This link is to the blog of a guy that got arrested for basically refusing to allow the receipt checker at a Circuit City to check his bags. He was actually arrested and charged with something almost as dumb, but I would recommend checking it out. It's an interesting read and the guy makes several good points. Are we letting big businesses take away our civil liberties? Do stores have a right to check our bags as we leave a store? I would say the simple answer is no, there is no law that says they have a right to search us as we leave their store. I'd be interested to hear what any of our law enforcement friends have to say about his story though.
On a related note I was in a Walmart yesterday and there was someone checking bags/receipts. Luckily she didn't ask for mine, because I would have refused.
This thread has the potential of becoming a bit political I guess. If that happens feel free to delete it if I don't myself.
Technically, once the bag is handed to you by the employee, I would assume that it becomes the customers property. They are able to leave with/keep the bag once it is handed to them which makes it "their" bag. So still, it could be considered their personal bag...
There maybe no specific law, but a store could post something like the following, "all bags are subject to search upon exiting our establishment. By entering you agree to such policy." I may have to say no next time someone asks to look in my bag at walmart...
You've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
[JiF]KellysHero wrote:There maybe no specific law, but a store could post something like the following, "all bags are subject to search upon exiting our establishment. By entering you agree to such policy." I may have to say no next time someone asks to look in my bag at walmart...
Yeah, you could also say that shopping there is something that one does by choice and if he or she doesn't like the fashion in which procedures are carried out, they are not obligated to shop there, sorta goes under private business setting their own rules. It's like having a "do not touch" sign on something, it's not in any laws but your not allowed to touch it none the less...It's the store rules.
[JiF]KellysHero wrote:There maybe no specific law, but a store could post something like the following, "all bags are subject to search upon exiting our establishment. By entering you agree to such policy." I may have to say no next time someone asks to look in my bag at walmart...
Yeah, you could also say that shopping there is something that one does by choice and if he or she doesn't like the fashion in which procedures are carried out, they are not obligated to shop there, sorta goes under private business setting their own rules. It's like having a "do not touch" sign on something, it's not in any laws but your not allowed to touch it none the less...It's the store rules.
Exactly. To enter the gym I workout at, we use a card with a barcode on it. About 4-5 months ago they switched to a fingerprint scan. I declined to give them my fingerpring and instead chose the card. They informed me there was a good chance that it would become a requirement and I informed them I would be finding a new gym. It looks like a lot of people have switched over, but they still have the old system in place and I'm not the only person not willing to switch over. The gym could force the issue, but do they really want to lose mine and others monthly dues? In the end, money talks and if enough people push back and fight for their privacy rights (government and corporate included), they will yield.
You've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
Yeah, if people keep allowing these stores to check receipts/bags (without any problem whatsoever) then the store isn't going to change the policy because of one person. Only a major boycott could achieve something. Even though the guy in the article makes very good points, I don't think he'll get too far. The only thing that looks like he can get anywhere is the physical action used by the store employee. He may get his charges dropped but I'm interested to see if he would try the same thing at the same store even after, that would show his dedication...
It's such an interesting topic imo. I can see both sides of it, but agree that as a US Citizen in a public space it is my right to decline to be searched simply because "I might have stolen something." What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The way the store employees handled themselves they assumed the guy was guilty of shoplifting until he proved he hadn't. Even the cop was surprised he hadn't. That just seems so so sooo wrong to me. The only places I will allow my receipt to be checked are Sams Club and BJ's, and that is because it is clearly stated in the agreement to be a member that I signed. I'm very curious to see how this whole thing plays out!! lol
One way to deal with this that would probably have more bite than a boycott would be to go in and buy some items. If they ask to search your bag, politely refuse. If they won't let you leave without looking at your bag, let them inspect it at the return desk as you are getting your refund. A generic boycott might work, but seeing sales actually lost would probably be much more meaningful to the store manager.
You've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
I like that idea, that if they insist on searching your bag then return the item that you bought. I think I am going to stick with that idea from now on.
Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.
-Immanuel Kant
This has been pretty standard for a long time. As long as they have their search policy at the entrance of the store then they have every right to check your bags when you leave. You have every right to go to another store.
The reality is that if it was illegal for them to look in bags shoplifters would be able to get away with stealing significanly more than they do now (and they get away with a ton now).
My experience is that most stores usually only check bags that aren't from their store (ie bags they just finished packing). Try not to bring bags into other stores or if you do ask the new store for a bigger bag and combine the two bags into one.
Women with ginormous purses that are so big they have to check it in before a flight deserve to be searched. Those things are freakin' nuts.
[JiF]rIot wrote:With Best Buy they check your bag RIGHT AFTER you leave the register, which is kind of pointless because what are you going to steal in 5 feet?
The stuff your buddy the cashier conveniently didn't ring up, but put in your bag.
Ensuring the security of Western Democracy through superior tissue products.
I've kept my eye out for policies posted by the door about bag searches. I am yet to see any at a Walmart or Best Buy that have bag checkers. Shop lifting is a crime, and they need to do more to catch them. If an employee sees someone stick something in a bag and accuses this person of shoplifting, then by all means the bag needs to be checked. However the bag check without probable cause is unacceptable. As far as I am concerned, once I purchase items and they are put in the bags they are mine and no longer subject to any search or seizure without probable cause. I'm pretty sure our Constitution will back me up on this.
technically the "bag search law" is being misrepresented from it's original intent; It's a portion of the patriot act which basically allows an employee to search your bag coming into a "public" place or exiting.. that's reaching though. In connecticut, there is requirement of due cause but most of the time it is a courtesy whereas they hire somebody who probably can't even read the receipt to put a check mark on it. I think it's more of a protection from scams between a "straw consumer" and a cashier where the cashier does not actually scan an item and puts it their buddy's bag with a pack of gum or something they paid for. At this point I plead the 5th to any activities which may occurred due peer pressure in college or high school... anyways. I'm interested to see where this goes... I figure the judge will throw it out and request he drop charges on the manager
