I am neither for or against Vanguard, only been there a couple of times, it was a bit underwhelming so I have never gone back...
The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the
"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
This text protects two types of expectations, one involving "searches," the other "seizures." A "search" occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. [Footnote 4] A "seizure" of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. [Footnote 5] This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; IT IS WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."
Walter v.
Probably someone should look closely at the phrase IT IS WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE seems interesting...
There are certainly laws of the land and or state, such as AZ open carry or AZ concealed carry that are not enforcable if malls and business post against the laws in their mall's or business...
I DO NOT agree with someone in a private place of business searching my property, I DO however have the right of choice to never visit that business again...
Did not Vanguard cohost a successful benefit for Ron, please correct me if I am wrong on this item...
