June 10, 2003
State Senator's Fred Meyer Experience Raises Possibility of Merchants As Interrogators
I had seen this story a day or so ago and wasn't sure whether it was worth mentioning here. But today's report on The Oregonian ties the event into some proposed legislation, so here we go.
First, the background. As reported in the paper today, Senator Margaret Carter recently had an experience as a Fred Meyer store in Salem which didn't sit too well with her:
Sen. Margaret Carter, an African American and veteran state legislator, said she is bothered by a security stop at a Fred Meyer store in which she was the only person questioned while several white customers were allowed to leave unchecked, according to her chief aide.
Carter, D-Portland, was leaving a South Salem Fred Meyer last week with a sack of purchased meat when a clerk approached her after a security buzzer apparently went off, said Jon Christenson, her assistant.
Other customers leaving at the same time were not stopped, Christenson said.
Rob Boley, spokesman for the supermarket chain, denied race played a role in the stop. The security tags are intended to deter theft.
The store says its own investigation showed that no one else passed through the detectors at the time Carter did, regardless of what she or her assistant alleges.
But the part that further caught by eye today was this:
Two bills have been introduced in the Oregon Legislature that would give store employees probable cause to interrogate a customer if a store's electronic surveillance system goes off. One of the bills is being pushed by Associated Oregon Industries.
Doing some quick digging online, we find that the first of these bills is SB 51, introduced back on January 14, and referred to the Judiciary Committee on January 16, where it has sat since without a hearing. It's summary reads as follows:
Provides that activation of electronic article surveillance system as person leaves store or other mercantile establishment is probable cause for believing person committed theft of property of store or other mercantile establishment.
Since it is substantively the same as the other bill, which is more recent -- the one backed by Oregon Association Industries -- let's just move on to that one.
In this case, we're speaking of SB 744, which was introduced on February 26, and referred to the Judiciary Committee on March 4, where it too has sat without a hearing. This bill (as well as SB 51) reads as follows:
SECTION 1. ORS 131.655 is amended to read:
131.655. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer, merchant or merchant's employee who has probable cause for believing that a person has committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment may detain and interrogate the person in regard thereto in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time.
(2) If a peace officer, merchant or merchant's employee, with probable cause for believing that a person has committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment, detains and interrogates the person in regard thereto, and the person thereafter brings against the peace officer, merchant or merchant's employee any civil or criminal action based upon the detention and interrogation, such probable cause shall be a defense to the action, if the detention and interrogation were done in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time.
{ + (3) In addition to the meaning given to the term 'probable cause' in ORS 131.005, the activation of an electronic article surveillance system as the result of a person leaving a store or other mercantile establishment or a protected area within a store or other mercantile establishment constitutes probable cause for purposes of this section. + }
The bits within the brackets is what's being amended to ORS 131.655. It's fairly plain in its language, so there shouldn't be any confusion. But, in essence what it would do is allow any "peace officer, merchant or merchant's employee" to interrogate you should the electronic theft detectors happen to go off on or about when you pass through them. It places the sounding of the electronic theft beep on the same level of probably cause as, say, actually having seen someone slide something into their bag without purchasing it.
I don't know about you, but given how inept are many of the people who run, for example the Fred Meyer at SE 39th and Hawthorne, I don't think I want them to have the authority to actually interrogate me simply because the damned beeper sounds. Although, frankly, I doubt many of the employees there would particularly want such authority anyway.
We all know how insipidly wrong these detectors can be, and merchants already request a check of your bags if you one happens to go off as you pass by. But probably cause for an interrogation? I don't think so.
Now, there's no immediate concern. Neither of these bills has even had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. But it nonetheless shows how boneheaded some legislator can be.
Which could come as no particular surprise, since SB 744 was introduced by none other than Senator John Minnis, the man responsible for the reprehensible SB 742, whose language would have, technically, classified certain forms of civil disobedience and protest as a new state crime of terrorism.