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."
...A lawyer just smiled, from ear-to-ear.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
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.
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
This was a little beyond a mistake. This was a deliberate violation of civil rights, in the face of multiple laws to the contrary of the officers actions. Pretty much the biggest reason we have a court system, frankly.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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?
usually because the ones that caused the problem in the first place (in this case CC and the police) will usually not apologize or admit any kind of wrongdoing. Leaving the court system the only option in teaching them that it is not acceptable behavour.
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.
2. The prevented him from leavening without just cause.
I hate it when stores prevent me from foaming and rising.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
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.
His exploit "just works". Apple fanbois everywhere implode in a self-collapsing vortex of cognitive dissonance. by jjack
I always refuse to show my receipt / property when leaving Fry's (the worst in my opinion) / other stores. I also refuse to wait in line to leave. I just walk by and leave. Only once has the "loss prevention employee" tried to stop me. I simply informed him everything in my bag and on my person was my property and if he wished to search it he would need to call a law enforcement officer. I also informed him that if he tried to grab me I would consider it assault and I would defend myself. I do not surrender my right to privacy because I enter a privately owned store. Their effective recourse is to inform me I am unwelcome to return, ask me to leave and/or call law enforcement if I refuse.
As to blocking my car in the parking lot, that sounds pretty much like the textbook definition of unlawful detention / kidnapping. Maybe a call to the FBI is in order.
This is incorrect. While they are perfectly within their rights to REQUEST to see the contents of your bag, you are within your rights to REFUSE that request.
The fact that it is their store means nothing. Think of it this way. Do you have the right to search any bags or packages that someone brings into your home? No. You can ask, and then you can ask that they leave if they refuse to show you, but beyond that, nothing.
Also, refusal to allow one's person or possessions to be search cannot be used as just cause for a search. So says the Supreme Court.
It's reasonable to ask for ID; it is reasonable to require someone to identify himself. It is not reasonable to require identification. [T]he Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
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
I work at this circuit city, and the cop who came is apparently friends with the store director. I know I have seen him shopping at the store a lot and will often talk with a few of the managers.
"I must say I have a hard time sympathizing here. This falls under the heading of something my old boss used to refer to as "you'd be right, but you'd be dead"."
Er, except he's right and he isn't dead! If this **isn't** a big deal then it never would have resulted in his unlawful detention and arrest.
Now this clearly does not rise to the importance of fighting for suffrage and civil rights, but your boss would have dismissed those fights as well. He would have told Rosa Parks that she'd be right but she'd be dead! That or you are miss representing your boss's opinion...
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."
Most states and municipalities have passed laws granting shopkeepers limited privilege to search and detain customers, when they reasonably believe a theft has occurred. List of laws by state. Some laws provide the shopkeeper limited immunity from torts arising from detainment.
The criteria which triggers shopkeeper privilege varies, but generally is centered on whether the store's employees witnessed a theft or other suspicious activity that indicates a theft has taken place (e.g. opening packaged goods, placing goods upon one's self, etc.)
The shopkeeper has a certain amount of leeway. In Ohio, the statute is:
2935.041 Detention, arrest of shoplifters; protection of library, museum and archival institution property, specifically:
(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
(F) Any peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person that he has probable cause to believe has committed any act described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section or that he has probable cause to believe has committed an unlawful taking in a mercantile establishment. An arrest under this division shall be made within a reasonable time after the commission of the act or unlawful taking.
As to the officer arresting the dude who wouldn't show his license, that's gonna be up to the jury to decide. Watch for the local prosecutor to drop the charges, as a public conciliatory gesture, sign that the police department is hedging against future lawsuit.
To the folks who say "forgive and forget," that the arrestee wasn't harmed or should drop the case - remember that, in most cases, today, the public entity you've just been arrested by is a municipal corporation, and carries many of the protections of a business corporation. Cities generally act as corporations do - to deny wrongdoing, and to put up a lawyer front. That leaves only one way to combat wrongful arrest: sue. The city won't apologize, that's tantamount to admission of wrongdoing. It is up to the arrestee to assert that wrong was done, and prove it in court.
That's how "The System" works. It's become a paper-based RPG - your lawyer versus their lawyer, knight vs. knight.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
In the UK, the police advise that shop staff follow "SCONE" or "SCOPE" before approaching a suspect:
S - See the suspect take goods
C - Conceal the goods
O - Continuously Observe the suspect (to ensure they don't drop or discard the goods)
P/N - Not Pay
E - Attempt to exit
Generally, if you're at an exit and someone tries to prevent you leaving, it's kidnapping (holding you against your will).
My wife is a special officer and two of my good friends are full-timers. They would kick the arse of any shop staff that tried to hold a customer without having observed scope/scone.
Ugh, that was a terrible bun, though I did loaf at it.
You'll note in Dudley Hiibel vs. Nevada that they reference a previous case, Kolender vs. Lawson ( KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)461 U.S. 352).
." Id., at 91. In addition, 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964). 8 [461 U.S. 352, 359]
Edward Lawson was "detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). 2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed"
Edward Lawsons crime was being a black male in an affluent neighborhood and jogging. During these stops he did not have his drivers license on him, or did not feel the need to present his ID upon request. The police would then arrest him for either interfering with a police investigation or PC 647(e)
In particular Edward Lawson, when refusing to show ID, was charged with PC 647(e). His lawyer's contention was that PC 647(e)'s definition of "Identify" was constitutionally vague, and successfully argued his case before the California Supreme Court.
PC 647(e)
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
himself or herself and to account for his or her presence when
requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
safety demands this identification.
In the Supreme Court of California the judges made the following statements and ruling:
Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . .
...
We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
...
In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4
"Shopkeeper's Privilege" is a whole other issue too. Which was also violated and thus the protections under it to a shopkeeper for unlawful imprisonment are no longer granted.
P.S. IANAL
Yes, but if you read the article, you'll see that Righi was arrested AFTER the police officer didn't find any stolen items in his bags. On top of that, the officer wouldn't even tell Righi why he was being arrested until he was back at the station and was able to sit down for a few moments to dig up an excuse.
This guy's the limit!
Sad to see something this clueless get modded up as insightful. The simple truth is that you do not have a right to search me simply because I am on your property. You can ask to. I can refuse. If I refuse, it's fully within your right to ask that I leave, and if I don't, you can call the cops and have me arrested or removed. However, you at no time have a legal right to search me.
This guy's the limit!
In relation to "Shopkeeper's Privilege" which in most states falls under Common Law:
Some states, such as Washington and California have codified their Common Law and incorporated them into the UCC and PC. California in particular, we have Penal Code 490.5 (f):
Penal Code 490.5 f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.
Since (in California) PC 490.5(f) is in the Penal Code section of law, the definition of "Probable Cause" falls under that of the same Penal Code.
Under PC 490.5(f) a shopkeeper must have "Probable Cause" to believe the person being detained is attempting to, or unlawfully took merchandise from the store.
Since theft is a misdemeanor, and NOT a felony, then "Probable Cause" required to arrest requires direct first hand knowledge of the act or event taking place. i.e. An agent of the store must see personally, or via CCTV the act being committed.
If the theft was a felony (grand theft), then the "Probable Cause" necessary to arrest for a felony only requires a "reasonable doubt".
Regardless, refusal to submit to a search is not grounds for probable cause for either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Fourth Amendment Rights, confirmed numerous times by the US Supreme Court.)
IANAL but I seem to recall (from researching it when I owned a storefront):
Actually, this varies per state and per jurisdiction (ie: county, city, town) depending on the specific laws.
Some states require that you must actually walk out the door with a product before you can be accused of attempting to shoplift... inotherwords if I go into a Circuit City and stuff a bunch of CDs in my shirt, until I step through that door, it isnt a crime... other states allow that action that (seems to) constitute intent as attempted shoplifting.
As for jurisdictional borders/property... that varies as well per state. In some states, you cannot try to detain the person once they have left your building... in others you can (as long as they have not left your parking lot)... and in a few I believe you could try to detain them even after that.
Even in states that allow you to detain people suspected of shoplifting in your parking lot, the waters get kind of murky there too... If you are in a shopping center, the parking lot is quite possibly not yours. If you are renting a space that has it's own parking and no rights of egress to others, then it is different. If you own the property and the parking, that too is different...
As for Ohio, I have no clue.... but don't assume Ohio fits a particular circumstance as the laws are quite different in many places.
In New York if I remember correctly, [at least in the county I was a store manager in (not a Circuit City)], we can detain you, and even request to see your receipts or request you let us inspect your bag(s), but cannot forcibly do so... if you refuse, which is your right, then we can detain you until the police arrive who then can search your bag if we sufficiently prove to them/convince them a crime (shoplifting) has occurred.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
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.
Ignoring the differences in California and Ohio statutes, probable cause in a shoplifting case requires a good deal more than "he wouldn't show me a receipt." By and large, in order to detain someone on suspicion of shoplifting you need to see them:
And you have to keep them under continual observation the whole time.
As you mentioned, Mr. Righi's refusal to suck corporate cock is not probable cause.
Having read TFA, it looks to me like the security guard and store manager have unlawfully detained not just Mr. Righi, but his entire family: By blocking the car from moving, the manager and guard trapped his father and father's wife, his brother and two sisters. That's five crimes -- possibly felonies -- committed by the store, on top of whatever crimes they committed against their customer.
If Mr. Righi and his family decide to pursue this, I think the perpetrators and their employers will be begging for the chance to apologize and settle.
This is not my sandwich.