Freep KMart on exit-door search policy

[MarthaNOStewart]

The Bill of Rights ..Fourth Amendment is not just the Federal Government... "secure in their persons"..that's anytime, anywhere!!

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[MarthaNOStewart]

If I pay my taxes, and don't bother my neighbors..WHAT RIGHT do you have to complain about my yard, my house paint or anything else on my property!! Sounds like you are part of the "environment police". I think too many laws have been passed to "control" the homeowner, and violate the "right to privacy". Such as the laws in NC that a person can be fined for a broken window, and an inspection can "automatically" be done, violating the Fourth Amendment..and fines can be levied, which I doubt will help the poor soul in purchasing a new window in first place.

[Cultural Jihad]

Thanks for all of your contributions to this post. I can see both sides of the issue. Since the shopper is on someone's private property, and they choose to have a policy in place of searching bags after entry and/or before exit, the shopper is in ultimate control by their ability to vote with their wallet. Concurrently, the shopper is under no compulsion by law to submit to the policy, although it would bespeak a certain small-mindedness to not do so. We should all be so lucky to have to suffer through such big problems in life as being asked to reveal what is in the bag that a clerk just handed us. It hardly rises to the level of a Constitutional crisis. Let's kick Democrats out of office instead of ranting about inconsequential events. As an aside, calling the nice gentleman at the door a 'Nazi' does a grave injustice to the real victims of Nazi terror.

[willoboughy]

I have one more suggestion.....when they stop you, say no, go to customer service and return everything you just bought. They don't always stop people where I shop; it's just sporatic. I've started checking out thru the garden dept. because the door is right there and they don't stop you at that entrance/exit. When Walmart started their policy, my daughter and I had just done some shopping there. When we got home, we found she had about $25 dollars worth of goods that she had not paid for. We had to go back to the store and she paid for them, pointing out that their policy didn't stop her. Apparently, the cashier missed the items. What they need to do is train their employees a bit better and stop making their customers feel like theives.

[freebilly]

This is why I don't have a Costco membership.)

You are missing a lot of bargains my FR frined

Great, let's allow ourselves to be treated like criminals in order to save .15/roll of toilet paper.

Personally, I never shop at places like this. If they treat you like sh!t when you're buying something, what will they treat you like when the item has a problem and needs to be returned or replaced?

Sometimes the money you save ain't worth the price that you pay.

[Sparqi]

Thanks for all the comments; I posted about eight hours ago and got 40 responses. Glad to see this level of activity even if the responses weren't always in my favor. Wanted to point out a few things, generalizing heavily on some of the responses:

1. "Vote with your feet". A viable suggestion, but it seems like a retreat strategy. After a while other stores start doing it, and potentially it becomes an accepted practice by virtue of prevelance.

2. "Stores need to control shrinkage, this helps keeps prices low." One or two posters correctly noted that the majority of retail shrinkage loss occurs via employees, not shoplifters.

3. "Stores have the right to do on private property as they wish." I don't think this is de facto in any legal sense, and further I don't think such a view has been taken by courts over the years. There are many cases where a shopper has been searched without probable cause, and the courts have usually found against the merchant. I think the reason why is that the language of the Fourth Amendment is fairly clear; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Nothing in there talks about time or place. Here's a thought experiment which I think proves my point: You are visiting someone's home, and as you leave the homeowner explains that they've had problems with theft recently and would like (just as a precaution) to search you. Do they have a right to do so, simply because you are on their property, and would you consent to the search? By entering someone's property do you implicitly waive some or all of your own Constitutional rights in favor of their desires to conduct their affairs or business in a certain manner? I grant that stores which make it a condition of patronage (Costco) have this right, but the "Yer on mah propitty" argument doesn't pass muster.

4. "Quitcher bitchin and suck it up." Not sure what to make of this. Last time I checked this was the Activism section of FR. Maybe I posted in Inactivism by mistake? ;)

...dtw

[Prodigal Son]

Ummm... not in THIS state - they have to see you select an item from within the store and conceal it. Then, and only then, could they detain you. At that point, if you refuse to turn the item over, they would be forced to call the police and THEY would perform the search...

Well, basically that would be the way it would happen in your house too (you'd detain and call the police). I don't want to really get into gymnastics over the comparison because that wasn't what I was getting at. The good strong reason in the store's case would be them seeing you take the item.

The poster I responded to had the scenario of selling a chest in his home, leaving the room, coming back and noticing that other items were gone (presumedly stashed in the chest). My point had been (which I probably didn't make clear enough) that then you would have a reason to act, just as the store would if they had a strong reason to suspect you took an item (ie- the store detective saw you). But if you had sold the chest in your home, made out the receipt in front of your buyer and took his money- what reason then would you legally have to detain? None, in my book. This is where the analogy was somewhat flawed, because in a store nobody's going to look at any given shelf and say "hmmm- one of the Barbie Dolls is missing" and immediately think one particular person must be responsible.

But bottom line, if the store has no hard reason to suspect you in theft, they also cannot detain you.

[doglot]

You have done the unacceptable. You told the truth. Expect to be flamed for your honesty.

[DC native]

I am well aware that I have no value. Thanks for driving the point home.

[Labyrinthos]

If they press the issue, remind them that the Fourth Amendment guarantees your right against illegal searches. (Sometimes this is hard to explain, because the checker is not an American citizen.)

The concept is obviously difficult for many American citizens: Please allow me to explain this again: The Constitution in general, the Bill of Right in particular, and the Fourth Amendment specifically, apply only to the conduct of the government as against the people. The Constitution generally does not govern the conduct of private persons, including corporations. If you don't like K-Mart's policy, then don't shop there, or better yet, go waste your money on an attorney to sue K-Mart for wrongful detention.

[glory]

Agreed. I personally have no problem with it and cheerily submit my Sam's club reciepts and merchandise to the person at the door--never been an inconvenience since your things aren't even bagged at Sam's anyway and if it keeps the prices lowered--WONDERFUL. The only people I can see having a problem with this are those extremists on the search issue who think it applies to more than gov and thieves. Oh for that Dog Gone would be the door checker ready to challenge the notion of where the 4th amend applies;-)

[Blackdakota]

Do you get upset at License checkpoints too?

[glory]

Well thing is that many stores are now checking employees on the way out too so they aren't targeting only customers. In fact some stores even inspect employees over customers. I had a short stint at Lowe's and they inspected our purses before we left as did Hallmark when I worked for them.

[KneelBeforeZod]

doesn't the offender have to leave the store with the stolen merchandise

no!

[LibKill]

I realize that shoplifting is a problem, but not hiring scumbags would be a better solution to stop the loss.

They pay peanuts and should not be surprised that they wind up with (some) monkeys working for them.

[glory]

Read my post, many companies are doing this and as for a cashier being in cahoots, well wouldn't a policy like Sam's prevent this(the checking of EVERY reciept to the merchandise). At this point then the only person you'd have to keep your eye on would be back stock when shipments come in and the person checking the reciepts.

[alisasny]

How do you prosecute if the merchandise never left store?

Frankly I find it a rare day that a shoplifter is actually arrested and convicted.

[glory]

LOL--that has been my experience in retail. They do not like to be inspected however they are very critical of the help and scrutinize every detail of the transaction and are likely very accusatory or impatient if you make a mistake. They usually have the attitude that every person in retail is a loser or teen who can't get a job anywhere else. I love the times I would run across those says this stay at home mom who CHOOSES retail periodically for it's flexibility, love of holiday shopping times, DISCOUNTS(great ones on special orders in home improvment stores) and because I enjoy it. They usually back down too when they realize the person they are dealing with is no dummy like they snobbishly assumed on thier way out. Good riddance I say!

[KneelBeforeZod]

FRY'S EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION

if you've been to Fry's, you'll get a laugh out of this.

[Chad Fairbanks]

It might work, but not always. I suppose the question should be whether a store should treat all customers like they were suspected thieves just because they hire dishonest employees...

I see both sides of this issue, and have been on both sides of this issue... there is no easy answer to any of this... which just goes to show the lack of morals and character today...