This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: than the customer’s word. Since she made the accusations stating that Smith stole her money, it gave probable cause to search her, which is under #2 of the intrusion upon seclusion-type of invasion of privacy. None of Smith’s rights were violated and according to the passage, the store manager took proper procedures to check her. Conclusion: Smith doesn’t have a valid case against the store since the store manager followed the proper procedures so no laws were violated. The manager had to search her body and it was within legal guidelines. In this particular case there was no evidence showing she took the money and since it was the customer’s word against Smith. Smith will not win this case because no laws were violated and the store manager had probable cause because the customer accused Smith. Reference: EBOOK COLLECTION: Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues , Ch. 5 Week 2 Lecture Law/531...
View Full Document
- Summer '10
- Law, store manager