H wrote:
There most definately IS a point to all of this --- one relating to the
legal balance between privacy vs protection of property (seriously OT, I
know), a very important point to the loss prevention dept and not
superfluous or trivial at all.
OK, if the penalty for refusing to permit a search is being banned, every
crook in town will show up one after the other and be subjected to
banning, whilst making off with a ton of plunder in the process.
Lets leave the question of whether or not there is another method of
detecting theft aside (which, duh, of course there is, this is simply a
"just for the sake of argument" question), lets just say the only method
of detecting theft was the beeper. OK, a guy goes through, beep beep,
"No, I didn't take anything, I'm not submitting.", "You are banned.",
"Fine, see you later ...", and another couple hundred dollars worth of
stuff walks out the door? That doesn't sound right.
My question is: doesn't the fact that the beeper went off give security
the right (Probable cause) to make an arrest, in the event that the
person refuses to submit to a search?

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"69FLH" wrote:


There's some ****ing people that just have too much time on their
hands.....

Yeah, I don't. That's why I didn't want to wait in the receipt check
line.


"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

In article , "nana"
wrote:


It is a condition of entry and there will be a Notice somewhere
stating
the
fact. If you do not wish to comply, then don't go in. Since you want
to
kick
up a fuss, they can ban you from the store.

How? Not sure how they'd even know who I am. If I don't stop for them
to
check my receipt, I'm sure not going to stop for them to take down my
name and information for future banning purposes and there's no law
that
says I have to.


I understand all these "what if" scenarios, but WHY would you want to
make a
complete ass of yourself, make yourself known as a troublemaker, get
yourself banned from these stores and besmirch your reputation?

Because it's just one more damn line to stand in. Shopping at Best buy
this past Christmas, I stood in line to get to the register for over 30
minutes, then when I finally get there and pay for my stuff, I walk
toward the doors only to find another line 20 people deep waiting to
have their receipt checked. At that point, I'd had enough of it and
just
walked around it and out the door.

The clerk guy didn't catch up with me till I was already at my car and
said he had to check my receipt. I said, no he didn't because if I
hadn't paid for what I walked out with, the alarms would have gone off.
Since they didn't, I don't need to be searched. I got in my car and
drove off. I broke no law so there's nothing they could do. [And they
had no clue who I was so it's not like they could "ban" me, either. Of
course, I don't even live in that city so even if they did figure a way
to ban me, so what?]

And how is that going to "besmirch my reputation"? It's not like the
whole world is going to know I decided to rebel against the receipt
search policy and even if they did, how that makes me look bad such
that
my reputation is besmirched, I'm not sure.

Somehow I think I could live with the "shame".