Medic65726 said:
What I meant was that laws pertaining to search & seizure are generally found in the same place.
Seizing ID that is believed to be fake may seem like the right thing to do, but not only is there no legal obligation to sieze it, there is no legal right to do it (althought there was a proposed ammendment to the LLA, that as far as I know never passed). Now if it is fake, people are unlikely to persue the issue, but you are still committing a theft. Legally you might arrest the person under the CC (sec 494) and hold them for Police but that is all. And if all this is based on your BELIEF that the ID was fake and you are wrong, that is where the liability lies.
The precedent for seizure of a person's card was set by big box stores that seized expired or fake credit cards and fake debit cards, for turning over to investigative units or public security forces. It may be technically 'against the law' to seize someone's property, like a fake identification (which in itself is against the law), but its a little late to protest it since seizure of fake ID has been in practice for at least 20 years. Its a policy that has been allowed to be enforced by numerous establishments across North America and so far no court case has halted the action, and I havent read of any police departments charging stores/bars for enforcing that policy. So far I know only California has an actual law that
requires store operators to seize fake identification, with efforts to enact the same laws in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC. I havent seen it passed for anyplace in Canada yet, but if the insurance fraud groups have their say, it wont be long before we see it porposed here.
Example 1: http://www.cordweekly.com/cordweekly/myweb.php?hls=10034&news_id=1055
Employee enforces company policy.
Example 2: http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20071006010903AAjruMM
Not sure where they came up with that ruling, looks only like popular consensus.
Example 3: http://www.towncrieronline.ca/main/main.php?direction=viewstory&storyid=6179&rootcatid=&rootsubcatid=
More justification for bar owners - they would rather face $25,000 in court fees for wrongful deprivation of property than face up to $500,000 for being caught with having underage drinkers in their bars.