New Zealand ID?

[matthewt]

But, now coming back to the beginning, consider this situation:I'm working in a Hotel, where the management require a photo ID upon check in.

But that really comes down to the Hotels policy. If they insist on a photoID then they can. It may mean that they lose a small % of clients but they may consider that a small price to pay for the added security of knowing the person in the presidential suite isn't using a stolen Amex.

[Marmoot]

Pete: it is all a "just in case" scenario, but I cant blame you. It is a cheap hotel, and I understand everyone has their preference.

But, anyhow, say you own a hotel, would you admit someone paying cash only to go in without ID? And, if you do, what would you think when the next morning the person is already gone along with your tv and most of the bed things? I mean, what's stopping them? And, the next thing in your mind is that you don't even have that person's real name.

Any idea for this situation?

P.S.
The reason I'm asking this is that I'm trying to think about a system that is, while enabling good security, is also convenient as much as possible to the guests.

[Firefight]

Been thinking about this one Marmoot, some companies will ask for a copy of a power bill or rates demmand made out in your name ?, not as good as photo ID, but must give some extra security ?? what do you think , ? would it work in your case.

F/F

[Marmoot]

That power bill (etc) is for establishing your address. But it only works when they already know your name (thus why normally they would require 2 forms of ID. 1 for establishing your name, and the other to establish your address).

Currently my place requires either Passport, student ID, drivers license, or credit card with picture. Basically anything with picture.

That brings another debate into mind as well. What do you think of an establishment's right to inspect your bags if you go into it (Warehouse comes to mind)?
I mean, you have your initial choice of going in or not, right? So, if you do choose to go in, doesn't that give them the right to inspect your bag? You're in their property afterall?

[James Deuce]

That power bill (etc) is for establishing your address. But it only works when they already know your name (thus why normally they would require 2 forms of ID. 1 for establishing your name, and the other to establish your address).

Currently my place requires either Passport, student ID, drivers license, or credit card with picture. Basically anything with picture.

That brings another debate into mind as well. What do you think of an establishment's right to inspect your bags if you go into it (Warehouse comes to mind)?
I mean, you have your initial choice of going in or not, right? So, if you do choose to go in, doesn't that give them the right to inspect your bag? You're in their property afterall?

No they can't inspect your bag unless a Police person is present. Though most people cave immediately. You might be in their property, but the bag is your property.

I've solved it by never going in to the Warehouse carrying a bag.

[Marmoot]

never carry a bag is a good idea.

However, how about the argument of condition of entry? I think a condition of entry holds as long as the premises owner makes it clear in front before someone goes into the shop, right?

Amazing how complex legalities can become once you're involved in a customer-based business.....I wish I'm just a simple programmer....

[Skyryder]

No they can't inspect your bag unless a Police person is present. Though most people cave immediately. You might be in their property, but the bag is your property.

I've solved it by never going in to the Warehouse carrying a bag.

Not even the Police can inspect your bag WITHOUT A WARRENT. And the warrent must specify the property that the police believe that the bag contains. In other words they can not go on a 'fishing expedition.' Now here is another myth. The Police can search without a warrent for drugs. Yes they can but they must have 'reasonable cause.'

I never let any security guard at any shop inspect my bag for whatever reason. I have on one occasion even refused the Police when they were called by the stores Manager. My wife is a JP and on that occasion I used my cell phone to let her know what was happening. She made one call and about five minutes later the officer recieved a radio transmission and I was aloud to leave. Before doing so I insisted that the officer instruct the store manager the legal rights that his customers had. Then I invoked the stores policy of refunded goods and personally refused to leave the managers office untill this was complied with. Then I opened my bag and told them that they had needlessly not only lost a sale but a customer also. I do not often put in the boot but on this occassion I just could not resist.

Skyryder

PS Someone mentioned a condition of entry. When you for arguments sake go to a concert or a sports match the venue organisers can prohibit you from entering the grounds if you refuse a visual search of bags etc. They can reserve right of entry, as can a bar resturant etc. In this you are informed before you enter the premises. In other words you are not only given the choice but also give lawful information. In this the choice is yours. You agree to the terms and conditions of entry or you leave. No one has the right to enter private property. However in retail stores a sign that says something to the effect that YOU MUST allow the inspection of your bag is not only wrong in law but what happens if for some reason you do not see it. Have you forfieted your rights simply by a lack of observation? I think not.

[FROSTY:Me]

good onya dude.
Actually on saturday baby bikie and I "stole " A pair of shoes.
He was trying em on and diddnt want to take em off--so I pulled the tag off and put it on the checkout counter for the guy to scan -he screwed em up and threw em away -dang it I diddnt notice till I got home i haddnt paid for em

[spudchucka]

Hey Spud, if you're going to quote me don't cut and paste the middle out. When I said exactly (in bold) it had nothing to do with the dna thing.

Thanks for clearing the DNA bit up though.

Whats the big deal? I didn't delette the "EXACTLY"? So what?? I was only as you say clearing up the DNA matter. Whats the point in quoting back the rest of your post as it was not relevant to my reply?

[spudchucka]

Not even the Police can inspect your bag WITHOUT A WARRENT. And the warrent must specify the property that the police believe that the bag contains. In other words they can not go on a 'fishing expedition.' Now here is another myth. The Police can search without a warrent for drugs. Yes they can but they must have 'reasonable cause.'

That is all 100% correct. The bag inspection thing at shops is search by consent. No consent = no search, even for the police. Where this changes is when police have good cause to suspect that a person has shoplifted any property and they are arrested, then they and their bags can be searched pursuant to the arrest.

To search for drugs without warrant police need to establish "reasonable grounds to believe" drugs are present on the person, vehicle, property before invoking the power of search. The unmistakable stink of cannabis is the classic scenario. There are other situations where search without warrant is possible ie: for firearms, stolen goods and offencive weapons.

[Lou Girardin]

Slightly off-topic, but Phil Goff is talked about changing the 'proceeds of crime act' so that it doesn't require a conviction. In other words, they'll take your assets if they suspect it was ill-gotten.
As for barcode tatoos, the Nazis had an identifier for the Jews 70 years ago.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

[pete376403]

Slightly off-topic, but Phil Goff is talked about changing the 'proceeds of crime act' so that it doesn't require a conviction. In other words, they'll take your assets if they suspect it was ill-gotten.
As for barcode tatoos, the Nazis had an identifier for the Jews 70 years ago.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

Not just Jews, even though they seem to get all the attention. Gypsys, homosexuals, all sorts ended up with the Nazi tattoo. (BTW, and now this is really getting off topic - do you know the origin of the number? It corresponded to the IBM punch card number that had all the persons details. "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black)

[jrandom]

To search for drugs without warrant police need to establish "reasonable grounds to believe" drugs are present on the person, vehicle, property before invoking the power of search. The unmistakable stink of cannabis is the classic scenario.

Indeed.

Borrowed a ute to haul some stuff around a while back. Popped back past the guy's place at one point and he ran out yelling and waving his arms, extracted a big bag of weed from under the passenger seat with a very red face. My wife (sitting in said passenger seat!) had been sniffing occasionally with a funny look on her face all afternoon, and was Not Amused at the thought of what could have happened had I attracted the attention of the traffic boys.

For that matter, how much trouble *would* I have been in, I wonder? I imagine that if said chappie with the ute (which wasn't even his, it was on loan while his 4x4 was being serviced) had denied he'd ever seen the dope, I would have had to deal with whatever possession charges are appropriate for a baggie under the passenger seat. Of course, our relationship would have deteriorated slightly after that point. Possibly to the level of him visiting A&E with an improbable story about walking into doorframes.

[matthewt]

That is all 100% correct. The bag inspection thing at shops is search by consent. No consent = no search, even for the police. Where this changes is when police have good cause to suspect that a person has shoplifted any property and they are arrested, then they and their bags can be searched pursuant to the arrest.

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 ??

[Marmoot]

Someone mentioned a condition of entry. When you for arguments sake go to a concert or a sports match the venue organisers can prohibit you from entering the grounds if you refuse a visual search of bags etc. They can reserve right of entry, as can a bar resturant etc. In this you are informed before you enter the premises. In other words you are not only given the choice but also give lawful information. In this the choice is yours. You agree to the terms and conditions of entry or you leave. No one has the right to enter private property. However in retail stores a sign that says something to the effect that YOU MUST allow the inspection of your bag is not only wrong in law but what happens if for some reason you do not see it. Have you forfieted your rights simply by a lack of observation? I think not.

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).