Dressing Rooms "Monitored" - In What Sense?

I was trying clothes on at Macy's today and noticed a sign in the fitting room stating something to the effect that the rooms are monitored by same-sex security. Does this mean they're cameras in the rooms, which, as far as I knew, is illegal; or is it just a cleverly worded indication that there is potential for employees to stand outside the fitting rooms?

No cameras in fitting rooms are illegal. What they are saying is same sex asocaites are in fitting rooms observing while not in room with you. Exmaple you walk in fitting room with two dresses assocaite seesn you enter room and waits. Once youleave assocaite sees your only carrying one dress and your backpack. Assocaite then checks fitting room no dress! No cameras but direct observation

Next time you're in a fitting room, look up at the ceiling. If there are small metal tiles with holes, or a grate above you, they are capable of watching. There are catwalks above fitting rooms in many high end department stores (Fields used these, so if it's a Macy's that converted, that is what they mean). Only same sex associates are allowed to watch though. And no, there are never cameras allowed in the fitting rooms.

At no time may a store employee look "into" a fitting room stall. This includes the above mentioned. Stores are allowed limited views like standing outside stall looking under stall (viewing feet/ankles) listenning from next stall. Views that invade privicy are not allowed in any circumstance same sex or not. Besides a trained Loss Prevention associate does not need to view what is happenning inside room to have requirements to make stop. Its very simple. they follwo you to room see you walk in with two dresses and your backpack you walk out with one they look in fitting room find no dress. Its that simple. LP can also see items being placed in bags or under clothing from viewing your feet from outside room as well.

There are NO cat walks above fitting rooms, those are more than likely vents for the AC. Some stores have louvred doors where you can see in but not out also like Panther said LP can look just under the partition.

Well, if he hasn't already done something then he should do a lot of reading in that forum on what the others shoplifters are going through.

This is also a thread that may help.

First off, yes there are catwalks. I have used them. Most retailers do not use them, typically only high end stores. Secondly, one of the five steps required in a apprehension is CONCEALEMENT. So any trained loss prevention associate would know that you do in fact need to see inside the fitting room in order to see someone conceal something (This also relates to any number of things that could occur in a fitting room, IE ticket switching). If you do not have all 5 steps, you do not make a stop. No concealment, no app. This also explains why most lower end department stores consider fitting room apprehensions a no-no. Wal Marts, Target's etc may not apprehend someone who steals in a fitting room because they cannot see inside.

That is untrue concealment need not be seen only proved. Example you are seen walking into fitting room with shirt and backpack. You are seen leaving fitting room with no shirt but still have backpack. Fitting room is inspected and no shirt is found. You now have concealment! Most stores have fitting room policy for stops it never includes a view inside fitting room one cannot have from any outside point

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

Most stores have fitting room policy for stops it never includes a view inside fitting room one cannot have from any outside point

---

You are so very wrong. Two way mirrors and video cameras are legal in many states to watch dressing rooms. The only time the retailer can get into trouble is if the watchee can prove they were being watched for sexual reasons. This is nigh impossible, of course.

edit: stores using these methods are required to tell you beforehand. Thus, the "expectation of privacy" goes away, and videotaping becomes legal. audio taping, however, remains illegal. Go figure.

Far be it from me to disappoint all the previous posters but DIRECT observation of ANYONE in a fitting IS a violation of existing privacy laws as written. Most, if not all, privacy laws have essential elements that comprise the fact(s) that when one (the shopper) has a reasonable expectation of privacy then any violation of said privacy is therefore unlawful.

Where the retail (LP) aspect of fitting room activity is concerned is that it is elemental that we know WHAT you entered the fitting room with, we KNOW what you did, or, did not, exit the fitting room with, one member of LP checks the fitting room(s) for items left, or not left, while another member of LP maintains 100% observation of the suspect who left the room. Once the fitting room has been checked and the missing merchandise is nowhere to be found then the LP member who is trailing the subject waits for the subject to pass the last point of sale and exit the establishment. Provided the merchandise has not been discarded then the apprehension is effected.

This is the only aspect of LP wherein probable cause is elemental.

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

You are so very wrong. Two way mirrors and video cameras are legal in many states to watch dressing rooms......

---

Mirrors and camers are highly illegal in any instance wherein there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Please cite the state statutes that allow this sort of activity.

Laws vary by state, sometimes quite significantly. See, for example, the Maryland statute which exempts from its voyeurism law the use of surveillance cameras when a person "without prurient interest ... conducts or procures another to conduct visual surveillance of an individual to protect property or public safety or prevent crime."

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Most, if not all, privacy laws have essential elements that comprise the fact(s) that when one (the shopper) has a reasonable expectation of privacy then any violation of said privacy is therefore unlawful.

---

I will look for specifics when i have the chance. In some states, once you post a "same sex agents will monitor dressing rooms"; expectation of privacy is gone. You cannot expect privacy when a sign tells you there will be no privacy. I will find some specific examples when i get the chance, It is a busy day at work today though.

edit: Aaron already found one for me, I'll find a few more later.

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

....... once you post a "same sex agents will monitor dressing rooms"; expectation of privacy is gone. You cannot expect privacy when a sign tells you there will be no privacy.

---

Methinks you answered your own question. ;)

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Methinks you answered your own question. ;)

---

What question?

I was stating that you can be monitored by mirrors or cameras in dressing rooms in some states, you said it was not legal anywhere. You asked to see statutes, and Aaron found one already, before i even had a chance to look.

....... once you post a "same sex agents will monitor dressing rooms"; expectation of privacy is gone. You cannot expect privacy when a sign tells you there will be no privacy.

THAT question smartguy! :D

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

....... once you post a "same sex agents will monitor dressing rooms"; expectation of privacy is gone. You cannot expect privacy when a sign tells you there will be no privacy.

THAT question smartguy! :D

---

How is that a question? Just out of curiosity.

Ok so in Maryland (far as we know) some LP or anyone can watch a young lady or child!:eek: in afull state of undress! Aaron you posted the statue please explain how a camera can be placed in a fitting room!

The content of a notice may make a difference to the expectation of privacy under state law, but if the state's anti-voyeurism law does not provide an exception for store security (posted or not), a sign isn't going to protect the store from culpability. In some contexts it may make a difference if the dressing room is merely observed (even if by camera) or if a recording is made.

There are a zillion ways you could install cameras in a room, including visible cameras, pinhole cameras, cameras behind one-way mirrors... That's not my area of expertise.

If I have to explain it to ya then it may be above your level of comprehension to begin with.

Try re-reading your previous posts, I have!

That was to Eloria, or whatever, by the way.................

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

If I have to explain it to ya then it may be above your level of comprehension to begin with.

Try re-reading your previous posts, I have!

---

You should try reading them yet again, I guess.

"....... once you post a "same sex agents will monitor dressing rooms"; expectation of privacy is gone. You cannot expect privacy when a sign tells you there will be no privacy." is not a question. It is a pair of statements. I fail to see how it could even be misunderstood as a question. Hell, it doesnt even end with the proper punctuation for a question.

If you are going to be condescending, at least try to use some logic or something. In no way, shape, or form can the above statements be construed as questions. I am guessing that you are being so incredibly contrary because you do not like the fact that i refuted your claim that monitoring dressing rooms is illegal in all 50 states, no matter what.

Now, back to video voyeurism:

Iowa also has a very bare privacy statute, making taping of someone only illegal if it is "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person".

They have no other statutes involving voyeurism other than this privacy statute.

I could not find a single statute in New Mexico which barred videotaping at all, unless it was a taping of a performance which was to be used to garner a profit. And their privacy laws? They have more laws about disturbing graves than videotaping in their privacy sections.

Cameras and two way mirrors are not used, nor are cat walks Frankie. In most major stores there is only about 4 feet between the drop ceiling and the bottom of the floor above or roof above. It's generally filled with AC duct work, electrical fixtures and wires....oh yeah don't forget the plumbing. It's posted about LP's observing activities so it won't be a surprise to anyone who sees an LP watching someone. Any time a person is undressing and there is a camera, it's against the law and the 'victim' can OWN the store....pretty cut and dry. Most majors have run the gamut of ways to view fitting rooms and cameras, mirrors, cat walks or what ever are out!! They got tired of losing court cases and paying losers who were actually thieves for LP's misuse of fitting room observations. Take a look back in California Supreme court case (circa 1982) called "Debra C." It involved a Male LP who observed a 14 yr old Female from out side the fitting room area while standing well out on the sales floor in the Juniors department. He could NOT see her undress but saw her place a bag on the floor and conceal items just under the partition. After that all the "High Tech", sneaky Pete toys we used went out the window, those include cameras, cat walks and two way mirrors. As souperdave stated, there is only one correct way a fitting room case can be worked.

I'm still on the fence here....

that Maryland statute is pretty open. if you have male and female dressing rooms and male and female observation booths and a sign that discloses the fact (thus removing your expectation of privacy) can you have cameras?

also do the cameras see into the fitting booths or just the common areas of the whole fitting room in general. ie..one camera watches the doors to all the individual fitting booths. but can not see into the booths.

then again ...what if the lp's preference is of the same gender? how can we tell if they are aroused by looking at the same gender?

Comon at what point is ok to see anyone (gender unimpotant) in a full state of nudity! furthermore minors use these same fitting rooms why would parents allow their children to be watched while in a state of undress!? Maryland may have an open statue but if there are cameras in fitting rooms I can guarantee you someone will be sued or would have been by now!

In those states where it might be legal to observe somebody in a dressing room, in most cases a store is likely to decide that it is a bad idea. The publicity when an employee is caught taking pictures or video of customers changing can be devastating to a store, and as noted there is potential liability if any pictures or videos were made public, or even if an employee were caught engaged in... let's call it "self-service".

Souperdave is correct. No magic required. The dressing room has an "expectation of privacy" that would keep most retailers from doing so. I would emphasize MOST.

A decent sized retailer with a loss prevention staff would not be pulling up ceiling tiles etc. Small chains, independent retailers etc, probably see it as an expectation of honesty (trust but verify: Regan).

Most stores give trainning on making fitting room stops. They are not that difficult and require no cameras inside a fitting room. Any retailer placing cameras inside a fitting room (sign or not) is openning themself up to large Law suits.

Some information on catwalks:

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_178224225.html
(notice the store no longer uses them, but they ARE still legal.)(Minnesota)

It still looks legal in Florida:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...810/Sec145.HTM

edit: I will dig for more later, slow day at work today.

Here's a thought.......you're in court for a fitting room case. It's a jury trial, the perp's fighting it tooth & nail, so then it comes time for you to produce your video............

Exactly how well do ya think it's gonna go over when they push "play" on the VCR and the butt-naked perp in all his shiny moon glory pops up on the monitor for all to see......

Doesn't take too much of an imagination to see where that one will end up!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Here's a thought.......you're in court for a fitting room case. It's a jury trial, the perp's fighting it tooth & nail, so then it comes time for you to produce your video............

Exactly how well do ya think it's gonna go over when they push "play" on the VCR and the butt-naked perp in all his shiny moon glory pops up on the monitor for all to see......

Doesn't take too much of an imagination to see where that one will end up!!!!

---

Thanks for the "heads up".

Why? You want a copy??? :D

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Here's a thought.......you're in court for a fitting room case. It's a jury trial, the perp's fighting it tooth & nail, so then it comes time for you to produce your video............

Exactly how well do ya think it's gonna go over when they push "play" on the VCR and the butt-naked perp in all his shiny moon glory pops up on the monitor for all to see......

Doesn't take too much of an imagination to see where that one will end up!!!!

---

My guess is the video evidence would condemn the perp fairly easily.

It would of course bring to light the legality of this videotaping, which might get more laws passed banning the taping; but i do not see how damning evidence (caught on tape) would help the shoplifter at all, seeing as it is not illegal to tape them in the above mentioned states.

I never meant to say whether it was right or wrong to tape someone in the dressing room. I am just pointing out is not nearly as illegal as most people on this board seem to think it is.

Strictly from a LEGAL loss prevention standpoint, there are measures, as have already been discussed, that allow us to achieve the same result, AN ARREST, without direct fitting room observation.

Iowa and New Mexico are the only states that permit relatively unresricted covert video observation.

Any Loss Prevention Officer who cannot make a successful fitting room stop without intrusive cameras inside fitting room should turn in his badge! IMHO:D

Right on Panth! Right on! :)

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

Any Loss Prevention Officer who cannot make a successful fitting room stop without intrusive cameras inside fitting room should turn in his badge! IMHO:D

---

But that does not make the taping illegal, right? Again, I am not saying whether taping SHOULD or SHOULD NOT happen, I am just stating that it is LEGAL to tape fitting room interiors in several states.

If and I stressed if there are any retailers out there with cameras inside fitting rooms they will no doubt be sued for ton of cash sooner or later. I know of no such retailer! Regardless of any statues you post

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

If and I stressed if there are any retailers out there with cameras inside fitting rooms they will no doubt be sued for ton of cash sooner or later. I know of no such retailer! Regardless of any statues you post

---

I do not doubt it. People sue for a lot of things. That does not mean they would win the case, though. Look up a list of lawyers that deal specifically with these cases ( I posted a link to such a site earlier), and read their fine print. They will not even think about taking your case unless you fall within a certain set of guidelines, because they know the case is unwinnable if the law is not broken.

Give up the 'hair-splitting' already. Any LP worth his salt will be more than capable of pulling off a fitting room case without ANY use of video surveillance inside of any fitting room regardless of state statute permissability. Over the years I've pulled off dozens of fitting room apps and not once had a need for CCTV inside the room.

It all boils down to skill, not use of any fancy equipment!