Talk:Shopkeeper's privilege/Archives/2016

Untitled
The article's language is sexist; someone should change all the male pronouns to they. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.156.42 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Any sources for this page?

This page is full of sources! It's citing to the legal opinions (i.e., from courts) and secondary authorities (i.e., from attorneys with expertise in this subject) that explain the basis for the shopkeeper's privilege. The sources are cited inline, rather than in footnotes, but that's typical for legal citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.189.174 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources are only cited for some of the sections. Two of the most controversial sections do not have citations. Darkenna 16:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Darkenna

I added more citations and removed one of the offending sentences. I did a major edit to this page about two years ago, under a user name I have since forgotten. I wanted to leave some of the original author's language in this article. I fixed the most recent problem, but doing so leaves very little of the original author's contribution intact. JPG/Mer-cite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpg13 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable suspicion is listed as a step, but it is linked to the reasonable suspicion page that describes what police can do. Does this imply that shopkeepers can do the same thing? Is this a correct implication? Where are the sources of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.7 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable suspicion means the same thing as in the police context. The article makes it clear that the shopkeeper's privilege (at least the common law privilege) is not as broad as the police officer's arrest privilege. But this is because it does not encompass the power to arrest (i.e. hold for police). A citation showing that "reasonable suspicion" here means the same thing as reasonable suspicion in the context of the police stop-and-frisk privilege would be unnecessary. But if you insist, there are plenty of cases, e.g., Bowman v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984); Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 268 N.E.2d 860, 864 (Mass. 1971). I feel adding them would unnecessarily clutter the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPmer cite (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)