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."
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
...A lawyer just smiled, from ear-to-ear.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
Open and shut if there's a mentally competent judge presiding. But given the kind of stuff that's been getting posted lately, I wouldn't want to underestimate the idiocy of some people in the legal system.
Here is another blog that for the moment isn't dead and has the story.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
This brings up a question. Is a store legally allowed to make you show your receipt or look through your bags? I mean, once you buy an item, it is yours and is officially your property, isn't it? If stores can look through a shopping bag does that mean that stores can look into personal bags, and even search your pockets and such?
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
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".
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
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?
You might want to read his blog. He IS such a person.
Oh, they chose the wrong man to mess with..
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
what laws though exactly? at least state the California laws since you already know them. I'm curious as well to the exact rights a store has to search a customer.
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.
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.
On the other hand, he's obviously a dick for refusing to show any of his information.
Why? When did "you have no basis to harass me, good bye" go from the default norm, to "he's obviously a dick"?
We have two separate "offenses" here, neither of which Righi committed: First, the store manager mistook a refusal to play games after checking out, as some sort of proof of a crime sufficient to risk a lawsuit by detaining a customer against his will; Second, a cop mistook a refusal to play games over a legal document only required for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on public roads, as some sort of proof of a crime sufficient to risk a lawsuit by detaining a US citizen against his will.
Righi's only "crime" involved a low threshhold for BS. I routinely do the same things he did, not to act like a "dick", but because I don't humor other people's power trips. I've just never had it escalate to actually getting arrested (most store managers have enough sense to realize they don't really have a "right" to search anyone without permission, and when they don't, most cops kindly correct them on the matter).
Some managers (and some cops) think they can pull this crap only because we let them get away with it. STOP ACTING LIKE SHEEP, PEOPLE! If every single time a store tried to search you, or a cop tries to waste your time, you stood up for your rights - Stories like this would vanish overnight (Well, okay, they'd probably skyrocket overnight, then vanish within a few days as everyone involved learned what "rights" they really do or don't have).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The goods are yours, but who owns the bag? I've never seen the bag show up on the receipt, nor have I been charged for it, so presumably it is their bag, which I have possession of with their permission. I wonder if a good lawyer for a store could use this to justify searching the bag?
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.
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...
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."
It is failing, but because it's failing gradually and has taken several lifetimes to get this way, each generation grows up used to "the way things are" (Social Security vote-buying, drug asset forfeiture laws that don't require an arrest or for charges to be brought, warrentless domestic surveillance) and may lament the freedoms lost but do not see the inevitability of the police state. B
Because of the difficulty of a massive takeover and the resistence and uprisings it would cause, freedom is almost never taken away all at once. Instead, it's eroded gradually, little bit by little tiny bit (always "for the children", "for your safety", "to stop terrorists", "to fight [some] drugs"), which suits the statists because it is never given back, making the resulting police state inevitable.
What you're really dealing with here is an almost religious, always unstated belief that the artificial construct of the nation, as personified by state power, is like a massive all-powerful organism and the individuals of which it is composed are akin to cells in the body in the sense that any one of them is expendable and insignificant and they only matter in large numbers. This mentality has become deeply established in the USA, which is why in the news, no crime ever happens to a person - it happens to a Black person, or a White person, or an Asian person, or a woman, or a senior citizen, etc because the group identity has become more significant than the individual identity. This is useful for the goal of the statists, since each group has perceived collective interests in large enough numbers to influence the politics of the State. This is how you dehumanize people and turn them into a label, because it's no longer the mind, body, and soul of an individual who has hopes and dreams and feels pain like you do but just another faceless organization that can only be understood as an abstraction.
Of course you also need to have a war of some kind going on to keep the public in a fearful state, since this is the best way to discourage rational thought and promote a groupthink "pack animal" situation. War on poverty, war on (some) drugs, war on crime, war on terror, war on obesity, etc. are how you get around that pesky Bill of Rights. For example, consider the 4th Amendment, which states:
Because of the War on (some) Drugs, it is now considered acceptable for the police to seize property without bothering to arrest anyone or charge them with any crime (reference). Thanks to the War on Terror, it is now considered acceptable for the feds to intercept communications and execute wiretaps without all that hassle of demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a warrant. Both of these practices, along with the entire idea of fighting an undeclared "war" against a battle tactic (terrorism is a particularly despicable form of guerilla warfare), would have been considered absolutely absurd things that would never happen here 100
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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
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."
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
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'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.
...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. By reading the first word of this sentence you have granted me the right to harvest any and all of your organs at my discretion.Lucky for you, that's not how the world actually works. WTF do people think that entering a store makes you the ownser's slave? Sheesh.
You can't take the sky from me...
"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.
If you walked in and observed them choking customers on their way out and beating their children, would they be in the right to do that to you on the way out? Obviously you consented because you observed it when you came in. Thus, you are consenting to assault. It doesn't make it legal to do something illegal just because you consent to it, know about it, or others consent to it.
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.
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.
"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!!!
...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 ?
No, they don't. They have the right to remove any and all persons who fail to use their property as they see fit, but that's all. Try it sometime, try something stupid, see if you don't land in jail. Have something like an "All women must remove their clothes at the door," policy. You can do that, and refuse entry to women that fail to comply, however if you let them in then try to forcibly disrobe them, you're going to jail for assault at the very least. I don't care that it's your property, you are not the king. You make the rules and those who fail to comply must leave, but you can't force them to stay and do as you please.
Again the the Ohio statues you understand but don't. Yes, stores can detain someone if they've got a legal reason. Guess what? Refusing a search isn't a legal reason. Refusing a search is NEVER probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search. This one has been tested in court, the rulings are crystal clear. Refusal to search may be taken as nothing other than that: A refusal to search. It cannot give cause for a search. Otherwise such a refusal would be meaningless.
So again I'll say: Just owning property doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want. This is something you'd do well to understand, as you could get in real trouble with the attitude you have currently. In the case of purely private property you have essentially unlimited exclusionary rights, that is you can decide who is and is not allowed on the property for any reason you like, and change those reasons at any time (public businesses are more restricted, refusing access based on things like race is illegal). However that's all you get to do. You cannot force people to stay and do something they don't want. Doesn't matter if that's your "policy" doesn't matter if you have a sign, doesn't matter if you shout it from the hilltops. Your ownership of the property gives you the right to control access, not the right to force people to do as you please.
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.
So, basically what you're saying is, "I don't like your rules, but I'm going to follow them anyway."
Voila, point made, no danger of ending up in bad situation.I'm not entirely sure what point it was that you supposedly made. They wanted to see your receipt, and you showed it to them.
That said, I'm glad someone is out there actually doing the hard work.I've never considered standing up for my rights hard work. Just a growing necessity in today's world, and something that I enjoy doing.
Skeptical Limericks
I can't believe how few posts here grasp the central legal issue. The case against CC is a side show. Up until the officer verified that nothing was stolen, he probably had the law, or at least the sympathies of the judiciary, behind him. *After* he verified that no crime had originally been committed, it was his snotty-nosed follow-up charge of impeding police procedure that is going to get him into some deep legal hot water, because at that point in time he suspected no crime at all, other than the refusal to show a driver's license, which it's doubtful he had any right to demand, and furthermore, the officer neglected to ask for other information he was entitled to that would have enabled him to conduct those duties without needing the DL in the first place.
This is a case of an officer issuing a "screw you" charge against a citizen, at a point in time where he is suspected of no original crime, for sticking up legal rights he actually holds.
What is it about this that's hard to grasp? For that matter, why don't the police just get it over and done with by charging the constitution for obstruction of law-enforcement activities. It absolutely does obstruct law-enforcement. There's no question about that whatsoever. It turns out that law-enforcement is not the highest ideal of constitutional society, a mundane and disagreeable detail which the police occasionally forget.
Imagine you go to a bank to protest a $50 banking fee that was charged by mistake. The bank manager agrees that the $50 charge was in error. Then you return home and check your bank statement electronically and it now shows a $500 fee for "irregular statement review request".
The cop had an opportunity to drop the matter once the reality of no original crime was apparent to all involved. He didn't. He chose to go snotty. That's the issue here. Not Circuit City groping people's bagaloons. Like, duh.
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!"
True, you should at least tell him which one you are.