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."
This brings up a question. Is a store legally allowed to make you show your receipt or look through your bags? I mean, once you buy an item, it is yours and is officially your property, isn't it? If stores can look through a shopping bag does that mean that stores can look into personal bags, and even search your pockets and such?
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
According to the article, it was for obstructing official business or some such nonsense. Later, the blogger cites a law saying he only has to inform the officer of his name, date of birth, and address. It won't matter much though. It reminds me of the time I tried to fight a traffic ticket. The judge didn't want to hear anything I said. I lost. I swear to god, when I was leaving the courthouse, I saw the same judge and same cop outside smoking a cigarette. Judge says to cop "Congratulations on the promotion Bob".
Well, according to the summary (TFA being dead now), no one said "sorry man", instead the cop looked for another pretext to charge and arrest him. So lawyers are already in the picture.
No, this is not a troll post. :) In Soviet Russia, most stores had the following system (and some still do to this day):
1. You find an item that you want to buy. Sometimes it's behind the counter, so you can't really reach it, only ogle it from afar.
2. You go to the cashier's booth and pay for the item. The cashier gives you a check with the sum you paid written on it.
3. You go back to the counter and give the check to the salesperson, who will then give you the item.
Horrible, at least from the point of view of client-friendliness, but pretty effective against shoplifting. No, I'm not at all advocating this system -- hell, if some store tried it in America, they'd be out of business by mid-afternoon. I'm just saying that if big chains are that concerned with theft-prevention, then that's the only relatively effective way to solve the problem.
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
This is supposed to be Cop Law 101 for these guys. Under the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, cops can ask you whatever they want, but they cannot force you to answer or to cooperate unless they have reasonable articulable grounds to suspect that you have committed or are about to commit a crime.
The Circuit City employee was not accusing this fellow of stealing anything. He was simply under the mistaken impression that he could force a customer to comply with a search. What the cop did was an unreasonable seizure, an illegal arrest. What the employee did was false imprisonment. It doesn't matter what the Ohio legislature says about having to show your ID when a cop asks. A legislature cannot override the Federal Constitution. Yes, both the cop, the store employee and the store could be liable.
I think the guy should sue everyone involved. It has come to be a serious annoyance that every store thinks they can detain you because you had the gall to purchase something from them. One way to educate people is to have a nice fat lawsuit. If Circuit City wants to avoid all the bad publicity this would generate, they can settle for a nice fat sum.
It's not to prevent shoplifting. It's to prevent theft with employee collusion. If you and the cashier were accomplices, you could grab a $500 product and a $5 product, get in the right line, only get the the $5 one rung up, and walk off with the $500 one perfectly calmly in plain sight. It sounds dumb, but I've heard that's the real reason they go through the whole receipt bullshit. The employees are basically informing on each other.
I always refuse to show my receipt / property when leaving Fry's (the worst in my opinion) / other stores. I also refuse to wait in line to leave. I just walk by and leave. Only once has the "loss prevention employee" tried to stop me. I simply informed him everything in my bag and on my person was my property and if he wished to search it he would need to call a law enforcement officer. I also informed him that if he tried to grab me I would consider it assault and I would defend myself. I do not surrender my right to privacy because I enter a privately owned store. Their effective recourse is to inform me I am unwelcome to return, ask me to leave and/or call law enforcement if I refuse.
As to blocking my car in the parking lot, that sounds pretty much like the textbook definition of unlawful detention / kidnapping. Maybe a call to the FBI is in order.
Correct - I looked into this because I was once assaulted at a CompUSA because I saw kids shoplifting, wearing jackets in the middle of summer and walking out unchecked, and the doorman asked to see my bag. I refused, saying "why are you harassing paying customers? If you do not trust your cashiers you need to be watching them, not harassing me." He then yanked the bag, drawing blood. Okay, he assaulted me, and I have physical proof - I now had the right to defend myself and physically disable him. I snap kicked him in the nuts, grabbed the pressure point in his wrist, and yelled for the manager. I explained what happened, and calmly said "Now, we can do one of two things: one, you can press charges for shoplifting without seeing my bag, and THEN you may check the contents and my receipt. If you are wrong, I WILL be pressing charges for unlawful arrest, assault, AND sue the store for defamation. Two, you can make this jerk apologise and then fire him on the spot."
Well, he knew I know my rights, he saw that the guy drew blood, and he has seen me in the store before buying high-ticket items (although after that episode the most I've spent at that store is $20, and scored advertised freebies on the day-after-thanksgiving loss leader specials) and he made the guy apologise and informed him that he was fired. Calling the police was deemed unnecessary. At that point I did give him the decency of showing him the bag and receipt, only to underscore my point. I then asked why I, a paying customer was harassed and assaulted, while teenagers are walking in, stuffing their bulky jackets, and then walking out unchecked.
Depending on your state, the store does NOT have the right to search your bags without cause, EVEN if clearly posted, unless you pay a fee and sign an agreement containing those terms - such as BJs, Costco, Sam's Club, etc. - when you walk into your store you do not give up your rights as an American citizen. Of course that was the 1990s, and all of that has changed now under Bush's administration; one is presumed guilty until proven innocent since 09/11.
Also, regarding drivers' license: depending on your state you may not EVER have to hand it to a police officer. That is the case here; I was once pulled over for passing in a passing zone - LEGALLY, in my Corvette. There was PLENTY of room to pass, but I did it uphill. An officer I saw two cars behind (I saw him behind before I passed - I thought nothing of it because it was a legal passing zone) pulled me over. He was a rookie - he asked for my license and registration. I SHOWED them to him. He asked me to hand them to and I told him I will not; it is my right to refuse to hand it to him, but I DO have to show it to him upon request if I am a driver and pulled over, so I am obliging to the law and showing it to him. He then asked if I knew why I pulled him over, so I said "I presume speeding, however, while passing I did not exceed the speed limit. As you know, that woman was hindering the flow of traffic, driving more than 10 under." Well, he proceeded to inform me he pulled me over because he does not think that passing zones should be legal, and that were I driving a Ford Escort, or even the Ford Crown Vic he was driving, I would not have made it passing uphill. I then entered smartass mode and replied "Well, this car isn't a clown vic, is it? I regret to inform you that despite your preferences, passing zones are legal, so write me up, and then you can follow me to the station a half mile down the road and we'll have a nice long chat with your supervisor." Well, of course he did not write me up, and saw that I had a spotless driving record for the previous 7 years (except for a "fix it" tag because I was pulled over in an MR2 I refused to get inspected - I now get my cars inspected because it has become a moving violation, not just a fix it tag and small fine). I've seen him around town since then and he's actually been downright friendly. I think he was just having a bad day or something, or he was gung-ho since he was a rookie, but I had
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Well, luckily this guy is still alive to take the case to court. But the courts don't always work for everybody. Here we have a case where the state's attorney says you must submit to an arrest, even an illegal one. It also appears here that you must submit to being shot and killed with no expectation of any kind of justice. And people wonder why there is no respect for the law. Well, the law has to show respect for us.
What?
This definitely appears to be the case, I recently picked up some expensive electronics, the sales person helped us carry them to the car (we didn't need any help, but he informed us he had to as per store policy on large purchases) and even though the employee was escorting us out, and he was the one carrying the items, the loss prevention fellow still needed to see the receipt and compare each item to it to make sure they match...
It would suck to work somewhere where management assumes all employees are thieves... now the next question is... how corruptable is the loss prevention fellow...
This is about doing the occasionally hard thing, testing the system to make sure it's working the way it's supposed to.
Because if it ISN'T (and he showed that the system did NOT work correctly), this is the point where it needs to get straightened out, while it's just about searches in an electronics store being illegally enforced by the police. Yes, it's wrong, but people aren't losing lives over it at this stage.
And hey -- that's what we are supposed to do, as citizens of a representative government. We're *supposed* to be double-checking the laws, we're supposed to be scrutinizing our police and government, we're supposed to be doing what we can to stop abuses of the power we give them over us.
Of course, we can always wait until we're personally, drastically harmed, but by then it's generally too late.
He called the police because the store manager was illegally detaining him. The police officer misread the situation and then made it worse by pressing charges. The man was within his rights to ask a officer of the law remove the store manager, the policer officer was over stepping his mandate by insisting on ID and then pressing charges when they weren't presented.
This case is so obvious and clear that it's a civil liberties lawyers wet dream. Unless the story is missing details such as some state law insiting on ID. It seems TFA made it clear that no such law existed although the officer assumed it did.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Man, I remember once in high school they pulled our entire shop (Vocational school) out into the hallway to let some drug sniffing dogs take a whack, and while we were out in the hallway the principal made us all empty out pockets and show what was in our wallets... They took one of those novelty shocking lighters from me (doesn't actually ignite, just shocks the person holding it) and questioned me about the suspisciously large amount of cash in my wallet ($40).
Sadly, that was back before I'd known my rights and had grown a backbone to enforce them.
Okay. Let's look at that.
I don't know the legalese, but I would assume that "reasonable suspicion" is defined something like 'evidence that would produce suspicion in a reasonable person'. Leaving aside the huge loophole of how 'reasonable' is defined, let's look at the rest. For it to be 'reasonable suspicion', they would need evidence that would lead them to think he shoplifted. Since he did, in fact, NOT shoplift, there can, by definition, be no evidence that he did shoplift. (You cannot have evidence of a crime that was not comitted.) Therefore, they had NO evidence. No evidence means no 'reasonable suspicion'.
Put in simpler terms: he did not shoplift, therefore they had no evidence that he shopifted, therefore they could not be 'reasonably suspicious' of him.
Until you show a receipt, the status of your merchandise (purchased or non-purchased) is unknown.
Well, considering I just walked 20 feet in a straight line from the CASH REGISTER to the door, I think that's a pretty good indication the items in my bag fall under the catagory of 'purchased'.
So, um, do you have a receipt for EVERY single item in your house? If not, but your own logic, a the store you bought you, oh, letts say 'Microwave'- the store you bought your microwave could bust in your door and take it back because you don't have a receipt for it.
Just a small data point.
I too thought as you do, but was flabbergasted to find that most of the police officers in my town have master's degrees. More surprisingly, two are lawyers.
Knock me over with a feather.
Self awareness - try it!
After reading this, I stopped what I was doing and decided to write a letter to Circuit City, letting them know that my next purchase won't be with them (I was thinking about spending 3k this year to replace my ancient TV and get a home theater). Write them at http://www.circuitcity.com/cs_customer_email.jsp?c =1 and let them know what you think. I think it's absurd to spend huge quantities of money (generally in the thousands) and deal with mediocre prices, idiot minimum-wage workers, and harassment.
Best Buy in Lincoln Park, IL did something like this to me once. I waited 40 minutes in line to return a home theater kit (big box w/ many parts) Because the dimwit teenager at the door didn't give me a sticker, one of the assistant managers (think Farva from SuperTroopers) seized my box and told me that I'd be arrested for shoplifting. I presented them with my receipt and he told me "stop playing games." I tried calmly explaining many times that I've been waiting in line to return this crappy home theater unit, but he accused me of buying one the day before, walking into the store w/ nothing but the receipt, taking one (apparently opening & unwrapping the 20+ components, untying the 10 cables or so, putting batteries in the remote, etc), and trying to return the unbought, yet opened, one. I tried to be nice and tell him that there was a mixup and explained to him that when I walked in I went from the door to the customer service line and have been patiently waiting to return the defective home theater system (amp, dvd player, + 5 speakers & cables) the entire time. He kept accusing me of playing "mind games," to quote him. After awhile, I told him to check his surveillance tapes and he told me he was unable to do so. Eventually, I called 911 on them and the police officers took my side and told them to either demonstrate that I was shoplifting or to handle my return.
In the end, they gave me a crappy $50 gift card and dirty looks. The manager kept using that "there's a lot of thieves this time of year" crap and talking to me like I was a criminal who just got away with stealing their merchandise. I regret not telling him off and telling him to focus on the thieves and not harassing their legitimate customers in the most inept way possible (I was more concerned about getting back to work since I did this on my lunch break). I did nothing wrong. I did nothing unusual. I even was wearing business causal clothes (I was in my late 20s, working at a yuppie job, behaving like a typical Lincoln Park yuppie). I don't care about their mistake. I'm really angry at their arrogance and ineptitude in handling the situation. I even sympathize with them not wanting their stuff stolen. However, if you're going to accuse me of stealing, at least do the effort to determine if I'm actually stealing. The store manager, the one who talked to me like I was a master thief who just pulled off another caper, kept ranting about the hid who was supposed to put a sticker on my box, who wasn't at his desk when I walked in, blaming the whole thing on him.
I called their corporate office and let them know. Last I heard, the assistant manager was fired. I don't wish for anyone to go through what I went through.
On the page pertaining to "false arrest" at that site, there is the following text:
In states with such statutes, theoretically a large retailer like Circuit City would keep abreast of "how far" they can go without risking a lawsuit, and would push the law exactly that far and no further. It seems feasible to me that some states might consider failure to show a receipt to constitute probable cause. Especially since these stores don't make any effort to hide the fact that they inspect receipts when customers exit the store. The assumption is that anyone shopping there is aware of that policy and plans to abide by it, or else they wouldn't be shopping there. So, when someone seeks to avoid having his receipt inspected, it's likely for nefarious reasons.
Indeed it is. Nobody disputes that -- as it is their property, they have the right to tell any person they like to leave their store for any reason (subject to civil rights limitations, since they do claim to be be open to the public).
They DON'T have the right to tell people as they are already leaving, "by the way, as a condition of leaving, we demand that you do X". By the time somebody is leaving, they don't have the option of simply staying for the rest of their lives and dying of old age in Circuit City. They have to leave sooner or later, you can't require them to do things in order to be able to leave and get on with the rest of their lives.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.