Is it legal for Wal-Mart to search your bags after you have paid?
Full Question:
Answer:
It is not uncommon for a retail store customers to be offended when they have to submit to having their purchases checked against the receipt at the door before exiting. Many stores have a policy where an employee or security guard will check customer purchases against their receipt. Can the store lawfully do this? The answer is yes, as long as the procedure is voluntary. The answer is no if the if the bag check is involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker.
As far a detaining a customer, section 51-7-20 of the Georgia Code defines false imprisonment as “the unlawful detention of the person of another, for any length of time, whereby such person is deprived of his personal liberty.” A store security guard who detains a customer on suspicion of shoplifting is legally authorized to do so, and is not liable for battery, absent allegations by the plaintiff that he/she was threatened with physical harm or that he/she possessed a well-founded fear of imminent battery. A store employee may use only the force that is necessary to detain the patron.
In the case of Grand Union Company v. Miller, 503 S.E. 2d 49 (Ga. App. 1998), Strickland, a security guard employed by Big Star Food Market, detained Miller and Nicely after his fellow security guard Fox informed him that he had observed them shoplifting. While Miller and Nicely were shopping at Big Star Food Market, Fox was observing customers from a concealed catwalk and communicating with Strickland over a two-way radio. Strickland testified that Fox informed him that Nicely put a package of cigarettes in her purse as she and Miller were facing each other and looking up and down the aisles. Strickland decided to stop both women because Fox said they were both involved in the shoplifting. Strickland stopped Miller after she had cleared the checkout line but before she exited the store. Miller testified that Strickland grabbed her by the arm and told her she needed to come with him because she had something that belonged to the store. Strickland's testimony was that he came up beside Miller and put her in an "escort position," a method used by him for detaining all suspected shoplifters. This involved his reaching behind her and putting his hands on the back of her arms so he could control her if she were uncooperative. He escorted her to a confrontation room in the rear of the store.
The court held that an owner or operator of a mercantile establishment and its agents and employees are given qualified immunity from claims of false imprisonment arising from the detention or arrest of suspected shoplifters where both conditions of Section 51-7-60 of the Georgia Code are met. Under the first, it must be shown that the owner, operator, agent, or employee reasonably believed that the person detained was engaged in shoplifting. Under the second, the manner of detention or arrest and the length of time during which the plaintiff was detained must be reasonable. The Court held that the facts provided a reasonable basis for Strickland's detention of Miller.
