What is the name of your state?****land
Scenario: Adult Male #1 and Adult Male #2 enter a retail store. They act in a somewhat suspicious manner, bringing attention of both management and store loss prevention personnel to them. On video surveillance, #2 is observed possibly pocketing a store item. Both males look like they could become violent in the event of being approached. Local police are called in case they will be needed as "backup". At some point during their stay in the store, the camera angles are not sufficient enough to maintain constant sight of hands and pockets of #2(he is bent down several times at the bottom of racks). Police arrive and loss prevention employee is unsure as to whether or not to stop them. He informs police that he will only attempt to stop them if the security alarm goes off on their way out of the store. The officer is waiting outside of the retail establishment on the sidewalk and states that he does not need the alarm to sound in order to stop and search the individuals since the store initially called with a "reasonable suspicion". After about 20-30 minutes in the store, #1 male purchases a CD and both males leave the building. They do not set off the alarm. Store Loss Prevention personnel do not stop them. However, the police officer stops them on the sidewalk directly outside of the store exit. Both males state that they knew "something was up", because "the fat guy" was following them. Both males are searched fully by the police officer only. They have no unpaid store merchandise in their possession. A single pill was found in the coin pocket of #1 by the officer and the officer throws it out because he does not know what it is. The full search included ankle to groin, but did not involve removal of any clothing, etc. #1 and #2 are detained by the police for no longer than 5 minutes and then released. Side note: the police officer knew #2 by name due to previous interactions. Both males are in their late 20's. The mother of #1 called the store to complain about the "illegal search and sexual assault"(her words) of her son by the police. She is also very upset that his "prescription" medication was disposed of by the police officer. She is indicating that she is a lawyer, but has not once represented herself as his legal counsel - only as his mother. She is repeatedly calling the store asking for peoples names, information, etc. However, her adult son has not called or complained even once.
Questions:
1. Was the search legal?
2. If not, who is liable. The store, the police, or both?
3. If anyone is liable, should the individual who was searched be following up on this instead of his mother, since he is not a minor?
Thank You for your insight and comments.
Scenario: Adult Male #1 and Adult Male #2 enter a retail store. They act in a somewhat suspicious manner, bringing attention of both management and store loss prevention personnel to them. On video surveillance, #2 is observed possibly pocketing a store item. Both males look like they could become violent in the event of being approached. Local police are called in case they will be needed as "backup". At some point during their stay in the store, the camera angles are not sufficient enough to maintain constant sight of hands and pockets of #2(he is bent down several times at the bottom of racks). Police arrive and loss prevention employee is unsure as to whether or not to stop them. He informs police that he will only attempt to stop them if the security alarm goes off on their way out of the store. The officer is waiting outside of the retail establishment on the sidewalk and states that he does not need the alarm to sound in order to stop and search the individuals since the store initially called with a "reasonable suspicion". After about 20-30 minutes in the store, #1 male purchases a CD and both males leave the building. They do not set off the alarm. Store Loss Prevention personnel do not stop them. However, the police officer stops them on the sidewalk directly outside of the store exit. Both males state that they knew "something was up", because "the fat guy" was following them. Both males are searched fully by the police officer only. They have no unpaid store merchandise in their possession. A single pill was found in the coin pocket of #1 by the officer and the officer throws it out because he does not know what it is. The full search included ankle to groin, but did not involve removal of any clothing, etc. #1 and #2 are detained by the police for no longer than 5 minutes and then released. Side note: the police officer knew #2 by name due to previous interactions. Both males are in their late 20's. The mother of #1 called the store to complain about the "illegal search and sexual assault"(her words) of her son by the police. She is also very upset that his "prescription" medication was disposed of by the police officer. She is indicating that she is a lawyer, but has not once represented herself as his legal counsel - only as his mother. She is repeatedly calling the store asking for peoples names, information, etc. However, her adult son has not called or complained even once.
Questions:
1. Was the search legal?
2. If not, who is liable. The store, the police, or both?
3. If anyone is liable, should the individual who was searched be following up on this instead of his mother, since he is not a minor?
Thank You for your insight and comments.