Slashdot Mirror
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."
And it smells like a lawsuit. I don't think either the police or the store is going to go unscathed.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
If you're going to argue against this guy, do yourself a favor: Don't argue the store was within their rights to ask for the receipt. Nobody's arguing with that, and you're a moron who can't fucking read if you think they are. Instead you need to make a case for why they were right to prevent him from leaving, because that, and only that, is what is being contended here.
You might want to read his blog. He IS such a person.
Oh, they chose the wrong man to mess with..
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Someone on fark posted a good summary of why stuff like this happens. Cops no longer use discretion when dealing with people. They will arrest and charge and let the courts sort it out later. Nevermind that simply being arrested and not charged will appear on your record and any background check. You are then responsible for court costs and attorney fees all to defend yourself against the cop being wrong. So you win in court, big deal. The damage has been done. Nothing will happen to the office who made the mistake. He could shoot you dead and be put on administrative leave WITH pay and still be cleared because you didn't act like the rest of the sheep. I used to feel bad for police but after seeing the corruption and amount of lies they tell first hand my opinion has swayed the other direction.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I find it hard to believe that there are so many people out there who would willingly bend over and spread their cheeks for anyone in authority who asks for whatever reason. That's such a scary thought, that I'm _hoping_ (and praying, for the future of this country) that it's just a small group of rabble-rousers who are positing those comments.
I could be talking out of my ass, but I am speaking from what little experience I have working at a retail toy store. I was always told that we were NOT allowed to approach anyone for suspicion of theft UNLESS we had witnessed that said person had stole something. Even then it wasn't so cut and dry. For instance, little old ladies would put things in their huge carpet bag only to take it out when they got to the register. Aside from that, even cops need "Probable Cause" to start digging in your things, without a warrant. Acting shady or being an asshole isn't Probable Cause. At best it would be "Reasonable suspicion", which only does the men in blue any good if you are in a school or other govt building. But I am not sure that this even applies, because Best Buy are not the cops.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Why deal with this by creating a confrontation with officers? Why not simply state, "It is my right not to show what's in this bag. If you want to see it, I'll go back to the register and return it." This seems a lot easier, doesn't get you in trouble with the cops, and still makes your point.
It is failing, but because it's failing gradually and has taken several lifetimes to get this way, each generation grows up used to "the way things are" (Social Security vote-buying, drug asset forfeiture laws that don't require an arrest or for charges to be brought, warrentless domestic surveillance) and may lament the freedoms lost but do not see the inevitability of the police state. B
Because of the difficulty of a massive takeover and the resistence and uprisings it would cause, freedom is almost never taken away all at once. Instead, it's eroded gradually, little bit by little tiny bit (always "for the children", "for your safety", "to stop terrorists", "to fight [some] drugs"), which suits the statists because it is never given back, making the resulting police state inevitable.
What you're really dealing with here is an almost religious, always unstated belief that the artificial construct of the nation, as personified by state power, is like a massive all-powerful organism and the individuals of which it is composed are akin to cells in the body in the sense that any one of them is expendable and insignificant and they only matter in large numbers. This mentality has become deeply established in the USA, which is why in the news, no crime ever happens to a person - it happens to a Black person, or a White person, or an Asian person, or a woman, or a senior citizen, etc because the group identity has become more significant than the individual identity. This is useful for the goal of the statists, since each group has perceived collective interests in large enough numbers to influence the politics of the State. This is how you dehumanize people and turn them into a label, because it's no longer the mind, body, and soul of an individual who has hopes and dreams and feels pain like you do but just another faceless organization that can only be understood as an abstraction.
Of course you also need to have a war of some kind going on to keep the public in a fearful state, since this is the best way to discourage rational thought and promote a groupthink "pack animal" situation. War on poverty, war on (some) drugs, war on crime, war on terror, war on obesity, etc. are how you get around that pesky Bill of Rights. For example, consider the 4th Amendment, which states:
Because of the War on (some) Drugs, it is now considered acceptable for the police to seize property without bothering to arrest anyone or charge them with any crime (reference). Thanks to the War on Terror, it is now considered acceptable for the feds to intercept communications and execute wiretaps without all that hassle of demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a warrant. Both of these practices, along with the entire idea of fighting an undeclared "war" against a battle tactic (terrorism is a particularly despicable form of guerilla warfare), would have been considered absolutely absurd things that would never happen here 100
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
"I must say I have a hard time sympathizing here. This falls under the heading of something my old boss used to refer to as "you'd be right, but you'd be dead"."
Er, except he's right and he isn't dead! If this **isn't** a big deal then it never would have resulted in his unlawful detention and arrest.
Now this clearly does not rise to the importance of fighting for suffrage and civil rights, but your boss would have dismissed those fights as well. He would have told Rosa Parks that she'd be right but she'd be dead! That or you are miss representing your boss's opinion...
All praise and kudos to this man. I am not surprised by the outcome w/r/t not showing identification. While there are laws and court rulings that mean that most any situation a law-abiding /.er finds him or herself in will not be legally required to show identification, these are largely ignored. Furthermore, they are very often "judgment call" laws: in other words, courts can later rule that the officer may have been justified (in defiance of reason, not something the courts are unfamiliar with.) Finally, laws vary from state to state. Last time I checked, for example, I was in New York State, and the police were allowed to ask you where you were going, for example, with no justification needed -- you will find yourself in trouble, and actual real non-martyr trouble, for refusing this based on your feeling about what actually is reasonable.
/. YRO.
/.ers who don't already know need to know this, is that when you are in the middle of a confrontation with authorit[y/ies] the situation is incredibly stressful. You need to make a "game plan" ahead of time: figure out exactly what you are and are not willing to do after researching the consequences. Look not only at the laws, but at the actual enforcement of them, and ask yourself if $X is better spent, not on lawyers, but on political advocacy. Our nation, great as it is in many ways, has ceased to follow crucial portions of its mandate -- people need to be more strategic.
I am a "privacy nut", but I have long stopped refusing to show identification (or in one case, provide a social security number for a bicycling-on-the-sidewalk ticket) to police officers. It is not worth the hassle. You will get caught up in a massive legal system. The only effective means to prevent this kind of completely illigitmate search/detention is to get involved at the political level. The bare facts of the Constitution in this case will not help you. This is in contrast to first-amendment type things, which the courts remain pretty firmly in favor on, and also tend to attract a great deal more press attention and public sympathy beyond
Circuit City, on the other hand: obviously, no kind of political action will change that. If I had "ubersmarts" in a stressful moment, I would have done exactly as this man did, but then showed my ID to the police officer. The problem, and
Again, just to be clear: I fully support this man's decisions. They are not the decisions I would have made, but they are legitimate, noble and American.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Refusing a search is NEVER probable cause, or reasonable suspicion or anything for a search. Ever. This has been in the courts and ruled on clearly.
I mean think: Suppose that it was. Well then the police would never not be able to search you. They'd ask "Can we search your person/car/house/whatever?" If you say yes, you've granted consent so they are fine. If you say no, then they'd just say "Well he said no, that's probable cause to suspect he's doing something wrong so we can search."
So refusal of a search cannot be taken for anything other than what it is. Otherwise there would be no ability to refuse a search, ever.
Also, look up the standard of probably cause, you'll find that it is actually fairly high. "I think it probably happened," or "That guy looks suspicious," and so on do NOT give probably cause.
And yes, even though you don't drive, you MUST have a state ID with you at all times
I don't have an ID from your state (or any US state). Does that mean I'm committing an offence the minute I enter it ?
How do tourists / visitors survive - or do you just not allow them ?
Well, personally, I'm glad some people are willing to be the designated dick and stand guard against the gradual erosion of our rights.
It's always easier to just go to the back of the bus, and it's always easier to wait until you're actually being forced into the showers before objecting.
I can't believe how few posts here grasp the central legal issue. The case against CC is a side show. Up until the officer verified that nothing was stolen, he probably had the law, or at least the sympathies of the judiciary, behind him. *After* he verified that no crime had originally been committed, it was his snotty-nosed follow-up charge of impeding police procedure that is going to get him into some deep legal hot water, because at that point in time he suspected no crime at all, other than the refusal to show a driver's license, which it's doubtful he had any right to demand, and furthermore, the officer neglected to ask for other information he was entitled to that would have enabled him to conduct those duties without needing the DL in the first place.
This is a case of an officer issuing a "screw you" charge against a citizen, at a point in time where he is suspected of no original crime, for sticking up legal rights he actually holds.
What is it about this that's hard to grasp? For that matter, why don't the police just get it over and done with by charging the constitution for obstruction of law-enforcement activities. It absolutely does obstruct law-enforcement. There's no question about that whatsoever. It turns out that law-enforcement is not the highest ideal of constitutional society, a mundane and disagreeable detail which the police occasionally forget.
Imagine you go to a bank to protest a $50 banking fee that was charged by mistake. The bank manager agrees that the $50 charge was in error. Then you return home and check your bank statement electronically and it now shows a $500 fee for "irregular statement review request".
The cop had an opportunity to drop the matter once the reality of no original crime was apparent to all involved. He didn't. He chose to go snotty. That's the issue here. Not Circuit City groping people's bagaloons. Like, duh.
Ignoring the differences in California and Ohio statutes, probable cause in a shoplifting case requires a good deal more than "he wouldn't show me a receipt." By and large, in order to detain someone on suspicion of shoplifting you need to see them:
And you have to keep them under continual observation the whole time.
As you mentioned, Mr. Righi's refusal to suck corporate cock is not probable cause.
Having read TFA, it looks to me like the security guard and store manager have unlawfully detained not just Mr. Righi, but his entire family: By blocking the car from moving, the manager and guard trapped his father and father's wife, his brother and two sisters. That's five crimes -- possibly felonies -- committed by the store, on top of whatever crimes they committed against their customer.
If Mr. Righi and his family decide to pursue this, I think the perpetrators and their employers will be begging for the chance to apologize and settle.
This is not my sandwich.
Had he just coughed up his license he probably could have got the store manager at least a ticket.
Now he'll have merely a highly-publicized lawsuit. Oh darn?
Also, the guy in this case wasn't completely right. For some interesting recent commentary there's this supreme court case http://freetotravel.org/hiibel.html
Not sure what your point here is. Hiibel v Nevada says in accordance with Nevada law he was required to tell the officers who he was if they had "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity. This fellow (a) was not in Nevada, (b) the officer had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by him (he was the one who called 911 for help!), and (c) he did indeed tell them his name, which the store clerks could have easily verified if there was any doubt.
At a minimum, if you do not provide a government issued ID they police can detain you until they are sure you are who you say you are.
Only if they have reason to detain you in the first place. If I'm walking down the street, the cops can't simply ask for my ID and then detain me for not having any. After Hiibel, they can only if they have reason to think I committed a crime, and if state law allows it.
You don't get to just tell the cop "I'm George Bush" and expect him to take your word for it.
But he didn't claim to be George Bush. He gave his real name, which the officer had no reason to doubt, and which the store could easily verify. And he was not even the one being accused of assault (or anything at all), so his identity shouldn't matter.
So in his effort to make a point about circuit city, he called the cops on the emergency line.
If being detained against your will isn't an emergency, I don't know what is. I've called 911 for far less, when told to by cops. It's not some magic number you can only dial if you're dying.
Rather than sticking to the issue of being prevented from leaving (his entire family, no less, so multiple counts) he pissed off the one guy who could have written a ticket and arrested people to try and make a second point that he may have been technically correct about, but not in principal.
Assuming you mean "principle" -- what principle exactly are you thinking of? "You're only allowed to defend one right per 24-hour period"? Your comment about "pissing somebody off" is hilarious -- it reminds me of John Adams in "1776", when congress won't vote on independence for fear of pissing somebody off: "This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!"