[N/A] Police as Security at Local Stores

[ARFlyer]

I guess our city is going south when the local Best Buy has police officers acting as door security when you walk out.

I beeped the door scanners and both the police officer and store clerk inspected my bag plus receipt before I could leave.

 

[PaulS]

Police detail, you can have a policeman guard your front door if you want to pay for it.

 

[kurttruk]

Sounds like off duty officers. Best Buy pays them not the city for being there.

 

[SkyDog58]

So if a cop in uniform working security at a store demands to search you or your bag, is it considered state action and subject to the fourth amendment?

 

[flhrci]

Common occurrence here around the Columbus, OH area. See lots of ads for security officers. must be a shortage.

 

[Cooter]

One of my former residences had 2 full time Sheriff's Deputies at the Kroger. And it still wasn't very safe to go there at night.

 

[wsuffa]

They do it with on-duty officers at one of the Wegman's grocery stores around here. And there are dedicated patrols in some of the shopping malls.

 

[murphey]

So if a cop in uniform working security at a store demands to search you or your bag, is it considered state action and subject to the fourth amendment?

Because BB sits on private property, and the cop is acting for the interest of the owner and not the state (IIRC), they can ask anything, even demand it, and it's not subject (or shouldn't be, I don't remember) to 4th Amendment because it's private property. You can refuse, of course.

As a rule, I try to avoid shopping where I'm assumed to be a criminal instead of a customer.

 

[flyingron]

The bag check at BestBuy (store personnel, cop rented or otherwise) is VOLUNTARY. If you allow them to look, any stolen merchandise is fair game in court.

I disagree with Murphey. if the store employee or cop makes it involuntary, threatened or coerced, it is an illegal search. Of course the average BestBuy MORON (don't get me started about BestBuy management, the crooks), probably doesn't know this and opens the store up to legal action.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

Because BB sits on private property, and the cop is acting for the interest of the owner and not the state (IIRC), they can ask anything, even demand it, and it's not subject (or shouldn't be, I don't remember) to 4th Amendment because it's private property. You can refuse, of course.

As a rule, I try to avoid shopping where I'm assumed to be a criminal instead of a customer.

That's not accurate. If a police officer wants to search property or your person, it is subject to the 4th amendment restrictions regardless of who they are working for at the time.

A security guard or store employee is a different matter as they don't work for the government.

However, if a police officer were to request an employee conduct the search so the officer can find out what's in the bag, then that employee becomes an agent of the government and the search is subject to the fourth amendment.

 

[ircphoenix]

That's not accurate. If a police officer wants to search property or your person, it is subject to the 4th amendment restrictions regardless of who they are working for at the time.

A security guard or store employee is a different matter as they don't work for the government.

However, if a police officer were to request an employee conduct the search so the officer can find out what's in the bag, then that employee becomes an agent of the government and the search is subject to the fourth amendment.

Unless of course you are knowingly entering an area that has signs posted that you are subject to search at any time. Entrance in that case is consent.

Though I guess that is still within the confines of the 4th.

 

[SkyDog58]

That's not accurate. If a police officer wants to search property or your person, it is subject to the 4th amendment restrictions regardless of who they are working for at the time.

A security guard or store employee is a different matter as they don't work for the government.

However, if a police officer were to request an employee conduct the search so the officer can find out what's in the bag, then that employee becomes an agent of the government and the search is subject to the fourth amendment.

That pretty much is what I was wondering.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

Unless of course you are knowingly entering an area that has signs posted that you are subject to search at any time. Entrance in that case is consent.

Though I guess that is still within the confines of the 4th.

A police officer still cannot search in that situation (except airports, government buildings, etc) without probable cause, search warrant, or consent. A hospital I work at has signs posted saying you are subject to search, but those searches are done by security staff or others, not police officers. Now, if a hospital employee finds contraband, they can report it to police and the evidence can be seized.

 

[Zeldman]

A cop is still a cop even if off duty.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Unless of course you are knowingly entering an area that has signs posted that you are subject to search at any time. Entrance in that case is consent.

A police officer still cannot search in that situation (except airports, government buildings, etc) without probable cause, search warrant, or consent.

So what constitutes "consent" if willingly entering a building with signs posted stating that you are subject to search isn't?

 

[Shawn]

We hire real cops all the time over rent-a-cops. They can often be the same price if not just a bit more but can be well worth it from a presence and compliance standpoint. They are off duty but still in uniform full legal officers that are just picking up extra hours. Cops make some extra money, city makes some extra money, business get an officer with a badge and a gun.

If a city cop on the clock is at a private business, barring any overt criminal activity they will only intervene if pubic safety is at risk. When you hire them as security, they will act on your behalf actively being bouncers (within all laws of course). If as the "owner" you say out...they can toss them out.

Perfect example would be a protestor. On duty officer will only intervene if there is a public safety issue. A hired "security" officer can be given the authorization to boot a protestor at first sign on the "owners" behalf.

There are times that even though we may anticipate having on patrol officers there we will hire officers that are specifically dedicated to our security and they are able to be much more proactive.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

So what constitutes "consent" if willingly entering a building with signs posted stating that you are subject to search isn't?

A police officer can always just walk up and ask for consent, but consent cannot be assumed because you walk into a building with said signs (exceptions being airports, government buildings,etc). You are consenting to employees searching you so long as they're not police officers. I would guess you could still refuse the search but then they'd just ask you to leave. Absent some obvious safety concerns, (i.e. a gun outline in a bag), I'd think they'd just let you leave.

 

[Shawn]

The bag check at BestBuy (store personnel, cop rented or otherwise) is VOLUNTARY.

That actually varies by state law. In California state law says that once you pay for the item it is legally yours and you can tell the person requesting at the door to go F off if you really want. It is legally voluntary in CA. Places like Costco however have it written in their terms so it is a condition of maintaining your membership to consent.

I do not have the stats, but I know there are indeed some states that DO allow a search prior to exiting the establishment.

 

[ircphoenix]

A police officer can always just walk up and ask for consent, but consent cannot be assumed because you walk into a building with said signs (exceptions being airports, government buildings,etc). You are consenting to employees searching you so long as they're not police officers. I would guess you could still refuse the search but then they'd just ask you to leave. Absent some obvious safety concerns, (i.e. a gun outline in a bag), I'd think they'd just let you leave.

I'm sorry... why can't consent be assumed?

 

[MauleSkinner]

A police officer can always just walk up and ask for consent, but consent cannot be assumed because you walk into a building with said signs (exceptions being airports, government buildings,etc). You are consenting to employees searching you so long as they're not police officers. I would guess you could still refuse the search but then they'd just ask you to leave. Absent some obvious safety concerns, (i.e. a gun outline in a bag), I'd think they'd just let you leave.

Got a regulatory reference for that?

 

[Kevin16587]

So if a cop in uniform working security at a store demands to search you or your bag, is it considered state action and subject to the fourth amendment?

My answer is, "yes" and it can get ugly really quick. It's considered a search. Hopefully the agency in question has policy that address that. My agency would never allow a Best Buy type detail. However it's common for us to do traffic control or security type details which are reimbursed by the entity hiring my agency (Oprah used to hire us for traffic control at the entrance to her house) Again, same rules / laws apply whether I'm on regular time or overtime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Flyingfanatic]

Got a regulatory reference for that?

Which part?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Which part?

Any of it.

 

[Kevin16587]

The bag check at BestBuy (store personnel, cop rented or otherwise) is VOLUNTARY. If you allow them to look, any stolen merchandise is fair game in court.

I disagree with Murphey. if the store employee or cop makes it involuntary, threatened or coerced, it is an illegal search. Of course the average BestBuy MORON (don't get me started about BestBuy management, the crooks), probably doesn't know this and opens the store up to legal action.

In my very humble opinion, any LE agency that allows UNIFORMED officers to act as private security guards is asking for major liability issues. I know some agencies allow it, but I don't think it's smart and the officers are still peace officers regardless of who signs their check. The officer is still a representative of their city, county, state etc. Now, if an off duty cop works for a private security company and wears plain clothes or a security guard type uniform, that's different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lindberg]

In my very humble opinion, any LE agency that allows UNIFORMED officers to act as private security guards is asking for major liability issues. I know some agencies allow it, but I don't think it's smart and the officers are still peace officers regardless of who signs their check. The officer is still a representative of their city, county, state etc. Now, if an off duty cop works for a private security company and wears plain clothes or a security guard type uniform, that's different.

In most cases, the agency is involved in the arrangement. The officer will (is supposed to) follow department policy regardless of what the store asks. There's a mall here that uses a mix of private security and off duty LE from all over. They all wear the mall's uniform, but the LEOs are armed. I don't know what their deal is.

 

[Lindberg]

So if a cop in uniform working security at a store demands to search you or your bag, is it considered state action and subject to the fourth amendment?

He will not demand to look in your bag unless he has PC. He'll ask. If you say no, he'll likely either let you be on your way or ask the store's loss prevention if they want to detain you. I don't think a cop is going to detain you just based on a tag beeping.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

Any of it.

I'm not an attorney, but to my knowledge there is case law that allows officers to approach and converse with anyone. That includes requesting consent to search. (Some agencies prohibit consent searches by policy, but by law, it's still allowed).

I know there is case law regarding searches at airports. I don't have the specifics on it.

As far as searches conducted by employees or security who are not law enforcement, I'm making assumptions about ones ability to refuse it. This comes from experience, so I have no policy or law I can point to.

I do know that the only exception to the search warrant requirements are exigent circumstances, consent, or probable cause (in the case of automobiles). That again is covered by case law, but I apologize,I can't point you to specific cases.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm not an attorney, but to my knowledge there is case law that allows officers to approach and converse with anyone. That includes requesting consent to search. (Some agencies prohibit consent searches by policy, but by law, it's still allowed).

I know there is case law regarding searches at airports. I don't have the specifics on it.

As far as searches conducted by employees or security who are not law enforcement, I'm making assumptions about ones ability to refuse it. This comes from experience, so I have no policy or law I can point to.

I do know that the only exception to the search warrant requirements are exigent circumstances, consent, or probable cause (in the case of automobiles). That again is covered by case law, but I apologize,I can't point you to specific cases.

Case law would be great, but a regulatory reference that says "police cannot search your belongings with implied consent when store employees can" would be better.

 

[Everskyward]

Case law would be great, but a regulatory reference that says "police cannot search your belongings with implied consent when store employees can" would be better.

Even that doesn't help if off-duty police are acting as, and dressed like, store employees.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Even that doesn't help if off-duty police are acting as, and dressed like, store employees.

I've never heard of off duty police working security in anything other than police uniform.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

Case law would be great, but a regulatory reference that says "police cannot search your belongings with implied consent when store employees can" would be better.

Well, the best way I can explain it is, the fourth amendment rights are about protecting you from the government, not a private security guard. That being said, I'm sure there's some recourse in civil court if things go sideways when you refuse to be searched by employees or security.

Much the same as employers can fire you for public speech they don't like, but you can't be arrested for it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well, the best way I can explain it is, the fourth amendment rights are about protecting you from the government, not a private security guard. That being said, I'm sure there's some recourse in civil court if things go sideways when you refuse to be searched by employees or security.

Much the same as employers can fire you for public speech they don't like, but you can't be arrested for it.

So fourth amendment rights define implied consent differently based on who's doing the searching?

 

[Everskyward]

I've never heard of off duty police working security in anything other than police uniform.

Not sure how you would know that, but I will admit to not looking at security guards that closely. I don't see anyone looking like police in stores around here. In fact, I can only recall seeing them in banks. But that is in another city.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

So fourth amendment rights define implied consent differently based on who's doing the searching?

To my knowledge, yes. The exceptions being mentioned previously.

I know this. If a police officer is working off duty at a business which states that anyone in that business is subject to search, that rule doesn't allow a police officer to bypass 4th amendment restrictions and search whoever they want.

Here's a 4th circuit case regarding private security and searches:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1496991.html

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not sure how you would know that, but I will admit to not looking at security guards that closely. I don't see anyone looking like police in stores around here. In fact, I can only recall seeing them in banks. But that is in another city.

I used to work with some cops who also did off-duty security...always in uniform.

 

[ircphoenix]

Well, the best way I can explain it is, the fourth amendment rights are about protecting you from the government, not a private security guard. That being said, I'm sure there's some recourse in civil court if things go sideways when you refuse to be searched by employees or security.

Much the same as employers can fire you for public speech they don't like, but you can't be arrested for it.

So this is based on your understanding of the fourth amendment, right? And what you've seen at a hospital?

Because my understanding is based on the actual fourth amendment... and if you willfully enter private property somewhere that posts signage that says you are subject to search at any time, you have given consent. It is implied by the fact that you saw the sign and went "shrug."

So while your exceptions to the 4th amendment are true, you're glossing over consent by ignoring implied consent.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

Not sure how you would know that, but I will admit to not looking at security guards that closely. I don't see anyone looking like police in stores around here. In fact, I can only recall seeing them in banks. But that is in another city.

It's not at all uncommon for police officers to work either in plain clothes or as a security guard while off duty, especially for smaller agencies. A friend who works as a deputy works unarmed security for the local hospital.

 

[MauleSkinner]

To my knowledge, yes. The exceptions being mentioned previously.

To what exceptions are you referring? You have repeatedly stated that implied consent by posted signs doesn't allow police officers acting as security to search store,patrons when store employees may.

I know this. If a police officer is working off duty at a business which states that anyone in that business is subject to search, that rule doesn't allow a police officer to bypass 4th amendment restrictions and search whoever they want.

No one is arguing that.

Here's a 4th circuit case regarding private security and searches:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1496991.html

Irrelevant. There is nothing in there about implied consent that differentiates police from private security...or even about implied consent, for that matter.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

To what exceptions are you referring? You have repeatedly stated that implied consent by posted signs doesn't allow police officers acting as security to search store,patrons when store employees may.

No one is arguing that.


Irrelevant. There is nothing in there about implied consent that differentiates police from private security...or even about implied consent, for that matter.

The I've misunderstood your question.

You want to know what gives a business employee or security guard the right to search you when there is a sign indicating you're subject to search on their premises? That I don't know.

My case law example was to show that security can conduct a search that is outside the fourth amendment, while the police cannot. I believe that is relevant to the discussion. If they're not forced to adhere to the fourth amendment rules, it stands to reason that they're allowed to conduct searches when signs are posted saying anyone on the property is subject to search.

All of this doesn't mean there's not a civil remedy to a patron who is unreasonably stopped by employees of the business and searched.

 

[Flyingfanatic]

So this is based on your understanding of the fourth amendment, right? And what you've seen at a hospital?

Because my understanding is based on the actual fourth amendment... and if you willfully enter private property somewhere that posts signage that says you are subject to search at any time, you have given consent. It is implied by the fact that you saw the sign and went "shrug."

So while your exceptions to the 4th amendment are true, you're glossing over consent by ignoring implied consent.

So your point is that when you walk into a business or location that displays a sign that says anyone entering the property is subject to search that the fourth amendment no longer applies?

That is true at airports, government buildings and military installations perhaps, but I doubt that is the case at BestBuy.