Under common law, there exists something called the shopkeepers privilege, which basically allows a shopkeeper to detain someone if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has or will commit theft. The investigation must be done on or near the premesis of the building, there must be reasonable suspicion, the use of force must be reasonable and the detainment period can only be for a reasonable period of time.
This guy's argument appears to be based on a 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure, and somehow claims that his civil rights are violated. But what he has not learned, is the premise of the amendment itself. First of all, the constitution is designed to protect public policy. While private policy could also be included in limited instances, it is generally reserved for public policy only. Which is why a restaurant could reasonably demand pay first provisions, or why non-disclosure agreements can be enforced between an individual or a business. Most protections deal with what the government is allowed to do to you. The relationship between private citizens is generally not included.
The second point he missed, is that it is not unreasonable to ask a customer to show a receipt upon leaving the premesis. As a customer, he voluntarily entered a store, and purchased merchandise from the company. The store has a right to reasonably protect their property from theft. And the argument that he is a loyal customer is irrelevant. I would be open to suggestions on how to further and more easily protect shoplifting, but he presents no possible alternative. Like it or not, EVERY customer is a potential shoplifter, and simply asking someone to show a receipt is by no means unreasonable. Defining what is "reasonable" is a term that will be debated until the end of time. Simply put, "reasonable" means what a reasonable person would interpret. A reasonable person is defined as an average person of the community with average intelligence and education.
I actually debated this in great detail at the Randi Rhodes blog site, so you can look there for further analysis.
1 comment:
Every driver on the road is a potential drug smuggler, so by your logic cops should be able to search anyones car they want.
Also, it is most certainly not unreasonable for a store to ask a customer to produce a receipt, I don't think anyone is arguing that. The issue is, if a person declines to produce one is that sufficient ground to detain them using "shopkeepers privelege" I, and a lot of other people, think the answer is no.
Barring any extenuating circumstances I have a right to shop without being searched to ensure I'm not stealing, I have a right to drive my car on the road without it being searched and I have a right to to live my life in my home without it being searched. And declining a search is not evidence of illegal activity which can be used as grounds for a search!! If that's true it negates the whole idea of consent. Police could search any car they want simply by asking if they can search it, then searching it anyway when the person says no.
Post a Comment