If a Security Guard ask.

[BlkHawk73]

This entire thread has become ridiculous! Each state has is own unique laws /rules/regulations governing this type of stuff. Thinking you know the laws in your state doesn't do any good if you're in another state. Playing the macho man and spoting off with the "you touch me I'll hurt you, sue you, ..." ain't impressing anyone here. More than likely should an event occur, that mentality won't get you far either. Playing the "ain't no way anyone detaining/searching me..." isn't always the best idea either. Ever think for a second that maybe, just maybe you DON'T know the exact scope of the law. I'm always amazed at how everyone seems to have law school educations. Yes, we live in the United States. However, that doesn't mean that everything you object to is a wrongful act against your rights. So many people are always in a hurry to say that something is a violation of a particular right. Once again...I'm always amazed at how everyone seems to have law school educations. I'm one of us that didn't atted law school. I did however graduate high in my class with a degree in law enforcement and worked for the local police dept. While I'm not educated on the laws of other states, I can tell you that in some places those "non-cops" (private security) gaurds CAN legally detain you under reasonable suspicion and may conduct a search under those same conditions. If you wan't to dispute it, don't bother doing it here. Prove it to all of us by acting suspicious and evasive at the local mall and see what occurs when you set your method of operations into effect with the security.

Oh, hey try flying and got going through the metal detecor or have your luggage get scanned/checked. I don't see any LEO badges on those people. Go ahead just waltz on through and then object to the search and "take them down painfully" You won't be landing in your intended destination.

I'm not a super frequent poster here at THR. I visit multiple times a day but seldom post unless I can offer a different side to a thread, or if no requested info has been given. From reading the threads over time, some members here earned my respect based solely on thier responses. This thread has dispelled a great deal of that respect for a number of people. Granted, none here proberly give a rat's a$$. I really don't either and more than likely the "know-alls" here wouldn't care if it were just them here to brag to each other. Mastrogiacomo...you have my respect!

 

[Andrew Rothman]

This entire thread has become ridiculous! Each state has is own unique laws /rules/regulations governing this type of stuff.....Ever think for a second that maybe, just maybe you DON'T know the exact scope of the law. I'm always amazed at how everyone seems to have law school educations. Yes, we live in the United States. However, that doesn't mean that everything you object to is a wrongful act against your rights.

Try paragraph breaks...please!

You are 100% correct that laws differ from state to state. The lesson here is that it would behoove each person in this discussion to actually look up their own state's laws (as several have).

But if you need a "law school education" to know what the law is, there is something horibly wrong with the law.

The average person with a high school education should be able to read and understand his state laws.

Oh, hey try flying and got going through the metal detecor or have your luggage get scanned/checked. I don't see any LEO badges on those people.

Sigh.

If you don't know the difference between a security guard acting on behalf of Macy's and a security guard acting on behalf of the federal government. I can't help you. I suspect that you do, though, so why compare apples and oranges?

I am never ready to assume that I should give up my rights. Why are you?

Matt

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Minnesota Law

Minnesota law says: (the highlighting is mine)

629.366 Theft in business establishments; detaining
suspects.

Subdivision 1. Circumstances justifying detention.
(a) A merchant or merchant's employee may detain a person if the
merchant or employee has reasonable cause to believe:

(1) that the person has taken, or is taking, an article of
value without paying for it, from the possession of the merchant
in the merchant's place of business or from a vehicle or
premises under the merchant's control;

(2) that the taking is done with the intent to wrongfully
deprive the merchant of the property or the use or benefit of
it; or

(3) that the taking is done with the intent to appropriate
the use of the property to the taker or any other person.

(b) Subject to the limitations in paragraph (a), a merchant
or merchant's employee may detain a person for any of the
following purposes:

(1) to require the person to provide identification or
verify identification;

(2) to inquire as to whether the person possesses
unpurchased merchandise taken from the merchant and, if so, to
receive the merchandise;

(3) to inform a peace officer; or

(4) to institute criminal proceedings against the person.

(c) The person detained shall be informed promptly of the
purpose of the detention and may not be subjected to unnecessary
or unreasonable force, nor to interrogation against the person's
will. A merchant or merchant's employee may not detain a person
for more than one hour unless:

(1) the merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the
person to a peace officer, in which case the person may be
detained until a peace officer has accepted custody of or
released the person; or

(2) the person is a minor, or claims to be, and the
merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the minor to a
peace officer or the minor's parent, guardian, or custodian, in
which case the minor may be detained until the peace officer,
parent, guardian, or custodian has accepted custody of the minor.

(d) If at any time the person detained requests that a
peace officer be summoned, the merchant or merchant's employee
must notify a peace officer immediately.

Subd. 2. Arrest. Upon a charge being made by a
merchant or merchant's employee, a peace officer may arrest a
person without a warrant, if the officer has reasonable cause
for believing that the person has committed or attempted to
commit the offense described in subdivision 1.

Subd. 3. Immunity. No merchant, merchant's employee,
or peace officer is criminally or civilly liable for any action
authorized under subdivision 1 or 2 if the arresting person's
action is based upon reasonable cause.

So it comes down to "reasonable cause". I wonder what the case law is on that.

I also note that there is no right for a merchant to search the person.

There's one state down. 49 to go!

Matt

 

[Ladybug]

Darnit, I was trying to stay away from this thread

Regarding people reading the laws in their state... as I said earlier I definately think this would behoove anyone who plans on putting something like this to the test. And no, generally you do not need a law school education to understand the law. HOWEVER, and mpayne hinted at this, reading the statutes will not give you all of the information - you have to read cases to understand how those laws really apply. Someone earlier thought that "vague" laws were unconstitutional.... phrases like "reasonable" are very common in statutes, and the only way you know what they really mean is to read how the courts have interpreted them.

I asked sentry earlier if he had read ALL of the statutes and cases pertaining to false imprisonment in his jurisdiction, and he said yes... I highly doubt that. I've read the AR statute on shoplifting and a merchant's right to detain people, plus a few cases that have been decided recently, and I feel pretty confindent that anyone on this thread who thinks they would win a lawsuit against their "mall ninja oppressors" would lose. But even so, there's nothing to say that the circumstances of that particular case might not be just different enough to let them win. Most importantly, IMO, is the fact that IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT!!! How much time, money, effort, aggravation are you really willing to expend to bring something as ridiculous as a security guard wanting to see what's in your bag to court? Me - none.

And for those who asked - in most places that I'm aware of - if one of those security detectors at the front door beep when you go out that IS sufficient grounds to detain you.... but again, if you just show them that you've done nothing wrong there won't be any need for that.

Finally let me just add this -- who do you think pays for shoplifting? YOU DO! If stores are not allowed to take protective measures to prevent theft, and they lose a certain percentage of their merchandise to shoplifting, YOU will pay for it by paying more for the things in that store.

 

[Matt G]

This thread's getting all over the place.

Originally, the question at hand was: "What to do if asked what's in the pack/purse/briefcase/pocket, when carrying?"

Then it's moved into a question of what rights security personnel have to stop and detain you. This is a pretty vague discussion topic, as we have posters here from 50 states, many more countries, numerous commonwealths, protectorates, and subdivisions, politically. If you're in the U.S., for example, you may be allowed [X] leeway as security person. If you're in a certain state, you then are restricted to [X]/[Y] lattitude. If you're in a certain county or city, you may be restricted to [X]/[Y]/[Z]/ activity. Add corporate policies and/or covenants of local groups, and you get [X]/[Y]/[Z]/[a]. And so on. There are so many permutations of this available, blanket statements on the subject are just silly.

Attacking each other is not just silly-- it's inappropriate here.

Please either attempt to address the topic at hand civilly, or refrain from posting here.

 

[TallPine]

I believe the original question involved having your personal items (clothing, briefcase, purse, etc) searched routinely upon entrance or exit to some property.

Of course, upon entry you should have the option to just refuse and leave.

There are no grounds to search everyone's personal effects upon exit of a place of business. That is outrageous and should be absolutely refused.

A "beeper" going off - that is a different issue ... I guess I would be ready to haughtily prove that the register clerk didn't do his/her job right

So before some of you get on a high horse and criticize some others for their reaction, you need to understand what the reaction is to.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

One more thing: At least in Minnesota, a person may be detained if they are reasonably believed to have stolen an article of value from a merchant.

On the other hand, a security guard at an apartment building may ask to see my bag, but I may refuse. That guard may ask me to leave, but may NOT detain me. If they do, it is assault and I may defend myself in accordance with state law.

----

One OTHER more thing....

I am sick unto death of the treatment at Sam's Club. After standing in a long line at the register, I am in no mood to stand in a long line at the exit door for some employee to "check the receipt" (count the items in my cart and compare it to the total items on the receipt).

My usual response, if there is a line, is to walk past the line and out the door. I have paid; my business with the store is concluded.

And I don't think I can be detained, either. Sam's can't hvae "reasonable cause" to believe that EVERY customer is a thief.

I talked to the manager about this. He said it is to "make sure the cashier didn't miss any items."

Tough noogies. It's not my responsibility to help train or audit their employees.

So far I have gotten yelled after, but never been stopped.

Matt

 

[Brian Dale]

MattG, I think it's been worth it ...

with the aside that personal attacks are always inappropriate here. There's been a lot of useful brain exercise going on, and here (IMO) Old Fuff has answered the question:

If for some reason you face a "pat-down" you should tell the security guard or police officer that you are carrying a handgun and that you have a valid license to do so. Then state that you will only submit to a search by a sworn police officer and no one else. If you are in a situation that would justify a search then you have a right to demand that the search be made by an officer, especially if you're carrying a gun. If you get any flack demand to speak to the store manager. I always make a point of carefully looking for "no guns" signs before I enter a building, and if there is one I don't go in. One's money should be spent in establishments where they, and their arms are welcome.

It's clear, concise and to the point. Thanks.

{Edited after reading MPayne's post, to add:} Matt, check the agreement that you signed when you joined Sam's Club. The "exit inventory" (I don't know what Sam's calls it) is something that I decided to put up with in exchange for money - I save a lot there on supplies. I knew their procedure before I signed the contract.

 

[BlkHawk73]

The "law school education" I was referring to was meant to be taken seriously. I was simply saying that people have thier idea of what is & is not legal. The majority of these people have likely never read the laws thier claiming to know or taken the time to learn the scope of these laws.
Apples to orages...a number of responders made it clear that unless the person wishing to question/search or detain them was a police officer, they had to leagl right to do anything that person asked for. Last I knew these airport security checkers were NOT LEOs - just as Macy's security is not LEOs. A LEO is a LEO. A sec agent is a sec agent. Apples to apples:banghead:

Now let me answer the original question at hand here. Since I have nothing illegal with me not committed any crime. I'd more than likely comply. I think first I'd question politely why.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

I said:

If you don't know the difference between a security guard acting on behalf of Macy's and a security guard acting on behalf of the federal government. I can't help you.

You said:

Apples to orages...a number of responders made it clear that unless the person wishing to question/search or detain them was a police officer, they had to leagl right to do anything that person asked for. Last I knew these airport security checkers were NOT LEOs - just as Macy's security is not LEOs. A LEO is a LEO. A sec agent is a sec agent. Apples to apples.

Nope.

A security guard is an AGENT of her employer, and thus has the same rights and obligations AS THE EMPLOYER. Turns out that the federal government has slightly different rights and obligations than Macy's.

Apples to watermelons!

(edit: oh, by the way, the civilian security screeners are NOT security guards. They are young and old, frail and hale, and are only responsible for scanning and customer interaction. Any detention or enforcement is handled by their backup -- which is law enforcement.)

Matt

 

[BluesBear]

My usual response, if there is a line, is to walk past the line and out the door. I have paid; my business with the store is concluded.

LOL! Pull that stunt in Washington State and you won't be a member for very long.

 

[Al Thompson]

Wow! What a whopper of a thread.. I don't get to this forum often..

Just for general info, here in South Carolina, a security officer on his employee's premises has the authority of a deputy sherrif.

We have had officers pursue a suspect on foot - right to the property line. Then it's observe and report or a citizen's arrest.

As for the search thing - it's "Sir/Ma'm can I see inside that bag? No? OK - please leave the premises, your tresspassing". EOS

 

[Hot brass]

as someone with a M.Ed. and Class A permit -- it be great if there were some security companies that could offer their employees more than an opportunity to use harsh language....



Maybe you should find a NEW type of employment.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Just for general info, here in South Carolina, a security officer on his employee's premises has the authority of a deputy sherrif.

Al, I looked at SC law and couldn't find a cite. Can you help?

 

[buzz_knox]

Security Gaurds have no more legal authority than any other citizen.

Depends on the state. In Tennessee, they essentially have LEO authority on the property they are protecting.

We have had officers pursue a suspect on foot - right to the property line. Then it's observe and report or a citizen's arrest.

Unless I'm mistaken, TN law allows for pursuit off the premises.

 

[Al Thompson]

Mpayne - it's SC code Title 40, chapter 18. Don't have a web address, but on the back of my card it states " Security officers shall have the authority and arrest power given to sheriffs deputies to arrest a person violating a criminal statue of this state but posses the powers of arrest only on the property on which the officer is employed."

HTH