Can French store staff carry out pat-down checks? Non. Il est tres Mal. There is now, they say, a 100 Euro fine for every illegal search. Ordinary staff in a supermarket or any other shop are not allowed to search you physically 8 January 2021 08:00 By Liv Rowland Reader question: My daughter was searched in our local supermarket. Is that legal? In most cases, no, and the staff probably overstepped the mark. Ordinary staff in a supermarket or any other shop are not allowed to search you physically and legally speaking, they do not even have the right to ask you to open your bag to inspect its contents. A security guard employed by the shop (who must be wearing a distinctive uniform and not just a badge, for example) is allowed to visually inspect – but not search – the contents of your handbag if he or she suspects you of terrorism;/ according to the law. The provision allowing for a visual inspection but not search appear under the Homeland Security Code. It does not relate to powers of a Security Guard in any theft prevention context. See Section 1: Surveillance and guarding activities (Articles L613-1 to L613-7-1A. You are shopping at Lidl. There is no terrorism talking place at LIDL or the Grande Pharmacie. It happened today with Amino who assaulted four customers at a LIDL. That is four physical assaults and violations of privacy when there is no terrorism alert at this time. It would be a physical assault to touch the customer's bag. There are no grounds to suspect any LIDL shoppers of terrorism. You have to get out of the idea that you have a right to touch a customer or their property. If you catch them stealing on video, you can detain them until police arrive. ClIck here.

 

Can French store staff carry out pat-down checks? Non. Il est tres Mal. There is now, they say,  a 100 Euro fine for every illegal search.  

Ordinary staff in a supermarket or any other shop are not allowed to search you physically

8 January 2021 08:00
By Liv Rowland

Reader question: My daughter was searched in our local supermarket. Is that legal?

In most cases, no, and the staff probably overstepped the mark.

Ordinary staff in a supermarket or any other shop are not allowed to search you physically and legally speaking, they do not even have the right to ask you to open your bag to inspect its contents.

A security guard employed by the shop (who must be wearing a distinctive uniform and not just a badge, for example) is allowed to visually inspect – but not search – the contents of your handbag if he or she suspects you of terrorism;/ according to the law.  The provision allowing for a visual inspection  but not search appear under the Homeland Security Code. It does not relate to powers of a Security Guard in any theft prevention context.  See  Section 1: Surveillance and guarding activities (Articles L613-1 to L613-7-1A. You are shopping at Lidl.  There is no terrorism talking place at LIDL or the Grande Pharmacie. It happened today with Amino who assaulted four customers at a LIDL.  That is four physical assaults and violations of privacy when there is no terrorism alert at this time.    It would be a physical assault to touch the customer's bag. There are no grounds to suspect any LIDL shoppers of terrorism. You have to get out of the idea that you have a right to touch a customer or their property.     If you catch them stealing on video, you can detain them until police arrive.  

However, you have the right to refuse to comply if they ask to search the bag physically with their hands.

Shop staff or security guards cannot ask to check the content of your pockets or any other bags, other than your handbag, such as luggage, and are not allowed to physically search customers.

One exception to the latter rule is if there is a high-level security alert in your area, as is currently the case nationwide with the plan Vigipirate following the recent terrorist attacks.

Under such circumstances, security guards can be allowed to carry out pat-down searches, but only with consent.

Sometimes, you may notice signs outside supermarkets informing customers that their bags may be checked inside by staff.

This has no legal value and you are entitled to refuse.

However, if a customer is caught stealing, the security guard can detain that person until the police arrive.

Common Assault – s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

The term assault is often used to include a battery, which is committed by the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’: DPP v Little [1992] QB 645. Provided there has been an intentional or reckless application of unlawful force the offence will have been committed, however slight the force.

Assault, as distinct from battery, can be committed by an act indicating an intention to use unlawful violence against the person of another – for example, an aimed punch that fails to connect. In Misalati [2017] EWCA 2226 the appellant spat towards the complainant. The appeal court confirmed that although there was no actual violence, spitting is an assault whether it makes contact with the victim or causes fear of immediate unlawful physical contact.

Under FRENCH Law, it is a threat to demand to see the inside of someone's bag when the request is contrary to the code as discussed above.  

French Law

Threats
ARTICLE 222-17:
(Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002)
A threat to commit a felony or a misdemeanour against persons, the attempt to commit which is punishable, is punished by six months' imprisonment and a fine of €7,500, if it is repeated, or evidenced by a written document, picture or any other object.
The penalty is increased to three years' imprisonment and to a fine of €45,000 where the threat is one of death.
ARTICLE 222-18
(Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002)
A threat to commit a felony or a misdemeanour against persons, made by any means, is punished by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 where the threat is made together with an order to fulfill a condition.
The penalty is increased to five years' imprisonment and to a fine of €75,000 where the offence is a threat of death.





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Image

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH & FLEET STREET FINANCIAL DISPATCH LONDON — SEPTEMBER 2025 — SPECIAL ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION THE ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND THE MECHANICS OF UNIVERSAL DEMAND An Analytical Examination of the Post-War Industrial Order, the Fallacy of Unfettered Laissez-Faire, Mechanisation, and the State-Guaranteed System of Participatory Remuneration BY OUR SPECIAL ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT IN FLEET STREET, Warren A. Lyon with Cheuy Leon Stephen Lam Tom. LONDON — In the tenth year following the cessation of European hostilities in 1955, as the Western world navigates the transition from wartime economic controls to the mid-century industrial consensus, thoughtful observers in Fleet Street, Westminster, and the City must confront a fundamental problem of political economy. The modern capitalist apparatus—stretching across the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, North America, and Western Europe—operates upon a single, immutable law: the imperative equilibrium between Supply and Demand. Yet, despite the vast expansion of mechanized production, factory automation, and electronic computation, our financial architectures continue to suffer from a crippling structural defect: the systemic failure to guarantee requisite consumer purchasing power (ability to pay/ATP) across the whole of the populace. I. THE LESSONS OF THE POST-WAR CONSCIOUSNESS: SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND THE ELECTRIC CIRCUIT To comprehend the crisis of modern industrial organization, one must discard the antiquated Victorian dogma that human existence is defined solely by manual toil. Under the classical doctrine of laissez-faire, labour was treated as an elastic commodity, hired when factories required muscle and cast aside into poverty when machines replaced handiwork. In an age dominated by automatic machinery, conveyor systems, and early electronic computing, such a doctrine is not merely obsolete; it is actively destructive to the civic health of the realm. Consider the macro-economic structure as an electrical power grid carrying a constant current of thirty amperes. Under a rational and balanced order, this current is bifurcated equally along two parallel conductors: fifteen amperes are directed to energise the lamp of Industrial Supply (the manufacturing apparatus, capital investment, and technological innovation), while the remaining fifteen amperes flow uninterrupted to power the lamp of Demand—the Ability to Pay vested within the consumer public. In an unregulated laissez-faire system, however, an artificial blockage is introduced along the conductor powering Consumer Demand. It acts as a deliberate obstruction—resembling a corkscrew jammed into the brass fittings of a ship's engine room. The electrical energy, unable to reach the lamp of Demand, encounters extreme resistance; heat builds rapidly within the circuit, insulation scorches, and the entire socio-economic edifice is threatened with catastrophic conflagration. Energy in an economic system, like energy in physics, is never destroyed; if it is denied its proper outlet in legitimate consumer spending, it manifests as market collapse, civil unrest, shoplifting, and social decay. Click here.

Post a Comment