Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License

NMerriam writes "Michael Righi was arrested in Ohio over the weekend after refusing to show his receipt when leaving Circuit City. When the manger and 'loss prevention' employee physically prevented the vehicle he was a passenger in from leaving the parking lot, he called the police, who arrived, searched his bag and found he hadn't stolen anything. The officer then asked for Michael's driver's license, which he declined to provide since he wasn't operating a motor vehicle. The officer then arrested him, and upon finding out Michael was legally right about not having to provide a license, went ahead and charged him with 'obstructing official business' anyways."

Comments

Full text since site is down:

[RandyOo]

A few people contacted me wanting to know if I was accepting donations for my legal fund. Donations would be greatly appreciated. If more
funds are raised than are actually needed I will donate the excess to the ACLU. Donations can be made via PayPal to: paypal@michaelrighi.com.

Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my father's side of the family and got arrested. More on that arrested part to come.

For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh to visit my father, his wife and my little brother and sister. Shortly after arriving we packed the whole family into my father's Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (It's my little sister's birthday today and that was her cute/bizare birthday request.)

Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. (The Brooklyn, Ohio Circuit City to be exact.) Having forgotten that it was my sister's birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disney's "Cars" game for the Nintendo Wii. I also needed to purchase a Power Squid surge protector which I paid for separately with my business credit card. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, "Sir, I need to examine your receipt." I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, "No thank you."

As I walked through the double doors I heard Santura yelling for his manager behind me. My father and the family had the Buick pulled up waiting for me outside the doors to Circuit City. I opened the door and got into the back seat while Santura and his manager, whose name I have since learned is Joe Atha, came running up to the vehicle. I closed the door and as my father was just about to pull away the manager, Joe, yelled for us to stop. Of course I knew what this was about, but I played dumb and pretended that I didn't know what the problem was. I wanted to give Joe the chance to explain what all the fuss was for.

I reopened the door to talk with Joe and at this point Joe positioned his body between the open car door and myself. (I was still seated in the Buick.) Joe placed his left hand on the roof of the car and his right hand on the open car door. I asked Joe if there was a problem. The conversation went something like this:

Me: "Is there a problem?"
Joe: "I need to examine your bag and receipt before letting you leave this parking lot."
Me: "I paid for the contents in this bag. Are you accusing me of stealing?"
Joe: "I'm not accusing you of anything, but I'm allowed by law to look through your bag when you leave."
Me: "Which law states that? Name the law that gives you the right to examine my bag when I leave a Circuit City."

Of course Joe wasn't able to name the law that gives him, a U.S. citizen and Circuit City employee the right to examine anything that I, a U.S. citizen and Circuit City customer am carrying out of the store. I've dealt with these scare tactics at other stores in the past including other Circuit Cities, Best Buys and Guitar Centers. I've always taken the stance that retail stores shouldn't treat their loyal customers as criminals and that customers shouldn't so willingly give up their rights along with their money. Theft sucks and I wish that shoplifters were treated more harshly than they are, but the fact is that I am not a shiplifter shoplifter and shouldn't have to forfeit my civil rights when leaving a store.

I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands. I then gave Joe three options:

1. "Accuse me of shoplifting and call the pol

Circuit City and the Officer F'd up big time

[VidEdit]

First, he didn't have to show his receipt or open the bag containing **his** property for the Circuit City door monitor. Unless you are shopping in a membership store where you signed a contract allowing such searches they are **voluntary**

Security consultant Chris E. McGoey notes:
"A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who refused to comply with the voluntary search."
http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm

Sure, it would have been easier to submit to a search, but stores use the force of conformity as a method of social engineering to get you to comply. A voluntary search isn't voluntary unless you can say no without negative consequences, otherwise the search is **coerced**. The effectiveness of this social engineering will be seen in the comments of people who will say he should have just shown his receipt. These people show their receipts and, based on innate human behavior, think that everyone should behave as they do and that not to do so is to be unreasonable. But where should it stop? If you think the store had a right to make him show a receipt and have his bags searched--contrary to law--why not make him take his shoes off and let them inspect his wallet? They have **just as much right** do do that as search his bags, which is to say, "none."

Not showing your receipt when you don't have to may seem like a trivial gesture but clearly it is not. The OP was within his legal rights and as a result was arrested. Most of us are unwilling to face those kind of consequences to stand up to our everyday rights. He was not. I hope he brings awareness to the over zealous use of searches by private business acting like they are the government with police powers.

As to the arrest for failing to show his license. The OP was the one who called the cops and they arrested **him**, not the store personnel who were unlawfully detaining him in the parking lot! Idaho state law specifically says he just has to identify himself to the officer not show ID, and he isn't required to have an ID on him! To all of those who say he should have been arrested for not showing ID do you think that would also apply if he hadn't been carrying one? If not, why is it any different to arrest him just because he did?

Re:I smell something...

[CrankyFool]

The store may not come away unscathed, but it's likely the police officer (really, his department since it's likely a law suit would be against the department rather than against the individual officer) is likely covered.

Barring a specific law against requiring to show driver's license (and the person in this case has so far found an absence of a law requiring showing the ID, not a law specifying you do not have to show ID), an argument could be made that if a police officer is investigating a potential crime, they have the right to ask for identification from relevant parties.

Now, I'm not saying "an argument could be made" in the sense of "I'm a layman and I'm just talking shit" here -- I'm saying that in the sense of "an argument's already been made to the Supreme Court, and they said it was reasonable." In other words, there's already case law, determined at the highest levels, saying it's reasonable to ask for ID, and it's reasonable to convict someone of impeding the police for refusing to show ID. See HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.h tml

Re:RTFA

[cpt kangarooski]

Any thoughts on how to keep goods from leaving the store unauthorized, without violating someone's rights?

The traditional way?

The tort of false imprisonment consists of intentionally confining a victim without his consent, by certain means (e.g. physical boundaries, unlawful force, unlawful threats of force). But there is an exception to this, with regard to shoplifting, known as the shopkeeper's privilege. In order for a specific act of detaining someone to qualify, the shopkeeper has to have a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has shoplifted, he can only use a reasonable degree of force and restrain them in a reasonable manner, he can only detain them long enough to carry out a reasonable investigation (probably no longer than about 15 minutes), and it needs to take place on or quite close to the premises (you can't hunt someone down hours or miles later). So long as these requirements are met, the shopkeeper is protected, even if he made a mistake. The important thing is that he acted reasonably.

That's the common law rule; there are statutory forms of the privilege in some jurisdictions, but they're likely pretty similar.

The issue here is this: given that it is not reasonable to suspect every single customer merely because they are exiting the store, but given that it is lawful to ask exiting customers to voluntarily show their receipts, is it reasonable to suspect someone of shoplifting for no other reason whatsoever than that they did not comply with the voluntary showing of their receipt?

Personally, I would think not. While the damages that this guy personally suffered are relatively minor, if this is a matter of policy for the entire store or chain of stores, and if it is a common policy in other stores, then punitive damages might be called for to discourage this store (and others, by means of cautionary example) from having such policies in future.

Re:I smell something...

[Kenji DRE]

Even if the police officer found something, the exact same lawsuit could exist, as anything found would be inadmissible (IANAL) due it being found in the illegal search. Yes, it's called fruit of the poisonous tree

Re:I smell something...

[Jarjarthejedi]

Schools, for one. They can search your backpack anytime they want in school. Can't think of any others offhand but I'm sure there are more.

Re:I smell something...

[jnik]

It's reasonable to ask for ID; it is reasonable to require someone to identify himself. It is not reasonable to require identification. [T]he Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

Store searches cannot be enforced in Texas

[jeko]

Here's why:

BTW, I'm basically quoting, of all things, a decision by the Texas Supreme Court. Texas is one of the states the unequivocally says you can walk right by the guy at the door with a grin and a wave.

1. Simply entering private property does not give the owner the right to forcibly search you. e.g. You show up to a friend's barbecue. Silverware goes missing. Your friend can ask you to leave. Your friend cannot forcibly search you.

2. A place of business is private property, but you actually LOSE rights as a property owner when you open to the public for business. In my own home, I am allowed to be as racist, sexist and as homophobic as I choose to be. In my own restaurant open to the public, I'd better serve all customers equally.

3. Once the store accepts payment, everything in your bag, including the bag, becomes your property. Money has changed hands, the transaction has been completed. It's your stuff, just as much as your wallet and underwear.

4. The store is well aware of the transaction and the fact that this is now your property. Most store have exits within sight of the cash register, if not in fact FUNNELED through them. We can also prove from the records that the store knows this is now your property.

5. While the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the store, there is absolutely NO law that GIVES them the right to search. See point one. The Fourth Amendment limits the Authority of Government. The store has NO authority to begin with. Saying the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply so the Store can search is like saying traffic cops can't pull over every pretty blonde they see, but since I'm a private citizen I can.

6. While stores do have the right to detain shoplifters, the store had better be ready to supply a videotape or a witness who will testify to the theft.

7. When testifying under oath, the stores admitted some wonderfully interesting points. One, the searches at the door caught virtually no shoplifters, and two, the searches at the door NEVER "helped the customer" by making sure they actually received all the items they paid for. Even if the searches did find "forgotten items" the cashier should have placed in the customer's cart, you can't force someone to accept your help. The stores were forced to admit the searches at the door were for "deterrence," in other words, security theater. Don't shoplift because we're searching you at the door.

Oddly enough, for once in its existence, the Texas Supreme Court made the right call on this one. In the State of Texas, stores cannot detain you at the door for as search. In addition, since you cannot sign away your legal rights in a contract -- you cannot sell yourself into slavery, an employment agreement where you agree you work for less than minimum wage is void -- not even Sam's and Costco can force this as part of the "membership."

The only reason door searches exist in Texas is that people voluntarily put up with them.

Re:I smell something...

[Orange Crush]

Correct. Every retail store I've ever worked at has a strict no-chase policy. If someone's suspected of shoplifting they can be asked to stop or asked to have their bags searched, but employees are not to do anything else to attempt to stop the person. If you really think unpaid merchandise is walking out of the store, call the cops, try to get the license plate number and let them deal with it (it's their job.).

The store's home office would much rather see $100 in merchandise walk out the door than an employee do something stupid and bring down a major lawsuit. My bet is these employees violated company policy, will almost certainly be fired, and maybe even sued personally (tho, if they're just CC employees, they're probably not worth suing). Either way, Circuit City should be ready to cut a large check to keep this guy from suing.

Re:I smell something...

[drtsystems]

I work at this circuit city, and the cop who came is apparently friends with the store director. I know I have seen him shopping at the store a lot and will often talk with a few of the managers.

Uphill battle...

[Xenographic]

While there may be local laws that change things, and IANAL, people have lost several similar cases in the past, so there may be an uphill battle here. I know I personally wouldn't convict someone of a BS charge like 'resisting arrest' without some evidence of serious resistance (i.e. bruises or injuries) but beyond that... :[

Dudley Hiibel in Nevada
John Gilmore & his Supreme Court case

Re:Uphill battle...

[Marful]

You'll note in Dudley Hiibel vs. Nevada that they reference a previous case, Kolender vs. Lawson ( KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)461 U.S. 352).

Edward Lawson was "detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). 2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed"


Edward Lawsons crime was being a black male in an affluent neighborhood and jogging. During these stops he did not have his drivers license on him, or did not feel the need to present his ID upon request. The police would then arrest him for either interfering with a police investigation or PC 647(e)

In particular Edward Lawson, when refusing to show ID, was charged with PC 647(e). His lawyer's contention was that PC 647(e)'s definition of "Identify" was constitutionally vague, and successfully argued his case before the California Supreme Court.


PC 647(e)
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
himself or herself and to account for his or her presence when
requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
safety demands this identification.


In the Supreme Court of California the judges made the following statements and ruling:

Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . . ." Id., at 91. In addition, 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964). 8 [461 U.S. 352, 359]

...

We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

...

In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4


"Shopkeeper's Privilege" is a whole other issue too. Which was also violated and thus the protections under it to a shopkeeper for unlawful imprisonment are no longer granted.

P.S. IANAL

Re:Uphill battle...

[Marful]

In relation to "Shopkeeper's Privilege" which in most states falls under Common Law:

Some states, such as Washington and California have codified their Common Law and incorporated them into the UCC and PC. California in particular, we have Penal Code 490.5 (f):

Penal Code 490.5 f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.


Since (in California) PC 490.5(f) is in the Penal Code section of law, the definition of "Probable Cause" falls under that of the same Penal Code.

Under PC 490.5(f) a shopkeeper must have "Probable Cause" to believe the person being detained is attempting to, or unlawfully took merchandise from the store.

Since theft is a misdemeanor, and NOT a felony, then "Probable Cause" required to arrest requires direct first hand knowledge of the act or event taking place. i.e. An agent of the store must see personally, or via CCTV the act being committed.

If the theft was a felony (grand theft), then the "Probable Cause" necessary to arrest for a felony only requires a "reasonable doubt".


Regardless, refusal to submit to a search is not grounds for probable cause for either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Fourth Amendment Rights, confirmed numerous times by the US Supreme Court.)

"Impede," for the English impaired

[jeko]

Tripping a cop who's chasing a suspect is "impeding." Refusing to yield the right of way to an ambulance is "impeding." Rubbernecking an accident is "impeding." Speaking only Japanese when English is your native language is "impeding."

Declining a request the officer doesn't have the legal right to make is not impeding. If it was, then the cop would get to make up his own little laws on the spot, and that's not correct. Note how the law goes out of its way to define that this has to be an "authorized act." The laws states you need to supply your name and address. He did. The Store had been given TWO different forms of ID for the man. His identity was never in question.

What we have is a store manager, and then a cop, getting WAY out of line, and the cop's offense is the worse one since it was committed under the color of authority. People who make stands over principle are called "patriots" here.

Re:"Impede," for the English impaired

[jeko]

State law requires ID to purchase alcohol. State Law requires ID to operate a motor vehicle. Since he was doing neither, all State Law requires, black letter law, by the way, is to tell them his name and address, which he did. The actual law is cited in the article. We are not yet required to submit papers to walk down the street in this country.

Re:I smell something...

[Maxmin]

Most states and municipalities have passed laws granting shopkeepers limited privilege to search and detain customers, when they reasonably believe a theft has occurred. List of laws by state. Some laws provide the shopkeeper limited immunity from torts arising from detainment.

The criteria which triggers shopkeeper privilege varies, but generally is centered on whether the store's employees witnessed a theft or other suspicious activity that indicates a theft has taken place (e.g. opening packaged goods, placing goods upon one's self, etc.)

The shopkeeper has a certain amount of leeway. In Ohio, the statute is:

2935.041 Detention, arrest of shoplifters; protection of library, museum and archival institution property, specifically:

(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.

(F) Any peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person that he has probable cause to believe has committed any act described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section or that he has probable cause to believe has committed an unlawful taking in a mercantile establishment. An arrest under this division shall be made within a reasonable time after the commission of the act or unlawful taking.

As to the officer arresting the dude who wouldn't show his license, that's gonna be up to the jury to decide. Watch for the local prosecutor to drop the charges, as a public conciliatory gesture, sign that the police department is hedging against future lawsuit.

To the folks who say "forgive and forget," that the arrestee wasn't harmed or should drop the case - remember that, in most cases, today, the public entity you've just been arrested by is a municipal corporation, and carries many of the protections of a business corporation. Cities generally act as corporations do - to deny wrongdoing, and to put up a lawyer front. That leaves only one way to combat wrongful arrest: sue. The city won't apologize, that's tantamount to admission of wrongdoing. It is up to the arrestee to assert that wrong was done, and prove it in court.

That's how "The System" works. It's become a paper-based RPG - your lawyer versus their lawyer, knight vs. knight.

Re:I smell something...

[Score Whore]

That's so funny that you write this. The reality is, and this is supported by research, if a doctor makes a habit of, when he screws up, admitting it and talks with the patient over their options the number of malpractice suits goes down:

Colorado's largest malpractice insurer, COPIC, for example, has enrolled 1,800 physicians in a disclosure program under which they immediately express remorse to patients when medical care goes wrong and describe in detail what happened.

Malpractice claims against these 1,800 doctors have dropped 50 percent since 2000, while the cost of settling these doctors'claims has fallen 23 percent.

Re:I smell something...

[gEvil (beta)]

Yes, but if you read the article, you'll see that Righi was arrested AFTER the police officer didn't find any stolen items in his bags. On top of that, the officer wouldn't even tell Righi why he was being arrested until he was back at the station and was able to sit down for a few moments to dig up an excuse.

Re:Oh my god

[Enigma2175]

He definitely obstructed official business by calling police instead of showing his bag.

He called police because he was being unlawfully detained. If somebody is being detained against their will and they call the police to remedy the situation, I fail how to see how that is obstructing official business. That is what the police are there for.

How do you want to catch a thief if you are not allowed to look into his bag?

The good old fashioned way: by observing the thief steal merchandise. If you didn't see him steal anything, you have no reason to believe that he has. Treating all your customers as thieves is not good for business -- just ask the RIAA.

He clearly called the cops and didn't identify himself.

No, he clearly DID identify himself, he just refused to show a drivers license because he was not driving. Ohio state law quite specifically states you do not have to provide a drivers license to a police officer if you are not driving.

Re:I smell something...

[Romancer]

The store declined to call the cops and so lost the right to make the complaint based on holding a person for arrest by the police. It's in the article. They refused to call the cops.

Re:I smell something...

[Sancho]

There's a lot of misinformation spreading around here.

Shopkeeper's Privilege is what allows businesses to search you, or to detain you until the police arrive. It only applies if they have a good reason to suspect that you are shoplifting. Generally speaking, though, the rules protect consumers as much as they protect the stores. The store must maintain visual contact with you at all times, from the time of the suspected shoplifting until you leave. Otherwise, they lose a lot of their power.

You don't lose your rights just because you set foot on private property. However, the store can kick you out and demand that you never return if you don't follow their policies. If you have already purchased your goods, this won't void the purchase.

Re:I smell something...

[RobertM1968]

IANAL but I seem to recall (from researching it when I owned a storefront):

Actually, this varies per state and per jurisdiction (ie: county, city, town) depending on the specific laws.

Some states require that you must actually walk out the door with a product before you can be accused of attempting to shoplift... inotherwords if I go into a Circuit City and stuff a bunch of CDs in my shirt, until I step through that door, it isnt a crime... other states allow that action that (seems to) constitute intent as attempted shoplifting.

As for jurisdictional borders/property... that varies as well per state. In some states, you cannot try to detain the person once they have left your building... in others you can (as long as they have not left your parking lot)... and in a few I believe you could try to detain them even after that.

Even in states that allow you to detain people suspected of shoplifting in your parking lot, the waters get kind of murky there too... If you are in a shopping center, the parking lot is quite possibly not yours. If you are renting a space that has it's own parking and no rights of egress to others, then it is different. If you own the property and the parking, that too is different...

As for Ohio, I have no clue.... but don't assume Ohio fits a particular circumstance as the laws are quite different in many places.

In New York if I remember correctly, [at least in the county I was a store manager in (not a Circuit City)], we can detain you, and even request to see your receipts or request you let us inspect your bag(s), but cannot forcibly do so... if you refuse, which is your right, then we can detain you until the police arrive who then can search your bag if we sufficiently prove to them/convince them a crime (shoplifting) has occurred.

Here are some actual store rules...

[SmoothTom]

...Yeah, they are for Target, but notice especially the REQUIREMENTS about allowing a customer to leave or to have been actually observed stealing.

http://targetfiling.blogspot.com/2007/05/target-ap -directives-revision-01-2006.html

The person arrested here did NOT break the law, and should not have been arrested.

The store manager and Asset Protection person DID break the law, and the police officer seriously bent it if not actually breaking it.

I doubt a city attorney will choose to prosecute the person arrested.

--
Tomas

Re:You understand but misunderstand

[Sycraft-fu]

No, they don't. They have the right to remove any and all persons who fail to use their property as they see fit, but that's all. Try it sometime, try something stupid, see if you don't land in jail. Have something like an "All women must remove their clothes at the door," policy. You can do that, and refuse entry to women that fail to comply, however if you let them in then try to forcibly disrobe them, you're going to jail for assault at the very least. I don't care that it's your property, you are not the king. You make the rules and those who fail to comply must leave, but you can't force them to stay and do as you please.

Again the the Ohio statues you understand but don't. Yes, stores can detain someone if they've got a legal reason. Guess what? Refusing a search isn't a legal reason. Refusing a search is NEVER probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search. This one has been tested in court, the rulings are crystal clear. Refusal to search may be taken as nothing other than that: A refusal to search. It cannot give cause for a search. Otherwise such a refusal would be meaningless.

So again I'll say: Just owning property doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want. This is something you'd do well to understand, as you could get in real trouble with the attitude you have currently. In the case of purely private property you have essentially unlimited exclusionary rights, that is you can decide who is and is not allowed on the property for any reason you like, and change those reasons at any time (public businesses are more restricted, refusing access based on things like race is illegal). However that's all you get to do. You cannot force people to stay and do something they don't want. Doesn't matter if that's your "policy" doesn't matter if you have a sign, doesn't matter if you shout it from the hilltops. Your ownership of the property gives you the right to control access, not the right to force people to do as you please.

Re:I smell something...

[Just Another Perl Ha]

...not silly at all.

Since the store most likely shares the parking lot with a number of other merchants, the parking lot is construed as a public thoroughfare (otherwise, the police wouldn't be involved with any traffic accidents therein).

Sorry.... can't have it both ways.

---

Yes... I really do have a 4 digit UserID (and gobs of karma to go with it)... so there...