An exam question. 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. Click here.

  

 An exam question. 

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 that is employed by the shopping centre (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 or Casino 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, as a customer you have the right under the Homeland Security Code to refuse to say no  if they ask to search the bag physically with their hands. Again, the question involving visually inspecting the bag is only permitted if there is a security alert and the customer can still refuse any visual search or visual inspection.  

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 it was the case nationwide with the plan Vigipirate following the those 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.

If they persist with a search contrary to the code, it is also common law assault in the EU. Comparatively, we can read the law on common law assault in England.  

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.