New Zealand ID?

[matthewt]

P.S.
all this is on the base of assumption that the sign is non-mistakable.
i.e., the sign is displayed clearly in big size on the entrance, the entrance cannot be mistaken, and let's assume (for argument's sake) that 99.9% people will see it, unless they choose not to (like deliberately engage in a deep conversation, or walk in with eyes closed, or deliberately look down on the floor).

I went into one of the larger warehouse's today in bike gear + full backpack to pick up a dvd. On the way in I was looking for but didn't see any signs warning me about rules of entry or anything like it. The security guy saw me enter and leave without asking about my backpack (which came off so I could get my wallet out of the side pocket).

[spudchucka]

How is "good cause" defined ?? Does this mean if you refuse to give constent they simply arrest you, search your bag and then let you go if they find nothing ??

Well that is a possability but in reality if police were called to a shop to deal with a suspected shoplifter and a staff member says that they saw the person pocket something then that will be quite sufficient as good cause to suspect, which the officer must form in their mind before arresting someone.

If it was later found that it was all a big misunderstanding then the person can be released without charge and the officer has done nothing wrong as they had "good cause to suspect". The key word being "suspect".

[matthewt]

Well that is a possability but in reality if police were called to a shop to deal with a suspected shoplifter and a staff member says that they saw the person pocket something then that will be quite sufficient as good cause to suspect, which the officer must form in their mind before arresting someone.

If it was later found that it was all a big misunderstanding then the person can be released without charge and the officer has done nothing wrong as they had "good cause to suspect". The key word being "suspect".

I suppose what I was trying to find out was that if the shop saw nothing and the officer was just annoyed that I had (politely) not given consent could he then arrest me and take it from there.

Does it come down to the officer as to whether or not they think I won't give consent because I have something to hide (in the bag that is) or I'm just trying to protect my rights ??

I accept that if the shop had seen me put something in my bag (maybe my own sunglasses for example) then it would be fair enough to suspect maybe I'd flogged something.

[SPman]

Just look at how the US is going with it's "Patriot" act.

And Patriot 2 is even worse.
They (and others), seem to have lost sight of one of the sayings of one of their their founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin -
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

[Marmoot]

Then, for proving your suspicion, you have to call the cops.

So, too add to the can of worms, if we remember that you have no rights to detain somebody in your shop without their consent (as this would technically mean kidnapping, right?), the person can just say you're being ridiculous and walk out of your shop.
Then, if the police cannot find the person, the case will not be resolved. You could just be paranoid, but hey you could also be missing something from your shop. And if you do, then there's no way to prevent it in the first place since you don't have the right to detain the person until proven unguilty, or to search the bag to prove his innocence.

Wow, civil liberty......looks like a liberty to one is a liability to others, eh?
(And, if it is like that, I bet there are a lot of people abusing that system already....)

Or is there a detail that I missed?

Come to think of it, if we deem ourselves to virtually limitless freedom, as is the goal of civil liberty, then what about other people's freedom?
For example, I can say I have right to throw my cigarette butt out of my car's window, and there's nothing you can do to stop me even if it lands on your lap. Is that too extreme? But that would be an example of MY civil liberty, eh?

[MikeL]

Wow, civil liberty......looks like a liberty to one is a liability to others, eh?
Come to think of it, if we deem ourselves to virtually limitless freedom, as is the goal of civil liberty, then what about other people's freedom?

This, surely, is what makes the law so fascinating and so exasperating. It has to reconcile diametric opposites (your freedom and my rights). It is also what makes the law so necessary. Without it, we are savages, with only the law of the jungle.

[Skyryder]

In the light of this, then what's the difference of "the conditions of entry for a concert" and "the conditions of entry for a Warehouse Store" (provided that it is given in big letters right at the entrance)?
Because, if they are the same, then effectively the Warehouse has the right to search your bag since, by entering, you have given consent to that conditions, am I wrong?
If they are not the same, how can a law be different for similar situations?

P.S.
all this is on the base of assumption that the sign is non-mistakable.
i.e., the sign is displayed clearly in big size on the entrance, the entrance cannot be mistaken, and let's assume (for argument's sake) that 99.9% people will see it, unless they choose not to (like deliberately engage in a deep conversation, or walk in with eyes closed, or deliberately look down on the floor).

Let me use the case of blind person. In law they have no more and no less rights than ourselves. A blind person goes to a concert and the security guard asks him if he can look in his bag. The blind person refuses. He does not go to the concert. Security is acting on the orders of the promoter who has hired the venue for the night duration or whatever. You can be refused admission for security reasons. The choice is yours. Accept the conditions of entry or leave. Your bag is searched with your permission before entering the property. You get to see the concert. In the case of a retail store there may be a sighn to the effect that your bag MUST be opened as a condition of entry but in the case of our blind man who does not see the sign and even if he was told and he agreed as a condition of entry he still has the right to chang his mind if he so chooses and invoke his legal rights. Marmoot the conditions of entry are not the same they are entirely different. One is a search prior to entry and one is after entry. Both the concert promoter and the store do have the right to refuse entry for whatever reason they choose but the store can not carry out an illegal search as a matter of policy after you have left the store: period.

Skyryder

Skyryder

[Marmoot]

Skyryder: I can see your point in that, but I think we approached the problem from different perspective.

I was not talking about the different conditions of entry (1 is 'search before entry' and the other is 'search after entry'), but rather 'complying to a condition of entry'.

Suppose if there is a guard saying to every coming guest to the Warehouse "hey, if you go in with your bag, we will have to search it on your exit", would it give the shop the right to search the bag?
(in other word: "hey, this is my condition. If you want to go in, you have to abide it")

In that case, would the shop have, or not have, the right to search? :spudwhat:

[Skyryder]

How is "good cause" defined ?? Does this mean if you refuse to give constent they simply arrest you, search your bag and then let you go if they find nothing ??

Good cause or 'reasonable cause can be fined as 'your' actions that may lead the observer to believe that an offence "may" have been commited. Let us suppose you are an asmhatic and have entered a store carrying a bag. The security camera has captured you opening your bag so that you can use your inhaler. Now just as you pull the inhaler out of you bag to use another customer blocks the view so that the camera does no capture the reason for yourself to open the bag in the store. You take a couple of puffs and place your inhaler back into your bag just as you come back into camera view. You have been captured on camera opeing your bage and closing it for no apperant reason. That would be reasonble cause and you could be detained by the police and searched under such circumstances by the police and not by the stores security. Refusing to give your consent is your right and can not be used as reasonable cause. Hope this helps


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Skyryder: I can see your point in that, but I think we approached the problem from different perspective.

I was not talking about the different conditions of entry (1 is 'search before entry' and the other is 'search after entry'), but rather 'complying to a condition of entry'.

Suppose if there is a guard saying to every coming guest to the Warehouse "hey, if you go in with your bag, we will have to search it on your exit", would it give the shop the right to search the bag?
(in other word: "hey, this is my condition. If you want to go in, you have to abide it")

In that case, would the shop have, or not have, the right to search? :spudwhat:

What you are saying is that the guard is telling the customers what the sighn says that as a condition of entry you 'must' allow your bag to be searched / inspected. Makes no difference sighn wise or verbal wise

They (security guards) do not have the right to search you bag. Even if you agreed as a condition of entry you have the right to change your mind. This agreement should not be confused with a contractual agreement. A contract is an agreement where there is an exchange that has been agreed by two or more parties. You go into the Warehouse and purchase one of their items. You agree to pay what they ask with the understanding that if you are not satisfied then you will get a refund by producing proof that you puchased the article from one of their stores. In other words you have agreed to their terms and conditions and pay the correct price. They have also agreed by way of contract that if you are not satisfied, you get the refund. An exchange has taken place. Not so with an agreement where no exchange takes place. No goods or services have been provided and no money has changed hands. Tell the security guard to SOD OFF.



Skyryder

[Marmoot]

What you are saying is that the guard is telling the customers what the sighn says that as a condition of entry you 'must' allow your bag to be searched / inspected. Makes no difference sighn wise or verbal wise

They (security guards) do not have the right to search you bag. Even if you agreed as a condition of entry you have the right to change your mind. This agreement should not be confused with a contractual agreement. A contract is an agreement where there is an exchange that has been agreed by two or more parties. You go into the Warehouse and purchase one of their items. You agree to pay what they ask with the understanding that if you are not satisfied then you will get a refund by producing proof that you puchased the article from one of their stores. In other words you have agreed to their terms and conditions and pay the correct price. They have also agreed by way of contract that if you are not satisfied, you get the refund. An exchange has taken place. Not so with an agreement where no exchange takes place. No goods or services have been provided and no money has changed hands. Tell the security guard to SOD OFF.
Skyryder

Then what about the term "Verbal Agreement"? I know that the Law admits Verbal Agreement. Wouldn't the case of "security guard" in my example be a case of verbal agreement between the customer and the shop then?
If it is, then one party cannot change its mind without the consent of the other party, right?

Even if I am off and it is true according to your example that the customer have the right to change their mind, that would mean that if they change their mind about the search consequently they have to change the decision on entering the premises too, right? Which means, if they suddenly change their mind and refuse the guard to inspect the bag, at that instant they have to immediately exit the premises. And this means at that INSTANT, not at the moment when the guard ask to search the bag upon exit.

Another interesting point is: the condition of entry states "if you come in you have to agree for us to search your bag upon exit". That means, once you agree, you are bound to be searched upon exit. That means once you enter, you have done your part of action and that is irreversible. As an analogy to your example about contract, your 'coming in' would mean 'your payment', and that would be bound to the term and condition of the shop which is 'your bag being searched'. Would it not?

Did I miss something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[spudchucka]

I suppose what I was trying to find out was that if the shop saw nothing and the officer was just annoyed that I had (politely) not given consent could he then arrest me and take it from there.

Does it come down to the officer as to whether or not they think I won't give consent because I have something to hide (in the bag that is) or I'm just trying to protect my rights ??

I accept that if the shop had seen me put something in my bag (maybe my own sunglasses for example) then it would be fair enough to suspect maybe I'd flogged something.

Its a subjective thing to a certain degree but to me just a refusal to allow the bag to be searched would not be enough to have good cause to suspect and then arrest. The circumstances would have to contribute to the suspition as in the shoplifter seen putting something in their pocket or bag and trying to leave the store without paying.

In reality the cops wouldn't even likely attend a job where a shopper had refused to have their bag inspected unless there was more to it than just a refusal to allow the search.

[spudchucka]

Tell the security guard to SOD OFF.
Skyryder

Fair enough if you feel that strongly about civil liberties but I really can't see how opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Whenever I've done it they just take a very quick look and say thanks, they don't actually search it by rumaging through it. In fact if they did put their hands into a persons bag they would be opening themselves up for all sorts of allegations to be made against them.

Its not like they are asking you to drop your dacks and in reality thats probably how more stolen goods makes it out of shops than in bags.

[Skyryder]

Fair enough if you feel that strongly about civil liberties but I really can't see how opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Whenever I've done it they just take a very quick look and say thanks, they don't actually search it by rumaging through it. In fact if they did put their hands into a persons bag they would be opening themselves up for all sorts of allegations to be made against them.

Its not like they are asking you to drop your dacks and in reality thats probably how more stolen goods makes it out of shops than in bags.

Yes you are right the security guards do not place their hands in bags. They can if necessary ask you to accompany them to the managers office and ask you to empty the contents out. That is what happened to myself and in this I refused. I am in no postion to critisize you in anyway as to the reason why you allow your bag to be 'searched' and looking into your private property is a search. You state in your post that you really can't see how opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Yes I do consider it offensive for a complete stranger to insist that he/she has the right to look in my bag as a matter of the store's policy. As an honest customer I refuse to allow myself to be treated as a suspect on the basis of policy. One of the reasons that this is so prevalent in New Zealand is precisely because of what you stated. opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Next time you are asked to open your bag try a little self respect. It realy is good for personal development.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Then what about the term "Verbal Agreement"? I know that the Law admits Verbal Agreement. Wouldn't the case of "security guard" in my example be a case of verbal agreement between the customer and the shop then?
If it is, then one party cannot change its mind without the consent of the other party, right?

Did I miss something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I understand the law it allows for verbal contracts not verbal ageements. The contract itself will have agreements but in essence a contract is a contractual arangment between two or more parties for goods or services to be provided and paid for in the manner that the contract defines. I am not a lawyer so I am unable to define this in legal terms. There is no contract between the customer and store owner to enter the store. You may wish to purchase an item you may not. You may allow the secrity guard to search you bag you may not. It makes no difference if you agreed before entering the store. If you tell the guard that you will not allow a bag search the guard can prevent your entry into the store. But he does not have the right to search your bag without your permission and you have the right to change your mind. Period. No matter what you said.

Did you miss something??

Yes you did. Your rights to privacy take precedent over unfounded suspicion. Hope this is clear.

Ride safe. Ride hard Stay sharp.

Skyryder