Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Search and/or detainment by retail store employees

[ShadwDrgn]

I'm curious about the rights of store employees in regards to searching my bag after a purchase. Do these "receipt checkers" have a legal right to search my bag and receipt? Also whether they do or not could someone post a link to or a quote from the law that defines these rights? I would assume that because the property has been legally purchased by me, that they have no right to search me without probable cause (aka they saw me shoplifting something).

Also assuming I do not submit to said search, do they have the right to detain me? If so please let me know. Also I'm interested in seeing the Georgia law that applies here as well.

If I'm correct in my assumptions about it being illegal for them to do this, then it would seem to me that this would be good information to know. Please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

 

[CdwJava]

This tends to be fuzzy law.

They certainly do not have to permit you to shop there any longer, but they do not likely have the right to forcibly detain you absent good cause to believe you might have committed a public offense.

Bottom line: If you ever want to be allowed to shop there again, you'll submit to the search. if you don't care to return, then go right ahead and keep waling ... and hope they do NOT have cause.

- Carl

 

[VermontGuy]

I too am interested in this subject. I have no intention of shoplifting, I just don't approve of this growing practice on the part of retail stores.

Giving up one's right to not have their private property subjected to warrantless search seems a pretty drastic requirement for entering a retail establishment. If the store considers this a term of implied agreement on entry, couldn't it be deemed unconscionable? Can they really ban you for refusing unconscientious dealings?

I've been reading the Vermont laws and there are numerous "fuzzy" areas here, making the question as a whole hard to answer.

 

[CdwJava]

I too am interested in this subject. I have no intention of shoplifting, I just don't approve of this growing practice on the part of retail stores.

Then do not shop there. A store has the right to institute virtually any policy they wish. If they want to institute a policy of searching their customers, then you can choose to abide by the policy, or you can refuse to shop there.

Giving up one's right to not have their private property subjected to warrantless search seems a pretty drastic requirement for entering a retail establishment.

Then don't shop there.

Plus, your right to be from warrantless searches relates to government and not to private entities. I can institute a policy of searching anyone that enters my home, and it would be entirely lawful. You can simply choose not to come to my home ... hmmm ... I wonder if that would deter my in-laws.

If the store considers this a term of implied agreement on entry, couldn't it be deemed unconscionable? Can they really ban you for refusing unconscientious dealings?

Sure. They can ban someone for most any reason they wish so long as it is not based upon being a member of a protected class of people. Last time I checked, people not wanting to be searched was not on that list.

I know a number of people who no longer shop at Fry's and Costco for just these reasons ... I suppose in some places they are more harsh than others with this, but as it is a measure to try and cut back on theft, I support anything they want to try and do to protect their bottom line. Instituting a search policy is a business decision and one that seems to have little impact on the number of customers.



- Carl

 

[VermontGuy]

I guess the issue I have is that the consumer-friendly stores are being pushed out by the larger big-box stores, amongst whom the practice of checking receipts and bags is becoming an accepted practice. The simple "take your business elsewhere" doesn't work once there aren't any more "elsewheres" to turn to. So I wanted to tackle the legal issues head-on in hope of some relief, versus just moving to somewhere the weeds haven't spread to yet and just hoping for the best. Avoiding the problem is a recipe for failure.

I (and many other consumers) are hoping for there to be some legal leg we can stand on to directly defy this behavior and communicate the message on up to those who make the decisions. A direct "no I won't, because I don't have to, and here's why......". Not shopping there doesn't get the message across, simply because there are always going to be too many other people perfectly willing to sign their legal rights away to get $0.05 off a tube of toothpaste. I am searching for a legal line the practice might cross, so it's not like "well if you don't want to be punched in the face, don't stand near me".

I suppose I must sound dense and stubborn to you, so I apologize... please be patient with me. I recognize you're trying to help and it must get frustrating sometimes with laymen who just "don't get it".

 

[CdwJava]

I guess the issue I have is that the consumer-friendly stores are being pushed out by the larger big-box stores, amongst whom the practice of checking receipts and bags is becoming an accepted practice.

In my town (which has only one "big box" store) the small consumer-friendly stores are getting ripped off right and left ... one is getting hit so bad that they are considering such policies, or considering limiting the number of juveniles that may be inside at any one time.

The larger stores have simply figured out some time ago what the smaller stores sometimes hesitate to understand that checking bags is sometimes a good method to reduce theft.

The simple "take your business elsewhere" doesn't work once there aren't any more "elsewheres" to turn to.

Of course there is. I don't know where you live, but I have lived in cities big and small, and I have always found alternatives.

Then there is my favorite alternative - the internet.

People discriminate against retailers for any number of reasons. If they have a policy (searches or otherwise) you disagree with, you can vote with your pocket book to go elsewhere. When enough people do this, then the retailers that have these policies will raise their prices and stop the practice. Until then, the practice will continue so long as it does not effect their customer base.

So I wanted to tackle the legal issues head-on in hope of some relief, versus just moving to somewhere the weeds haven't spread to yet and just hoping for the best. Avoiding the problem is a recipe for failure.

Bottom line is that they have a right to institute a policy ... you have a right not to shop there. They likely cannot forcibly detain you without cause, but they also do not have to allow you to return. But, if you don't mind dramatic scenes every time you go shopping, go right ahead and do this. I suspect that after the second or third time, they will start to remember you and may well ban you from the store.

A direct "no I won't, because I don't have to, and here's why......".

But there isn't one.

Some store, like Fry's (at least out here) have big, huge signs at the entry telling you that you are subject to search ... I forget what the consequences are, but they have to do with banning you from the store. I don't shop at Fry's because of other reasons (bait and switch ads, for one), but that's a decision I have made because of that company's business practices. I don't like their policy of misleading ads, so I take my considerable electronics spending to other sources.

I am searching for a legal line the practice might cross, so it's not like "well if you don't want to be punched in the face, don't stand near me".

Yes, you can create a scene every time you enter and refuse to be searched or stopped. That's up to you. I prefer not to be the center of hub-bub, but that's me.

Bottom line is that they can refuse service to you ... they do not likely have a right to manually detain you, but neither do they have to ever permit you inside again. Since they are not the government, they do not have to adhere to the 4th Amendment, but they do have to conform to statutory law.

- Carl

 

[VermontGuy]

Thing is, the way these searches/checks are conducted, they accomplish nothing but inconvenience the consumer and train them to comply with an ever-growing list of forgone rights when you enter in a store.

Thanks, I think you basically answered my questions. I really don't care about being banned if its in-return for making a statement. I still sometimes wander into these stores out of convenience, but I have never once given-in to the receipt/bag check and just walked on out. So far I haven't had to cause a "scene" but I figured it's just a matter of time before someone gives me a hard time. Let them ban me, but I'll make sure they get some feedback from a former customer. To be clear: it's not that I want to shop there, but I want to know that I'm in the clear when it comes to refusing detention or searching should it ever come to that (acknowledging that they could refuse to let me shop there again as a result).

I'm a level-headed person so not the sort to cause a "scene" with angry shouting and such.

 

[CdwJava]

Thing is, the way these searches/checks are conducted, they accomplish nothing but inconvenience the consumer and train them to comply with an ever-growing list of forgone rights when you enter in a store.

Since your "rights" are generally vis-a-vis the government, and not generally relating to private entities, consumers have a choice to make if they don't like it.

As for their success or accomplishment, I am certain that is debatable. I know of people in the retail field that swear they have a deterrent or real effect, and others that argue they do not. However, the searches likely keep the casual thief honest ... and with shoplifting a $25 - $35 BILLION dollar hit to business every year, I suspect that you may see even more draconian measures put in place as years pass.

To be clear: it's not that I want to shop there, but I want to know that I'm in the clear when it comes to refusing detention or searching should it ever come to that (acknowledging that they could refuse to let me shop there again as a result).

I cannot speak to the law in every state. It MAY be that in your state walking out could be deemed sufficient grounds to detain (I doubt it, but with proper notice, and the proper statutes in place, it might be). If you are detained, I would strongly recommend against physically resisting.

Fortunately, I live in a rural region where even the big box stores do not perform regular receipt checks and bag inspections ... when I lived in the big city, they had a phalanx of people doing that at the exits of a number of stores. My guess is that the practice has some deterrent effect or the bean-counters would have banned it long ago.


- Carl

 

[seniorjudge]

VG...get over it....

This is not a big deal.