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."
This guy has a big payday coming soon - open and shut case of false arrest and police harassment. Circuit City looks doomed too.
Maybe the man was just ARRESTED by Circuit City's low low Labor Day sale prices and considered them to be a STEAL!
Feel free to pummel this post and/or me(or add your own!)
Monstar L
I wonder if it would be better to say that you don't have your drivers license? Then what can the officer do? Is there anything the officer could do if he found out that you did have it? Clearly this is what happens when you decline to show an id, so what is the best course of action in this situation?
...A lawyer just smiled, from ear-to-ear.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
He said no to the police. Unless you have enough money or friends you always pay when you do that. Especially these days. Remember, most law enforcement know the rest of us are lower life forms than they are. The law does not matter, being right does not matter, nearly as much as money or power. Get used to it, it's going to keep getting worse before, if, it gets better. There are rapidly getting to be enough broad laws out there that everyone is guilty of something. You might just not know you have done anything wrong.
Here is another blog that for the moment isn't dead and has the story.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Stories like this make me want to "save gas" and shop on teh interwebs.
I was flipping bits on an abacus, newb.
I don't care if somebody at the door asks me for a receipt. But if I'm walking through the security sensors and they go off I just keep on walking. I'm not going to turn around and look around aimlessly like a lost puppy looking for approval. I know I paid for what I'm walking out with and I have no responsibility to waste my time responding their broken security system. Just calmly walk on through.
Some people just make me sick.
I have been charged with that before. I didn't have the drivers license on me.
The charges were dropped later and I could never find a lawyer who would say enough of something was wrong that I could sue over the ordeal. Personally, I'm almost to the point with the cops in ohio that I am willing to just shoot them instead of having to put up with their BS any more. I have the cops in one town threaten me in a way that I ended up getting the feds involved.
There is some ordinance in Ohio that says if you don't identify yourself to a police officer when asked, you are obstructing official business. The not presenting an ID and the obstruction of official business is the same charge. There aren't two separate charges or a charge specifically saying not showing an ID. So the summery of the article is wrong.
Well, the story is a bit disturbing, but what I found really disturbing as I was reading the comments people left on this guy's blog. Most of them called him an idiot, and said you should always comply when someone asks to see your search your property as you're leaving their store - and even worse, that if a police officer asks for your license, you should always provide it, even if you're just walking down the sidewalk doing nothing illegal. This is why I'm thankful we have the ACLU. Even if they're sometimes over-the-top, it's threads like these that make it evident the average US citizen is not aware of, or at least is not willing to stand up for, their rights.
The police officer in question gets fired, he didn't know the law, when questioned he was too proud to ask for another opinion, and then maliciously prosecutes (correct term?).
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.
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".
You're forgetting the "legal fees" part of the lawsuit. Anyone can hire a lawyer who is willing to work for them, and in this case, IMHO, it seems like a good bet.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
There was an important case, about a year ago, which went to the supreme court, where a man refused to show his ID, or to identify himself to a police officer.
As I remember the court's analysis, you only have to show your ID if you are a suspect or have comitted a crime
I'd suggest that it's smoke from the server choking on the onslaught of slashdot readers, but everyone knows that nobody reads the articles. So I don't know what that smell is.
Another way you are required is if you match the description of an actor that committed a crime nearby and they are looking for that subject.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
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
"(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties."
I'm quoting Ohio's state laws. How exactly can one prove he had the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the officer's performance?
If you get pushed around, you can always count on the internet to voice your oppression so to speak. If this guy wasn't computer literate or what not and couldn't get his story out there through the internet, I doubt he'd have such backing from a huge amount of people. I also doubt the story would get spread so quickly. The police station and the store in question are probably both kicking themselves because this is bad PR and it didn't just go away. All those on the other side of the story probably expected this to go smoothly and to have no backlash. They most likely expected him to accept the obstruction charge and everyone will go on with their lives. Obviously they were mistaken. I think this is a good example to people in any kind of authority (store managers, police officers, etc.) that you gotta watch out who you push around because it can come back and bite you.
I only wish you could do that here in the UK. The courts never seem to come down on the cops for anything and the police complaints commission is a joke.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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?
My mistake, I screwed up the formatting and now someone else has posted it.
Here in Canada, the police can arrest you for refusing to identify yourself. A driver's license does that, but any other way would work. You must have a similar law down there, too. It sounds like the guy was being a jerk, and the cop used that excuse.
I guess he learned the difference between what they say the United States of America is about and what it really is about. Fortunately, more and more people are beginning to understand the reality of things instead of the flag waving we see in John Wayne movies.
You should have called a lawyer and sued the judge for not recusing himself from the case due to conflict of interest.
The store asks for a receipt. If he in fact paid for his items, why not show them the receipt? They're entitled to make sure no one is shoplifting.
The cop asks for a driver's license. If he in fact has it on him, why not show it to him other than to continue his streak of being a dick?
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 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". The usual analogy was crossing at a crosswalk in front of an oncoming truck; you're be right but you'd be dead. Is it really an essential liberty to not have to show your receipt as you exit a store? I think not. Is it a currently granted liberty according to the law? It would appear so. Am I going to loose sleep over trying to retain this liberty? Nope, sorry. Bigger fish to fry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
its the language that that officer would understand. sue his/her pants off.
Read radical news here
There is 3 important notions in laws. The spirit, the letter, and the application. All police forces and other legal administration employees work in the third category. The way things work out, we sometimes see abuse in the application and sometimes, on the contrary, law enforcement agencies do not care to enforce a given law.
I assume both the police and the store reps though they were doing the right thing. That's why there is movements defending citizen rights and things like YRO. If it wasn't for them, the people responsible to apply and administer the law could basically do whatever they seem suited for them.
One thing people that apply the law do not like, it's a normal citizen remembering them that what they do is illegal. It's the old mentality where if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, so you should be willing to allow any people responsible to apply the law to search you, ask for your receipt, your ID, etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_ the_law
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
lrn2format, n00b. :P
He's an idiot, as is everyone else who shops there. Go ahead, mod me down, but it's true. If you're willing to hand some goon your receipt to prove you haven't stolen anything when leaving the store, and you still shop there, then you are an idiot, and you are part of the problem. I don't give a shit about "low, low prices" or "convenience". Everybody reading this who shops there is a moron, because you value money (and the crap your money can buy you) over your own self respect (which you cannot purchase, but you can gladly throw away in a Big Box store like this).
There are a lot of dumb people out there, and statistically speaking, you're probably one of them.
I don't respond to AC's.
would you please bend over ...
One avenue that you could pursue for raising funds for your legal defense, is to bring a civil action against Circuit City. As you already know, they had no right to detain you. Also, their pockets are large.
Good luck, and good for you for standing up for yourself.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Lets face the pragmatic reality here. This guys is getting no where with a lawsuit on the store or the cops. Precedent has been set for this plan to fail. I will agree its theoreticaly the right thing to do but in reallity its just not gonna be in his favor'
Sure, he should not have been arrested. But why did Michael Righi choose his little sister's birthday to defy Circuit City protocol and create a scene? Was he feeling short of attention?
We've all done defiant stuff to mess with authorities and test the limits. But really, you gotta know how to choose your fights.
-- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
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.
He has already made the purchase. They have absolutely no right to search or detain him.
They detained a suspected shoplifter. It doesn't matter why they detained him. The receipt thing is irrelevant because they can make up any damned reason they like such as they thought they saw him put something in his bag, etc. I'm not saying they are right, just that they are not in any legal trouble.
The cop on the other hand is kind of dumb and that will probably cost the department. How many stories do we need about people getting falsely arrested for not showing ID before it sinks in that this is not a requirement?
Yep, it usually goes something like : "If the officer has reasonable reasons to believe that you have just committed an infraction"
I have never read the part where you "have to match the description of a suspect" although it might qualify as a sufficient reason ;-)))
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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.
My list of reasons to not shop at Circuit City (and visiting Ohio) are getting quit long.
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.
You're either an idiot or probably didn't read the whole article, and hopefully not both.
Part of the moral of the story is that the police was also wrong. Letting police over-extend what they perceive to be rights that in reality don't exist only increases the deterioration rate of the rights of law abiding citizens. That means you, me and Mr. Smith. So many people already fear the police when in theory it should not be necessary.
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
This sig only exists because you are observing it.
100+ replies and not one mention of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, which was only 3 years ago.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I kind of feel bad for the Circuit City manager. He was put in a damned if you do, damned if you don't predicament. You can't expect this guy to know much about the law so he's acting on what he has probably been told by his superiors. He did the wrong thing without a doubt, but he likely didn't know this. He'll probably lose his job if anything goes down and it's probably not fair.
As for the cop, he's a fascist and although he won't get into any trouble (they murder people and keep their jobs), he's still scum of the Earth like most other cops. Never look to a cop for help is the basic moral here. They're morons usually. Smart people usually don't become cops.
As for the writer, he's an all around jerk. He doesn't get off here. This all could have been easily avoided if he would have just played by the rules and showed the guy his receipt and left. You're working with the store here. They have loss prevention and if everyone plays along then less people are stealing and then prices stay lower for people like us who buy things. In theory. So do you have a "right" to not show a receipt? Yes. Are you a jerk not to? Yes.
So we're left with 3 asses in this story. The manager is an ass for not knowing at all how to handle the situation and believing he somehow could physically stop someone from something. A scary precedent when you think about it as he either believes he can do this naturally or his company told him to. Eventually someone is going to get shot for doing the same thing.
The cop is an ass because he doesn't know how to do his job. He's a filthy pig on a power trip with a badge. He's representative of your typical cop. Cops are usually asses so there's no surprise here.
Then the shopper was an ass for not playing along in a social environment he choose to be a part of. He tempted the tiger and got bit. He's going to probably lose his case if he can even find a lawyer. A similar thing recently happened to a guy on Kuro5hin and he couldn't even get a lawyer to talk to him. The shopper was slapped on the wrist for not conforming here and although its wrong, he didn't do anything to help himself.
LOTS of testosterone here. All 3 of these guys need to chill out and put the macho crap aside. It looks like they all need hugs.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Ah yes, and the whole underlying message of your post is "Guilty until proven innocent." Nice way to think of your fellow citizens.
I have, in the past, done annoying things when exiting the store and have been asked to proved that I have bought what I had, but if the employees get this crazy, why would anyone want to cause such grief to those making $6 an hour, not to mention wasting the police time.
Making life easier for people making $6 an hour is a good thing. Someone who has the energy to get up in the morning every day and go do a crap job for a big box store deserves a little respect. Courtesy, even. The bag checker has no control over the store's policies, and if he fails to do his job, he may have to get another one. He's hanging out by the exit thinking "Hey, man, my job sucks, please let me get through another day of it with as little humiliation as possible." So why go making life miserable for everyone when there is a foolproof remedy: not going into the store in the first place.
I see you failed to read the article.
Circuit City did not have a legal right to check the contents of his bag or the receipt. It's voluntary. The police officer did not have a legal right to demand a drivers license (he was not operating a vehicle). The officer did have a legal right to demand he identify himself by name, which he did.
I'm not a US citizen, but I have traveled there a fair bit. I always wondered how the stores expected checking my bag and jotting a marker pen on my receipt would somehow prevent me from stuffing my backpack full of stolen goods. To clarify that bit: When on vacation my valuables stay with me at all times, that means a backpack full of electronics. Not one store has ever requested to see its contents.
Why did he choose to protest? If that answer still has not been made clear to you, just move right along to the nearest available police state. You will be most welcome in its law enforcement community.
More than likely, you're thinking of Hiibel vs Nevada; Mr. Hiibel was not driving a vehicle at the time and refused to produce a driver's license. He was arrested. The supreme court essentially determined that a person can state their name to fulfill the "identification" requirement, which is still an absolute atrocity... but does NOT require showing any form of papers.
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.
Let's all pitch in and tell these clerks who ask to see our receipts immediately after we've purchsed an item that we think the double-check process is invasive and offensive -- and ask them to report up to management. If you really feel strongly about it, ask for a refund every time you're asked to comply with the receipt check. That'll soon dampen their enthusiasm!
A sign is not a contract or a legal agreement.
And any number of other things.
That's what it is called. You don't have to be an asshole all the time. The store has an interest in making sure no one is stealing. So do you so that their prices aren't jacked up to make up the losses.
It takes less than 10 seconds. They are not asking to pat you down or strip search you. Be nice, show the receipt and go the fuck on your way.
Some people are just natural born assholes and this guy sounds like one of them.
I can't stand it when people demand their rights, and they're *wrong*. Sadly there are a bunch of pricks who are "rebels" and resist everything because they don't like it and therefore their "rights" must be getting violated. But the guy is right. Some states don't require that you ID on demand (although license is a requirement that comes with the privilege of driving a car, if you are driving). I personally don't show my receipt because I don't want them wasting my time. And no, WalMart cannot search you. I highly doubt they have signs that say that. Businesses only have the right to search as a condition of entry (like at stadiums, bars, etc.). Checking a receipt/bag isn't a search, but I don't know of any legal basis for that, it's just a request that people tend to follow because they're polite, doesn't make it a right though.
I agree 100% here. He's got nothing. There isn't a lawyer around whose going to take this guys "case". No judge is going to sympathize with a guy who is trying hard to be a social misfit. Even if the guys technically right, the judge is going to give him a little bit of practical advice and tell him to work the store next time to help prevent theft, keeping the prices lower for everyone else. He might reduce his ticket some and change the charge, but likely not. Why?
Because this guy is going to go to court with a chip on his shoulder. The judge will admire to himself how cute he looks, then judge him guilty as charged.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I think you are confusing the fact that a lot of incredibly stupid people -- both the guilty and not guilty -- end up charged with obstructing justice because they start yapping and provide police with false names or identification. There is nothing in Canadian law that compels you to produce identification when demanded, except for the production of a driver's license when driving, of course. You not only have the right to remain silent but the duty, unless you want to be arrested for what is essentially idiocy.
There is a long standing Supreme Court of Canada decision that determined that citizens are not required to identify themselves to police simply because it is demanded. Curiously enough, this decision is decades old and from an era before the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A big sign on the entrance of Circuit City Stores will state the following:
By the act of physically being on these premises, you and Circuit City agree to settle all legal disputes using Binding Arbitration for any issue whatsoever including but not limited to civil rights violations, harassment by store employees, injuries (slip and fall), and for incidents where the police become involved.
Almost all bigbox electronics stores in the SF Bay area have some min wage person checking your receipt vs your bag and marking your receipt with a pink/yellow highlighter. I'm not sure what the highlighter does, nor do I really care. I just see it as another step in checking out. Sometimes the cashier doesn't remove the 'shoplifter' magnetic strip and the buzzer/alarm goes off. Yeah, it sucks when that happens, but do I act like a dick and 'continue walking b/c I know *I* didn't steal anything and the cashier f-d up'? No.
/.
You had multiple opportunities to show your bag and receipt to the employees and headed off this whole problem. Instead you've got some ax to grind or point to make. You'll eventually make a couple of lawyers even richer, clog up the court system and get your 15minutes of fame on
To get into the CompUSA in San Francisco you have to go down an elevator. To leave you have to come back up the elevator, at which point you're confronted by the bag police who want to check your receipt and search any bags you may have brought with you. Usually when they say "I need to look inside your bag," I tell them, "No thank you, I'd rather you didn't." And I walk out. And they never move a muscle. I've done this and I've seen other people do this enough times that I'm certain it's an explicit policy on CompUSA's part: Security staff are not to unlawfully detain anyone, full stop.
... but then, I guess if you're paying someone to work for a big corporation at minimum wage, it's likely that a lot of things might go missing from those bags. But like I said, it works for all the independent record stores around here...
Of course, my understanding is that if you don't get your receipt stamped by the bag cops you may not be eligible for the same return policy etc. Someone who works there will have to confirm that, though, cuz I don't know for sure.
I still don't understand why they don't do what all the independent stores seem to do, though: Instead of hiring somebody to confront and antagonize people for minimum wage, why don't they just build a little shelf an have a bag check? Seems a lot more friendly to me
Breakfast served all day!
Obviously you don't give up your privacy rights by either simply entering a store or purchasing a product there. However, I suspect a store could circumvent that by simply posting notice of such a policy at the store entrance or cash register. At that point you're agreeing to the policy as a condition of entry or purchase. Of course, if the store doesn't post that policy then its a moot point.
I give the guy credit for standing up to the store. I think not showing his receipt or license to the cop was a little over the top, though, even if he was within his rights.
Although I went along with it, I was once infuriated by being asked for a receipt when walking out of a hardware store with a dehumidifier I had purchased. My anger was based largely on having a big awkward box in my hand, my receipt being tucked away in my wallet, and my being surprised by needing to reproduce the receipt. I later wished I had simply refused.
Ever since Suckit Shiatty fired their older employees and offered to hire them back at half what they were making, I have avoided shopping there. Sure, other companies have followed suit but this was a trend setting move on the part of Suckit Shiatty, one that put them on equal footing with the likes of Mal*Wart.
I figure if a company is doing stuff like that, they're probably doing other objectionable things too, such as hyper aggressive loss prevention measures, grabbing people on the way out and stuff like that. I'm no shoplifter but I'd druther not expose myself to the possibility of that kind of treatment and with the cavity search mentality prevalent today, that narrows my shopping options.
As for the security personel conducting such detentions, they might ought to rethink their career choice. It's a numbers game. Sooner or later one of these loss prevention goons is going lay his hands on the wrong guy and be lucky if he's left one to wipe with.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
The police need to pay big-time on this one. This officer was so far out of line in demanding things he has no right to, that this should really cost him, and the city!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This guy is probably in the right, but my take is- in general it is an agreed upon custom that stores check what you bought partly for looking for mistakes (both in your favor and theirs). I always show my bags to the people standing at the door at best buy even if they dont ask. I generally get in and out very quickly. Now, if a police officer asked to see my bags outside the same doors, I would not comply unless they could show me the tape where I supposedly put something in there or on my person- or bring me the employee who claimed to see something. I'm all for rights preservation- but in general I'm not worried about walmart or best buy- i can always decide not to shop there if they abuse the practice. I worry about the police.
IMHO, the guy should have let them check his bag out of courtesy, but once they blocked him, it became a different game. They should have called the police then, per protocol not play some stupid power trip game. At that point they were outside the limits of reasonable behavior. The police officer then should be neutral or even leaning towards the person who called him in- in this case the boy/man. The guy shouldn't have had to show his license and the obstructig official business charge is bunk- but had he, it would have made life easier and this would all be over. I respect his choices, but probably would have done it differently.
And I must agree with you 100% as well. That chip is gonna be the downfall of the case if there is one. The judge will see this as a waste of the courts time.
Not showing the cop the drivers' license isn't an act. It's a non-act.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA/
^^^ I highly recommend watching this vid.
"the US looks bad from a personal rights viewpoints"
Sir have you ever traveled out of your country before?
If you believe what you said about personal rights in the U.S. I suspect you haven't.
Creative Demolition
This fool is guilty. He's guilty of not trusting his instinct. He's obviously a reasonable and intelligent man. His spidey sense should have started tingling when he stepped into the store in the first place. It's a certain je ne sais quoi feeling that Slashdotters and other intelligent people get when they go into places like Best Buy and McDonalds. The feeling of 'get out of here. This place is run by crypto-fascist morons and managed by people who have proven that they are good at doing all that crypto-fascist morons do.'
Sure you can spend your money there, and sometimes get a good deal if you're sharp. But as a reasonable, civilized and intelligent person, you're never going to feel welcome there. And frankly, they don't want you there. They want to harass people like you. It's just the way that the brains work inside these little semi-retards. You're just one more obstacle in their way as they climb their way up the bell curve.
Being in Best Buy is like being in prison or the old 20th century Army: you don't belong there and everybody knows it. Going there just to prove the point like this fool did is like sticking your hand in the tiger cage to see if it really is true that the tigers can tear it off. They can, they will. You lose. So don't be like the people who stop their SUVs by the side of the road in Yellowstone and send their kids over to feed the bears so that they can get a cute photograph.
If you have instincts, you got to learn to trust them.
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.
...you very likely would have passed by a sign indicating that your entry serves as your consent to having your bags (and often other personal belongings) searched. The wonderful thing about rights is that they can be so quickly and easily be surrendered.
These are typically considered valid contracts. Unlike shrinkwrap licenses, you get to read this notice ahead of time, you may choose not to enter the premises, and you do receive consideration in that you're allowed to enter their establishment. The only grounds upon which you might possibly object is that there was no "meeting of the minds" and that you thus didn't understand the rights you were waiving. My guess is that if you know your rights well enough to rightly challenge a police officer, few judges/juries are going to sympathize with your claimed ignorance. Of course it's possible the sign was missing or inadequately visible, but most major retailers wouldn't make such a mistake.
The law--both in theory and in practice--is seldom as "sane" as we'd like to think.
If you were really a huge advocate for privacy rights, you'd understand why the guy did what he did. You might think, "it's just a small thing, who cares?" Well, the more small things you give up when it comes to privacy, the more you hand over your freedom. Without directly witnessing you taking an item from the shelf and attempting to leave without payment, the stores have no legal grounds for physically stopping you or checking your receipt. They may ask to see a receipt, but you are not obligated to show it. I refuse to show receipts, as I consider it not only an invasion of privacy, but extremely disrespectful. Working in retail, I understand how important LP is, but I also understand that if your loss prevention mechanism is limited to checking people at the door, you are wasting your time and money. Better auditing procedures are needed to track your employees if you have internal theft issues. Unless a store is prepared to accuse me of theft (payday for me if they do, because I don't steal), they don't get to check my receipt without my prior written permission.
Those who would abandon a little liberty for a little safety deserve neither, and lose both.
I was a passenger in a car that got rear ended. When the cops showed up, the first one took my drivers license. A minute later another cop walked up and demanded I give him my license. I told him I had already given it to the first officer and I got the "if you dont give me your license right now you are going to jail" routine. I pretty much laughed in his face which pissed him off to no end.
In the end they took my friend to the hospital and towed his car away even though I was fine and able to drive it away and he told them that I would drive it. I was left in a town that is so small there was no such thing as taxi cabs, 60 miles from home and stranded.
As much as i wish the justice system would work in cases like these, it doesnt. Your only hope is to find that cop on a dark road one night and beat the shit out of him. I've heard a baseball bat works great in suprise situations.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
He was neither pulled over, nor entering the country. He was a passenger in the car.
In the UK, I believe you can be arrested for "failing to produce ID". I'm not sure if the police need a reason to request ID, and as far as I know, they just take you into custody until they can work out who you are, it's not a crime in itself (I may be wrong about that, though). As for the store manager - in the UK anyone is allowed to detain anyone if they have any cause to believe they've committed a crime ("citizen's arrest", although I'm not sure that's an official term). Whether refusing to show your receipt constitutes such a cause, I don't know, but I would think so - it's a pretty stupid thing to refuse to do.
I'll play devil's advocate.
Cop as King Solomon (or Cop as Judge, Jury and Executioner.) The cop was called to resolve a seemingly minor issue, an issue that that could quickly be resolved on the scene. If you want the cop to be an on the spot King Solomon, he needs the tools, training, and information to do so. He first needs to resolve that the customer wasn't shoplifting, hence the package check and running a background check on the driver and car. (Logically, there's no point in the cop checking out the store employees first.) Once the shoplifting is ruled out, the cop can then proceed to read the riot act to the store employees (or even arrest them.) It's much more likely that the cop will warn the store employees than arrest them, because arresting would be a serious waste of time and effort (there's real crime to deal with.) Ideally, everyone agrees that a mistake was made[1], apologies are made and everyone goes on with their business. Later, if you want to bring a civil suit against the store, the cop would be more than willing to testify as to the facts.
It's a trade off. If you want the on the scene cop to quickly resolve the matter, you cooperate with him. Which means that all sides bend the rules to get the issue settled quickly. As soon as one party gets technical and formal, then the cop has no choice but invoke the full formality of the legal system, which means paperwork, arrests, lawyers, being booked, etc..
I'm not saying that the customer brought it on himself. I'm saying that the customer had a choice in how to get his problem resolved. By disallowing an on the scene resolution by the cop, the customer now has to deal with burden of going through the full legal process. Either way will get justice done, however, one way is a lot cheaper and easier than the other.
And yes, I'm also aware that it's a good idea to stand up for your basic rights once in a while just to keep everyone honest and to keep our liberties from soundlessly shrinking into nothingness. I'm also aware that most people can resolve most situations like adults without having to lawyer up. It's your choice as to which method is more appropriate.
[1] Well, in today's legal climate, I doubt that a store would apologize because doing so would be admitting to being wrong, which doesn't help if a civil suit is brought. Pretty sad commentary on society when you can't give an honest apology anymore. However, the store might give you free swag in lieu of an apology.
It wasn't THAT recently that I took Constitutional Law (maybe 3-4 years ago), but if memory serves me correctly, this would likely not stand up to a constitutional challenge.
If you're not suspected of shoplifting, they have absolutely no right to search you. If you're not operating a vehicle, you do not have to show a driver's license, only verbally identify yourself. They can ask you to do search your bag, show ID, do 20 jumping jacks, or change the oil on their car, but they have no legal authority to make you do so.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You need to know the name Dudley Hiibel, see http://www.papersplease.org/
About 5 years ago, this man would have been in the right. Today, sadly, with the traitors running our country and the evisceration of our Constitutional right, this man will probably be in the wrong.
I have a serious person problem with the tactics to these stores - for me it is Costco and Frys. I chose not to remain a Costco member, because their "membership agreement" states I pre-authorize them and agree to be searched on exiting te premises. The member agreement says it in nice way - "cooperate with store policies", but it is there. My confrontation ended with me walking away not searched.
Frys is different - a CA electronics store (ie not a member-based club) with huge selection, dumb help, and mid- to high- prices. If you need it right now, you can usually get it at Frys. They search you on exit too. I brought this up with a lawyer friend and a law student studying transaction law. My understanding was that at the register, the transaction is over - with receipt in hand. Further requests to open your bags are unequivocally a search and directly against the 4th Amendment, to the extent we still have one.
They problem here basically is profit margins. It is really difficult (expensive) to keep people from stealing in these big mega stores. mega stores are efficient - lots of products, few employees. Camera systems, radio tags, electronic means can all be avoided - and losses are difficult to deal with. The easy solution for these stores is to induce fear in their customers that they will be searched when they exit. It is much cheaper for the store to keep two people at the door than any other method, but it is a terrible precedent for freedom, and for being treated like a criminal when you're not.
So, let's review: guy with blog (i.e. a clear symptom of "look at me... I MATTER" syndrome) performs two overtly hysterical acts of zero-calorie, no-effort "civil disobedience", in the name of one's "rights", and ends up pissing off a wage slave and a cop in the process. And we should all cry for him, because he chose to favor that MASSIVE chip on his shoulder, when he could have very easily saved everyone time, money, and aggravation by just showing the wage slave his goddamn receipt and let him look in the goddamn bag. And a significant number of attendant pinheads here honestly believe that anyone who points out this little drama queen's ridiculous folly is just a tool of the evil ol' police state and corporate Big Brotherism. Yikes. So much for a level of criteria and common sense.
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...
I can't get to the blog because it is slashdotted, but I work at this circuit city. I was not working when this happened, but I overheard my manager talking about it. Apparently this guy is filing assault charges against him.
Although being arrested for not showing a drivers license is ridiculous, that doesn't really have to do with circuit city and just shows the ineptitude of the Brooklyn police. What doesn't make sense though is that the guy refused to show his receipt to the Loss Prevention Associate. That is there entire job, to check the receipt of everyone who walks out the door. In our store there are registers all throughout the building. There is no way to know if someone actually purchased an item without checking the receipt. What does this guy expect, that we should allow anyone who doesn't feel like showing their receipt to walk freely out the door? Our store has a ton of theft (occasionally our entire stock of a new rap CD will go missing on the first day, and a couple days ago we lost a laptop computer).
Now the fact that the loss prevention associate apparently physically held the guy from leaving is a different matter entirely. That is defiantly a no-no and Circuit City emphases this. I am not sure who was the LPA at the time, but its possible they were new (we have a lot of new employees right now) which would explain his actions somewhat.
I just don't understand the attitude of this Micheal guy (i assume thats his name, thats what his domain name is) that he shouldn't have to show his receipt. Oh and Micheal, if you read this, I would like to know more about what happened, if you wouldn't mind responding or messaging me or something with the names of the people involved.
Why is that people always think that there are some police duties that are acceptable and some others that are a waste of time?. The police has many different duties, one of them (and arguably the most important) is to fight dangerous criminals and to help in life/death situations. If someone thinks that police should not be involved in these petty duties, then a law should be passed to create a new force to deal with these issues.
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.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I buy all electronics via mail order or at "hole in the wall" computer stores. Both Circuit City and Best Buy do not have competitive pricing, mine your "buying habits data" to exploit weaknesses they use to their advantage, and usually don't have what I'm looking for anyway.
BTW: a "hole in the wall" computer store is one that is not a chain, and one which transact business by passing your cash, or other payment, through a "hole in the wall", (usually with a one way mirror above the hole), and out come the goods through the same hole. Makes me wonder what type of weapons are locked and loaded bethind that wall.
Where do you come from ? The only countries where you have to show ID on demand are police states. This is even a factor when categorizing states to tell whether or not they are police states. Remember USSR and how proud western countries where to live in free states ? USSR wasn't free because you had to show ID on demand. Where has all that rhetoric gone ?
This is more and more scary, as I keep reading this thread, I realize that more and more people think that they do have to show ID on demand without knowing what it implies.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
I'm all for standing up for your rights, but the guy in this case was an idiot.
i ne/commentary/hiivsix
Most importantly, he picked two fights at once, and one was with the wrong people. If he wanted to show the store manager a lesson, he should have given the cop is drivers license. Did he have to? No, however he wanted the cop to help him. Cops spend so much time dealing every day with lying scumbags they have a very short fuse for people they feel are playing games with him. Had he just coughed up his license he probably could have got the store manager at least a ticket.
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, http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/, http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonl
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. You don't get to just tell the cop "I'm George Bush" and expect him to take your word for it.
So in his effort to make a point about circuit city, he called the cops on the emergency line. 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.
In short, this is one of the worst examples of how to "fight the system" I have ever seen.
There are really two fully separate questions raised by this case. One, did the store have the right to detain the shopper? And two, did the shopper subsequently violate a law by refusing to show his identification to an officer?
Unfortunately, right now, we only have the shopper's story to go by. Of course, we have courts to suss these things out, so eventually, more sides of this situation will come out.
But for the moment, let's go by his version of events:
1) Did the store have the right to detain the shopper? Ohio state law grants to store owners the right to detain someone whom they have probable cause to suspect of stealing from their establishment, if they do so for the purpose of calling the cops. According to this law, they do not have the right, by themselves, to search someone suspected of shoplifting. The question arises whether or not a refusal to consent to a search is sufficient to establish probable cause, which is better answered by actual lawyers who understand the tons of case law most likely established on this question.
If the store was in the wrong by attempting to prevent him from leaving, then it's possible that they committed a crime in preventing him from leaving (unlawful restraint, a third-degree misdemeanor).
2) Did the shopper violate the law by refusing to provide his driver's license to the responding officer? In this case, Ohio state law specifically requires a person to provide their name, address, and date of birth to an officer when they are a witness or a suspect in a crime. In this case, there were two possibilities for crimes under investigation - the possible shoplifting or the unlawful restraint - which would have caused the shopper to become responsible under this statute. The question is then whether the case law predicating this statute (Hiibel v. 6th Circuit...) implicitly allows an officer to require that the person present a driver's license. That's again one for the courts.
(Note that lying to the officer by stating you don't have a driver's license, or don't have yours on you, when you actually do, is likely to make things worse.)
Principle. The store doesn't have the right to search, and it's good to smack someone's hand when they overreach. Keep your grimy paws off of my stuff.
Time. Mine's valuable. Ever see the line stack up at Sam's because they can't search fast enough?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
If he was in my family, I would think he's a hero. There is nothing to be embarrassed about. This is not a police state, they have no right to demand identification. He does not have to cooperate with an officer who is obviously trying to hassle him.
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
Seems to me that being physically prevented from leaving (by the Circuit City types) does constitute a crime that justifies calling 911. In many areas there are different non-emergency numbers for each local jurisdiction, and if I'm being detained by a non-LEO it _does_ constitute an urgent need for an officer.
In this case, of course, the lack of training on the part of the officer made the call relatively useless, but it is the right thing to do.
My understanding is that the only circumstances under which a store can demand to see the receipt and inspect the purchases is in the case of membership stores such as Sam's Club or Costco, where you have agreed to that as a condition of your membership. I guess I'll tolerate a little hassle, but when the door nazis at Fry's get at all backed up I just walk past them. They grumble, but have yet to lay a hand on me.
By the way, I'm sending a little to support this guy.
What sort of ridiculous statement is that? A judge is going to tell the guy, "Next time people are assuming you are guilty without reason, you should do what you're supposed to and prove that you are innocent of random charges to some random employee"???
We're not a fascist state yet. Don't go out of your way to rush us in that direction. To hell with "lower prices". If you want to prevent theft, find a way that will actually spot it happening, so that there is actually compelling evidence of its occurrence. THEN you can go making accusations and pressing charges.
It isn't mutual assured destruction. The problem is one-sided; if Circuit City or the police apologized, and the victim is sue happy, then his lawyer will use their apology as an admission of guilt. It's smartest for the alleged offender to assume that the thing is going to court and offer zero assistance to the enemy.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
Ahhh, to be 17 again.
Go to court some day. Work in the legal system. You'll get a taste for how it actually works. I'd bet my living this guy gets nothing.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
The flaw here is that yes they can demand ID you just dont have to provide it. Now being arrested for it is another story you are confusing arrest with prosecution in the fact an officer can arrest you for suspicion of illegal activity based upon his judgement but you may not be prosecuted for that suspected crime.
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.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Is there really no other way to reduce theft than to treat all customers as potential criminals?
The reason they mark the receipt is to prevent: "Double dipping". Before they marked them, people would buy say a hard drive. Then after they left the store they'd give the receipt to an accomplice, who would go into the store, pick up the identical hard drive off the shelf, and then walk out the door with it. If questioned, they had a receipt to show they 'bought' it. Marking the receipt makes this impossible to do.
This guy just wanted to have something interesting for his blog. Knowing it is CC's policy to check receipts, why else would he shop there other than to make a scene? Why not vote with his wallet and shop elsewhere? It's not like CC is the only place that sells games for the Wii.
As a disclaimer I do not live in the US, and I have never been asked to show the content of my bags when leaving a store. However, if someone in the name of 'loss prevention' wanted to see the content of ym bags upon leaving a store, then I would do 2 things. First I would explain to them that a loss is not just people shoplifting but a loss is also when people like me take my business elsewhere because of the treatment I get. Then I would provide the person in question with 2 options, he can either a) Let me leave the store without obstructing me further, and in return I might forget about this incident or b) Search my bags, but in return also provide me with a full refund for anything I bought so that I can for now and in the future take my money elsewhere. However I would require his manager to oversee the 'search' so that he cannot take anything from or put anything into my bag. If neither of the options are acceptable to them then I would do as the person in the article did, call the police. Why call the police before any bags are opened? .. because the police is a neutral 3. party, lets play with the thought that the 'loss prevention' guy is only going to keep his job if he every now and again catches someone, and its been a good month since he caught someone, well, then he might just see it fit to slip something into your bag and now it is his word against yours (a case he will likely win), so if any bags are to be checked it should be by the police, from the very start.
The big mistake he made was giving the cop a hard time. When you call the police, you should be prepared to cooperate with them. Did he really think a police officer was going to take instructions from him? If you want a cop to help you, make it easy for him to be helpful.
Ideally, cops should arbitrate the letter of the law. In this case The cop did not follow the letter of the law and thus a lawsuit will result. It's too common these days for cops to over step their bounds. It takes a number of lawsuits to get them to back down. In my fair berg the cops have one of the worst reputations in all of Canada. IT's likely due to their hiring practices where they require "life experience" in the form of either doing renta-cop security or being a bouncer before. Every "Security gaurd" I have ever met was the utter dregs of society and bouncers tended to be jerks.
I am aware of their hiring criteria because a friend of mine applied and was turned down for lack of life experience. He's 6'1, exstremely fit, 25 and a bit of a boy scout. But I'd prefer him as a cop then some bully who turned pro by being a bouncer.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Stores have no right to stop and demand your receipt as you exit. IF they reasonably suspect that you have shoplifted, they CAN detain you as a citizen's arrest, and call the cops. Blocking your egress without evidence is otherwise an assault.
People got used to this receipt-checking at Sam's, which is a "private club," and receipt-checking is probably somewhere in the agreement members sign. You have no such contractual agreement with any old store you walk into. (IANAL, BTW)
The security guards and store managers at many places do not understand this, and know only that they've been told to "get everyone to show a receipt." Someone in corporate decided it, as it makes people less inclined to shoplift. Events like those in the article are what will eventually put an end to this insulting practice.
if the cop wanted to help, perhaps he shouldn't make unreasonable requests, and perhaps he should know the laws we pay him to enforce. If he does not know the laws, what exactly are we paying him for? To ride around in his car and just randomly pick people up for things he thinks might be bad, then after the fact make up a bullshit reason for arresting them?
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
I hear this all the time. My friends (while waiting in the receipt line, of course) always like to say "you know, this is illegal, we dont have to stand in this line". Yet in the entire thread that has spawned from your post, I have yet to see an actual URL to either case law, or a state/federal law that actually spells out the legality of bag checking. I can easily see a laywer arguing that the practice is simalar to checking bags on the way into a baseball game; as long as the customer knows they must consent to a search than the store or ballpark is doing nothing wrong.
This isn't to imply that they *should* be doing this, it is just to ask if it is actually legal for them to do so. Right or wrong is a whole different ball of wax. On the one hand, being treated like a criminal isn't a good thing, but on the other hand bringing fireworks into a baseball game is bad and so is walking out the front door of Fry's with a 1TB hard drive you didn't pay for. Does the businesses ability to prevent theft outweigh the cost of subjecting a customer to a shopping bag search? I don't know. Fry's sells a lot of very expensive things (unboxed ram & cpus) that are very easy to hide from cashiers. It isn't like a Target where most of the small stuff is inexpensive. If target had a bag check, that would be rather silly. Fry's, I dont know... It really doesn't bug me that much as long as I don't have to wait in a line.
But is it legal in all 50 United States? My gut says yes. If you want to bitch about something that *is* messed up, go bitch about cashiers checking who ask for photo ID when they take your credit card. Every merchant account contract I've signed or read explicitly prohibits this. You aren't even supposed to match signatures according to the contract.
I was thinking about what I might do in a similar situation. I believe after reading about this case that in the future I would do the following for the easiest solution without having to give in to abuse of authority:
In the future I would tell the store security employee asking to see my receipt that, no, he cannot see my receipt except in the form of a return of merchandise for a FULL refund. Then he or his manager could decide just how much seeing my receipt is worth to them.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
how corruptable is the loss prevention fellow...
He's probably making minimum wage, maybe slightly more, so I imagine he's not corruptible at all.
You may be true. If this matter ever goes to trial we may get to find out.
This sig only exists because you are observing it.
Wow, so now you're a social misfit for refusing to submit to an illegal search and complaining about an illegal detention?
What if they were demanding a full body cavity search? Just bend over and take it because you don't want to be a "social misfit"???
I think you're largely missing the point of his actions. Let me reiterate:
He was pushing the issue of civil rights--you know, the things that you and I both take for granted while sitting in a comfy chair in front of a computer screen. It's easy to comment about what he "should have done" in retrospect, but what he did was really nothing more than being disobedient to conformity. According to Ohio State law, he was entirely in the right. The State law indicates that ID is not required, and I'm quite certain that the law has nothing to indicate that stores are allowed to detain their customers for mere suspicion. Besides, what reasonable shoplifter would hide something in a bag that they KNOW is going to be searched? As a store manager, I would be more concerned about a shoplifter hiding something on their person. If there's two items in a store-labeled bag, chances are they aren't stolen.
But this does bring up another more frightening issue. Those of you who seem to believe this man was in the wrong would probably also, by way of implication, also agree with pat-down searches by store employees. Maybe you'd agree with emptying your pockets out (oh dear, imagine the embarrassment if you had something slip out of your wallet during such a search), taking off your shoes, or allowing them to confiscate something they feel you shouldn't have for your own "safety." By way of conceding to one form of search, we are slowly allowing commercial operations to erode our right to privacy. Is that such a good thing to give up in order to prevent thievery?
Now, I certainly would never have done what this guy did. I'd rather let the store search my bag and be done with it. But people like me aren't the ones who rescue our civil rights. We're the ones who conform--who allow our rights to be taken away. If it weren't for individuals like this man, I can guarantee you that African Americans would still have to give up their seats in buses. If it weren't for individuals like this man, the Civil Rights Movement would never have happened. Civil rights is a notion that is paved by the hard work, sweat, and blood of those who are willing to sacrifice--whether momentarily or permanently--their own freedoms so that the rest of us may enjoy ours.
It isn't that difficult a topic to consider...
Nor is this an issue of one political side versus another. I'm a conservative, and I agree that this man did the Right Thing. This is an issue that should transcend political boundaries, and those who feel he should have given up his rights are naive to the reality of the world in which we live. As a conservative (and I mean this not in the original sense of it--but in the sense that most right-leaning individuals are opposed to government intervention and extension), I see this as an infringement of the State; an extension of government where government does not belong. I see this as an erosion of liberties. Likewise, I would assume that my liberal (left-leaning) comrades would agree but for different reasons. To them, this action by Circuit City and by law enforcement is a gross violation of this man's civil liberties, and his rights to privacy. I don't think it matters much which side of the political fence you're on. This is an issue that any reasonable person can agree with. If you don't agree and feel that he SHOULD have been arrested, then perhaps you also don't fully understand the importance of the freedoms we DO have. It doesn't take much for them to whittle away--clandestine laws, social engineering tactics, aggressive enforcement of the law where it doesn't apply... the list goes on and on. Before long, we won't have the freedom to so much as walk out of our front doors without inspection and identification. Is that what you want?
Our civil rights are important. It takes the willing sacrifice of one's freedoms in order to protect them by and large. Without such sacrifices, we wouldn't enjoy the freedoms we have. It's a bit of food for thought.
He who has no
In some ways this is about price. Greeted on the way in, searched on the way out is becoming a nuisance I'm willing to pay more for products to avoid.
It is interesting that some stores act this way while other stores pile their goods outside the store without supervision and just expect people to carry them inside to pay. The implied trust makes shopping at the latter stores more fun.
Money is the only thing some organizations understand. Especially with law enforcement it's important that they be reminded from time to time not to overstep the limits of their authority. The risk of a big judgment can influence them to spend the time and money on proper training and management. On the other hand litigiousness is rude too. I don't associate with lawsuit happy people because you never know who they're going to sue next.
It does seem like some places are conditioning people to accept a search of their person as a trivial matter. I don't think that is a good thing.
An online vendor has never asked to inspect my personal effects on the way out of their store. This is yet another reason to buy online when you can. To get the full benefit though I would avoid buying from the online store of a company that acts this way in its brick and mortar stores.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Did you pay for the receipt? Is it even yours? You have been shoplifting receipts all these years and you didn't even know it. It only looks like the guy excavating a nostril at the exit gate during a spare moment is putting a yellow streak down the receipt. He is really signing over store property to you. If you don't let him do that, you are stealing the receipt, and they have every right to search your bags, or your anal cavity, for other things you are probably stealing, you bastard.
In a few months, when shoplifting is declared an act of terrorism, just imagine the fun they'll have with you.
Apathy; it does a body good.
I believe they charged him with something. He'll be found guilty of that. They might lower the charges to something else.
But likely the judge will believe this guy is wasting peoples time and just get him out of there. No lawyer is going to take his case.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Now, if the question is of the police arbitrarily stopping an automobile, and asking the back seat passengers to show their drivers' licenses, I'd be all for resisting. I don't think people who are going about their business should be forced to show identification for any reason. But that's not the case here. He asked for the authorities' help, and then refused to co-operate. Looks like a jerk, in my book.
BTW, this is not to say I don't agree with his refusal to be searched by the store on exit; that I do agree with.
What was once true, is no longer so
I think you should also go after the police officer. Get him terminated.
If you can get this in the local news you could get a tremendous amount of pressure placed on the police department. It would raise awareness that apparently the police in that community consider themselves above the law.
Basically the officer broke the law by arresting you. Remember the officer is not the law they are to enforce the law. Apparently this officer was so arrogant he thought he could break the law-probably that you were just a stupid kid or guy and he was going to teach you a lesson.
Make an example of this officer and what he did was wrong. And violating the law will not be tolerated by the very people responsible for enforcing it.
Wow, that's quite the slippery slope you've got there.
We're not talking about full cavity searches. I don't think anyone would find that reasonable. But here's a news flash: Judges don't like social misfits. They don't take kind to non-conformists, especially when it's for something as silly as this.
He's probably right, no doubt. But it doesn't really matter when examining the practicality of the situation. The judge is going to see this as a dispute between 2 people, not an illegal detention or kidnapping or however else you want to frame it. And then they're going to see an officer, whose highly trusted by the courts (recall these guys murder people and get away with it), determined this guy was a problem and needed to be arrested.
So all of a sudden a court is going to side with him? Of course not. He will be viewed as a problem and dealt with accordingly, right or wrong.
This guy is really doing civil rights leaders of past and present proud here. I'll bet Rosa Parks is looking down, really admiring this person for their courage.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Intelligent people carefully choose the battles they want to fight. Sometimes, common sense trumps principle. All the guy had to do was show the cop his driver's license, and be on his way. And the saddest part of this whole fiasco?
My three siblings sat in the back of the Buick crying their eyes out, which is the only part of today that I regret.
Good job, Michael. Not only did you have to ruin your day, but everyone else's as well. Maybe in the future, you can grow up and learn to pick your battles more wisely. This battle just wasn't worth it.
70 years ago or so shoplifting was considered a crime and something no respectable citizen would do. To shoplift would result in arrest, detention, possible loss of a job and a great amount of embarrassment. Nobody in their right mind did it. This of course led to the psycological assessment of "kleptomania" which is a translation of "shoplifting regardless of the consequences".
Today, there is no such loss of respect. People shoplift all the time. Celebreties. Soccer moms. Republicans. Democrats. Pretty much everybody. As much as 25% of a store's operating expenses are tied up in loss prevention and covering "shrinkage". Therefore, stores in general - all stores - are extremely sensitive to this and take lots of steps to ensure loss doesn't occur or occurs at a much lower rate than it would otherwise.
So in steps Michael whatever. He is offended at having his package examined. He better never set foot in a Sam's Club where they check every shopping cart leaving the store against the receipt. He fails to understand that the chances of one of the next 10 people leaving the store is a thief is about 100%. He considers that he is being treated as a criminal, when in fact shoplifting is far, far too prevalent to be considered as anything more than a ticketable offence in most jurisdictions. Stores in general don't really call the police - they just prevent the loss and tell you not to come back. It isn't worth their time.
But Michael the privacy advocate has to play the driver's license game as well. Of course, this gets in the way of the policeman doing his job - or at least how he views his job. This guy is going to have some big legal bills and never serve a day in jail. He will feel pretty stupid at the end of this adventure and isn't going to come away with anything except a feeling that things didn't go quite right. No, I don't see how he can "win" in any sense of the word.
in his state a person doesn't have to show ID, only provide certain information. Some other states, you have 24 hours to produce an ID upon request.
This guy is really doing civil rights leaders of past and present proud here. I'll bet Rosa Parks is looking down, really admiring this person for their courage.
Funny you bring up Rosa Parks. I think most of the people in this thread, had they been alive during the civil rights era, would have taken your stance:
"That Rosa Parks, what a social misfit. What was she thinking? She should have just given up her seat. Sheesh, it's not like they're asking her to carry the bus!! Just play the game and do what the authority figure tells you to. She'll lose in court anyway, judges don't like her kind, and the police are respected."
"These are typically considered valid contracts." (Re: posted signs saying customers give consent to have bags searched."
They may or may not be considered valid contracts. However, even if they are valid they are **civil** law contracts and not a matter of criminal law. Stores do not have police powers to detain you and force you to submit to the terms of a contract!!!!!
The gentleman may have a point about having a right not to submit to store searches and a right not to have to produce his drivers license, but was there, oh I don't know, ANY OTHER WAY HE MIGHT HAVE MADE IT?! Does he really think that making these points in this way is worth the time and money that he will have to spend defending himself in court and the pain and humiliation he has caused and will cause to his family? For me the answer would be a resounding, "No." He will have made a point, all right, but at what cost?
I'll be interested to hear if he feels the same way after the hearing.
If you refuse to cooperate, they can refuse to let you shop there again. If you show up again they can order you to leave. If you show up a third time they can have you arrested for trespassing.
If they are a chain, they can do it chain-wide unless some law says they can't.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Was the guy at Circuit City Scooter Libby?
He just can't get a break...
this is the correct reason for the entire charade...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
this will be a hot button assignment for all freshmen law students... Probable cause, illegal searches, illegal arrest... bingo, we have this terms classwork... maybe they'll even do his case prep work for free?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Now you're comparing this guys crusade to Rosa Parks.
Get real man. This guys a twat stain and everyone know it.
Something about the civil rights movement being compared to a guy refusing to play nice with a cop he called and baiting a store employee seems a little wrong to me.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I just found out recently that if you have ever been arrested, you are ineligible to travel to the US without a visa. The US has an agreement with 22 other nations, such as the UK, Ireland, Germany, Australia, etc, where by citizens of these nations can visit the US as tourists without a visa, provided that they only stay for 90 days or less.
Well, if you're a citizen of one of these nations, and you've ever been arrested, then you're excluded from this program. It doesn't matter if you were never changed with a crime. It doesn't matter if you were acquitted. It doesn't matter if your record has been expunged. Merely being arrested, for any reason, disqualifies you.
If this guy is smart, he'll ask the judge to purge this wrongful arrest from his record. I don't know if the judge can do that, but odds are he or she can, and should.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
If you don't want to show your receipt, shop elsewhere and pay slightly more to cover the theft losses. If everyone did that then stores would change policies.
I disagree. I think he should shop online and pay less than Fry's prices. Fry's is probably cheaper than CC or BB, but it doesn't come close to online prices like at Newegg, so it's only a good alternative if you need something in a hurry for some reason.
I have called the police for many things over the years. None where what most people would consider
true emergencies. You try finding a number that lets you get around 911. It can't be done in most areas. I have called non 911 numbers and and explained the situation only to be transferred to 911.
You may not like the choices this person made but you too don't know how the system works. In some large metropolitan areas 211 and 311 numbers are being used for these and similiar purposes. A regular phone number no longer works. I am directly across the street from our ambulance service. If I call them with a true emergency on their phone line they state that I have to call 911 to get service. That takes at least another 5 minutes before 911 dispatches the same ambulance I just called and know is waiting for business. Call 911 that is why it is there. Someday we will have fully operational 211, 311 etc systems.
It seems rather simple, my car will occupy the space you are in. you will move. i will drive slow and that will be it.
No you dont have to honor their request to show a receipt. I usually do, but when there is a line to leave, i will not and i will simply walk out ignoring their requests.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Same principle, but (obviously) different level of severity.
You're not required to produce ID, but if you don't you could go to jail for three days!?
This is the same sort of logic that says that being on the sex offender list isn't a punishment, but the authorities can severely limit freedom of movement for someone if his name is on that list.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
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.
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.
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.
Enigma
I walked right out past the line and was chased out the front door by a young man who physically tried to stop me. I did show my receipt but I tossed it on the ground and he had to chase it around a bit.
I thought it was bad form on my part but I was more upset that he tried to physically stop me, I later asked the store manager if she thought it was safe for employees to run out chasing people and she agreed it was not.
I will show my receipt but I still refuse to wait in a line to show it, they can choose to chase me out the front door.
In this case, (what lives)? They should catch a thief by having well trained, well paid, and observant employees who call the police when they observe a crime. Some dude in a yellow shirt is not my boss.
Dudley Hiibel already took this to the supreme court who said that you must show an ID to a police officer when asked.
0 2/62438
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/
What makes this interesting is that Ohio, apparently has a law that says they can't ask for it.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Wow! Never even thought about this. You could collude with an employee at Costco and cart out a new hi-def TV if they didn't have the receipt checker. In fact, Costco probably has it way worse because of the open nature of their stores makes it easier to not be noticed.
If I had mod points, you'd be getting them all.
In this case, what lives? Furthermore, they should catch a thief by having well trained, well paid, and observant employees who call the police when they witness a crime. Some dude in a yellow shirt is not the boss of me.
Not even close. So far apart to escape any sort of relevancy.
you're comparing someone who was denied access to a public facility because of their skin color to a person whose a privileged member of society complaining about a loss prevention clerk wanting to check his CC bag to make sure he didn't steal anything. And then proceeding to call the cops and get himself arrested.
Regardless of whose right (it's not black and white) he's going to have to go to court and fight for himself now. With his track record of losing (0-2 now, his bag was searched and he was given a ticket for being a pest) it doesn't look good. And this isn't a major civil rights issue so don't expect the cavalry to come charging in for this guy. The ACLU likely won't touch this,. No lawyer is going to do this. He's an angry, bitter little guy who is going to pay a little fine for wasting a lot of peoples time. I hope he gets over it and sees it isn't a big issue at all.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Why so much uproar on this topic?
Why does anyone care about this man's rights, whether it is regarding showing his license or showing his receipt?
Who cares!
It's all meaningless in the face of the laws the USA have enacted in the last several years which have destroyed several sections of the US constitution.
It's all meaningless considering that your judges don't have the balls to uphold your constitution and strike down such laws.
Your ancestors fought and died for that constitution, for you to have those rights, but no, instead people are concerned that a consumer might actually have to prove he purchased the goods he's trying to remove from a store?
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
"What's the big deal with showing them receipts?" ...and what is the big deal about not showing them...
I don't buy into the idea that we should all just submit to the corporate whims of Best Buy, et al, because the person charge with enforcing the corporate policy is low paid and "just doing his job."
To F'ing bad. I'm not going to let Circuit City socially engineer me into conformity because they put their employees into untenable situations. You, of course, are free to be a sheep who surrenders his rights. I see no reason to go along just to get along. That way lies subservience.
but he was right in not showing his license, as he may not have had or needed a license.
The obstruction wasn't refusing to show his license, but for refusing to show his receipt and bag.
On the other hand, should he have needed to? Didn't the cashier handle the transaction well enough to know what was in the bag and that it matched the receipt?
Or was the store checking on its own employees?
He should have shown his receipt as it wasn't a privacy issue unless there was a personal matter between him and the person asking? Com-on Dad, what did you buy me for my birthday?
What if the store alarm goes off and you've still paid for everything. What if you've bought nothing and it still went off? Is that probable cause for the store/police to have more authority?
I never claimed this is the same level of importance as the civil rights fight, obviously. But the basic principle is the same.
1. Authority figure tells you to do some innocuous little thing you don't legally have to do.
2. Societal pressure to "just do it and stop being a douchebag".
3. Victim (within their rights) chooses not to do it, and gets arrested/detained as a result.
Am I saying this is an earth-shattering precedent-setting case? Of course not. This is a tiny, stupid little example that we're all going to forget in a few days. But we are talking about the same principle.
I posted the story up here:r direct-unlawfully-restrains-and-verbally-abuses-cu stomer-for-not-submitting-to-receipt+showing-deman ds-292688.php
http://consumerist.com/consumer/civil-rights/tige
The DA refused to prosecute, and I talked to a few lawyers, but none would take the case on a contingency (and said it would be 10K-20K).
I had called a cop, who also asked me for my DL. I complied (I think I'm still a little brainwashed into doing whatever an officer asks, just because they can make your life miserable at their discretion). She ordered the store to let me go, but refused to arrest.
The OP was **completely** within his legal rights. When we start calling people you use their rights "asses" we are effectively saying they shouldn't have those rights.
"I kind of feel bad for the Circuit City manager. He was put in a damned if you do, damned if you don't predicament. You can't expect this guy to know much about the law so he's acting on what he has probably been told by his superiors."
Loss prevention is Store Manager 101. There is no excuse for the manager to be unaware of the limitations of the bag check policy or of the stores ability to detain people. That you would give him a free pass is insulting. He doesn't need to be a constitutional scholar or know "much about the law" to know the **basics** of merchant shoplifting laws, like the fact that bag checks are voluntary and that the store has no legal right to detain anyone unless they have witnessed a crime. Just wanting to look in a bag is not a legal reason to detain someone.
This can not be said enough. Neither stores nor their private security guards have police powers! They can only make citizen's arrests, and that only if they have witnessed a crime. The OP had the right to arrest the Circuit city employees for unlawful detention, they had no right to arrest him for anything.
Fry's didn't do this to help you out. Their receipt showed a missing item in your cart. You were on your way to being charged with shoplifting, and they managed to discover their error before you got the chance to turn around and sue them.
Believe me, they're not searching your cart out of the goodness of their heart, and they weren't happy about having to cough up the fifty bucks they owed you.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Anyone know what the law is in Florida? Do you have to provide ID to a LEO?
There are quite a few places where you are required to carry ID and show it on demand to the relevant officials, Germany, Portugal and Belgium spring to mind, none of those qualify as police states, and I doubt it is a law that is rigorously enforced, I wouldn't be surprised if that list only accounts for a small proportion of nations that have that requirement, I will be even less surprised to find the US and the UK on it within the next 10 years given the security hysteria we are currently experiencing.
However, even if they are valid they are **civil** law contracts and not a matter of criminal law.
I've wondered for a while that if those are valid contracts, would wearing a t-shirt with something like, "By selling to me, you agree to give up any rights to search me or my bags." also be a valid contract. How often would the store refuse to sell to you based on that?
Personally I'm sick and tired of being treated like a criminal whenever I leave a store. I myself always refuse to show a receipt and would have probably done the same thing that this guy did (although I would have probably shown my ID to the police officer).
Please note that I am not condoning harassment of any sort, one phone call should be sufficient to the Brooklyn Ohio CC -- should anyone actually feel like calling and voicing their opinion:
7349 Northcliff Avenue
Brooklyn, OH 44144
(216) 749-5960
I called to let them know my days shopping at Circuit City have come to an end. That makes Best Buy and CC both for me now. Fortunately there is an abundance of electronics stores where I live.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
If Righi really was arrested as part of this scenario and intends to defend himself in court, I'd like to contribute to his defense fund. But these days anyone will cough up a hairball of a story on their blog to make a buck or two. Is there any way to see an actual arrest record online so we can see he's not making this story up? Or can someone in Ohio go physically check?
..and learned as a college student that in this state you are expected to show official ID to any officer who asks. It's not news to me when mouthy college students or anyone else for that matter is arrested for not providing identification. I think we have it on the law books, it really surprises me he was charged with 'obstructing official business' but that might be the law I have seen countless friends prosecuted under.
Unfortunately, I don't think he's going to win any case against the officer. They are protected from almost every type of misconduct, intentional or not. The store manager though seems to have gone way beyond the boundaries of the law, maybe he will be the one who bears the burden of justice in this case. IANAL.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
You didn't steal anything, but now HE has your reciept, how will you prove it?
You can't take the sky from me...
"I've wondered for a while that if those are valid contracts, would wearing a t-shirt with something like, "By selling to me, you agree to give up any rights to search me or my bags." also be a valid contract. How often would the store refuse to sell to you based on that?"
...and YES, it comes on a T-SHIRT!!!
I've though such a t-shirt would be a good idea. But it should be based on "By reading this t-shirt you agree to the contract terms at {mywebsite.com}, or "By letting me enter your property, no matter for how short a time, you agree to the terms on this shirt."
Check out ReasonableAgreement.org. They have an anti-ELUA agreement you can add to your email sig and such things:
"READ CAREFULLY. By [accepting this material|accepting this payment|accepting this business-card|viewing this t-shirt|reading this sticker] you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer."
You fight the battles that need fighting! Not just the convenient ones. His family should have pride in that he proved that the law isn't working and those kids should learn now that if they don't defend their rights someday they won't have them. He has proven this is happening already. The kids better get a backbone, cause they'll need it. Ben Franklin said it right about giving away rights for security will get neither and those kids better learn it. The kids should be proud of the author for standing up for his rights and by extension theirs. Sounds to me like the kids are already programmed sheep, I fear for the next generation. Embarrassment is temporary. Lack of freedom, once you notice, is often permanent.
I can't speak for all of them, but I know one of the big-box discount retailers maintains a video recording of every item passing through the checkout lane, synced with a feed from the cash register itself.
This combined with a fine-grained inventory tracking system greatly reduces shrinkage. Any employee allowing an item through the checkout lane without scanning it on the register would be eventually caught. Any employee (through the use of, let's say, a substitute bar code sticker) ringing up one item as another would be similarly caught.
I agree that rights were violated here and the store doesn't have the right to inspect bags, and especially that people shouldn't be required to show ID without cause. But, please also think about this: the store is trying to cut down on fraud and theft with any method they can, within reason. If the store were to give up on loss prevention, they'd be forced to raise prices. How much of every purchase you make are you willing to put towards subsidizing fraud and shoplifting by others? We already have high credit card interest and fees because of fraud losses, and the banks pass that cost on to us. Why not help them reduce costs if we can? There's a delicate balance here, though, we need a way of helping to cut down on fraud without an erosion of our rights. Perhaps the present situation isn't so bad: most of us voluntarily comply with requests to inspect our purchases, and a few people protest to remind the stores that they can't force us to comply. Joe
It appears they can park behind your parking space to prevent you from pulling out. And if not supplying ID gets you arrested, what do you think actual resistance would lead to?
It looks like the author of the fine blog will be talking to his lawyer, so you shouldn't need to talk to yours, yet.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
There are rapidly getting to be enough broad laws out there that everyone is guilty of something.
And when and where is this mystical period supposed to have existed when this wasn't the case?
Face it, the US has made a lot of progress if the worst you have to worry about is being detained for not showing your Best Buy receipt at the door.
And, yes, you can end up arrested and even in prison innocently; think about that next time you vote for a "law and order" candidate.
Those Circuit City employees are lucky all they'll probably lose is their pride (corporate will take the hit in any lawsuit).
I myself once had a similar situation happen. I had a final paper due for my English Composition class. I went to the lab to print it out... only to find that the lab's printer was out for service (this is a small school, no multiple labs)
I went up to my room, smiling, since I own a printer in case just such a situation occurs.
Only the printer was out of toner.
Now I was not smiling at all, I was nervous as shit. I got in my car, doing probably about 60 in a 45 to get to the local best buy. Ran in, grabbed my toner, paid for it, hurried out past the line of people waiting in line to have their receipts examined/written on (I hadn't been in best buy for a good ten years on this day, so I forget exactly what the line was for, just that people who had paid were in it)
Anyways as I walked past, one employee yelled to me I needed to stop and get in said line. I said something to the effect of "Sorry but I gotta get back FAST" and kept speedwalking out of the store.
As I entered the double door airlock you find in my retail outlets, a number of things happened at once. I could hear the employee checking receipts yelling into a walkie talkie. The second employee, who I had been quite polite with, was running up behind, yelling SIR louder and louder each time. I looked up at one of those bubble mirrors and saw him approach from behind me to my left. I thought I was imagining things, that no one could be so stupid, that any loss prevention agent would know you couldn't put hands on a customer who you have no proof has stolen anything.
But he kept coming. I quickened my pace a bit, then as the guy, a young guy, about 25, goatee, pierced ear started to lean in for the tackle, I set down my ink cartridge.
The Best Buy Vigilante grabbed me by the shoulders, intending to throw me to the ground I believe. This was a mistake. I forgot to mention this, but I am a black belt in Tang Soo Do. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. I don't react well to physical contact.
Anyways to make a long story short, I'd pretty sure that Best Buy dude ended up with a broken wrist and quite a pain in the groin region. Depending on how much he struggled when I swept him I may have dislocated his shoulder. I'm not certain, I didn't stick around to find out.
I went back to my dorm, and printed my paper just in time for the start of my 11:30 class. I got an A on that paper. Either no one took down my plate number, or Best Buy never called the cops, because I never heard anything about the incident. (Though I chose not to press my luck and shop there again.)
I personally think I was morally right in my actions, and I assume that legally speaking if a private citizen tackles another private citizen the law accepts that the tackler may have some natural consequences from the tacklee, but since I'm no lawyer I post this anonymously.
You are correct, your right to your property means that you can keep him off of it, even if he is doing something explicitly Constitutionally protected (like exercising free speech). What you are incorrect about is that you have a right to do anything other than kick him off of it. You can't post a sign or make a statement or anything that says you have the right to beat him up and steal his wallet if he does something you don't like and expect that to protect you. You'll still go to jail, your sign/statement is 100% meaningless.
A store has the right to refuse you entry for pretty much any reason, for example if you refuse to leave a bag at the counter, they can refuse to let you in. They can also kick you out for pretty much any reason, for example if you mess up merchandise on a shelf. However they don't have any real rights past that.
Owning property gives you exclusionary powers, meaning that you can determine who is and isn't allowed to come on, and the reasons for that can be highly arbitrary if you wish (barring violating equal rights statutes and such for public businesses, but those don't apply to a home). It does not give you unlimited rights. Signs don't change that, a sign lets people know what your policies are and as such can tell them what will get them kicked off, but it doesn't give you any more rights.
You can't take the sky from me...
"When we start calling people you use their rights "asses" we are effectively saying they shouldn't have those rights."
That's not true at all. He was being an ass about it. You have a right to speech too. You can make an ass of yourself when exercising that right too.
There's a lot of things you can do (or not do for that matter). Just because you exercise a "right" to something doesn't mean you're a good person for it. In the context of this situation, I think everyone involved was being an ass.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
"They have a right to detain you if there is reasonable suspicion that you've shoplifted. "
The suspicion must be reasonable and that reasonability varies from state to state. One thing is clear, failure to submit to a voluntary bag search is not legal reason to detain someone.
They had no legal right to detain the OP. They admitted to his face, when asked, that they were not accusing him of shoplifting--they just wanted to see in his bag. They had no right--literally.
Stores do not have police powers! They cannot detain people and force them to submit to store policy! They can only detain people who have committed a crime they have directly witnessed, or, in some states, have **reasonable** cause to believe occurred. To affect a citizen's arrest, you must have witnessed a crime, not merely suspect one may have occurred.
I used to be a theater manager (I know - wow!)
A typical scam was tearing the movie ticket at the box office register and then selling the next customer the other have of the ticket.
As log as the usher was away from his position (and the customer did not notice their ticket said theater copy) it was an easy scam.
At $8 a ticket in a 10 stadium theater, one could easily "earn" an extra thousand a shift.
The trick was to make sure that you did it for different movies. Cashiers would be caught when a theater sold out but the system only reported it half full.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...the loss prevention employee didn't have a piece of merchandise in his pocket ready to slip into the bag.
rj
Are you telling me that in Germany, Portugal and Belgium, you have to carry your ID with you to go buy a loaf of bread, to go mountain biking, to go jogging, to go to the beach and heck while you are swimming ? ;-) And that if you don't, you might get fined for it ?
Remember, states that have a law to force you to show ID on demand usually force you to have your "papers" with you all the time. Otherwise, it would be hard for them to enforce the law.
Of course, you have to show ID on demand in some situations and most modern states FORCE you to carry your driver license with you when you are driving but it is different than forcing you to carry your "papers" with you all the time like it is the case in some country.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
"That's not true at all. He was being an ass about it"
Really, in what way? He said "No thank you" to their request to search his bag and left. They physically prevented him from leaving the parking lot. Other than his decision to exercise his legal rights you have not what he could have done that would not have made him an "ass" in your eyes that wouldn't involve his capitulation.
You have made it clear that the reason he is an "ass" is for the sole reason that he had the temerity to exercise his rights.
Your attempted analogy of exercising a right to speech fails because there you could criticize the **content** of his speech as making him an "ass" as opposed to his exercise of his rights. In the OP's case, there is no such distinction. The entire case hinges on two rights he exercised: the right to decline a voluntary bag search and the right to identify one's self to the police but not to have to produce a government issued ID except under narrow circumstances. The OP was **completely** within his rights and there is no **content** that you are disagreeing with, only the act of exercising those rights.
Courts have dealt with this one many times: The refusal to consent to a search does NOT give reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. Otherwise, the police could always search you. If you said yes, ok they have consent, if you said no, they'd use that as reasonable suspicion and thus be able to do it. As such a refusal to a search cannot be weighed. In the case of shoplifting laws, they really have a pretty high burden. More or less it comes down to (and most stores have a policy to this effect) that they have to see you take the merchandise, maintain a visual of you having it (if you might have put it back they are screwed) and see you leave without making an effort to pay for it. If you are still in the store, no go, you could well intend to pay for it. Until you leave, you haven't actually taken anything.
So there's no way in hell they had anything near a reasonable suspicion he stole something. This was just some moron at a store who figures their job as security guard makes them really important and wanted to show it off.
Parent is the only correct answer and, as such, will most likely not be modded up as informative ;-)
I get really annoyed when people try to treat this issue as black and white, no matter which side of the fence they may be on.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
What weapons do Circuit City employees carry?
Your tactic might work if you're a cop. If you aren't, then I assure you (as best as a non-lawyer can), if you run down an unarmed Circuit City employee, or one whose only gun is a pricing gun, you will not get off easy. You will be charged with murder, maybe even first-degree murder--or armed assault if the employee lives. You might not even get bail.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Don't make it legal. I can have you sign a contract that makes you my slave. It can be a properly worded contract, signed in the presence of witnesses. Guess what? You still aren't my slave. You can't sign yourself in to slavery. There are rights that cannot be signed away. If a contract contains an unlawful portion at a very minimum that portion is unenforceable and if it is significant, a judge can rule the whole contract null and void.
It is generally restricted to items that are small (and as such easy to steal) and either popular theft targets (like cigarettes) or with a high value in relation to their size.
For most items they don't bother because it isn't customer friendly and they extra hassle isn't worth it for them, but you do see it. Costco does this for things like flash memory and so on. It's real easy to hide, especially in the context of the large items they stock, and so you pick up a tag and give that to the cashier and pay. You then take the receipt to a window where they get your item.
They do it for very few items though, probably less than 5% of their merchandise.
I already shop "elsewhere" it's called "NewEgg.com" and "Amazon.com" they don't ask to search my bag and their prices (including shipping) are lower.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Once you give them the cash and they give you the item the transaction is done. It's yours now, you keep it. There are, as they say in school "No takebacks." When the transaction is complete it is in every way your property the same as any item that was on your person when you entered was. They have NO RIGHT to it at all, that ended the second they went through with the sale. As such they have no right to stop you from taking it home with you. Doesn't matter that it belonged to them 5 seconds ago, it's yours now.
Take another situation: Suppose you go in to a store and when you go out, they want to stop you and examine your cellphone, because they think you stole it. Should you just have to give it over to them? Hell no, it's yours, you own it, they can keep their hands off it.
You are correct. If I SAY I am going to kick you in the nuts, thats assault. If I actually kick you in the nuts, thats is battery.
I limp along....corrected.
Rosa Parks actually BROKE A LAW, requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus. Of course, the law was unconstitutional, and deserved to be broken as a matter of principle. But there was actually a law broken in her case.
In this case, the man in question didn't break any law. He was not legally obligated to submit to the bag search, and wasn't legally required to give a driver's license to the cop. The only illegal acts here were the store employee detaining the customer without evidence of him having stolen anything from the store, and the cop illegally requiring him to turn over his driver's license and then fabricating an "obstruction" charge once he realized that there was no legal grounds for an arrest.
I hope this guy goes to court and ends up owning that cop, the security twit, and Circuit City.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
My new approach is to show the receipt, while politely reminding them that "I'm doing this because I choose to and not out of legal obligation."
Voila, point made, no danger of ending up in bad situation.
That said, I'm glad someone is out there actually doing the hard work.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
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.
"What if they were demanding a full body cavity search? "
Well, if I were gay, it would depend on whether I thought the security drone was sexy. No?
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
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.
They do have legislation that requires you always have ID with you (check travel advice for Germany), however in my experience (again only for Germany) The police are fairly used to people not having their ID at all times (people forget) and are quite happy to ask for details and then verify them. How well these laws are enforced, and under what circumstances they are used is presumably variable, in my experience of Germany the police seem happy just to ask you your name when they talk to you (and even then it seemed to be so that they could address you properly) and the issue of ID never came up.
"Until you show a receipt, the status of your merchandise (purchased or non-purchased) is unknown."
Bull! It's known by the store's representative (the cashier) who checked you out!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If you don't want to show your receipt, shop elsewhere and pay slightly more to cover the theft losses. If everyone did that then stores would change policies.
Well, how about everybody just stops stealing stuff. Then, the stores wouldn't have to charge more to cover losses, wouldn't have to pay for loss-prevention employees, and wouldn't need all the fancy security.
It's not like they are stealing bread for their starving family. People are just stealing stuff because they want it. I loathe people like that.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
They're some of the best at "arrest and incarcerate first, make something up to cover your ass later".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
At the big box stores, it is easier to collude with an employee than at a closely-watched mom and pop shop. Talk to any former store manager at the big chains and they can tell you how often they got ripped off by employees. Of course, the disincentive has to be pretty strong to keep a minimum wage employee from completing their holiday shopping "on the house"...but most of the actual policies pay lip service to loss prevention and don't stop the really big stuff, like fake purchase orders, etc.
... the police can ask for your ID (you must have one, but you don't have to carry your ID card with you, though it's recommended), and if you cannot provide any, they can take you to the police station for identification.
Shop personnel can ask you, if you allow them to inspect your bag. You can refuse, but in this case, they can legally arrest you until police arrives to inspect your bag.
"I pulled out my phone and dialed 911"
Was that really necessary? 911 is for dealing with injuries, or people who are in imminent danger. Does a store employee standing outside your 2-ton automobile put you in danger? Come on. Unless the employee was on PCP, and was going to chew through your car?
He even says later in his blog entry: "Q: Should I be contacting the Brooklyn, Ohio Police Department? A: Thank you for expressing an interest in taking this matter up personally, and thank you to those of you who already contacted the Brooklyn, Ohio police department. However, I urge you to please not tie up their emergency services with complaints."
So in other words, don't tie up their services like Mr. Righi did.
I'm no authoritarian, but I would have complied with the store employee and/or the police officer. That said, I don't think Mike should be arrested for standing in a parking lot, so I hope he wins his legal struggle.
Still, he'd have us believe that the thrust of this story is how both Circuit City and the Brooklyn police needlessly escalated the situation. Well, calling 911 was needless escalation. People with genuinely threatening circumstances are trying to place calls at the same time, and dispatchers have finite time to handle it all.
No comment
Checking receipts before leaving a store is only a service to the customer. It gives the customer a chance to return any items he or she didn't realize they had taken. It isn't stealing if you are still in the store. Customers who do not wish the receipt checking service risk the possibility of stealing from the store once they walk out.
IANAL, but both the store and the Officer in question will be in hot water.
Against the store he might press False Imprisonment and Harrasment charges - after all, preventing them from leaving the parking lot by standing in front of the car and blocking the door of the cars (so neither forward nor backwards movement was possible) for no other reason than him refusing a bag-check (he did not have to allow in the first place). Bad idea.
Against the officer, he may both press charges for False Arrest (not showing ID is not a valid grounds for arrest, then doing the switcheroo with changing "impeding duty" won't work either). Also he did not get read his rights, big no-no there.
Lawyers are like sharks in the US, I hear. And there's lots of blood in the water now.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
Nevermind, I see zippthorne already made this point. I even searched this thread for "911" before posting, but the site's software must be deficient.
...Yeah, they are for Target, but notice especially the REQUIREMENTS about allowing a customer to leave or to have been actually observed stealing.
p -directives-revision-01-2006.html
http://targetfiling.blogspot.com/2007/05/target-a
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
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.
You know those "rights" things we have? They're SUPPOSED to obstruct police from doing what they might be tempted to decide is "official business".
Property is theft.
IANAL, but unless there's some Ohio state law that says you don't have to, it really is illegal to not show your license upon request to a police officer.
It's not even a legal requirement to *have* a driver's license or state ID, so how can it be a requirement to show one?
You're required to have a valid state ID to get certain state services, but this is the first I've heard that you're required to have one at all times. Can you provide a cite?
I've done my time in retail, and in every job where I was expected to have the responsibility of preventing loss, I was told that in order to detain someone for shoplifting, I had to see them take the merch, observe them continuously to see that they hadn't put it back somewhere, and observe that they went past the last Point of Sale without making an attempt to pay. If I didn't do that, I couldn't. (And for completeness' sake, I have had jobs where I've been specifically told Loss Prevention wasn't my responsibility, if I saw someone doing something I was to keep an eye out and signal a manager, but I wasn't supposed to do anything myself.)
Anyway. The person who went by without letting them check their receipt did nothing wrong. He excercised his rights. As a shittily-paid employee I'd know this and not give a damn, and let him go by. Even so, the employee just called his manager, and the manager did the stuff that was really wrong, and which he should have known was wrong. I have zero sympathy for anyone in Circuit City's employ, here.
Do you think it was wrong for the Rebels to kill the contractors working on the unfinished Death Star?
This guy is way out there
Went to Costco in Amagasaki with some friends who have memberships.
There is a concessions area on the way out where you can eat American style pizza and such. So one could imagine some shifting of parcels from one bag to another.
And then there was an apparently new 5% surcharge on purchases by non-members. You pay the extra 5% to check out on your own or something. Otherwise, you have to let the person who you are with pay the money at the register, then give him the money later. So having to have a receipt meant that we had to wait while he ate lunch and leave with him.
(Not sure if the above proves anything in particular.)
for invading your privacy.
>I know they have the right to deny entrance - but on ANY grounds?
Yep, except ethnicity, gender, race, religion, or physical disability, they do.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There never has been any requirement for a U.S. citizen to possess any form of identification whatsoever. Much less carry one at all times. Much less produce one upon demand.
I challenge you to prove otherwise.
>Lawyers are like sharks in the US, I hear. And there's lots of blood in the water now.
If the OP has a lawyer, he didn't mention it in the article. If his lawyer advised him to broadcast an opinion piece about the case, he needs a new lawyer.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
"Was that really necessary? 911 is for dealing with injuries, or people who are in imminent danger. Does a store employee standing outside your 2-ton automobile put you in danger?"
It's assault, a violent crime punishable by years of incarceration, and absolutely justifies a call to 911.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>All retail stores have to have some measure of theft prevention in place.
They are allowed to have whatever measure they need -- as long as they stop short of abridging someone's rights.
>Those guys at the doors asking to see a receipt aren't the frigging new world order
So please list the rights that you give up on that basis. List them all, and tell us why your assertion justifies each one.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>In the end, they gave me a crappy $50 gift card and dirty looks.
You could have used that as evidence that they knew they had violated your rights, falsely accusing you of shoplifting...
>Last I heard, the assistant manager was fired.
Further evidence that the organization knew that what they did to you was wrong.
You should sue. For tens of millions.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
No violence took place. "Assault" does not necessary require violence. You're conflating assault with battery.
Most jurisditctions specifically advise using 911 to summon police, fire, or ambulance for any matter, since it is a well-known number. Many dispatch centers dont even have any other number, and just use 911.
Since when is anyone leaving a store with products IN THE STORES BAGS suddenly become a criminal? I thought the normal activity happening with those items is that you bought them legitimatly. Also, when did refusing to be searched by an jackass that wants to suddenly become an asshole thing to do?
Why is it selfish to expect to be left alone by others that have no reason to think you did anything wrong??
Sorry, it sounds like you're the selfish dick.
* necessarily. damn typo.
Relatives crying out of mere fear is a minor cost.
I don't know. I always thought it was morality that made a person good and lack of the same that made a person bad.
Yeah, it's a shame to mess up a relative's birthday. On the other hand, when the relative calms down, she might decide it was the best birthday present she ever got.
Freedom has its costs. One of them is being moral as best as one understands how.
Assuming the writer is telling the truth, this is a very bad arrest. You are only required to provide your full name, date of birth, and (in some cases, but not often) an address and phone number.
Showing a photo ID is a good idea, so the officer can see that you aren't lying about any of those things, but it simply can't be compulsory in a street-level encounter!
I usually back up the police as much as I can. I am a police officer, and I don't like seeing us look bad.
This time, the cop was wrong. I doubt it was maliciously done, but it was wrong.
Submitting to a search is completely different to digging through your pocket for a receipt to show a concerned shopkeeper.
IMHO, anyone who exercises their rights purely for the purpose of pissing someone off (which it appears in this case) deserves whatever they get.
Yes, this guy was in a hurry, but laws and statutes aside, i think it is quite reasonable for the store to ask to see the receipt and quite unreasonable for him to refuse. If the cop was being a prick (and we only have one side of the story here) then maybe I'd refuse to show the license too, but not in the case of the receipt.
If he had shown the receipt, I imagine the conversation would have gone something like this:
Store: Sir, I need to see your receipt!
Him: Here it is.
Store: That's fine, thankyou Sir and have a good day.
Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean that you should. Otherwise you just end up feeding the lawyers.
There was a posting very similar to this on The Consumerist a couple weeks ago. Oddly enough, they both involved a person who made separate transactions.
n lawfully-restrains-and-verbally-abuses-customer-fo r-not-submitting-to-receipt+showing-demands-292688 .php
Link here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/top/tigerdirect-u
I think it will be interesting to see where these things go. Personally, I think it's best not to involve the authorities in these minor situations. As for the slippery slope argument I find it a bit weak. It seems as reasonable as leaving your backpack at the front of the store, wearing a shirt and shoes, or not wearing roller blades. They're not asking for any personal information, or personal identification. They're not asking to see what you bought at other stores, or what you have in your backpack. They're asking to validate the receipt that was printed up for you by a different employee seconds earlier, and count the items in your bag. Yah, I agree it's stupid and corny and there are better ways to handle the situation. But, this isn't some authoritarian attack on your personal space either.
Anecdotally, I carry my groceries home in reusable canvas bags. I have to get the cashier to validate me before I can use them because the scales are sensitive enough to detect the extra weight of the bag, with the first item I scan (even a 1lb tub of butter, OH MY!). There's no reason why they can't have a similar check at the point where the cashier scans the product and disables the RFID. Simply have a third cashier that validates the various items the machine is unable to accommodate. Ironically, the days I do set the door alarm off I usually just wave at the cashier to let her know I was the one that set it off, and she waves back in acknowledgment.
New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
One reason he might be friendly was that you gave him a relatively cheap lesson in controlling his ego.
He sounds like he's headed the right way, towards turning out to be a good officer.
>Has anyone asked the obvious question, "why didn't he just show his receipt and let everyone get on with their day?"
Do you have a list of illegal and unreasonable requests that you think people should comply with, or is this the only one?
How about if they required each customer to prove he wasn't circumcised? Would you suggest he just comply and let everyone get on with their day?
There is no real difference between my example and the receipt business.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I am going to say this again: police cannot simply demand someone to identify themselves without an articulable reason. If you are being detained under suspicion of committing a crime, typically as a prelude to either issuing a ticket or arresting you for a crime, you still do not have to identify yourself although it is probably a good idea simply to save a trip to the police station for the purposes of confirming your identity. If a police officer simply walks up to you and demands that you identify yourself, there is no legal reason for you to comply.
>Its nice that he tied up 911 for his "emergency".
You put "emergency" in quotes, but he was being assaulted, detained against his will, and the store employee had placed himself violently in a position where he could have caused serious bodily injury to himself. This is definitely an emergency, a violent crime is in progress, and a major disturbance of the peace is possibly imminent.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
If your friend was not capable of making decisions, or didn't make it before leaving, then they have a very good reason to not let random people drive off with his car. For all they know, you're just some random guy that was in the car with him, and you might steal his car. If they can't give it to someone else, and he can't take it, they have to tow it if it can't be left there.
Even if your friend let you take it, the cops can declare that a car does not appear to be 'roadworthy' after an accident, and not let anyone drive away in it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I do believe that you give up your right to refuse a search once you enter the store. ( the last time i was in a BB store, there was a sign upon entry about searching of packages ).
Now, out in the lot, that might be a different 'agreement' since its owned by the property holder, not BB, but its still private property so its a right you can give up. Out on public proprety they the constitution comes into play. But not while in the bestbuy lot. Much as you can give up your right to dress as you please while in the mall, or carry a firearm ( in states where its legal in public ).
Legally, does that refusal constitute calling the cops to have you arrested ( i seriously doubt it ), or just ban you from entering the store again, i dont know. ( if you come back after banishment its trespassing, but that isnt what happened here )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You're on crack. Which two States do you presume that is the way it works?
RTFA and you'll see the author QUOTED the relevant law. You have to provide your name, address and DOB when questioned in Ohio, but do NOT have to produce a State issued ID.
If, and only if, you are operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway do you need to produce a driver's license on demand by a law enforcement officer. You will also need to produce suitable ID under certain circumstances to purchase liquor or alcohol.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Who could possibly have been your accomplice who scanned only a portion of your items, or scanned a $20 item in place of a $100 dollar item. Employees steel too you know.
New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
Further evidence that the organization knew that what they did to you was wrong. That's evidence that the assistant manager did something wrong, not the company. In particular, the manager made an accusation of shoplifting rather than stating that he needs to be more certain that the item was purchased from this store. You should sue. For tens of millions. I heard there was a case involving a dry cleaner being sued for millions of dollars, since they lost a pair of pants and had a satisifcation guarenteed sign.
In the state of Ohio, a teacher (or other representative of the school) cannot search a backpack or a book bag without consent of the owner without reasonable cause. Lockers are different because they are the property of the school.
When they hand you your receipt, put it down your pants.
When they demand to see it, explain that they will have to get it themselves, which puts them in the position of either putting their hand down your pants (a serious crime), or strip searching you (something they genuinely have no right whatsoever to do.)
Make *them* call the police, and force them to go on record with a sworn accusation of shoplifting with no evidence.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
He wasn't breaking any laws, so how could it be civil disobedience? More accurately, it's civil *obedience*!
Since when is knowing and following the law testing the limit? The way I have interpreted your response it sounds like you are upset at the guy because he actually knew the laws, which we are responsible for knowing. Ignorance is no excuse, something police officers will tell you anytime you are caught speeding, even though you aren't aware of the legal speed limit. I really don't think the guy is an idiot. I believe he is living in a world full of idiots that will do their best at every opportunity to 'teach him a lesson' for standing up for what is right.
As for inconveniencing the several parties, it wasn't the man's fault. The fault lies with the parties that were in the wrong. Blame them, not the man who was inconvenienced. To address the issue of damages, they are not to benefit the victim, but they are the only way of showing the responsible parties (the corporation and the state) that what they did was wrong. There are no other penalties that will bring about their attention as much as a large amount of money being taken from them.
He was being detained against his will by someone who was not a law enforcement officer.
IANAL, but that seems to fit the legal definition of KIDNAPPING. That is not only a felony, but a federal one. A call to 911 to report a felony crime in progress seems reasonable, no?
Perhaps, in addition to 911, he might have called the FBI, as well.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
He should also go after these Circuit City employees. They have absolutely no right to do anything of the such, outside of ask the man to stop. Stories have to rely on fear by making you think that they can do something if you steal. In reality, they're in just as much trouble when they chase after you.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
[quote]Submitting to a search is completely different to digging through your pocket for a receipt to show a concerned shopkeeper.[/quote]
A difference in degree only.
If opening your bag or being forced to dig the receipt out of your wallet is ok, then why not emptying all your pockets? Take off your coat? Pat down search? Polygraph? Body cavity search?
The store has NO RIGHT to compel you to submit to a search of your person or belongings. Even something as "minor" as looking in the bag you were handed 15 feet away by the checkout clerk. Sure, they can ASK, but the customer is free to refuse to participate in their "security theater" production.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
These police/laws/procedures are sadly predatory and overreaching. I do not believe people have rights. We are all the property of the state and to pretend otherwise only proves your ignorance to the regulations that guide, and ultimately manipulate your life and it's events in a negative way.
Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
Incorrect. The law enforcement may demand that someone they have a "reasonable suspicion" has or is committing a crime to identify themselves. Stating your name is sufficient. Further, as the summary of the Court's holding clearly states, the demand for identification may not merely be an attempt to arrest for failure to identify after the stop-and-frisk has yielded insufficient evidence for an arrest. When the officer asked for Righi's identification, he had already determined that no crime had taken place.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Why? WTF? To prove some point?
Yes. The point is, nobody may insist that they be allowed to search your person or belongings, and then detain you if you refuse. Whether it is polite or reasonable to do so is quite beside the point. It would have been more polite and reasonable of you not to refer to the guy as a "professional asshole." Luckily for you, you have a legal right to do so, and you've just asserted that right.
Yeah, I'm with my family and I'm going to make an ass out of myself.
More like, I'm with my family and I choose to demonstrate that I have a spine and will assert my rights when I CHOOSE, and hopefully encourage others to do the same.
They guy got what he had coming to him.
What is coming to him is probably a big chunk of money. So at least you agree that that's appropriate.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to sue. I'm employed (middle class) and earn enough money that I don't need to resort to such things. I simply don't want to be treated like a criminal. I had enough of that when I was a teenager. Had the store manager apologized and acted professionally, I'd have been only annoyed. Since he treated me like a criminal as well, I am infuriated.
It really sucks that in 1-2 years, the average suburban middle class family probably spends more there than one of those jerks makes in a year. The lines are always long, the sales folks are idiots (most of the time, they cannot answer simple questions about their own merchandise), the cashiers are rude trailer-trash/ghetto folk with a pissed off attitude who probably couldn't hold a conversation in complete sentences if their life depended on it. Nothing about a Best Buy or Circuit City experience is positive. What really burns me is that when you shop for TVs, half the time they aren't configured correctly. If I'm paying retail, I want to compare image quality on multiple models. I never know if the interference & poor color all over the screen was the sign of a crappy TV or some guy who didn't configure the TVs correctly.
Unfortunately,they're making money treating us like dirt simply because there's no place else to go. Unless we complain, they'll never learn. I'm very tempted to buy my next TV at newegg. You usually end up losing money after shipping, but at least buying with them is a pleasant experience. When I was a kid/teenager, I loved Best Buy and Circuit City. They were the greatest stores. Now I can't stand them. Most of their merchandise is crappy, it's rarely in stock if it's something I want. The experience is always terrible and they charge full price for Wal-Mart grade service.
2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution. (E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Doesn't Circuit City have a sign when you enter that states they have the right to inspect packages when you leave? By entering the premises you agree to follow their rules. If you don't like that, DON'T GO IN. Get it?
Or... DO go in, and continue to maintain your legal rights. The sign is meaningless. If they're pissed you're not adhering to what's written on the sign, they have a legal right to do exactly one thing: ask you to leave.
If I willingly enter a premises with a posted sign reading "Anal probes required upon exit of store," I still do not have to submit to an anal probe, any more than I have to allow a search of my possessions. I'm breaking the rules, yes -- I can be told to leave, and forcibly removed by the police if I fail to comply with the request to leave. That's it.
Funnily enough, that's all this guy was trying to do: leave.
Yes. The guy's an ass who tried to assert his legal rights. For that, he should be arrested.
Is no one else worried that we find ourselves surrounded by people with opinions such as this? For the first time in my life I'm considering getting a few firearms. Am I crazy?
If I SAY I am going to kick you in the nuts, thats assault.
In general, words such as the above are not going to be enough to constitute an assault. However, these words along with a twitch of your leg, as if you were about to kick me in the nuts, would likely be considered an assault. The victim has to have a reasonable apprehension of being in danger, words alone probably won't cut it.
I ride a bicycle. The nearby electronics store which I must frequent for various supplies has a "show the receipt" policy. Because I ride a bicycle, I need to pack all my crap into my backpack. The most conveinent place to do that is at the sales counter.
I generally refuse to show my receipt on principle. Occasionally, I oblige, but generally refuse to show merchandise. Once in a blue moon, they ask to see the goods, to wit I crack my backpack open for a token inspection.
It does nothing to aid in loss prevention.
It just pisses [a certain subset of] customers off.
Why should customers be inconveinenced at all for shopping in your store?!
I don't agree (unless you misunderstood that I meant that you would be required to produce the receipt, not that they would go looking for it). In asking for the receipt, they are asking for you to produce a specific item, all hands are off you. A search involves reasonably intimate contact which you may find objectionable, and may find things (eg small amounts of drugs for personal use, a copy of "football, it's a funny old game", a pair of pink furry handcuffs, etc) which may or may not be illegal, but you'd rather it not be known that you had, and have a right to privacy about.
So in my mind they are not different only in degree.
Maybe you'd like to share your idea's on how a shop might better secure themselves against theft? All I ever hear is people wailing about how their rights are being infringed...
Welcome to the real world. That's why I find it hilarious all the little hippies around here who actually think this guy is going to win some case here. The judge is going to tell him to quit causing problems like this that waste police resources. And then make him pay his ticket.
Why did you try and fight a traffic ticket? You won't win unless the cop doesn't show up. They usually get paid overtime for showing up, so they show up.
Get a lawyer and have the charge changed. You can usually get any traffic violation changed to a nontraffic violation.
I bet the judge thought you were really cute going up to the stand to waste their time.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
"Privacy. Consitutionally guaranteed right"
Where?
Writers imply. Readers infer.
To shoplift would result in arrest, detention, possible loss of a job and a great amount of embarrassment.
70 years ago, if you got caught shoplifting something, you got your ass shot off right there in the store. If you were really lucky, they used rock salt. And if you managed to make it out the door and kept running, the cops shot you. The 1930's didn't have the nice, friendly laws we have today, and claiming "police brutality" or something similar would earn you a 3-week trip to the hospital.
[End Of Line]
Can somebody tell me, what would happen if someone does the same thing in Canada? (Costco/Sam's club are especially persistent in asking for receipts and opening backpacks).
That's only reasonably suspicious if a reasonable person would reasonably assume that all cashiers are crooked and a party to theft.
As a reasonable person, myself, I don't have any such suspicion. I think that most other reasonable folks would feel the same.
Furthermore (and this is straying pretty far from the context), even if the cashier is known to be stealing from the company, I don't believe that one's brief association with them as they pay for their goods is any reason to detain anyone.
Kid-proof tablet..
I'm not advocating random assault on a group of people. I'm advocating giving crooked Nazi acting cops what they deserve.
My dad was a cop - I respected him, but I will admit I learned a lot about the true nature of the common cop from him. I worked with a lot of cop type people (CIA, FBI etc) - some are quite honest hard working intelligent people. Most real cops on the other hand are criminals with badges, and I do mean most. Uneducated assholes who are on a power trip with their badge. I welcome the opportunity to piss on them.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
I've been pulled over before (in KY, not driving) and the officer told me it was illegal for anyone 18 and over not to have an ID. He may or may have not been correct, but that's why I sought this information awhile back. Apparently, it has still not changed. I'm surprised no one has heard of this before?
I appreciate those of you who asked for more information. I'm glad to have found this link which clears up which states this applies to. Worthy of noting, OH is not one of them, so nothing to see here folks... keep moving along.
It is also worth noting that 'criminal suspects' in the context it is used here is a pretty broad blanket term. Virtually anyone who's been pulled over or stopped by police for most reasons could be classified as such.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
... was that if the person refused to provide his driver's license during a traffic stop, that he deserved what he got. It's a driver's license after all. And while I can think of instances where, on principle, I would refuse to provide identification if it were not required by law to do so... this sounds like the man was wrongly accused of a crime, sought redress, then was punished for demanding that his legal rights be upheld.
That's called corruption, children.
Perhaps the guy was being a jerk or annoying. But it's not okay to use the law to harrass someone for demanding protection under the law.
Do you have any suggestions for something that might?
Something that won't get everyone up in arms complaining that their rights are being violated, and yet will still stand a reasonable chance of stopping people walking off with the goods?
Stores have a right to prevent me from shoplifting -- and they're free to ban me from ever returning if I refuse to be strip-searched on leaving the store. I do, however, have the right, in the US, to be free from unreasonable search -- and compulsory searches just because you're walking out a door classivy as unreasonable searches.
If an employee had followed him through the store, and saw him slip an I-Pod into his pocket as he went through the store -- then didn't see any sign of him pulling it out of his pocket to pay for it as he went through the checkout, then he would have been completely within his/her rights to institute a citizens arrest -- or (being more polite about it) give him an opportunity to produce a reciept and/or show that he'd put the I-Pod back down before arresting him.
Going from targeted requests to compulsive searches is where the store crossed the line.
A security droid is free to ask me for a receipt, but if I'm in a rush (say, to catch my bus), I'm also free to refuse, and I will exercise that right -- if I'm in a rush, if I'm simply not in the mood to be bothered, or if I'm in a mood to assert my legal rights. If the droid has real reasons to believe that I have shoplifted beyond my refusal of an unconstitutional search then (s)he's free to place me under arrest -- but there had better be more than a hunch to back up that arrest.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I think we have the definitive statement on the side of this argument against Mr. Righi. The thinking goes exactly as the parent post delineates it: you are assumed guilty until you provide enough evidence to prove you didn't do anything wrong. Now we know it's usually pretty tough to prove a negative, so it might require you really dig deep and lay your entire life out for us to examine, but look at it this way: it'll help us reduce shoplifting a bit, so in the end, we're really just doing you a big favor! You're welcome! Now drop those pants and grab those ankles...
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Michael:
As a citizen, consumer, tax payer, and business owner I'd like to ask you to drop this complaint and stop consuming public resources with this exercise.
Circuit City has every reasonable right to ask for your receipt and to inspect your purchases as you exit the store. In fact, they don't have a choice because they'd go out of business if they didn't do this. I like shopping at Circuit City and I like their low prices; so please don't cause them to go out of business (or raise their prices) by forcing them to accept more shoplifting.
And please don't quote me the law on privacy. The employee checking your receipt and shopping bag at the door is not invading your personal space -- if you want, think of the property as becoming yours when you leave their property (it might even make sense to make this part of the sales 'contract').
You are performing a left-brained and purist exercise in interpretation, not contributing to my civil rights.
Your position, like most liberal canards, denies the messy reality that we inhabit. In that real, unpredictable world, we need to follow our civic and legal principles in good faith, not mindlessly apply them to make pointless political statements.
The officer also has every reasonable right to see id once you are involved in an incident. Here again, please don't quote me the letter of the law. There was a conflicting situation which the officer did not entirely witness; had their been a follow-up complaint of false imprisonment or what not, it is important for the officer's report to name everyone accurately.
Hopefully the judge will see that.
I support the officer's action in dragging you downtown (though possibly not booking you), so as to make the experience sufficiently inconvenient that you hopefully don't do this again. I want the police to spend their time protecting me from bad guys, not driving to Circuit City to play games with you.
In your scheme, Circuit City's rights and my consumer rights are violated. You provide no scheme in which our rights are not violated (given the reality of shoplifters, whom you are empowering). Should you prevail, our rights will be more violated. Now, if everyone else was like you -- tying up public resources with disingenuous civil rights complaints -- then we'd really be in trouble.
Hope you read this far. Please enjoy your 15 min of fame and then drop your complaints.
Could you guys start wearing a yellow Star of David on your clothes? Just so people know who the sheep are.
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!"
I disagree. If a store has a reason to believe that they're are losing money because cashiers are colluding with customers then they setup measures to prevent, and deter it. The method they picked is receipt checks. I can't give you a cost benefit analysis of whatever else they could do, but a reasonable person would assume they did their own. So they check receipts, and they do it routinely. Do they have to be suspicious of every cashier? No, they don't. But, it is fair to treat everyone one the same and check every receipt. The failure comes in when the security guard checking the receipt isn't properly trained to handle the situation. It wouldn't surprise me if the security guard was told to call the manager, and the manager wasn't really told anything. Suspicion is very subjective. I think a minority of people are going to conclude that a guy who refuses to show his receipt is just asserting his rights, which leads to suspicion. I would equate it to my right of way when I'm crossing the street. I have the right of way, but I know that it's necessary to get a driver to acknowledge it before I step in front of them. Of course, that's normally because they don't see me, or they're not paying attention.
New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
The Supreme Court has ruled that you are required to identify yourself to the police upon request.
Some time ago, I was an asst. mgr at a grocery store. I was in the centrally located office area, overseeing the cash register line, when I heard a sound from a hallway across from my position. A young man was running out of the hallway from our store security office, followed by one of our security officers, Bob. Bob had been "interviewing" this person following his attempted exit from the store with an unpaid-for bottle of Jack Daniels Whiskey, when he bolted out of the security office. (We had him on video, dead-to-rights.)
On instinct alone, I vaulted the office half-door, and chased the runner across the store's exit area and out the door, finally stopping him with a flying tackle in the parking lot. He unfortunately scraped significant portions of his face across the asphalt -- (I felt soooooo bad -- not!)
It may not be politically correct in this day and age, and might have gotten me involved in a lawsuit today, but DAMN, it felt good! (BTW, this was approx. 1983, and he was convicted.)
I'd never chance it in today's legal climate.
LinTard:
Where are your papers, citizen?
Shirket Shitty has NO reasonable right to ask for your receipt and to inspect your purchases as you exit the store. They do have every right if they ACCUSE somebody of an illegal act, which they can detain, however no statement was given to that fact. If they have policies and do not factor in cost of doing business of shoplifting, the market will correct that. If the correction is by bankruptcy, so be it.
There are 100% ways to prevent shoplifting. Seal everything in glass/poly cases and have keyholders everywhere. Oh.. that decreases impulse buying....
---You are performing a left-brained and purist exercise in interpretation, not contributing to my civil rights.
Your position, like most liberal canards, denies the messy reality that we inhabit. In that real, unpredictable world, we need to follow our civic and legal principles in good faith, not mindlessly apply them to make pointless political statements.
Left brained and purist? How about the laws? Are those left brained? Show me what law specifies what he "broke". Thats right. The right-brainers' laws didn't have those laws on the books. Wonder why..
---The officer also has every reasonable right to see id once you are involved in an incident. Here again, please don't quote me the letter of the law.
Now thats just no-brained. I paraphrase law, but dont show me quotes. Are you related to those Kentucky-ian bible thumpers? Or perhaps, you're the one that opened that cretinism museum.
Hopefully the judge will see how stupid you are.
---In your scheme, Circuit City's rights and my consumer rights are violated. You provide no scheme in which our rights are not violated (given the reality of shoplifters, whom you are empowering). Should you prevail, our rights will be more violated. Now, if everyone else was like you -- tying up public resources with disingenuous civil rights complaints -- then we'd really be in trouble.
Aww.. Poor capitalist. Perhaps, if you have problems with "loss", you would create better ways to prevent shoplifting. I'm sure if you handcuffed all entrants into your store (with an appropriate warning on the store inside stating thus), it would deter crime.
Or better yet, lets assign security guards with tazers to each person. And we wont forget that warning that "We are not responsible for tazered people". That holds up real well in court.
I'm so glad he did this. Once Circuit City changes their policy about checking receipts, I'm going to buy a measly USB cable, then secretly load up my bag! If they have the security poles, I'll just throw my bag up in the air as I pass through them. If they question my actions, I will say that I'm very excited about my USB cable. However, they actually can't question my actions, because I have my rights as a consumer. If they didn't catch me stealing then they can't stop me... or else I will call the police and not show them my license.
Good points.
I just see a few problems, in no particular order:
1. It doesn't matter if it's fair. I maintain complete and total possession of all rights to all of my stuff during my entire visit to their establishment, along with any additional stuff that I might have purchased and any incidental items (such as a receipt, bag, coupons, warranty and rebate paperwork, to name a few) acquired since arriving at such establishment. You don't get to go rooting through my things just because you've already rooted through everyone else's.
A bum who begs for money from anyone who passes, also does so fairly and equally. But this does not obligate me to give him anything, even if everyone else who passes does drop some change.
2. Regarding crossing the street: So it should be OK, then, to skip the receipt check without illicit detainment if I clearly announce my intent to the door bouncer, er, I mean, greeter before leaving?
3. It is so, so, so not-my-fucking-problem to help them with their internal stock loss issues. There are already cameras overlooking each register for this very purpose, and the door bouncer would be more efficiently employed looking at those than checking receipts, anyway.
But supposing for a moment that it is my problem, I offer the following obvious advise for any retailers reading this: The technology to overlay the old-school RS-232 data from the register pole over top of the security camera's video feed from that same register not only exists, but is inexpensive. This would enable human to easily compare the names and prices of items, as identified by the register, to the actual items passing through the checkout lane, at the time of the transaction. It would be more effective, less invasive, and provide a stronger chain of evidence to support prosecution in cases in which employee collusion really is happening.
With more modern Ethernet-connected registers, IP cameras, and everything being on the same network, it could even be implemented purely in software.
But, see, none of this matters. I've paid for my stuff, and I'm leaving with it. I really don't care if the store has a reasonable suspicion of theft, or even probable cause sufficient to enable arrest. I know that I've done nothing wrong, and it is my intention to call their bluff. If they feel that I need to be detained or formally arrested for shoplifting, so be it.
But in the absence of physical restraint or an order by a uniformed law enforcement officer, I'm just going to keep calmly walking out the door with my stuff.
In the United States, it is not the responsibility of the people to continuously prove their innocence. And it's my goal to keep it that way for as long as possible.
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. I'm exercising the first one on your behalf, and I'm perfectly willing to use the other three as well.
You should be thanking me instead of arguing against me.
Kid-proof tablet..
I've performed my own cost-benefit analysis and you're going to need to hand me your wallet. Trust me, I've done the figures.
The manager in this case obviously didn't think someone had walked out with a TV, he knew clearly that the customer had merely refused to have his receipt checked. He confirmed this by repeating the guard's request to see it. If he'd thought someone *had* been stolen he'd have called the police from inside the store.
You seem to be confused on the difference between "rights" and "privileges". Perhaps you need to sit at the back of the bus and think about that for a second.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You didn't read the article. There was no indication of rudeness or combativeness from the article.
Ha, ha.
Interestingly enough, a peace officer also has the obligation to show you an official ID upon your request as well.
And yes, even though you don't drive, you MUST have a state ID with you at all times. It's illegal to do otherwise and if an officer decides to detain you because you can't show a proper ID. Again, this may vary based on state laws, but I can tell you this is the way it is in the past two states I've lived in. This is just plain not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify
You have to identify yourself in certain states. In other states you do not. The identification can be in the form of giving your name and address to the peace officer, no paper/government issued identification is required.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
>>All retail stores have to have some measure of theft prevention in place.
>They are allowed to have whatever measure they need -- as long as they stop short of abridging someone's rights.
Whether they rent or own their spot on the property, doesn't it make that their property, and therefore their right due to it taking place on their property?
>>Those guys at the doors asking to see a receipt aren't the frigging new world order
>So please list the rights that you give up on that basis. List them all, and tell us why your assertion justifies each one.
See the above.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Whoever modded this down is a moron. The stores are perfectly within their rights because they are either renting or owners of their property. If someone breaks into your home and you challenge them on it, does it mean they can have you arrested or even sue you for questioning their right to be on your property? I'm pretty sure you'll say no.
And that's also the case with these stores, they own the right to use their property as they deem fit. Unless you think that peoples' propety falls under the control of the state, or the federal government, then, technically, you believe in manifest destiny and government control over ALL property, either privately rented or owned. Fucking Q, fucking E, fucking D.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
It seems to me more like that the CC employee is employed to stand by the door and ask to see everyones receipts, even people who are under no suspicion of shoplifting.
If a store wishes to detain you under suspicion of shoplifting then they need to have either witnesses who saw you pick up the item and attempt to walk out the shop with it or have video evidence of the same. If they don't have that then they don't have reasonable grounds to suspect you of shoplifting and they are not allowed to detain you.
The store can ask you show them a receipt or to search your bags if they like but you're under no obligation to either show them one or let them search your bags. If they are asking to see your receipt or to search your bag without any eye witness reports that you've actually stolen something then the fact alone that you refuse a request to see a receipt or for your bags to be searched do not form reasonable grounds to suspect you of shoplifting and therefore the store has no grounds to detain you.
In this case the security guard said he had no grounds to suspect the guy of shoplifting but that regardless of that the guy had to comply with his request to show his receipt or the guard wouldn't let him leave the car park. This is clearly illegal behaviour and the guy was right to call the police, he was unlucky to get a moron in a police uniform instead.
I read this story first in Digg. I took the impression that the supposedly wronged customer was just being an asshole, and as a result, ruined a social event with his family. I would expect this behavior from a five-year-old, but an adult is supposed to behave better.
Sometimes, when shopping, I buy a product that has multiple security tags, and until each tag is deactivated, I set off an alarm in the exit. Is this my fault? No. Is it the clerk's fault? Of course not.
Another issue is the "wronged" customer's attitude toward the low-wage clerk. Trust me on this, you can lose your high-paying job in a heartbeat, and have no choice but to become a low-wage worker yourself.
Every time i read this post I get mad at the "wronged" customer all over again. His parents did a lousy job teaching him proper behavior out in the real world. If you don't want your kids to behave like this idiot, they have to be taught.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
[quote]Maybe you'd like to share your idea's on how a shop might better secure themselves against theft? [/quote]
Seeing as how the receipt/bag check ritual is targeted to catch theft committed with the help of store employees (cashiers who slip unpaid items into an accomplice's bag), perhaps paying their cashiers somewhat more than minimum wage might be a step in the right direction. Unless you truly believe that customer's rights should be violated because the store can't trust its own employees.
Other that that, additional/better qualified employees on the sales floor, watching the security monitors, and in other security positions could only help.
All of these cost more money than a minimum wage flunkie harassing customers at the exit, though....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
My feeling is that this guy has principles but no common sense. The world is complicated and the laws do not govern everything (probably never will). Is it unreasonable for the store employee to check customers’ receipt? Is that really an offence? Are the de facto behaviour of stores so bad that are worth such kind of challenging?
For me, the answer are all Nos.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Hiibel vs. Humboldt County et. al. (2004) that it's legal for law enforcement officers to arrest people who don't show their papers. Before 2004, Mr. Righi would have had the law on his side. Today, not so much.
IANAL, I just remember when my Constitutional freedoms get yanked out from under me.
Link to the ruling: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display. html?terms=%22driver's%20license%22%20arrested&url =/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
You are 100% correct in everything you wrote. Unless the store employees were certain you stole the merchandise (which they couldn't have been since you didn't steal it), they should not have questioned you. I've been in that same situation many times (going to a return desk with a receipt and merchandise I COULD have just picked up right then), but have never been questioned about it. BTW SAM'S CLUB has always (at least for the 15 years I have been going to them) checked customer's receipts against merchandise in the cart as they exit the store. Good luck if you sue. Perhaps it will teach them to fix their procedures.
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
Think about the "Loss Prevention" guy. He's getting paid to do a job that companies think is a "deterrence" but is actually a "better-source-of-tuition-money-than-getting shot-in-Iraq".
But hey sure, not a constitutional requirement to do something that not only doesn't harm you but doesn't judge you (I mean everyone gets stopped by the guy at Fry's, and honestly, on busy sales weekends they've got like ten guys at the doors just putting marks straight through receipts), but it's training everyone to gas their neighbors and rat on the "undesirables" when the uber-state comes forth from the future. I'll believe that when I believe they actually have the manpower time or energy to just monitor a percent of the US population with any degree of competency. Fucks sake our prisons don't have that kind of security, not to mention the fact that people really DO pirate music which (and I'm quite sure of this) is stealing and is illegal, but our nation is so fantastically awesome that most can get away with it while a few get to be public heroes against an overzealous and inept super-villain.
Here, you want to show some balls, some serious tallywacker tenaciousness? Stop tipping in the US. No I don't care if jackoff mcgee the ever smilin bartender/waiter signed for a wage that makes the conspicuously accented gardener next door have the relative salary of a non-outsourced computer programmer. It's custom, and despite the places that put it on the receipt it's not obligatory.
This isn't "authority GONE MAD" it's "business custom". You go to a high-end electronics store, or a place that lets you buy so much shit you need a vehicle that gets no more than 4 mpg to fit all of it into, and you're expected to do this ritual at the door because it makes them feel happier about not having to trust everyone who goes in their store. That may seem like an insult, but TRUST is a massive burden that we don't really like to pay for. You wouldn't be shopping for shit made largely out of the country if you had to trust the people who made it anyway, you just don't think about it when you're getting those wonderful deals. The supermarket, the wal-mart, the circuit cities, if you had even a shallow understanding of the governments and human/civil rights standards in the countries you patron you'd be caught with your dick in you're own mouth talking about this little inane distraction.
"My civil rights were RAPED from me as the doorman looked at my receipt, opened my bag (filled with wonderful gadgety devices from places that get people to live on money I'd literally use to buy soft soft lotion infused toilet paper to wipe my ass with), and then marked my receipt in carnal glory with a highlighter."
Oh, and yes, please, call the fucking police on 911, have them show up, and then proceed to be uncooperative. That's how I like to resolve shit. Fuck, I mean what kind of tittywinker would call up the police, perhaps with stolen property, accuse someone of trying to stop them with said stolen property, give a false name, and drive off with the booty and the satisfaction of the store owner getting a citation IF said tittywinker could get away with it? Who I ask you WHO?! Oh wait, half the damn populace because that would be clever, and honesty be damned, we really like clever.
Furthermore, and just to complete the list of shit you guys are guilty of, the constitutionality of this circle jerk is irrelevant to all of your idealism anyway, because I know for a fact everyone of you fuckers would be sipping bootlegged liquor if it were banned while jacking off to banned porn and listening to banned music while playing banned games with a banned book in both hands and ducked taped to both testicles. Look at it on it's face and if it were not UN-constitutional to do so, would you or would you not SHIT a litter of kittens for having to show the receipt at the door that is less than 10 meters from where you received the receipt? If it was COMPLETELY AND EXPRESSLY WRITTEN in the constitution, that you HAD T
Technically while you are at school, the school is your guardian - as a guardian their rights extend quite a bit farther than a shopkeepers.
need an excuse. "I searched him for shoplifting, but when I found out he hadn't, I pulled him in anyway," usually doesn't cut it. There needs to be some legal basis for the detention - reasonable suspicion that something hinkey is going on. Failure to show ID has been rejected multiple times by lower courts & SCOTUS as being that reasonable suspicion.
Cool! So I can physically search everyone who comes over for dinner. Obviously my rights to search someone at my house would be even greater then a retail store because my home is a completely private property. A retail store's purpose is to be a completely public location. (That is why you can't sit around in you underwear and scratch yourself.)
Your person is your ultimate possession. Searching your person is the ultimate invasion of privacy no matter where you are. Circuit City is going to pony up some cash because the law here is crystal clear. They can not search you. They can not detain you unless they perform what amounts to a citizens arrest. If they do this they must wait and have the police perform the search. Before a retail store goes down this path they need to be absolutely certain that their subject has stolen something. Suspicion isn't enough because if they get to court and they don't have a video or an eye witness the charges would be dropped and the lawsuits would begin.
If he pursues it Circuit City is going to end up paying for unlawful detainer and assault. It would take a bit more work but the police department will probably pay for false arrest and who knows what else.
Looks like Ohio has a problem with their cops being a law unto themselves...
Yeah. The bag-checker could be an accomplice too.
And the manager!
And the janitor!
Ooh! And that random bum down the street!
Come on. We're dealing with reality here. Not "What If".
The reality is that it's damn unlikely that A. Random Customer is in cahoots with your store employee to rip the store off.
Additionally, the bag-checkers aren't looking at the price tags vs the receipt. They're going "1...2...3 items. Have a nice day!"
Let's try for a REAL argument here.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Too bad you are, you know, wrong.
As a former loss prevention officer (aka Luke Floorwalker, rant-a-cop etc) the rules, at least under the Canadian Criminal code are quite clear. In order to detain or arrest someone you must:
1. See selection - you have to actually see the person take something.
2. See concealment - you have to actually see the person hide or attempt to hide the object.
3. See them leave without trying to pay - you must observe the person leave the store without attempting to pay for the item.
4. Continuity - you must keep the person within your sight at all times. If you lose sight of them, they may have ditched the items
Under the Criminal Code of Canada (based on English Common law like the US state laws) one can only arrest and detain a person if the have reasonable and probable grounds that an indictable offense has occurred. The list above ensures the reasonable and probable grounds. If you cannot say for certain that you have followed that list, you run the risk of unlawful confinement and false arrest lawsuits. In Canada, store security has no special powers of arrest beyond citizen's arrest. And you are required to caution them that they have the right to retain and advise counsel without delay, our version of Miranda. Anything short of this is illegal and unlawful detention.
What does that mean? That checking receipts is not strictly legal, searching bags, unless you are arrests under the conditions above, is not legal, and stopping people because the door sensor beeps is not legal.
Don't even get into how illegal the cops actions were.
Micheal has a good case for unlawful detention, false arrest. At no time did anyone see him select, steal or leave without paying. Nobody in that store, whether a manager, owner or $7.00/hr door clerk, had the right to search his bag or ask him for anything.
Period.
I for one will not give up my rights so Circuit City or any other retailer can prevent theft. If you are, I really pity you.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
You really must not have a job. It is idiotic anarchists like you that allow frivolous law suits because of hot coffee at McDonald's become front page news. Seriously, you are a waste of tax payers money. If you had just showed the man your receipt none of this would have happened, but NOOOOO, you had to resist. There is one thing to prevent the infringement of your constitutional rights, and there is just being an a**. The people at the door ARE REQUIRED to randomly check bags so they can not be accused of profiling. D*** people like you piss me off.
Is "breech" a legal term? I always (hopefully) thought that judges wore breeches under their robes. Please, breach the veil and enlighten us.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
He's talking about when you're little and your mother wants you to clean off the mud you were playing in earlier. Talk about an erosion of rights!
I have been reading with interest. Back in the day, I used to work in a CompUSA Store back in San Juan, PR about 5 yrs ago. Being one of the managers of the store I was good friends with the LP Manager. During our many conversations I remember him explaining how LP could intercept and check a guy they thought had "stolen" something: I don't know how CC operates their LP issues, but in my CompUSA Store there were over 22 cameras above in the celing, and there was always an LP Guard, positioned at the monitors looking around. When they found someone who had the possibility of being a shoplifter, they would inform the LP person on the floor, and this person who is dressed as a civilian, would check them out. If the person was cleared, they kept an eye on him, but usually moved to another target. Unless they had visual knowledge (ie: "They saw the guy snuck in an ink cartridge under his shirt"), they would not make the move of intercepting him on the door of the store, where they would ask him for his receipt (and while this was happening, a cop had been called to the scene and awaited in the warehouse where the LP Office was located). Then they would ask the person to follow them to the warehouse and showed him the video where it would show him "stealing" the ink cartridge. If he admitted the fault, the store would either ban him from entering the store again or press charges. The cops would take it from there. After this brief example, and after reading his article in his site and the comments here I have to point out that the manager or the LP Manager, should have checked the video cameras, before they decided to press on the guy. That way the store would have been covered with their "policy". It doesnt seem this step was done. Hence the store took a big chance in being "wrong" (and they were wrong). This is another point Mr. Righi could use to argue his case. "The store has security cameras, show me the video where I stole something..." There is defenitely something fishy going on and by the comment of the supposed employee that just posted here stating that cop was a regular over there, he was biased against the customer towards the manager. Maybe the manager hooked him up with a free Plasma TV... Who knows. But the cameras issue should be addressed as a way to prove the store acted outside of their security policy, aside from the rest of civil rights brokern during this event.
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
It is not, in fact, likely that the entire family can sue, given that only Mr. Righi's rights were actually violated. The police can search your stuff without cause in pursuit of an investigation of someone else. This is not a 'legal' search, but your only recourse is to have the results of the search thrown out of any case where they are brought against you - they aren't going to be thrown out of someone else's case and you don't have the recourse of a civil action. Likewise, because the family was never the focus of the investigation, and they were never materially detained except through their own cooperation, they don't have a case. Also, while his rights were violated by the police, and he may have an action there due to the nature of the police being a governmental body, the civil suit against the corporation is tougher, because he has to show that he suffered a material harm. The fact that he was arrested may actually help him here, if he can win that case.
[Ego]out
Hope he enjoys his settlement.
No doubt his attorney will.
The store causes people whose receipts they inspect no material harm, upon which damages are decided, either in the inspection or the detaining them if they refuse. Without that there can't be a civil suit that will pass muster. It's not right, per se, that this is the case, but the corporations know that they don't lose anything by demanding the inspection, and most people simply don't care. On the other hand, I bet it does a lot to curtail shoplifting, because your average shoplifter is skittish and not well informed.
[Ego]out
I'd like to see a huge volume of people goto stores that follow this practive and buy $1000+ worth of items. Once questioned leaving, those people then immediately procede to the return counter and return the items stating they feel insulted being accused of being thieves. That would make the stores take notice and screw up their return statistics to boot!
Hopefully this could make national news and give stores that do this enough bad PR that the practiced is discontinued.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
There's a difference between marking receipts and searching bags. I assert that a store should have the right to mark receipts on the way out so that you cannot walk back into the store and take out more goods on the same receipt in full view of everyone else. (Didn't we recently have a Congressman commit this sort of fraud?) I think everyone would agree with me on that one.
Sadly, right now, they don't have that right, and all too often this gets conflated with searching bags, which the store also doesn't have the right to do, and shouldn't. If the courts make it clear they don't have that right, it's probably going to remove the right to mark receipts.
And if we don't come up with a way to let them do the marking, I fear they'll implement privacy invading measures like, after you buy something, they send your photo to the front of the store to tell them you can exit with bags of stuff for a limited amount of time. (And once they start doing that, they'll tie the photo to the purchase, and all sorts of crap. Yes, they already have you on video, but there's a difference between hours of video not tied to specific purchases and a photograph specifically of a certain customer.)
My suggestion: A loaner receipt. As part of the transaction, they hand you a slip of paper as the real receipt (Which is your property.) and another slip which they are careful to say is not your property and you can't leave the store with...which you turn over to people at the front on the way out.
And, like I said, don't confuse this with searching bags, which I agree is very stupid and not supported in law.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It is true that under any contract you sign you cannot give up your basic rights. For instance, you can never sign a contract that removes the liability of the other party for negligence; if they're negligent, even if you signed a contract saying that they're not liable for any harm to you under the contract, they still are. On the other hand, in most situations, the 'rights' that are extended to you are done so out of an attempt to protect you from the government. Typically speaking your recourse when your rights are violated is concessions in the court process; evidence thrown out, cases overturned, etc. However, if someone else violates your rights without committing a crime - or more importantly causing you damage of some sort - your civil suit against them is worthless, because you've suffered no material harm. Even if they do technically commit a crime - say, kidnapping - you might not actually be able to sue them because, again, you can't assess any damage.
You can bet corporate lawyers bank on this sort of thing; they're not going to sign into policy anything illegal, nor anything that is likely to result in damages. But they don't have much to prevent them from violating your rights.
[Ego]out
I am going to call bs on this. 1) The only link given is a blog written in his own word. The 'victim' may have been belligerent. I would have no problem if a store manager came to me and asked to see my recipt if I was under suspicion of theft if it clears my name. The store should have a right to protect its property. 2) Not giving your licence to an officer of the law, or any ID for that matter should be labled as suspect. Any person with a reasonable concionce would have no problem complying with law investigations or inspections. Some people obviously go too far but the majority are moral and do their jobs well. I think this guy was just out for a money grab and finding a way to dig up a lawsuit to make a quick buck. Not the metion the fact that he is now taking donations on his website to help with fees.
Wow. I don't even feel like I have to reply to this.
Again, there is no scheme presented in which Circuit City's rights and my consumer rights (the ones acting in good faith) have their rights protected -- just facetious, inactionable notions like sealing everything up.
Plus these sweeping, off-subject attacks on capitalism and creationism (which this winner can't even spell).
Obviously, you and Michael have never run anything complex. If you had, you'd respect people's good-faith efforts more, rather than trying to force them into an impossible position.
Thank God there's people like him in the world and not just people like you. The police have very limited rights, and it should stay that way. Their powers keep creeping up every year with new laws designed to stop "terrorism" or something, so keeping what few limits they have in check are well within your DUTIES as a citizen.
You have rights, stand up for them, or risk losing them. I'm not a pro-gun advocate, but in the old days, they stood up and fought for this type of unlawful activity on the part of law enforcement and brought in civil liberties.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The Laws.
The cop was with in his right to arrest him, right or wrong, the supreme court says you have to give it up when a cop asks for an I.D. card.
I don't agree with it, but they have up held this idea twice, once in 2004 and before that in 1985. So the cop had the discretion to arrest the guy if he wanted. here's a cut and paste from the supreme court case which sets the case law for the concept:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 03--5554
LARRY D. HIIBEL, PETITIONER v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
[June 21, 2004]
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop allowed by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). He challenges his conviction under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
""1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime."
"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."
While I feel it to be a 5th amendment violation, the Supreme court say give it up upon request!
Also it doesn't mater if the guy was guilty of any thing before the arrest, it matters if he was obstructing and delaying the cop by not giving up the ID upon request.
I go to CompUSA.. then I ask the clerk after purchasing my goods. "I own this now? Yes? YES?" and she will nod or say yes. Then I clutch at my bag looking very tense and look around then I stomp through the door. My eyes are looking left and I mumble to myself. Not a single clerk or person asks me for my receipt at that point.
I started doing this after someone asked me for my receipt and said I could not get refunds if it was not clicked or written on. Now they don't ask about refunds because I can tell them that no one EVER asked me for a Rcpt.
Its crazy actually that so many do this. The cashiers are right next to the exit. Its HARD to get out without walking through a cashier anyways.. why they do this? I don't think it actually helps.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
He first needs to resolve that the customer wasn't shoplifting, hence the package check and running a background check on the driver and car.
I really fail to see why the cop needs to do that. The store is NOT accusing the customer of shoplifting. The store employee IS unlawfully detaining their customer. The driver's license is not really relevant to the situation which the cop was called to resolve.
In order to avoid excessive landfill, after completing the transaction, remove your items and receipt from the provided bag and place them in your own re-used bag or backpack leaving the un-needed plastic bag for the next customer. Naturally small items go in your pocket.
If they want to check up on their cashiers, perhaps they should spend more time watching the cashiers and less time hassling their customers.
Alternative solution is to offer to sell the reciept guy the bag and it's contents. If he accepts and pays, he is then free to look at them all he wants.
Personally, I simply don't give my business to a store that somehow accuses me of shoplifting unless it's a genuine mis-understanding and I get a sincere apology.
He needs to collect donations to pay his website bill after this is said and done.
:)
Considering the coverage it has gotten, a $1000 fine will be peanuts compared to what he'll owe his ISP for excessive use.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Why not collude with the receipt checker too?
"identify yourself" != "produce state issued ID"
Simply state your name, address and DOB and your compliant.
Good point... and this sort of thing (as well as the Circuit City story) makes me wish I had a device that was constantly recording everything around me.
Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean that you should.
Except, you dim witted cowardly douche, he didn't "get away" with anything. The store attempted to get away with something and he refused to let them pull one over on him.
Those are the facts of the matter, Arguing the complete opposite of the facts makes you look like a real piece of shit, you know that, don't you?
Are you really that fucking stupid, or are you that eager to bend over at any opportunity? Or is it both?
The one certain thing is that you have very serious problems with basic reasoning and integrity. You should look into those before you open you mouth in public.
> > how corruptable is the loss prevention fellow...
>
> He's probably making minimum wage, maybe slightly
> more, so I imagine he's not corruptible at all.
Of course, well paid employees are always incorruptable. Like Enron executives. Just ask any of their shareholders left with pretty pieces of paper (if lucky) and an offsetting loss for their taxes, when the execs' fraud reduced the company to worthless.
Sorry, people are never above, beneath, or beyond suspicion, and worse for those who do not believe in Original Sin, rightly so.
Maybe you'd like to share your idea's on how a shop might better secure themselves against theft? All I ever hear is people wailing about how their rights are being infringed...
That might be because this guy's right were *very* fucking seriously infringed. That's the relevant fact, shithead. It isn't my job to help a shop with their security. Where you got the batshit insane idea that that idiotic mewling of yours is even in any way relevant is beyond me, but rest assured, you're wrong on every particular and yet you don't have the common courtesy to shut your fucking mouth after it is demonstrated to you repeatedly.
Grow some balls and act like a citizen, not a subject you cowardly fuckwad.
Recently I was at Wal-Mart (no other option) to buy some pop for a trip with some co-workers. After I paid for the pop, I tossed the receipt into the trash near the optometrist area since I didn't want to hold on to it. Of course, then the Wal-Mart greeter wanted to see my receipt. I had to go back to the optometrist area and fish it out of the trash just to please the old bag that I didn't steal pop.
I bet you could talk your way out of it, though, if you had obviously paid for the other stuff. If Fryes is anything like Best Buy there is almost zero ability for you to get something in your bag between the register and the door. Their only argument is that you hid it on your person and slipped it into your bag after the register, which the cameras should show them is false, and the cameras would probably also show the cashier accidentally failing to scan the item.
I have inadvertently stolen before. I bought a engine hoist at Harbor Freight, and when they brought it up to the front, there were two boxes on the dolly. I figured maybe the main components were in one box and the ram was in the other, so I put both boxes into my car. When I got home and opened everything up, I found that the second box was actually a wholesale box of ratcheting tiedowns. I have no clue why they brought that to the front with them, as this is a box that should have been opened in the store and the contents sold individually. If I had been more honest, I would have returned the box, but that would have also cost me about a 40 mile round trip, which would cost me nearly as much in gas as they probably paid for that box of tiedowns. Hopefully they will have learned from this experience not to bring extra boxes up to the front and trust the customer to know which ones to take.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
this guy is off his meds!
When he arrived on the scene, the law enforcement officer was responding to a false-imprisonment complaint (essentially, holding a person against their will without some legal right to do so). Ohio grants a narrow right to shopkeepers to detain shoplifters:
R.C. 2935.041
(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, 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.
Thus, whether or not Righi's detention was rightful depends on whether or not Atha had probable cause to believe that Righi had unlawfully taken items. The proper action for Officer Arroyo to take in this circumstance would be to question Atha and determine what evidence he had for his belief that Righi had unlawfully taken items. Upon hearing that the sole evidence was Righi's failure to authorize a search, Arroyo should have demanded that Atha release Righi, as he had no lawful right to detain Righi.
If Atha did have probable cause, Arroyo would have probable cause, and been allowed to search Righi's possessions to determine that he had not shoplifted anything. As part of this search, Arroyo would be authorized to demand that Righi identify himself. However, this identification does not have to be via a driver's license. Ohio law is clear on what is required when a law enforcement officer requests identification:
R.C. 2921.29
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following: ...
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
According to Ohio law, Righi had complied with the officer's demand to identify himself. Arroyo had no probable cause for a search of Righi's driver's license. It is clear that the charge of "Obstructing Official Business" is not going to stick; it requires that the accused resist an "authorized" action, and his failure to yield his driver's license did not obstruct an action that Arroyo had the authority to perform.
Was Righi acting in an inefficient manner by standing up for his rights, rather than simply yielding to the illegal search? Certainly. It's generally quicker to comply with law enforcement officials and give them whatever they want, in much the same sense as it's quicker to give anyone what they want rather than arguing about it. However, "efficiency" is a particularly poor justification for illegal acts.
Your name-calling seems inappropriate; you should know as a former law-enforcement officer that you do not have the power to do whatever you like, and it's not "behaving like an ass" to resist those who would over-extend their power. Further, it seems particularly off-putting to hear such an opinion from someone with a military background. We frequently are told that the
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Then we'll get to deal with ex-military MP's whose sensitivity training on handling combative 'citizenry' starts appearing in towns and villages all around us. Sad thing about this equation is that these will be the vets most lauded, the 'good' vets. The 'other' vets, the 'bad' ones, disallusioned by the lies of leadership and lack of VA services might be expected to go all Tim McVeigh. When this occurs, Bush will claim that history has redeemed him since he's been worried about bringing terrorism over here for a long time. Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
Remember, in this case, Righi *called* the cops in the first place. I don't believe it's going too far for the police to establish the identity of the person who placed the complaint.
OK, but he *did* identify himself.
Now, that's minus 5 on reading comprehension and your entire post is rendered utterly without value.
We all know you can be searched.
No. Only idiots "know" you can be searched by entering a public business.
Sane people who aren't batshit insane know that this is absolutely false. We also have the benefit of being correct.
You're a batshit insane idiot *and wrong.
Now, go away and quit spouting idiotic lies that you're too cowardly to realize aren't true.
Weak willed boot licking scum like you really piss me off. The only way they will ever have those rights is due to cowardly fools *like you*. You think they already have these rights. You've already lost the battle without doing a damn thing to defend yourself. You just pulled a goatse at the first sign of trouble.
I'm sickened just talking to somebody as utterly lacking in any sort of integrity as you have proven yourself to be.
Now, go die in a fire you fucking cowardly worm.
According to the story, the officer in charge didn't ask for ID, but for a driver's license.
I ask you, if you didn't have a driver's license, would you be able to comply to the officer's request?
Yes, it would've been better if he had just shown his license, or other ID, that isn't the issue here. The issue is that the cop abused his power and had this guy wrongfully arrested, and made up a crime afterwards.
btw, be glad that you don't have to show ID, here in NL, we can be fined if we are found without ID (this law came into effect in January of 2005). 'Thankfully' the police isn't allowed to just ask at random, there has to be reasonable suspicion that you committed some form of a crime.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Why do cops get so out of line sometimes? Because people are snobby and do whatever they can to obstruct justice. It's a shame because some people have to go and ruin it for everyone. If society wasn't always so blatantly dishonest, you wouldn't have to have you receipts checked in the first place. To me it sounds like reasonable cause that someone is stealing because they refuse to provide a receipt and identification. I see ZERO reason to refuse a receipt check. No one has ever accused me of stealing, and the LP person has always given me a big smile and wished me a nice day. Bash them and call them greasy teens, losers, uneducated, whatever, but f you you snobs. They are trying to do their job and don't need people like you to make their lives any harder than they already are just because "of principle". I'm not an LP but I'd like to be one and watch one of you "defend yourself", I'd drop you like a bag of dirt.
I'm amused mostly by the fact that people assume police officers are read up on the law. They aren't, and are mostly concerned with the procedure of their particular agency of Sheriff's Office, which may or may not be in anyway in accordance with the law. This is why, usually when an incident like this comes up, it tends to turn up in a lot of other cases, because hey hey, someone told the troops that it was okay to do x, y, z. The fact that it isn't often comes as a shock to the beat cops on the ground, and leads to a subsequent new wave of moaning, forced re-training, and the inevitable looking over ones shoulder to make sure you're not violating the new rules.
That bag contained his private property that he had just purchased... Should he be able to inspect their cash registers after his purchase? After all, they contain money that was his just moments before.
Your analogy sounds really clever at first, but there's one problem with it. While shoplifting is a widespread problem in our society, cashiers surreptitiously taking too much money out of customers' wallets is not. The day it becomes a significant problem is the day I'll fight for your right to audit their cash register.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
At Sam's club or Costco, you sign a contract that says they can examine your cart and receipt. There's some language where they can go as far as to void your sale if they decide it's not right.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
"Whether they rent or own their spot on the property, doesn't it make that their property, and therefore their right due to it taking place on their property?"
So... I can make a restaurant and enforce a "no Jews, Blacks, or Irish" policy? It's my property, so I have the right to pick and choose whatever laws I want to follow, whatever rights of others I want to respect. Is that your position? Ownership of property makes one king within the boundaries of that property.
Try again.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
In my state, standing in front of a car, blocking the driver's egress where he has a right to leave, is misdemeanor assault. There are factors that make it a felony, for example, if you are armed while keeping someone from leaving. In that case, the victim has a reasonable apprehension that bodily harm may come to him if he does not comply with the detention -- and for that, you could (and should) find yourself in prison for years, possibly decades; life without parole if you've got three strikes.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I come from England, but I live in Canada, and I can tell from your comments that you must be American. :-)
:-)
Seriously, the US is one of the *only* places where anyone makes a big deal about this.
A lot of countries, like Canada for instance, do not have a law that requires you to carry ID with you wherever you go, but they do have a law that requires you to produce ID if asked for it. The effect is basically the same though. Smart anarchists merely leave their ID at home, or carry crappy, inconclusive ID to present to the officer if asked.
I find it especially funny the people that have come back with some kind of variation on me being "okay with living in a police state." I am about as "anti-police" as one can get and have seen enough police brutality, live and up close both in Canada and the US to curl the hair on your toes. To me, the police are a band of (mostly) untrained thugs, hardly to be differentiated from the local gangs.
I merely pointed out that unless he had a record, (and perhaps even if he did), the simple act of showing the cop his ID would have made him 100% right. The fellow *chose* to go to jail. Perhaps he thought he was Rosa Parks or something but most of the rest of the world would probably just think him (somewhat) foolish.
If the same guy was stopped by a local Gansta and given you a choice of handing over his kicks or being sliced up, would you advise him to stand up for what was right and say no? Same thing. Cops do things all day long that are neither legal nor moral, but they have guns and they are the cops. The practical thing to do is keep your head down, gather evidence and witnesses and hit em in court when your wearing your nicest suit.
I would look forward to the inevitable day when your rights are violently raped away if it didn't seem so obvious from your comments that you'd simply enjoy the experience way too much.
Good points.
I found a few problems with your post, however I am only going to scrutinize these two:
You completely missed the point of the analogy.
Er, uh. Heh. You posted a car analogy to Slashdot. Did you really expect anything different?
If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Aw, shucks. You want a free market privatized police state? Start shopping at Sam's Club, where you agree under contract to be searched. I go there myself from time to time, and really have no problem with their security tactics.
Meanwhile, I'll keep avoiding illegitimate searches of my belongings and unlawful detainment of my person when shopping at places which are open to the general public, where no such contract exists.
So what if it costs slightly extra and annoys the door bouncer?
It's a free society, man. But nobody has said that freedom is without cost.
If the cost of keeping it this way is only a small price hike, a few false arrests, and a bunch of hot-headed-but-powerless receipt checkers, then I'd say we're doing OK and that things are balancing out fairly well.
Kid-proof tablet..
A store employee politely asks to see the receipt for goods in this gentlemen's bag. Normal, clear thinking people just show them the receipt, the employee wishes them a good day and everybody gets back to what they are doing.
But this guy? No! He would rather create a storm in a tea cup out in the parking lot. Here is a guy looking for a fight. Making sure he knows the law backwards and forwards so he can see any penny-arse discrepancy to dispute in his good-mannered, but infuriating way.
He says he only regrets doing what he did because of the reaction of his young relatives in the car. Perhaps if he was thinking clearly, like most people do, he wouldn't have done it to start with?
So, what exactly has he achieved? His father is $300 poorer. His young relatives are upset, probably not really knowing what is going on apart from a large scary man holding the car door open and another large scary man draped over the hood. He would prefer to be difficult, obstructive and just plain annoying rather than do the simple thing of showing his receipt for all of 3 seconds as he leaves the store. The guy at the door is just trying to do his job, loss prevention. Why paint him as the protagonist in this? He is the victim.
People like this joker see every reveal of something about themselves as the thin end of the wedge - the end of civilisation - oh my god, the terrorists have won if I now have to show my drivers licence to of all people... a police officer!
The irony of this that during all this confusion with employees stopping a car, police arriving etc it would have been the perfect opportunity for somebody to actually steal something.
You can't take the sky from me...
Nope, just the regular old Exclusionary Rule.
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
For stores to have someone checking receipts against goods at the exit is nothing unsual in most countries.
In Russia, to buy anything with a credit card, you generally need to present a passport and you WILL without fail be asked to show the goods and the receipts on exiting any electronic products store.
This is standard procedure most places. What's the problem with that? Not like he was asking for an on-the-spot snappy glove search or anything.
Sounds like a case of a very small person deliberately trying to stir up some trouble.
When the guy exited the store after mouthing off to the security guard (who is paid by the store and who DOES have certain authority to stop people -- remember the guy was on STORE PROPERTY and is subject to whatever rules they want to put in place) -- I'd have voted for a good pepper spraying.
Now the guy is taking 'donations' to defend his big case. Good scam (er work) if you can get it. Just surprised he didn't have someone getting it all on video for extra exposure on YouTube.
Bah humbug!
I've had a similar encounter. I went to Mediamarkt, a very big store comparable to Circuit City. I went there to buy a shaver, took the box with me, paid it to the cashier and went home. Opened the box, to my surprise there was NO SHAVER in it, only an adapter, the cleaning brush and the protection cover.
.. it was not found ...
Called back to Mediamarkt the next day, since it was already closed when I came home, they told me I should drop in with the receipt and the box and that would be it. I went that next day immediately to customer service, gave the box and told them (in trust) I didn't need the money back, I just needed the shaver. I got a ticket that could be used for either returning to cash or to swap the shaver.
I went downstairs in the shop, went looking to shavers and found out there were no similar models available anymore; so asked to the shop representative to try to find when they will be back in the shop. She told me it could take weeks. I asked after if there were any blades available for my -old- shaver and if those blades might fit because the older model was of the same brand (not the same type). That would take 2 months to order (GOSH!).
After that she told she had one in stock and would do anything to find it. Five minutes later the representative comes back to me with a shaver, in box, I was happy and went to the DVD section. Saw the entire Star Trek serie on DVD for a low price but "The Wrath of Kahn" was missing; so in all haste I lay down the shaver on the DVD's, go to the DVD shop representative and ask them if that movie was in stock. It wasn't and went further watching to the dvd's unknowing I have left the shaver with the DVD's.
With an entire stack of DVD's I went to the cashier and found out I had "lost" my shaver, so I go back to the isles to search for the shaver; alas
Big bummers, since I had movies to watch too but nothing to shave off my beard I was growing at that time; I went to the store manager downstairs and asked him where "lost items" being put wrong in isles go to. He told me it would be in the back of the store; where I went but the line was just waaaaaay to long to be waiting there and I needed to work about one hour later.
I went to the cashier, gave the ticket to the desk and suddenly had a security guard telling me I stole SHAVERS!
His argument was that I stole the shaver from the box when home, I stole a shaver in the shop and I stole another shaver in stock; while there was only one left in the store. I told very politely I got ADHD and am sometimes a little bit fast in thinking, which might have caused that I've lost this shaver in particular. The shop representatives were searching the shop for that missing shaver in the whiletime.
The guard was VERRRRRRRYYYYYY rude, he started to yell (in public) if I could call my doctor to confirm my medical condition because else I would be an ordinary thief. This he yelled in the shop; while I had atleast 3 business customers around me (since the store is very nearby the corporations I work for).
The missing shaver was returned and seemed to have fallen behind the DVD boxes, it was there all the time and the second missing shaver seemed to be a demo model. No apology, no mercy, no quarter, I was still treated like a thief and the guard said "you probably did stole that one shaver anyways!" I told him: yes and I will probably charge it with my tongue since the charger is still in the pack you have lying next to you!...
I never have felt so much aggression inside of me, just because of the fact I have been treated like a thief!
I asked them if I could call because I did not have my cellphone with me, I was prevented to call; even to the police. Later on I've found out what they did was highly illegal; since they cannot do a citizen arrest without calling the police.
I've got a ticket worth 115 Euro, the amount of money I paid for the shaver. This even after I told them LOUD AND CLEAR I was *NEVER* going to put foot i
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
mod parent up please, he is a hero! This guy does what he gets, the few things you have in this society next to working and all kinds of things that are just being expected from you is rights. You are virtually property of a government, obliged to do all things expected from you or they will rob you before you can tell Z. Your name is in a database and being policed by government officials. Basically the only thing you got in this age is knowing your rights.
...
Too many people are too passive towards events that happen right-on-the-spot. Whenever I am on my way to my mom's birthday or to get something to eat, when someone stops me in MY normal planning in a very intrusive way; I should take the right to respond on that in complete terms.
As I read they were ready to drive away because he had family members waiting; he waived away the intrusive check and at the end called the cops for help because that guy was going over the line. He asked, as victim (it was his paid stuff) for help at the authorities. It should be atleast considered to not be arrested for something which has nothing to do with the entire incident while asking for help because he wanted the intrusive guy to stop.
It's a complete mixture of facts which led to a snowball effect, immediate arrest; there is nothing else which can -stop- you from your tracks in this society. He did not deserve this and to my opinion this guy is a hero for himself and a lot of people around him; including you if he wins this case.
I'm European (most specifically Belgian) and got stepped on my rights too, multiple times, by its government officials; it's not an American thing only. Reference to an earlier post about something similar but this time without envolvement of government officials.
I did not sue because it costs -me- also money in the beginning which I do not have enough of to stop every stupid thing happening to me. I just react by myself and the one who did it will for sure know it forever that he did cross the lines; with words only. It's not even a normal practice to just sue in Belgium for such small amount of money because it would add up too much; the minimim amount which would be feasable would be over 1000 Euro or by the "vredegerecht" which is a court for civilian matters only costing nothing/small amounts of money to start a procedure.
What I did is put the entire article in Dutch on one my blog, contacted "Test Aankoop" (consumer magazine) and told them the story. I've had my say, Mediamarkt has read it too; I can even return the letter with the amount but I'm so -fed up- with the store I don't even want it at the moment. I'll get it when I need it and that'll be end of story. To even mention, even asking test-aankoop costs money, yearly... the circle never ends
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
it's been my practice for over a decade now to refuse to allow shop staff to search me.
my attitude is that if they want to accuse me of theft, they can do so formally (preferably in writing) and accept the consequences of their slander or libel. it infuriates me that they think they can get away with insulting me by calling me a thief - but without even the guts to make the accusation openly.
when i am asked if they can look in my bag, i say "sure, but there's a $50 fee for a quick peek. or you can call the police and have me charged with theft and i'll allow them to look in my bag. otherwise, the answer is No"
so far, they've all backed down usually without any further fuss, although sometimes a manager is called over and he decides to back down.
the key is to remain calm, polite, and steadfast in standing up for your rights.
once or twice, i've had to point out that preventing me from leaving will result in abduction and/or false imprisonment charges, and that touching me in any way will result in assault and battery charges.
We'll hold you to that. ;)
Why is the business considered private property when they allow the general public in? I would consider are home private property.
People there are some rights here but it is not the constitution it is the laws either made by State or Federal government.
Anyway he will get off, the reason. He was not read the Miranda rights. Especially if he was questioned after being arrested. From reading this article it seems he was questioned after words.