Vent:Store staff told me they would search me

Sally_A

Get a doctors letter for this situation...if she goes in the same local store regularly it should not be a problem. The biggest problem will be the local oiks knowing she has a carte blanche to set the alarm off, and timing their exit to coincide.

I can't imagine your elderly relative could do a runner.

bowdengr37

Whilst I sympathise with your relative's health issues, sometimes I think we do tend to forget about the shops' rights.

How do they know that she isn't shoplifting? Surely they would be acting against the interests of their shareholders if they just let people wander out of the shops setting off alarms willy-nilly without stopping the possible culprits and at least questioning them, politely and with the utmost respect and understanding.

I'm sure the shops would experience a lot more theft if 'I'm not telling you, it's private' became an absolute defence against accusations of shoplifting.

NoSatisfaction

Sally_A wrote: »

Get a doctors letter for this situation...if she goes in the same local store regularly it should not be a problem. The biggest problem will be the local oiks knowing she has a carte blanche to set the alarm off, and timing their exit to coincide.

I can't imagine your elderly relative could do a runner.

Why should she have to? She has done nothing wrong! If her doctor is anything like mine, they would charge for such a letter. Again why should she have to pay for someone else's noisiness?

Squidd

NoSatisfaction wrote: »

Why should she have to? She has done nothing wrong! If her doctor is anything like mine, they would charge for such a letter. Again why should she have to pay for someone else's noisiness?

Has anyone ever actually accused her of doing something wrong?

NoSatisfaction

bowdengr37 wrote: »

Whilst I sympathise with your relative's health issues, sometimes I think we do tend to forget about the shops' rights.

How do they know that she isn't shoplifting? Surely they would be acting against the interests of their shareholders if they just let people wander out of the shops setting off alarms willy-nilly without stopping the possible culprits and at least questioning them, politely and with the utmost respect and understanding.

I'm sure the shops would experience a lot more theft if 'I'm not telling you, it's private' became an absolute defence against accusations of shoplifting.

I am not saying the shops staff cannot stop you and politely ask. What they cannot do is force you to stop if they have not witnessed a crime taking place. The alarms going off is not witnessing a crime taking place.

IF THEY ACTUALLY SEE YOU TAKING SOMETHING THEN OF COURSE THEY CAN STOP YOU! BUT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM JUST SUSPECTING YOU HAVE TAKEN SOMETHING!

The shops' workers have no rights to detain just becuase of the alarm. They never have the right to search.

Squidd

Such hypothetical rubbish in this thread!

I'd like to draw a line under everything that has been said previously by pointing out that nine times out of ten if these alarms are set off, none of the staff give a monkey's anyway!

brettcta

Squidd wrote: »

Such hypothetical rubbish in this thread!

I'd like to draw a line under everything that has been said previously by pointing out that nine times out of ten if these alarms are set off, none of the staff give a monkey's anyway!

you've posted nothing but good sense in this thread, well done newbie, i hope you hang around and contribute more to this forum

bowdengr37

NoSatisfaction wrote: »

I am not saying the shops staff cannot stop you and politely ask. What they cannot do is force you to stop if they have not witnessed a crime taking place. The alarms going off is not witnessing a crime taking place.

IF THEY ACTUALLY SEE YOU TAKING SOMETHING THEN OF COURSE THEY CAN STOP YOU! BUT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM JUST SUSPECTING YOU HAVE TAKEN SOMETHING!

The shops' workers have no rights to detain just becuase of the alarm. They never have the right to search.

If that were to be the case, every shop in the country would have to employ an army of security personnel to follow each and every customer around the store, just in case.

Setting off the alarm gives the security at the door reasonable cause to suspect that you MAY have committed a crime. Asking you to stop and answer a couple of questions would be a reasonable action for security to take.

Refusing to stop and answer questions would certainly create a higher degree of suspicion, possibly allowing the security to exercise reasonable measures to prevent the commission of the suspected crime.

This wouldn't allow them to perform a physical search, but certainly might allow them to detain you for questioning and searching by the relevant authority.

Otherwise, what is the point of the security alarms or the security guards? What is the point of the tills or even the doors to the shops? We could all go shoplifting, secure in the knowledge that, as long as we were surreptitious about it, nothing could be done.

JaymesKenin_2

Hi, I just registered an account to reply to this thread.

I am a Security Officer for a large supermarket chain (it's been mentioned in this thread several times), I want to clear up a few things which I know to be true. I've been doing the job for nearly two years and last year we prevented £25k of shrink.

1) Security tags are there to deter theft.

2) E.A.S. (electronic article surveillance) gates are activated 99.9% of the time because the numpty on the checkout didn't remove the tag for the paying customer.

3) I have no right of search. I cannot touch you, or go into your pockets, bags or anything that you may be carrying. If you activate the E.A.S. alarm gates on your way in or out of the store, I may approach you providing I am 100% certain you were the cause of the activation. Upon approaching you I may ask you if you've purchased any items recently such as clothing or electronic articles that may still have a security tag on them, if you do, I will ask you to remove the item from whatever bag it is in yourself. I am permitted, once you have handed the item to me, to inspect the item for any tags and remove them for you upon you showing me a receipt or proof of purchase.

4) I will not detain anybody on suspicion of theft. I will know if you've stolen anything. I do not rely on you activating the E.A.S. alarm gates.
If you do activate the E.A.S. alarm gates and refuse to stop for me I will let you go if I haven't seen you take anything.

5) If you have stolen anything, I am allowed to use minimum force to detain you as required. This ranges from holding your arm (not gripping) to full out pinning on the floor.

6) If you have been detained, I will ask you to produce items you have removed from the store without paying for. You will (probably, most people do), deny that you have done anything. I will not go though your bags or clothing, and I will not touch you for purposes of a search, even though you invite me to. I will then just phone the Police and let them do it (although I was going to phone them anyway... ).

7) The most common reasons to E.A.S. activations are:
- Checkouts forgot to remove tag from purchase in store.
- Soft tag was deactivated in another store, customer had been entered our store, done a shop over 30 minutes and the tag has reactivated.
- Checkouts forgot to remove tag from purchase in store.
- Hard drive is purchased, manufacturer soft tags the inside of the box... swiping a magnet over a hard drive... hmmmm... bad idea.
- Checkouts forgot to remove tag from purchase in store.
- Customer purchased make up, the soft tag is still on there 4 months later.
- Checkouts forgot to remove tag from purchase in store.
- Items have been removed from store without making payment for them.

JaymesKenin_2

bowdengr37 wrote: »

If that were to be the case, every shop in the country would have to employ an army of security personnel to follow each and every customer around the store, just in case.

That's why we have CCTV.

bowdengr37 wrote: »

Refusing to stop and answer questions would certainly create a higher degree of suspicion, possibly allowing the security to exercise reasonable measures to prevent the commission of the suspected crime.

This wouldn't allow them to perform a physical search, but certainly might allow them to detain you for questioning and searching by the relevant authority.

We aren't allowed to detain on suspicion of a crime. If we use physical force to detain someone it is assault.

bowdengr37 wrote: »

Otherwise, what is the point of the security alarms or the security guards? What is the point of the tills or even the doors to the shops? We could all go shoplifting, secure in the knowledge that, as long as we were surreptitious about it, nothing could be done.

Most Security Officers are "visible deterrents", although in our case we are very active in catching shoplifters, we've got the highest arrest rate in our town.