Vent:Store staff told me they would search me

NoSatisfaction

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Care to expand on your reply?

The powers of security guards are the same powers as any other member of the public will have, they can make a 'citizens arrest.' They do not have any special kind of power, however their role is being looked at constantly and new developments might mean that they may be given more power in the near future.


Their powers have changed recently and are a lot more complex with much of it yet to be tried in court, but basically security guards have the power to detain a person who they believe to have committed an indictable offence. This means an offence which can be tried in crown court.


This covers many criminal offences including assaults (excluding common assault), theft and criminal damage.
Reasonable force in the circumstances may be used by a security guard to detain the person.
Several security guards are permitted to forcefully detain someone as long as the belief that this person has committed an indictable offence is “reasonable”. They can detain you inside a store as long as they have reasonable belief that you have committed an offence.


Reasonable belief means that a security guard cannot forcefully detain you unless their reasons for doing so are fair for example if you were seen taking something and hiding it somewhere on your person. To simply look suspicious would not be a reasonable belief.
source


Its not "tosh" at all.

The guards will have need to have witnessed you stealing something. The alarms going off are not enough. If they stop you without good reason or evidence then they will have committed assault offences and potentially false imprisonment offences. Insist that the police arrest them!

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I didnt say it was.

A good indication is "If you explained the situation to someone in the street, would the believe it was reasonable"

oh dear...

Do you have a legal link to that theory?

lets make the law in the pub..

Azari

hollydays wrote: »

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I didnt say it was.

A good indication is "If you explained the situation to someone in the street, would the believe it was reasonable"

oh dear...

lets make the law in the pub..

You are making a mistake if you think that the 'man in the street' argument is unsound.

That is almost exactly the question a judge will ask to determine if something is 'reasonable'.

You cannot have a law that uses the term 'reasonable' unless people have a 'reasonable' chance of understanding what it means. It specifically does not mean 'reasonable to someone with specialist knowledge'.

Obviously you do not define it by asking one random person. The judge will decide (or direct the jury to decide) on the basis of what he or they think a 'reasonable lay person' would think.

hollydays

While it may be necessary to detain someone who who is about to whack a customer with a cricket bat, causing serious harm, ie assaualt,detaining someone because they say they dont want to be searched is necessary for who?The shop?

hollydays

Azari wrote: »

You are making a mistake if you think that the 'man in the street' argument is unsound.

That is almost exactly the question a judge will ask to determine if something is 'reasonable'.

You cannot have a law that uses the term 'reasonable' unless people have a 'reasonable' chance of understanding what it means. It specifically does not mean 'reasonable to someone with specialist knowledge'.

Obviously you do not define it by asking one random person. The judge will decide (or direct the jury to decide) on the basis of what he or they think a 'reasonable lay person' would think.

Yes,I understand that.

In the hyperthetical situation,you would be asking why the person didnt want to be searched Before you could determine reasonable.
I think the man in the street would think it reasonable to detain that person if they ran off after being asked to be searched.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

As I said the internet is not the place for lay people to try to disect the law,thats for lawyers

Im guessing that includes taking your replies with a large pinch of salt as your knowlegde appears to be a bit ropey judging by some of your replies in this thread.

Disecting the law and understanding the law are two different things.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

While it may be necessary to detain someone who who is about to whack a customer with a cricket bat, causing serious harm, ie assaualt,detaining someone because they say they dont want to be searched is necessary for who?The shop?

It would be necessary to detain them until such time as a constable can attend and conduct the search. (Dependant on the grounds. All situations are different)

antrobus

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It would be necessary to detain them until such time as a constable can attend and conduct the search. (Dependant on the grounds. All situations are different)

Agreed.

There is what is known as an 'ordinary citizens’ powers of arrest without warrant' which is contained in s24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Act as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This means that, inter alia, anyone can arrest someone else where they "reasonable grounds" for suspecting that the someone else has committed an "indictable offence", in order to prevent the person in question from "making off before a constable can assume responsibility" for them. And as per usual, it is up to a court to decide what is, or what isn't 'reasonable'.

As far as the OP is concerned, when the alarms went off as they entered a store, and a member of staff told me "we will stop and search you when you leave", it has to be noted, (as previously mentioned earlier in this thread) that 'professional shoplifters' have in the past adopted the ruse of entering a store bearing an item that they know will set off the alarm, in order to provide themselves with an explanation for why the same alarm will sound on their exit. No doubt, the staff at the retail premises in question where aware of this and so informed the OP of their intentions.

But as far as I'm aware, a retail store is private property, and it is up to the owners of said store who they allow on to the premises. So I don't think that any rights have been violated by the actions of the store staff in frustrating the OP's access. Had the store in question made good on its threat, and detained the OP, then it would be a different matter. It would be a question of whether that was 'reasonable' as otherwise the OP would have grounds to sue for false arrest and/or assault. But that's entirely hypothetical, so I don't think it matters.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It would be necessary to detain them until such time as a constable can attend and conduct the search. (Dependant on the grounds. All situations are different)

But I asked you for whose benefit were they being detained,and how you deem it to be reasonable.Your quote is a reply to "how long can a person reasonably be detained "(for theft for example),not a reply to why.
Why not give us an exact situation,lets see if we agree.

NoSatisfaction

hollydays wrote: »

Yes,I understand that.

In the hypothetical situation,you would be asking why the person didn't want to be searched Before you could determine reasonable.
I think the man in the street would think it reasonable to detain that person if they ran off after being asked to be searched.

Rubbish. I wouldn't want to be searched by anyone. Its an invasion of my privacy and I have not stolen anything.

What if I had private documents on me or a large amount of cash because I was about to buy a secondhand car privately, or medicines or a medical device; being searched could cause embarrassment and therefore can legitimately be refused.