Pyrian on 6/9/2007 at 21:42
Quote Posted by LesserFollies
The quiet, non-glorious kind, as opposed to making a big scene in public, acting like a tough guy, and being able to write about it and be thought of as a hero?
That's working out well for him, isn't it? :laff:
SubJeff on 6/9/2007 at 21:45
But that is the point of having rights, isn't it? Each person, regardless of their own personal history, has certain rights in certain situations. We don't live if a minute by minute updated meritocracy ffs.
"Oh, he gave to the cats so we'll let him off this time, but THAT guy... he spent all his money on burritos so screw him."
I eased more pain than you today so I get final say on this, yeah? Whatever.
mopgoblin on 6/9/2007 at 21:59
Quote Posted by Pyrian
He does not have the right to walk out of the store without having store property checked. I'm dubious as to whether he has the
right to walk out of the store without even his own property being checked; "unreasonable search and seizure" does not usually extend that far.
The right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is usually taken to imply, at a minimum, that no person acting as an agent of the government, or exercising any power conferred on them by law, may search a person or their property without either probable cause (in this case, a genuine and reasonable belief that you're trying to steal something), or the consent of the person being searched. Refusing to consent cannot create probable cause (otherwise, the right would mean bugger all in practice). Nor does entering or leaving a store create probable cause in the absence of other evidence. Similarly, the right to freedom from arbitrary detainment means that they can't physically stop you from leaving without probable cause. They can (for <em>almost</em> any reason) stop you from entering the store in future, refuse to trade with you further, and tell you to leave, but that's about it.
Quote:
He
was involved in the investigation of a
suspected crime. I mean, c'mon, both sides were blunt about the cop being surprised that the bag he didn't want searched didn't contain contraband.
What suspected crime would that be? There was no probable cause regarding theft, and refusing or resisting a search under those circumstances is not a crime.
Turtle on 6/9/2007 at 22:10
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I just don't believe that some of these things are rights at all.
He does not have the right to walk out of the store without having store property checked. I'm dubious as to whether he has the
right to walk out of the store without even his own property being checked; "unreasonable search and seizure" does not usually extend that far. Certainly I've never heard of any right to not be frisked for weapons, which is what that "right" would imply.
Equally, I would argue that the store employee does not have the right to search a person just because they were in their store. So far the law agrees with me.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
He
was involved in the investigation of a
suspected crime. I mean, c'mon, both sides were blunt about the cop being surprised that the bag he didn't want searched didn't contain contraband.
Who suspected that there was a crime committed? The store employee never accused him of stealing as far as we know.
Tonamel on 6/9/2007 at 22:15
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
person acting as an agent of the government, or exercising any power conferred on them by law
But I think we can all agree that the store's manager isn't an agent of the government, which means the whole "unreasonable search and seizure" thing doesn't apply here, because that's not what's being violated.
I'm not learned enough about the legalities of this, but it's more about how people (as in normal, everyday people) aren't allowed to rummage through your personal effects without your consent. I'm sure the women here would agree that they'd never let Circuit City Guy rummage through their purses to look for a stolen iPod Shuffle, so why does it make a difference that it's a shopping bag being looked through instead of a purse?
The guy's paid for it, so it's no longer the concern of the store.
Turtle on 6/9/2007 at 22:24
Quote Posted by Tonamel
But I think we can all agree that the store's manager isn't an agent of the government, which means the whole "unreasonable search and seizure" thing doesn't apply here, because that's not what's being violated.
In this case I think it would be unlawful detention for the CC employees and unlawful arrest for the police officer.
*Zaccheus* on 6/9/2007 at 22:26
Excelent points, mopgoblin.
mopgoblin on 6/9/2007 at 22:27
Quote Posted by Tonamel
But I think we can all agree that the store's manager isn't an agent of the government, which means the whole "unreasonable search and seizure" thing doesn't apply here, because that's not what's being violated.
True, but in order to detain or search a person without consent they have to use an exception to the law (both statute law and common law, I expect) that forbids detainment or searches in general; this is the exercise of a power conferred by law.
*Zaccheus* on 6/9/2007 at 22:29
Unless you live in the UK. :(
Sinister Handed on 6/9/2007 at 23:58
Quote Posted by Turtle
The police do
not have the right to demand his ID, because he is not involved in the investigation of any crime, or suspected crime.
Tocky's case was different, because the police were carrying out an investigation which let them to believe that he may be the person they were looking for. A mistake, sure, but a situation where they are within their authority to ask for ID to ensure that he's not that person.
Just to nitpick a little, the police never have a right to
demand your actual ID card unless you're doing something that requires you to carry ID to perform that act (IE- operating a motor vehicle). However, I'm never violating anyone's rights by
asking someone for their ID at any time, whether I have reasonable suspicion/probable cause or not.
