Refusing to Stop for Anti-Theft Alarm

[TheSpark]

Honest mistake? More often I would say it is poor training, lazy/inept clerks, poorly designed/maintained equipment. How many times do those things go off when a theft has not occurred? I would imagine they would have a hard time arguing probably cause based on the number of false positives.

Of course it happens for the reason above a lot. For me lately it has happened the most when I use self checkouts. The things make a weird sound if they need to be deactivated but with all the beeping from your machine and others around you it is easy to miss.

If anyone ever really wants to test the 70 year old lady at the door all you have to do is buy something you know has that tag in it. Use a self check out and intentionally "forget" to deactivate it. It would be funny to make a video, with a help of a friend, of you walking out normally, setting it off, and then making a sudden mad dash for your car.

I think I will continue to -consent- to a bag search when the thing goes off. But I will never consent to a search of anything else. If they could not find the source in my cart/bags and then asked me to empty my pockets or something I would say forget it. If we waste more than a few minutes I might just say forget it and walk away as well.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Did you not read anything I said? I clearly stated that a property owner may ask you to leave at any time for any reason. That is not a violation of your rights. You should follow the rules of the property owner, I don't dispute that. As you said yourself though violating those rules will not result in a criminal offense (unless breaking that rule is also a violation of some law, but in that case you would be in trouble on public property for doing it as well). A property owner has the right to ask (rather require) you to leave, you don't have a right to be there unless allowed in the first place so you are not losing any right you had prior. Take the issue of "no gun" signs in Indiana. If you see that clearly posted on the door while you enter but you still proceed with a gun you have not lost your right to carry, nor will you face any criminal issues unless you refuse to leave if asked.

I now quote myself from post #35 in this thread:

Yes I DID read what you said and highlighted it. I think we are agreeing but talking past one another. You said ALL your public property rights extend to private property, and they dont. You follow the owner's rules even if it violates some of those rights. And yes, of you dont like losing a right on private property you can leave (or the owner asking you to leave). But to say your rights extend onto private property implies that they have no ability to limit your rights.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Excellent post. You're "51%" of the time wrong though kind of understates it though don't you think? They are false alarms 97% of the time which really means there is no probable cause.

There's no such thing, legally speaking, as "barely probable cause" or "super probable cause" or the like. Its either probable or its not. Anything that doesn't exceed 50% isn't probable, and absent other information, an alarm that isn't right more than half the time (which the store alarms certainly aren't) the actual percentage isn't an issue. No reason to pull statistics out of our backside, or to bother to research on real statistics, if everyone agrees that the alarms aren't correct more than 50% of the time to illustrate the legal concept.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You follow the owner's rules even if it violates some of those rights. And yes, of you dont like losing a right on private property you can leave (or the owner asking you to leave). But to say your rights extend onto private property implies that they have no ability to limit your rights.

Voluntarily complying with a request is not the same as losing a right.

 

[TheSpark]

Voluntarily complying with a request is not the same as losing a right.

Exactly. Not sure why people think it is.

The property owner does not have the ability to limit your rights. I'm not implying it, I'm stating it.