Hah! I knew it. Thankyou for confirming my initial suspicions. So, you at
least (Matermind) would agree with me that if security forcibly detained
someone merely because the beeper went off, and there was no theft, they
WOULD BE liable to litigation, wouldn't they?



"Mastermind" ...@.... wrote in message
...
Sorry,

BUT YOU CANNOT be detain for further investigation by a store security.
Only police can detain for further investigation.

The store security cannot id you, he can just banned you from the store.
Either he places you under arrest because you shoplift or he let's you go.
He cannot stop you just because the alarm goes off at the exit of the
store. AND NO you cannot be held by police because you refused to identify
to a security gard. Only a police officer can detained you for failure to
indentify to a police officer. If you were arrested by a security guard
and you did not steal nothing, you could bring the company in civil court.

The receipt checking ant the exit alarms are there to help prevent
shoplifting not give a reason for the security agent to search you.

I work for a police department.




"anti spamjm" wrote in message
...
Not arrest so much as detain for further investigation.
You can also be detained for failing to comply with the store policy
requiring receipt checks. You could later be arrested and held by police
for refusing to identify yourself--and yes you will be held until you can
be positively identified either with or without your cooperation. If you
don't have time to stand in line--shop elsewhere or don't shop at all.
I'd rather have a bit of inconvenience than higher prices due to theft.

Aside from that I once benefited from the item check at a Costco. It
turned out that the clerk hadn't put several items into my cart after
ringing them in. Small items but about 200 bucks worth of stuff none the
less. Had they not checked the receipt, I'd have been out 200 bucks.
Next time you rush the lines give thought to that option. It could save
you money.

Tom H wrote:
There most definately IS a point to all of this --- one relating to the
legal balance between privacy vs protection of property (seriously OT, I
know), a very important point to the loss prevention dept and not
superfluous or trivial at all.
OK, if the penalty for refusing to permit a search is being banned,
every crook in town will show up one after the other and be subjected to
banning, whilst making off with a ton of plunder in the process.
Lets leave the question of whether or not there is another method of
detecting theft aside (which, duh, of course there is, this is simply a
"just for the sake of argument" question), lets just say the only method
of detecting theft was the beeper. OK, a guy goes through, beep beep,
"No, I didn't take anything, I'm not submitting.", "You are banned.",
"Fine, see you later ...", and another couple hundred dollars worth of
stuff walks out the door? That doesn't sound right.
My question is: doesn't the fact that the beeper went off give security
the right (Probable cause) to make an arrest, in the event that the
person refuses to submit to a search?

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"69FLH" wrote:


There's some ****ing people that just have too much time on their
hands.....

Yeah, I don't. That's why I didn't want to wait in the receipt check
line.


"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

In article , "nana"

wrote:


It is a condition of entry and there will be a Notice somewhere
stating
the
fact. If you do not wish to comply, then don't go in. Since you want
to
kick
up a fuss, they can ban you from the store.

How? Not sure how they'd even know who I am. If I don't stop for them
to
check my receipt, I'm sure not going to stop for them to take down my
name and information for future banning purposes and there's no law
that
says I have to.


I understand all these "what if" scenarios, but WHY would you want to
make a
complete ass of yourself, make yourself known as a troublemaker, get
yourself banned from these stores and besmirch your reputation?

Because it's just one more damn line to stand in. Shopping at Best buy
this past Christmas, I stood in line to get to the register for over
30
minutes, then when I finally get there and pay for my stuff, I walk
toward the doors only to find another line 20 people deep waiting to
have their receipt checked. At that point, I'd had enough of it and
just
walked around it and out the door.

The clerk guy didn't catch up with me till I was already at my car and
said he had to check my receipt. I said, no he didn't because if I
hadn't paid for what I walked out with, the alarms would have gone
off.
Since they didn't, I don't need to be searched. I got in my car and
drove off. I broke no law so there's nothing they could do. [And they
had no clue who I was so it's not like they could "ban" me, either. Of
course, I don't even live in that city so even if they did figure a
way
to ban me, so what?]

And how is that going to "besmirch my reputation"? It's not like the
whole world is going to know I decided to rebel against the receipt
search policy and even if they did, how that makes me look bad such
that
my reputation is besmirched, I'm not sure.

Somehow I think I could live with the "shame".

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:55:38 -0500, Mark wrote:

}Once again, the fact that it was completely defective will have nothing to do
}with it.

True, if the detector normally works OK and one time gave a false alarm
then you can make the argument under "good faith" that you thought it was
working correctly (since it had in the past). On the flip side, if the
detector goes off several times a day/week with false positives, then that
is an entirely different set of circumstances. That is reality.

BTW, I am NOT a lawyer (but did stay in a Holiday Inn G). However, I have
been a policeman for 22+ years now and have some experience with good faith
defenses (i.e. reasonable belief). I cannot speak for other states though
so we may both be right...

Going full circle to the original post, purposely triggering an alarm on
the hope of making some money later is just as bad as making an arrest
based on only an alarm going off...


Later,
Dave

I'm the Original Poster.
Dave, yes I couldn't agree more, but my question is this:
IF the security people had only the false beep to go on, and IF the
scurrilous fraudster was successfull in pulling the wool over everyone's
eyes, and IF the security people took the bait and manhandled him into a
back room(regardless of how likely this is to occur in reality , lets just
say for the sake of argument that it did) then, after all that, would not a
judge, MAYBE, award the guy(wrongly, of course, but he isn't in posession of
all the facts)compensation?
Isn't there even the slimmest possibility that, given those admittedly
unlikey conditions, the scurrilous fraudsters just MIGHT be successfull?
That's all my question was and I deeply regret any hard feelings or
arguments it may have caused.


"Dave Balcom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:55:38 -0500, Mark wrote:

}Once again, the fact that it was completely defective will have nothing
to do
}with it.

True, if the detector normally works OK and one time gave a false alarm
then you can make the argument under "good faith" that you thought it was
working correctly (since it had in the past). On the flip side, if the
detector goes off several times a day/week with false positives, then that
is an entirely different set of circumstances. That is reality.

BTW, I am NOT a lawyer (but did stay in a Holiday Inn G). However, I
have
been a policeman for 22+ years now and have some experience with good
faith
defenses (i.e. reasonable belief). I cannot speak for other states though
so we may both be right...

Going full circle to the original post, purposely triggering an alarm on
the hope of making some money later is just as bad as making an arrest
based on only an alarm going off...


Later,
Dave

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:45:09 -0500, Mark wrote:

}admissible (unless the store KNEW it was defective in advance).

I went back and re-read what you posted earlier. You left out the last 1/2
of that statement and what attorney's like to argue in court "or should
have known." The issue here is reliability and in my mind there is none
with these security devices. What if a judge and/or jury felt the same way
as I do based on the specifics of the case? Then you are open to all kinds
of civil problems which was my point. It would a crap shoot based on these
circumstance and risky.

}And what about someone driving a car identical to that of a bank robbery
}suspect who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Would it
}be wrong to stop and detain them as well for any period of time?

Not at all because in this example a crime had indeed occurred and the
vehicle fit the description given. In the previous example, no one saw
anything criminal or even suspicious but you say people can be physically
detained based solely upon an alarm at the door. Big difference...

Anyway, this is way off topic for a scanner group (I didn't cross post) so
I will drop it...

Later,
Dave

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:11:02 GMT, "Tom H" wrote:

}Isn't there even the slimmest possibility that, given those admittedly
}unlikey conditions, the scurrilous fraudsters just MIGHT be successfull?

With our legal system where people get awarded millions for hurting
themselves doing something stupid, YES, anything is possible. All it would
take is for a civil jury to find the store's actions to be "unreasonable"
and whammo. Now if they found the sensor behind your belt it may just work
in reverse...

In police work we talk about preferring to be "judged by 12 rather than
carried by 6." That is what it comes down to sometimes in deadly force
issues where a split second decision costs you dearly years down the road.
Your decision has be based on reason or you are screwed...

Later,
Dave

It DID die a few months ago, til someone revived it recently!


"Tom H" wrote in message
news:UwfFd.61441$8l.46534@pd7tw1no...
Thankyou Dave --- you have answered my question, and you oughta know. I
also think this thread is seriously OT for a scanner NG, and it's my last
post relating to this thread.



"john wilson" wrote in message
...
It's called private property. Malls and shopping centers are on
private
property and can establish whatever rules they wish regarding the use of
cellphones, radios, etc. If you don't like it move on. If you want to
enter the premises, leave the radios in the car. In addition to concern
regarding a radio's use for shoplifting is the concern of comparison
shopping. My son had a summer job at a Target Store in the mall and knew
of
more than one employee who was sent to Walmart to compare prices using an
HT. Not a good idea. However, I have been in Circuit City using my HT
and
talking through our local 444.275 mhz. repeater and had no problems. It
just depends on who allows what where.

wrote:

p.s. I did not steal these FRS radios. I bought them legally, and have
had them probably over a week now.

They were advertised as to keep in touch witg yur family (and locate
each other) at shoppng malls and parks.

of course, when you go to a shopping mall, you usually shop, and since
these radios were advertised for to be used at shopping malls,

it never even crossed my mind that just having them (turned off, not
transmitting, just having them) would set off the theft alarms of every
single store in the mall that I went into and out of both when I went in
and when I went out.

until. it happened to me today.

I did not have anything else with me that would have set off the theft
alarms, and I did not try to steal anything from any store.

The alarms must have detected the metal and went off when they did so.

So I imagine anyone carrying just a regular handheld scanner they have
to listen to would also acidentally set them off.

My purpose was communications since the radio I had was advetrised to be
used at the mall for personal communications with famly (to locate each
other when we're ready to leave).

Whose at fault here? The stores and mall or the radio manufacturers or
the FCC for allowing it (FRS) to be used for that purpose and promoting
it to be used that for purpose?

They'll all probably blame each other.

What I do know however, is that this can cause some very serious trouble
and very serious problems with people. such as

Theft alarms going off when people didn't steal anything and are just
legally carrying their FRS radios and getting picked up by mall security
and police for it, even if they didn't transmit anything. and were using
it the way it was intended to and advertised as.

Theft alarms going off when Liscened GMRS users are just carrying their
radios and getting picked up by mall security and police for it, even if
they didn't transmit anything, and were using it the way it was intended
to and advertised as.

Mall security and police going to a store where the theft allarm went
off because of a FRS user or liscened GMRS user just having their radio
with them, to be used as intended, while a real burglarly happens at a
different store in the same mall and all the security personnel and
police are at the store with the FRS or GMRS user because the theft
alarms went off just from the FRS user or GMRS user having their radio
with them. (not even transmitting anything).

Thankyou Dave --- you have answered my question, and you oughta know. I
also think this thread is seriously OT for a scanner NG, and it's my last
post relating to this thread.



"john wilson" wrote in message
...
It's called private property. Malls and shopping centers are on private
property and can establish whatever rules they wish regarding the use of
cellphones, radios, etc. If you don't like it move on. If you want to
enter the premises, leave the radios in the car. In addition to concern
regarding a radio's use for shoplifting is the concern of comparison
shopping. My son had a summer job at a Target Store in the mall and knew
of
more than one employee who was sent to Walmart to compare prices using an
HT. Not a good idea. However, I have been in Circuit City using my HT
and
talking through our local 444.275 mhz. repeater and had no problems. It
just depends on who allows what where.

wrote:

p.s. I did not steal these FRS radios. I bought them legally, and have
had them probably over a week now.

They were advertised as to keep in touch witg yur family (and locate
each other) at shoppng malls and parks.

of course, when you go to a shopping mall, you usually shop, and since
these radios were advertised for to be used at shopping malls,

it never even crossed my mind that just having them (turned off, not
transmitting, just having them) would set off the theft alarms of every
single store in the mall that I went into and out of both when I went in
and when I went out.

until. it happened to me today.

I did not have anything else with me that would have set off the theft
alarms, and I did not try to steal anything from any store.

The alarms must have detected the metal and went off when they did so.

So I imagine anyone carrying just a regular handheld scanner they have
to listen to would also acidentally set them off.

My purpose was communications since the radio I had was advetrised to be
used at the mall for personal communications with famly (to locate each
other when we're ready to leave).

Whose at fault here? The stores and mall or the radio manufacturers or
the FCC for allowing it (FRS) to be used for that purpose and promoting
it to be used that for purpose?

They'll all probably blame each other.

What I do know however, is that this can cause some very serious trouble
and very serious problems with people. such as

Theft alarms going off when people didn't steal anything and are just
legally carrying their FRS radios and getting picked up by mall security
and police for it, even if they didn't transmit anything. and were using
it the way it was intended to and advertised as.

Theft alarms going off when Liscened GMRS users are just carrying their
radios and getting picked up by mall security and police for it, even if
they didn't transmit anything, and were using it the way it was intended
to and advertised as.

Mall security and police going to a store where the theft allarm went
off because of a FRS user or liscened GMRS user just having their radio
with them, to be used as intended, while a real burglarly happens at a
different store in the same mall and all the security personnel and
police are at the store with the FRS or GMRS user because the theft
alarms went off just from the FRS user or GMRS user having their radio
with them. (not even transmitting anything).

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:32 -0500, "Lou" wrote:

}It DID die a few months ago, til someone revived it recently!

Sorry! I just started following this group a few months ago after
purchasing a BC250D, a fine scanner I might add...

Later,
Dave

I don't think it was "you" that "really" did it... Although, a different
name would have certainly killed it, if you were looking for info regarding
your BC250D... But, be that as it may, it could die now.... just change the
subject or drop it!

As to the BC 250D, can't say I've seen one. If it is anything like the 250,
I owned one of them and was happy with it.

Lou

"Dave Balcom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:32 -0500, "Lou" wrote:

}It DID die a few months ago, til someone revived it recently!

Sorry! I just started following this group a few months ago after
purchasing a BC250D, a fine scanner I might add...

Later,
Dave

Ok, so lets all stop posting to this thread then ...

(joke)


"Lou" wrote in message
o.verio.net...
I don't think it was "you" that "really" did it... Although, a different
name would have certainly killed it, if you were looking for info regarding
your BC250D... But, be that as it may, it could die now.... just change the
subject or drop it!

As to the BC 250D, can't say I've seen one. If it is anything like the
250, I owned one of them and was happy with it.

Lou

"Dave Balcom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:32 -0500, "Lou" wrote:

}It DID die a few months ago, til someone revived it recently!

Sorry! I just started following this group a few months ago after
purchasing a BC250D, a fine scanner I might add...

Later,
Dave