Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City

[proud2BlibKansan]

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City
Written By: Michael Amor Righi, September 1st, 2007
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com:80/Find-Freedom.htm?At=023277&From=News

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."

more . . . http://codeorange.us/article.php?msg=yea&story=20070904104114270%20#vote

[NMDemDist2]

1. they always examine the receipt at Circuit City

why didn't he just show them the bag and receipt? If he doesn't agree with their business practices why does he shop there?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

9. Because, if I'm reading this right, he doesn't support the tacit

surrendering of civil liberties -- of the kind we take for granted every day.

Look at how low we've sunk: the cop was so unused to people resisting lawfully, he couldn't figure out what to arrest him for and that didn't bother, let alone deter, the cop in the least.

[Occulus]

22. Thank you. TO EVERYONE FIXATED ON THE RECEIPT ISSUE:

This isn't about that. It's about what happened after.

[EFerrari]

27. I think it's both, really. We're been trained to obey.

We're passive as hell and these incursions are popping up all over the culture. :(

[shance]

76. Bingo ex pat. We are being conditioned to obey any abusive orders they demand of us

Look at what they are doing in our schools at such an early age.

[redqueen]

126. Abusive orders? You've got to be kidding!

:rofl:

Perhaps we disagree on what consitutes an "abusive" order.

[Seabiscuit]

642. The OP is such a steaming pile.

He knows perfectly well that a lot of stores (Circuit City, Costco, Price Club, etc.) examine receipts of customers on the way out the door.

It is their right to do so to prevent theft.

Yet this provocative OP'er said "No" to the door guard (whose sole job it is to examine customer receipts) and walked past him out the door when asked politely for his receipt.

And we're supposed to fall for his "poor persecuted me" routine?

Disgusting. This has no place on a progressive board.

[ronnie624]

656. Retrailers

have a legal right to ask to see receipts and bag contents, but do they have a right to force their will on you, if you refuse? Further, should the law regard said request, as a legally binding command, as if it came from a sworn officer of the law?

I suggest you rethink your position. Those in power have taken enough of our rights during the last several years, as it is.

[Seabiscuit]

726. They have a right to detain you to inspect your receipt and the goods in your cart.

If you don't like it, shop elsewhere. No one forced you in their door.

It has nothing to do with the government or police.

It's private property you're on. The store has a right to inspect as a matter of policy to prevent theft from *their* store, which happens all the time and which drives up prices.

[ronnie624]

736. Thanks for the reply,

but I really don't know what your talking about.

Your post is the first one I've seen that mentioned a cart.

The issue is about whether or not a retailer has a legal right to force a customer to submit to a bag and receipt inspection, without probable cause to believe shoplifting has occurred, and whether or not the customer has a legal right to refuse to submit to such an inspection.

Being on someone's property, does not give the owner of the property the legal right to force their will on you, especially if you have committed no crime.

[Seabiscuit]

765. The issues involve contract law and property rights law

Those people here like you that don't seem to get it, keep trying to analogize the situation to some brutal fascistic police state maneuver.

The police are an arm of the government. Only government actions trigger Fourth Amendment issues. No police or government agency is involved in the OP's scenario. Only private store guards.

Therefore "probable cause" does *not* apply here as it is a criminal law matter. Criminal law is not involved in such store inspections, nor are the police, nor is any governmental entity.

My wife noticed that someone contacted Circuit City about their inspection policy and was informed that Circuit City has a big sign at their entrance notifying customers about their bag/receipt inspection policy. That triggers contract issues. Anyone entering the store is deemed by law to have sufficient notice of the store's policy regarding such inspections and and can either decide to shop somewhere else, or by entering the store and shopping there, such conduct amounts to an acceptance of the inspection terms of the contract they're entering into by shopping at Circuit City. Therefore, customers at Circuit City *give up* any supposed right not to submit to inspections when they enter the store. Further, stores have an inherent property right to protect the property they're selling from being stolen, either by customers alone or by teams of cashiers and customers, which also happens. Since camera monitors cannot detect a cashier working with a thief by not ringing up some item being purchased, such inspection of receipts and bags/shopping carts becomes necessary to prevent theft, which the store has a property right to do.

Get it now?

[ronnie624]

781. These statements are absolutely and utterly incorrect:

-"Only government actions trigger Fourth Amendment issues."

-"Therefore "probable cause" does *not* apply here as it is a criminal law matter."

-"Anyone entering the store is deemed by law to have sufficient notice of the store's policy regarding such inspections and and can either decide to shop somewhere else, or by entering the store and shopping there, such conduct amounts to an acceptance of the inspection terms of the contract they're entering into by shopping at Circuit City"

-"Therefore, customers at Circuit City *give up* any supposed right not to submit to inspections when they enter the store."


I suggest you do some reading.

[Seabiscuit]

786. I will correct myself on one matter only at this point.

I've noted there's a local statute where this guy shopped that allows stores to detain only upon "probable cause". Very strange as a legal matter, but be that as it may, "probable cause" arose when the guy walked by the guard refusing to comply with the posted store policy about inspecting receipts and merchandise. He then became a suspect for shoplifting, justifying the guards' detention of him in the parking lot, which is also store property.

If you want to say that my other quotes are "absolutely and utterly incorrect" please back yourself up by citing some "reading" that you suggest I do that should change my mind.

I, by the way am an attorney, so when you produce some "reading" for me make sure it's the kind someone with my meager intellectual background and training may comprehend.

[ronnie624]

828. Forgive me.

I did not mean to imply that one such as yourself might stoop to engage in such a low brow activity as reading. Powerful, high falootin attorneys don't read. They 'research'. How foolish of me.

Well lawyer, may I respectfully suggest, that you do some 'research', because your posts are filled with nonsense.

But I will not post any links, because they have already been posted, and arguments made by DUers, who are far more capable than I.

Good day.

[Seabiscuit]

848. I get this sneaking feeling

that your snarky attitude is caused by your inabillity to understand what you've read, whatever it is.

[ronnie624]

855. That must be it. n/t

[Seabiscuit]

862. .

[TahitiNut]

742. (Wow!) Don't let being totally wrong keep you from stating your opinion.

This thread contains several authoritative references to the fact that such detention is unlawful.

[Seabiscuit]

766. If that's the case, I haven't seen such references.

Prove me wrong. Don't just say I'm wrong.

If I see sufficient authority to support your point I will gladly stand corrected.

[TahitiNut]

809. The references are easily found in the Circuit City threads. Here's (yet) another.

THIS one is from a Security Consulting firm - obviously on the 'side' of retailers who are their client base.

Detaining Shoplifting Suspects

Definition: As used , the term "security person(s)" is intended to include only store proprietors and managers, store plainclothes security agents sometimes called "detectives," and uniformed security officers also called security guards (either proprietary or contract). The term does not include sales clerks, maintenance persons, or stockers, for examples. The term "security person(s)" is not intended to apply to off-duty public law enforcement or special police personnel unless they have been instructed by store management to follow the same procedures required of ordinary citizens, which procedures do not include police powers of arrest.

In almost all jurisdictions in the United States, merchants are legally empowered to detain shoplifting suspects for investigation and possible arrest and prosecution in the criminal justice system. This power is called "merchant’s privilege."

a. The merchant's privilege provides for detention of persons suspected of shoplifting only when probable cause or reasonable cause exists to believe a person has committed theft. The best practice for establishing this probable cause (as compared to any legal standard) is the security person's having met all the following six steps: (1) observe the customer approach the merchandise, (2) observe the customer select the merchandise, (3) observe the customer conceal (or otherwise carry away) the merchandise, (4) keep the customer under constant and uninterrupted observation, (5) see the customer fail to pay for the merchandise, and (6) detain the customer outside the store.

b. The merchant's privilege permits detention for limited purposes which vary by state. Common among these limited purposes are: (1) ascertaining that stolen merchandise is possessed by the suspect, (2) identifying the suspect, (3) investigating the alleged theft, (4) recovering stolen merchandise, and (5) notifying the police of the offense. Some states permit limited searches of the suspect, some states limit the extent to which identity may be established; and the use of force which can legally be used is, if mentioned, always non-deadly. Many company or store policies further restrict permissible actions in dealing with shoplifting suspects; e.g., prohibiting pursuing suspects beyond company property.

In some circumstances shoplifting suspects are treated incorrectly by store management and security persons. Such treatment may cause results varying from simple mistakes to the violation of civil rights of suspects. If a best practice is not used, it is better not to detain a suspect than to risk the high cost of a civil liability suit. Two kinds of questionable detentions will illustrate this point. One kind applies to the customer who is truly an innocent party but whose conduct, for any number of reasons, led the security person to believe that a theft had occurred. People in this kind of detention are innocent victims of circumstance. The other kind applies to the customer who is not truly an innocent party, but for any number of reasons is not in possession of stolen merchandise when stopped by a security person.

http://www.security-expert.org/shoplifting.htm

While the structure and wording of statutes vary from state to state, the limiting legal principles are Constitutional (federal) and various idiosyncratic state statutes may not have been fully tested in the courts. There are many laws on the 'books' (state and local) that just are not enforceable. Unless and until there's an attempt to enforce and a challenge in the courts, they remain on the 'books' as anachronisms.

Indeed, it's almost laughable that anyone would imply that someone who has made a purchase and is carrying the retailer's bag constitutes "probable cause" ... which is EXACTLY what's implied by a "receipt check." After all, they DON'T ASK people who are NOT carrying a bagged store product to show a receipt!! It's mostly or ONLY those carrying purchased products.


The store is LITERALLY pretending that only their CUSTOMERS are suspect! (Fucking insane.)

[Seabiscuit]

816. "Easily found in the Circuit City threads"?

You mean there are several Circuit City threads, not just this one?

I haven't had the time to read even half of the posts in this one thread (which has over 800 posts!!!), and I never saw what you posted. How am I supposed to find the time and interest to visit any other "Circuit City threads"?

I'll read the contents of your post later when I have the time.

[ronnie624]

657. Oops. (edited duplicate message) n/t

[The Doctor.]

665. In a more civilized age...

They used to have 'security' that would surreptitiously monitor customer and only stop someone after they left the store and only if they were certain the person was stealing and could prove it.

They used to only assume that actual shoplifters were shoplifting, now you're a shoplifter until you prove otherwise.

[sendero]

692. Uh...

.... these "check the receipt" deals are not about shoplifting per se. They are about shrinkage, where EMPLOYEEs let someone through the line without paying for everything in their bag.

And frankly, I think the OP is full of shit.

[The Doctor.]

811. So if I'm found with extra items in my bag that I didn't pay for, you're saying

the store will not consider me a shoplifter? It will be 100% the fault of the cashier?

Frankly, I think you are full of shit. :)

On edit; I just called the Circuit City store in Victor, NY. Mara was very helpful in answering my questions. She said that their store did not have that particular policy, but confirmed that, at the stores that did practice bag checking, if someone was found to have more items in their bag than on their receipt, the police would be called and a report filed against the 'shoplifter'.

Care to try something else?

[Seabiscuit]

727. You're dreaming.

First they have to determine whether or not you're a shoplifter. That's what the inspection is all about. It's a property right that extends right out the door and into their parking lot.

Due to the failure of camera monitors to detect all shoplifting, stores have been increasingly utilizing such inspections at the exits of the store. Just as airlines have a right to inspect everyone before they board their planes for security reasons. In the latter case, it's not just about preventing passenger death. They also have that right because the planes are their private property and the airlines have a right to protect it from damage.

[ronnie624]

740. Your beliefs are nothing more than assumptions.

Numerous links to legal texts have shown conclusively, that a retailer must be able to show probable cause to suspect the customer of shoplifting, before they can legally force the customer to submit to an inspection of their bags. In an age of digital cameras, there should be no problem.

Further, if the retailer cannot show probable cause, they open themselves up to all sorts of civil and criminal charges, including false imprisonment and depriving someone of their civil rights.

Thankfully, the law still, technically, gives the benefit of the doubt to the private citizen....for now. Judging by the willingness of so many to bow before perceived authority, I'm not very optimistic about the future of our civil liberties.

[Seabiscuit]

795. Well,

I did see the link about the local statute requiring that stores have "probable cause" before detaining someone. That's a very odd statute, as "probable cause" is a criminal procedure term, and is otherwise exclusively used in the context of police/government actions, not private corporate actions.

Here, Circuit City's guard had "probable cause" to suspect the guy was a shoplifter when, despite the posted store policy at the entrance notifying the guy of that his receipt and items purchased will be inspected on the way out of the store, he defied the policy and walked past the guard rudly saying "no". There are only two types of people who would do what he did: shoplifters and troublemakers. That behavior gives rise to reasonable suspicion that he is a shoplifter, and gives the guard "probable cause" to detain him so that an inspection may be performed, or call the police if the guy continues to resist. As it turned out, he wasn't a shoplifter, but he was certainly a troublemaker.

This has nothing to do with any legitimate concern for civil liberties. This guy is an just some self-absorbed asshole provoking confrontations about meaningless stuff and trying to pretend he was up against fascism. That just trivializes fascism. I've been to a lot of stores where they check receipts/purchases on the way out the door as part of the checkout policy - it takes no more than a few seconds, and they wave you on.

As for your characterizing my points as "beliefs" based on "nothing but assumptions", you couldn't be farther from the truth. See, I'm an attorney, and I've been posting about my general knowledge of how the law works in such situations. It has nothing to do with my personal "beliefs", and I haven't "assumed" a single thing. The fact that there's some bizarre local statute requiring "probable cause" of private store guards doesn't affect my legal conclusion that they had the right to inspect this guy's receipt/purchases and to detain him when he refused to comply with their request.

[ronnie624]

741. duplicate message n/t

[The Doctor.]

808. So what's a receipt then? You've reinforced my point.

Saying it's their property until you're in the parking lot is kind of ignorant of the fact that a receipt is essentially a legal document proving ownership.

Your post does nothing to dispute my point;

"They used to only assume that actual shoplifters were shoplifting, now you're a shoplifter until you prove otherwise."

- It stands.

[Seabiscuit]

821. I don't know whether your confusion is deliberate or not,

but I didn't say that the merchandise was their property all the way out to the parking lot. What I said was: "First they have to determine whether or not you're a shoplifter. That's what the inspection is all about. It's a property right that extends right out the door and into their parking lot." I was referring pretty clearly, I thought, to the fact that the store owns not only the real property (land) the store is situated on, but also their parking lot. When you're on their property as a customer you're their guest, much as you would be my guest if I invited you into my home. Neither I nor any store would want you packing a gun with you, because your 2nd Amendment rights do not extend to such private property. I as well as the store would have the right to treat you as a trespasser and evict you if you violated our policies by packing a gun.

The store also has a personal property right in the merchandise they sell, the right to collect payment before exiting the store as well as the right to prevent theft/shoplifting, and that right extends to the merchandise you carry out of the store and into the parking lot (all their land). The employees who ask to see your receipt to match it to the contents of your bag/shopping cart are simply, in my opinion, acting as an extension of the cashier procedure. It's to keep both the shopper and the cashiers honest.

Apparently you haven't seen the posts in this thread about the common practices of dishonest cashiers working in tandem with shoplifters and not ringing up some items. Having another store employee check the receipt versus the items purchased is an attempt to prevent this kind of theft.

The receipt checking only takes a few seconds of someone's time. Hardly something to get all worked up about. I see no harm in it. The guy in the OP just wanted to stir up trouble so he could write about it and act all persecuted and all. He turns out to be an Ayn Rand devotee - a right-winger, trying to sucker people on DU into sympathizing with him, it seems to have worked for a lot of DU'ers, who IMHO would be better served spending their energies and righteous indignation on far more serious problems in Amerika - and we both know there are more than enough of them to go around.

It also seems reasonable to me that a policeman would view a rude refusal by a customer to comply with a store's policy in this regard as probable cause to believe the customer may be a shoplifter.

[The Doctor.]

823. So I'm a potential shoplifter until I prove otherwise... got it.

That point still seems to stand.

If you suspect an employee, you monitor the employee. There are ways of doing so that do not presume that your customers are stealing.

The point is pretty simple; It may be 'store policy', but no one has the right to demand access to and view your personal property unless they have probable cause to do so. 'Anyone could be a thief' is not 'probable cause'.

They simply have no right to demand that you reveal your property to them... period.

It's really that simple... think about it.

[Seabiscuit]

847. As long as you're still on their land, and especially in their store,

they have the right to check everyone exiting their store. It's not a search of you, it's merely a security procedure which takes a few seconds to determine if the goods you're carrying out of their store actually belong to you. There's another benefit to this. Suppose you pay for the items at the cashier while someone else places them in a bag for you. And suppose once they're placed in the bag the employee that put them there gets distracted and looks away, while both you and the cashier are talking and not paying attention to the bag. And suppose a shoplifter comes by at that moment, seizes your bag, and heads for the exit. You, of course, still have the receipt. If there's no one checking receipts vs. merchandise at the exit, that shoplifter gets away with stealing your merchandise.

If this happened to you, I suspect you may be the first to blame the store for not protecting you against shoplifters, and may even demand to know why the store doesn't protect its customers by inspecting receipts at the exits like Costco does. And if they turned around and blamed you for not watching your bag, you'd probably scream bloody murder about your supposed "rights" being violated.

I think your source of confusion is in thinking this is a civil rights issue - a Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment applies to government action, not private action. It doesn't apply to stores. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of you and your property by the government - i.e. by an agent of the government, not by employees of a private company running a store on private land.

The store is not conducting a search when it checks your receipt vs. the merchandise in your bag or cart. It's simply attempting to protect both the store and its customers from shoplifters and shoplifting teams. By inspecting receipts vs. merchandise about to be carried out the store, they're not treating *anyone* as a shoplifting suspect. It need not suspect anyone personally in order to do so. No one becomes a suspect until they attempt to exit the store while refusing to produce a receipt. Who else but a shoplifter would do such a thing, especially where the store's policy about inspecting receipts/merchandise prior to exit is prominently posted at the entrances (or by written membership agreement at Costco)? Outside of the most extreme rare case of some troublemaker like the OP'er, those circumstances do give rise to reasonable suspicion (your "probable cause") of shoplifting. So you personally will not become a "potential shoplifter until I prove otherwise" unless you refuse to produce the receipt before exiting the store. In our little hypothetical above, the real shoplifter of your merchandise doesn't become a suspect until he exits while refusing to produce a receipt (which you still have in your hands while chatting with the cashier) to prove he owns the goods he's leaving the store with. Neither he nor you nor anyone else is a shoplifting suspect prior to a refusal to produce a receipt on request prior to exiting the store.

It's that simple.

[The Doctor.]

854. That's pretty far-fetched.

If I have the receipt, I have nothing to complain about. I'm holding a legal document of ownership, one way or another the store will provide me with the items on the receipt or a refund for whatever they can't.

Again, such a situation used to be handled by 'security' that watched for exactly that kind of thing.

My point still stands.

[Seabiscuit]

857. We seem

to have reached an impasse. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. Happens all the time on DU. Nice talkin' to you.

[The Doctor.]

860. Same here.

Cheers.

[Riktor]

677. Not so fast...

Retailers have the right to prevent theft, but they do not have the right to search you. In any case where a retailer suspects a shoplifter, they are required to call the police for a search if the perpetrator denies the allegation.

On one hand, I'll agree that if you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about. On the other hand, it is somewhat insulting for a retailer to assume everyone who walks through their doors is a shoplifter.

[Seabiscuit]

729. The retailers are NOT searching *you*.

They are merely inspecting to see that the goods in your cart match the receipt for the goods paid for.

HUGE difference.

Personal searches are NOT the issue here. The government has nothing to do with this, and thus the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches has nothing to do with this. It's a matter of contract law and property rights law.

And no assumption is being made about you personally. They are equal opportunity inspectors. They check everyone exiting their stores. If they find that you have items in your cart that aren't on the receipt, they have the right to detain you until the police arrive to arrest you for stealing.

No one forces you into their stores, and if you don't like it, shop somewhere else.

Airlines go a lot further. They not only search your carry-on luggage, they put you through metal detectors, and have the right to either refuse to allow you on their plane or search your clothing and even your person if you don't pass their screening procedures. They have the screening rights because they own the planes. They have the right to inspect your clothing and your person as a result of federal statutory law. They're not just protecting their paid passengers from harm, they're also protecting their property, the airplanes, from harm.

[EV_Ares]

712. I agree Seabiscuit, I don't blame them for looking at the receipts with

all the theft they have to contend with. Also, it is their store whereas they have a right to examine receipts if that is their policy. The same for a computer at work, it is the employer's computer, not yours, so they have the right to set policy or what you do with that computer. What happened afterwords is a direct result of refusing to show a receipt. What would you expect?

This was just asking for it.

[Seabiscuit]

728. Happy to see someone gets it. Kudos!

[ronnie624]

737. I don't blame them for looking at receipts either.

But, do you believe a shop owner should have the legal right to force you to submit to an inspection, even if they believe you have not stolen anything?

[George II]

749. 100% Correct

The fact that the police did something to HIM is because he was disturbing the peace. This incident is in no way related to losing our civil rights, freedoms, etc. It has to do with his attitude toward the person in the store, which was belligerant.

I just hope he doesn't try to go to an Ohio State football game or Cleveland Indians game, where he'll be frisked!!

[WonderGrunion]

804. You're comparing apples and oranges

Circuit City is a public retail outlet and has no right to conduct receipt checks. Costco, Sam's Club, et al, are membership based private clubs and can require receipt checks as a condition of membership.

[LanternWaste]

492. You're right! I was asked to come into work today...

You're right! In schools they always asked me... nay: Told me to stand in line when waiting for lunch. And I did without question. Which simply socialized me into never asking questions--I was asked to come into work today and (gasp!) I did it-- without question.

I'm a mindless automaton in addition to being a corporate slave.

[treestar]

498. Too many of us just let them slide on by

We don't want to make waves! And the authoritarian wannabes are counting on that!

[EFerrari]

508. This guy may not have done the best job in his handling

but the questions that he raised are legit.

[MUSTANG_2004]

540. And educational

It's good to be reminded every now and then exactly what our rights are. I think this has been a useful discussion.

[EFerrari]

687. I think so, too.

:)

[jberryhill]

616. That's Why I Smoke Cigarettes Every Place I Can

I carry a tape measure in Seattle, and I smoke at EXACTLY 25 feet from the entrances there. They aren't moving me another inch. Not one more inch I tell ya.


If I'm in a place with no indoor smoking law, then I light up inside stores on purpose. Don't tell me about your "policies", I'll smoke wherever I legally can, and I will hold the line on this creeping fascism with my last breath.

[raven880]

663. Your rights over all others

Good for you! You stand up for what YOU want no matter how it affects others. But do me a favor and send me your address so I will know where to send my hospital bill when I have an asthma attack set off by your deliberately produced air pollution.
Even in a "free" country, there are some laws that are made to benefit the public at large tho it may inhibit the freedom of some individuals.
You're comment, however, has convinced me even more why the "libertarian" agenda won't work. Human nature....at least in some individuals....is such that they only look after themselves and the hell with society at large.

[jberryhill]

669. By Jove, You Might Be Right...

"Society at large"

Gee, like, you mean stuff like, cooperating with a perfectly rational method of reducing shoplifting and sweethearting at a retail store, so that we all pay for less theft?

That sort of thing?

[proud_Kucitizen]

707. excuse me

but I doubt one person smoking in a huge department store is going to cause you an asthma attack since most smokers are considerate and wouldn't do that. I try to be considerate with my smoking but these bans are totally rediculous too and do infringe upon the rights of the owners of establishments who choose to allow smoking and cuts into their profits which should be made up by the group, locality, or state who set the ban in motion, you know taxpayers putting their money where there votes are. Also, have you tried sending your hospital bill to the real polluters you know companies who put out tons of pollution daily. I could actually get behind these bans if they would also punish everyone else including motorists for their part in polluting the air I breath.

As for the guy who says he lights up in stores where no indoor smoking ban is in force, I don't agree with that either because that action is going to encourage more indoor smoking bans.

[DWilliamsamh]

733. Yep - People are selfish

You've hit on something: Libertarianism can't work for exactly the same reason Communism can't work. It is human nature for a significant portion of any society to be selfish. Period.

And BTW - I am a smoker and I try to be as polite as possible about what I know is an unhealthy habit/addiction. I don't light up in someone's house with out asking, and if the answer is "no" I gladly go out side. I can't smoke on planes? No problem... I can gut it out because my nicotine cravings aren't all that bad....

But I have to say that the new set of smoking bans does in fact feel like the exact problem you are complaining of - except from the side of the non smokers. There is NO excuse for the nastiness of non-smokers have exhibited toward me when I am smoking OUTSIDE. Also I see no reason that a bar or restaurant that advertises itself as a smoking environment should have to reject business because non-smokers insist that it is their "right" to patronize that particular bar or restaurant - when there are non-smoking equivalents. Don't want to work in a smoking environment? Don't apply for a job there, go to the restaurant or bar down the street.

[sarcasmo]

818. Preparing us for Martial Law. You nailed it on the head. Trained to Obey.

[NMDemDist2]

49. but he *did* support it by shopping there

I understand the point, but if you don't agree with the business practices of a chain, don't shop there!

that's why I never shop at WalMart even though it's more expensive and a PITA to do so in my little town.

I go 40 miles away a few times a year to stock up on paper goods etc because I refuse to set foot in Wally World. I buy on eBay and at the local thrift store or wait til I go visit my mom in Shreveport.

It's more expensive and totally inconvenient, but so is hauling all my recycling into town and composting my trash.

Put your money and your labor where your mouth is IMO (him, no you)

[EFerrari]

64. Not shopping there is one way to protest. Shopping there

and refusing to cooperate is another. When he walked into the store, he didn't agree to be unlawfully searched -- which is I think what this amounts to.

[NMDemDist2]

73. unlawfully searched?? they didn't try to take him in a back room for a strip search

they asked to look at his bag and receipt.

big difference IMO

:hi:

[EFerrari]

94. It's an interesting case, isn't it? If the law was on their side

why do they have to ask? I mean, I really don't know. lol

:hi:

[Occulus]

98. I'm sorry. Does the law require bags to be searched?

Or does it simply allow employees to make the attempt?

Also, are store employees considered agents of the law?

[EV_Ares]

714. Its their store, their property, their policy and if you don't like it, then

you better go find a store and check out their policies to see if you want to play by their rules.

What gives you the right to go into someone's store, property, whatever and you set your own rules?

Good luck on this one in court.

[mindwalker_i]

279. No difference!

They wanted to search his private property - it was his after he bought it. They have a right to ask, you have the right to refuse, but they CAN NOT DETAIN YOU for refusing. The courts have upheld this numerous times.

-mwalker

[malaise]

406. Bingo

No one is searching my bag after I purchase goods in their establishment.

[MUSTANG_2004]

413. I agree - and it has never been an issue.

The few times I've been asked, I tell them no. They shrug it off and I leave. I suspect this Circuit City wasn't following their corporate policy by detaining him.

[malaise]

478. If anyone had done that to me I'd sue them big time

and also return their merchandise. It's not as if they're selling anything exclusive.

Bottom line I don't go near Circuit City when I'm in Florida because I go out of my way to buy blue. Why should I give Rethug supporters my money.

[Ghost in the Machine]

280. This says it all - - - ->>>

"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:"

See, I wouldn't have been so nice. I would have punched him in the balls or gut and MADE him move. I went through this several months ago. I had to pick a few things up and went to the Wal Mart about 1 am. When I checked out, it was at the very first register, right by the exit door. I paid for my stuff and headed to the door. I get near the door, 25 feet away from the register, and this guy, who had been standing there the whole time and WATCHED ME pay for my stuff, told me he needed to see my reciept and check my bag. I said "buddy, you just watched me pay for my stuff 30 seconds ago and walk straight to the doors, what the fuck do you think I could have stolen?" All he could say was "I need to check your bag"... but he couldn't peel his eyes off my girlfriend's tits.

I told him he was an idiot and kept walking towards the door. When I got outside the door, he came up from behind saying I "had to stop" and put his hand on my shoulder. Wrong move... I turned around and laid his ass out cold on the ground. I got in my truck and left. I got stopped a couple miles down the road. I explained to the officer what had happened and agreed to follow him back to the Wal Mart. The officer, the manager and the security team watched the tapes from 3 different cameras and saw everything just as I described it, right down to the guy staring at my girlfriends tits while talking to me (hey, who could blame him, she's 24 and an ex Hooters girl) and saw him grab my shoulder from behind. The officer looked at me and said "okay, you're free to go", then asked me if I wanted to press charges for assault against the employee. I declined, figuring he paid enough with two black eyes and possible broken nose.

Ironically, that was my first trip to Wal Mart in several years, and I haven't been back since...

[Joe Chi Minh]

521. Ghosts are not supposed to be as solid as that.at.all. 'Machine', i.e. with

compelling powers of persuasion, might have been a more appropriate name. There's 'truculence'... and then again there's 'truculence'.

[Ghost in the Machine]

768. I'm not *that* kind of Ghost...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

803. I'd be the last to argue with you, mate. How high would you like me to jump?

[FuJun]

681. Disturbing...

"right down to the guy staring at my girlfriends tits while talking to me (hey, who could blame him, she's 24 and an ex Hooters girl)"

This kind of sexist boasting is NOT appropriate for a progressive discussion board. FR maybe, but not DU. An apology is in order.

[IdaBriggs]

746. I agree - you should apologize. You are new, and obviously

unaware of how offensive your judgmental comment about what is and is not appropriate for a "progressive" board sounded. Please refrain from such nonsense in the future.

[FuJun]

771. Huh?

Are you suggesting that a progressive discussion board is an appropriate place for such degrading language towards women?

[IdaBriggs]

822. I am stating that I found your judgmental nonsense to be inappropriate,

especially as you are a relatively low poster. The person telling the story was stating FACTS -- the security guard was behaving inappropriately towards his 24 year old girlfriend. His girlfriend is (presumably) "well endowed" based on the well known physical requirements of the establishment she was once employed at. There is nothing wrong with stating these facts, and there is nothing wrong with being pleased/proud of what one perceives as the beauty of one's partner. Pick any physical characteristic, including eye color, and substitute it -- the language is NOT degrading, and is completely appropriate in context for this discussion board. Your attempted "censorship" based on your own biases is not.

While I hope you feel welcome here at DU, I would again politely suggest that you find better things to discuss than how you think other people OUGHT to talk, especially as you are relatively inexperienced at the social etiquette of this board.

Although to be fair, I am not always perfect about practicing what I preach! LOL!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Name removed]

757. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FuJun]

773. I Think...

I'm someone who has a right to call you out on using chauvinistic terminology.

[Enrique]

702. you are right to be proud telling that story

after all, you beat up a Wal Mart clerk.

Be sure to tell this story to people you know. They will be very impressed. :toast:

[Ghost in the Machine]

767. I'm not sure what to think about your comment... however, it seems to be

a little sarcastic. Maybe *you* allow people to invade *your* personal space and touch you or put their hands on *you* inappropriately or without your permission or consent, but I don't.

Since you don't know me, let me fill you in a little bit. I've had my neck broken, followed by TWO major neck surgeries. All it takes is one wrong move and I'm paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of my life. I take ANY threatening move towards me as a serious threat to MY well being. The guy's lucky he didn't get shot, because I DO carry a pistol, and I WAS carrying then.

:cheers:

[FuJun]

776. No...

"The guy's lucky he didn't get shot, because I DO carry a pistol, and I WAS carrying then."

You're the luck one. If you had shot him, you would likely be rotting in prison for using deadly force when it was not called for...and rightfully so.

[guruoo]

734. Joe was in the right up until the point where he blocked the door...

I can almost guarantee that this will cost him his job.

[Orrex]

748. It should take more than the say-so of our beleaguered narrator to get him fired

At this point we have nothing but a breathless, biased, and self-congratulatory account as relayed by one of at least three parties involved in the event. It is premature to make determinations about how the event should be resolved until we have heard from the other two parties or else have seen objective evidence in support of our beleaguered narrator's account of it.

[guruoo]

853. You're correct.

I should have qualified that with something to the effect of 'if the story's true'.

[Ghost in the Machine]

759. It *should* cost him his job, he was in the wrong.

The same with the Wal Mart employee who put his hands on me first.

[BlackVelvet04]

307. What gives them the right to inspect his bag and receipt? Why

should companies get to make "rules" that are in conflict with civil liberties?

[jberryhill]

324. You are not allowed to say the word "margarine" in my house

I would like you to come to my house for a visit.

I do not allow anyone to say "margarine" in my house.

If you do, I shall have to ask you to leave.

I'm sorry. I would very much enjoy your company. But you must not say "margarine".

Thank you for your cooperation, and you are welcome to stay as long as you like.

I'm sending Rush Limbaugh to your house, to exercise his First Amendment rights. I don't want him here. He often says "margarine", and I cannot tolerate that in my house.

[Kingshakabobo]

429. Can you physically detain him if he DOES say "margarine" and attempts to leave?

[superkia]

487. Or if he purchased some margarine from you would he have to leave.

[jberryhill]

562. You just come over to my house and try it, King

I double-dog dare you.

You can consent to commit yourself to a mental institution if you want, and they WILL NOT let you leave until they decide.

[Kingshakabobo]

566. I'll smear margarine on my body first............

You'll never get a hold of me.................hahahahahahahaha!

[jberryhill]

569. Feh, you'd do that anyway, you low cholesterol pervert, you

I warn you though, I won the greased pig contest at the county fair.

[Ken Burch]

662. Just so long as you don't smear it on RUSH'S body.

NONE of us want THAT image in our minds.:puke:

[tiptoe]

679. LOL ! nt

[California Griz]

673. Not in this state

You sign yourself in you can sign yourself out. Of course if you actually tried to sign yourself in here they would tell you they don't have any beds.

[piedmont]

526. Congratulations! Dumbest analogy I've seen on DU this month.

The Circuit City people didn't kick the man out. They DETAINED him.

[jberryhill]

564. Thank you

The point is about consent to rules on private property.

Go ahead and check in to a mental hospital. Even if you check in voluntarily, you cannot leave voluntarily.

There is a law in every state that governs retail detentions over shoplifting issues.

The guy was buying a DISNEY PRODUCT for crying out loud. As an intellectual property attorney, IMHO his support of fascism was clear in his choice of merchandise.

[Patriot Abroad]

722. An analogy?

Thank god, that explains it, I thought these people had temporarily gone mad.

I wonder if you can say oleo at his house?

[Crabby Appleton]

685. oleo

[youthere]

716. What about "oleo" ? Am I allowed to say that?

[bananas]

495. That's an unlawful search.

[Matariki]

255. I don't shop at places that have obnoxious signs about doing drug tests on potential employees

It's sort of difficult to feel all that much sympathy for this guy. There are so many injustices in society he could spend his energy protesting. Not showing a receipt when leaving a store seems pretty low on the list.

[donheld]

672. Do you shop as places that don't have obnoxious signs

but do the drug tests on potential employees anyway? :shrug:

[Matariki]

744. No, not if I know about it.

I was just thinking about times I've turned around and walked out of stores when I saw those signs.

[donheld]

796. In The Denver area

You rarely find a place that doesn't do drug testing on new employees

[Matariki]

802. Really? That's depressing.

Treating employees like cattle being bought. Here, piss in this bottle. I'm surprised they don't check teeth and so forth, like an auction block.

[LynneSin]

62. So nothing else is going on the world and we're supporting this dumbass

READ THE BLOG - he even said he doesn't want to live life smoothly.

[Occulus]

I think it means "going along to get along".

Reminds me of the Breakers in "The Dark Tower".

[GOTV]

172. I'd say this "dumbass" is supporting us.

Yes, he said that, but it appears you don't know what he means.

[Truth2Tell]

430. That's always the irony

Many, if not most Americans would gladly surrender their rights to make their lives go more "smoothly." And they would deride and belittle those who stand up for their own and, by extension, protect the rights of us all.

Calling this blogger a "dumbass" just reveals complete ignorance of, and total disdain for the Bill of Rights and the values on which it is based. Even here on DU you see this. Sad.

[LanternWaste]

494. I have the right to yell, "My dog is silly looking!!

I have the right to yell, "My dog is silly looking!!" at an amusement park, but I don't to avoid the hassle. So yeah... I'm surrendering my rights for a smoother life. :eyes:

[Truth2Tell]

522. That's a false comparison.

When you chose not to yell "my dog is silly looking" you are not relinquishing any rights. When you willingly acquiesce to an unconstitutional search you are surrendering your rights. Apple, meet orange.

[LanternWaste]

777. I'm a cheese-eating, rights-surrendering monkey.

O-kay... then-- yeah. I'm a cheese-eating, rights-surrendering monkey. I show receipts-- the horror... the horror.

[Truth2Tell]

785. surrendering your own rights

is one thing, and of course you are free to do that all you like. After all, monkeys are pretty cute most of the time.

But ridiculing or demeaning those who choose not to surrender their own rights is another story. The psychology behind that is troubling, IMO.

[LanternWaste]

791. I'd NEVER ridicule the person

I'd never ridicule the person-- the argument they make? Sure, but never the person.

I'd never call a person stupid-- only the things they say.

And if by implication someone says I'm surrendering my rights by showing a receipt at a store, I still wouldn't call them brain-dead, knuckle-dragging, sub-literate, half-educated chloroplast (as opposed to a fully educated chloroplast). But I would characterize their arguments as such...

Getting the drift?

If I think an argument is stupid, I'll treat the argument that way.

(I'm sure you have a lot of experience in troubling psychology-- so aside that from ever-so-clever backhanded statement, I suppose I should defer to you in matters of the subconscious.

Oops-- your Freudian slip is showing! Made ya look!)

[Truth2Tell]

805. My reference to ridicule

was directed at the writer of post #62, who called the individual in question a "dumbass." That was the post I was replying to before you responded. Sorry if you thought that was directed at you, maybe I should've been more clear.

It's one thing to choose to not take up this fight for yourself. But if one is so bothered by someone else standing up for their rights that they feel the need to deride them, I have to wonder what that kind of thinking is about.

But since you mention it, does your inclination to simply go along with the program for convinience make you and many others complicit? A bit, yes. But I understand that these kinds of "Bill of Rights" freedoms aren't that important to everyone. It's like the great Alberto Gonzales said, sometimes they're "a nuisance." Each to their own I suppose.

[Joe Chi Minh]

807. You say you'd never ridicule the person... then end your milksop kind of post

with the drippy quip, "(I'm sure you have a lot of experience in troubling psychology-- so aside that from ever-so-clever backhanded statement, I suppose I should defer to you in matters of the subconscious. Oops! your Freudian slip is showing!"

Just within the the space of a few sentences, you manage to totally contradict yourself and hold yourself up to ridicule. While trying to impress us with your 'civilised' standards! What a dummy! Oh.... Your argument, I mean.

[EFerrari]

229. I don't see your dilemma, Lynne. And I read the blog. n/t

[earth mom]

426. The point is that none of us should be so willing to give up our rights so easily.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights were crafted to protect THE PEOPLE of this country. I seriously question anyone who blows off the fundamental rights that this country was founded upon as unimportant and not worth discussing.

FYI:
History is repeating itself here in the U.S. in a very ominous way.

V for Vendetta is a great example of what could happen to all of us if we allow this kind of b.s. to continue.

[Hangingon]

470. First sensible response to this thread....

If I were the guys fateher, I wouldn't invite him back to another birthday party.

[Name removed]

611. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnyxCollie]

614. He could have shown the receipt, proving he didn't steal anything

THEN made a big scene, demand an apology, etc.

The grocery store I shop at has a sign saying, "We reserve the right to inspect all packages." If security thinks I'm a thief (and I'm not), I'll gladly abide by their rule and show them my packages. After that, I will raise all hell, demand an apology from the manager, etc.

They won't get me out of the store soon enough.

[Tesha]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the "Holy Trinity" of law enforcement

> Look at how low we've sunk: the cop was so unused to people
> esisting lawfully, he couldn't figure out what to arrest him
> for and that didn't bother, let alone deter, the cop in the least.

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

When they can't arrest you for a real crime, they can
*ALWAYS* arrest you for the "Holy Trinity":

o Disobeying the orders of a police officer,

o Resisting arrest, and

o Simple assault, even if the assault is your nose
hitting the cop's fist.

The only reason our plaintiff didn't get charged with the
second and third crimes is there were plenty of witnesses
and probably security cameras watching.

This will get dismissed as soon as it hits court, if it
even gets that far and Circuit City will write a nice
apology letter that doesn't really apologize. We'll see
then where our brave plaintiff takes it.

Tesha

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I think he is making a great point

Why should he have to show his bag and receipt?

[northzax]

38. because he is in their store?

and before you leave their store they want to double check that a: you have what you paid for and b: that you don't have anything you didn't pay for?

[WinkyDink]

56. The policy assumes the customer is a thief. How is that a good policy?

[northzax]

125. good policy? maybe not

illegal? doubtful. it's their property. if they put up a sign saying "all bags subject to search" then you accept that condition when you enter their property. Just like I can tell people to take their shoes off in my apartment.

and, as I said below, it's much more a reaction to profiling lawsuits, if everyone is checked, then no one can claim they are being targeted unfairly. Like it or not, it's a logical decision by the store. don't like it, don't shop there.

[treestar]

506. But the point is they can't detain someone and have them arrested

for refusing to comply. They have to rely on the good will of their customers, who go along to comply with this, supposedly because they want to help the business owner avoid thefts.

The police officer in this case just didn't want to admit he was wrong. He should have known and told Joe that Joe had no LEGAL right to detain a customer just because they wouldn't show their receipt.

Whoever came up with this idea is an idiot. And a moran. They should install chips and use a sensor if they are so plagued by shoplifting. This method of dealing with it is beyond stupid and only works so long as people are sheep. It's sad that so many are that they keep it up and in this town, it worked so well that the security guard and even the police seemed to ASSUME that there was a criminal violation.

[1monster]

547. Once the customer paid for the merchandice, it is no longer the property of the store.

The customer may be standing in the store, but the contents of the bag are now his and the store no longer has a legal right to search the bag without the customer's permission.

Period, stop.

[banjosareunderrated]

659. exactly. n/t

[dansolo]

543. There is more to it than that

A lot of places mark the receipt after it is checked. Presumably this is so someone doesn't come back to the store and try and walk off with an identical item using the previous receipt. I think that is valid, and reasonable.

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. So assuming customers are thieves is okay with you?

[northzax]

143. that's between the store and customers

if people think they are being treated as potential thieves, they are more than welcome to shop elsewhere. rememeber, he doesn't say he was targeted because of his race, or ethnicity, or age, or any protected class, they assume EVERYONE is a potential thief, that's a customer service issue and one best resolved by not shopping at Circuit City if you don't like it.

[redqueen]

164. I find it fucking astounding that this topic

is blowing up the way it is.

:banghead:

[northzax]

191. people need to be outraged about something

and this is one of them, alas. I kind of want to go to someone's house, walk out with a painting in a bag, and refuse to show them what's in it. think that would fly?

[redqueen]

196. "Pick your battles" is a motto I live by.

This sure as shit ain't one I'd be picking.

Fucking store receipts?


Yeah sure, fight the cop and the arrest... but... well maybe he's just a shitty writer... cause why bring the receipt stuff up? The cop / arrest thing has a point. This other stuff just... ugh.

[Goblinmonger]

202. Two words for you.

False. Imprisonment. The store owner had no right to detain him. That is a tort at least and probably a crime. But the cop didn't give a shit about that, did he, just about the driver's license.

[redqueen]

209. Well then he'll sue and win. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

216. Hopefully

But it was also a criminal offense that the cop didn't even investigate. That doesn't bother you?

[redqueen]

228. It does.

Fucked up, drunk with authority cops are EVERYWHERE.

I'm glad he's fighting the cop for his actions. However, his decision to call the police cause he wanted to escalate the skirmish with the local too-big-for-his-britches store employee... THAT I think was stupid.

[safeinOhio]

621. If you have a witness with you

just keep asking, "Am I free to go". Then keep trying to leave. Once you are not free to go, you are under (false) arrest and then go to a lawyer. Your lawyer will write one letter and you'll get a settlement.

[BlackVelvet04]

322. Wha at a ridiculous analogy.....

do you shop at your friends house?

[NYC Liberal]

448. Did you purchase the painting from them before leaving?

Also, either way they couldn't detain you. They could call the cops, sure, but they cannot force you to do anything. Only the cops could potentially do that.

[Occulus]

215. It's the Authoritarians.

Seriously. Anyone reasonable would glean a few things from this article:

1) the article doesn't state that the policy was posted. In my experience, stores NEVER post search policies because they deter customers from even entering the store. Who wants to shop somewhere where they could be searched at any time while in the store?

2) The guy was arrested after he provided the receipt to the officer.

3) Not Mirandized, according to him.

4) Ohio law apparently doesn't require him to give the cop any information beyond his name, address, and date of birth.

And YET, we have people:

1) Assuming the Authority is right, even though their assertions on agreeing to a store policy are NOT founded, because it isn't stated the policy was posted,

2) Siding with an officer who should have ended the incident at the moment he received the guy's receipt, and who then violated state law by unlawfully arresting a person who had NOT committed a crime and who was themselves complying with Ohio law,

3) Completely ignoring- which I find astonishing on this board- the lack of reading the man's rights at the time of arrest, and

4) Ignoring the section of state law he mentioned (which others are actually arguing doesn't apply because of a SCOTUS decision).

This thread is being driven by the people who believe Authority is never to be defied, never to be questioned, and always to be obeyed.

:banghead: is right.

[redqueen]

232. Two issues are being conflated here.

I think the cop was wrong, and he's right to fight back on that count.

The absolutism in your last complete sentence shows that you're not really interested in a discussion about the issue.

[Occulus]

271. It's a personality trait inherent to Authoritarians

They are most likely to never question Authority, and are also likely to treat with hostility those who do.

What "issue"? I've repeatedly stated that the receipt issue was a catalyst for the arrest, so the only "issue" I can see you referring to is the arrest itself. The man gave the officer his receipt- then and there, the situation should have ended.

There is no "issue", there are only people defending a cop who doesn't deserve to be defended.

(I personally do not ever show my receipt, because I believe it is wrong on principle to ask for it when the items have been purchased on camera.)

[redqueen]

292. Well your premise is flawed, cause I'm certainly no authoritarian.

Nor am I a person who kowtows to authority automatically. I just happen to belive in the old addage that one should pick their battles.

The "issues" in this fucking circus are:

1) the store shouldn't be able to check your package/receipts
2) the store employee shouldn't detain people
3) the cop was out of line to ask for id
4) the cop was out of line to arrest the guy

I dunno why you fail to see all the elements in this clusterfuck. It's certainly not just about a low-rent cop who got carried away with his authorahtay.

[Cronus Protagonist]

264. A correct and accurate analysis

I wonder what the authoritarians are doing here, on DU. I mean why support an organization that is, on paper at least, rabidly against such extreme police action. Shouldn't they be on FR or something?

[northzax]

486. there is no legal right to your Miranda warning

seriously. If the arresting officers neglect to inform you of your right against self-incrimination all it means is that any information you give them from that point until you are informed of your rights cannot be used against you in court. You could say "why yes, I totally stole that" and they wouldn't be able to use that particular phrase against you. this is settled case law. If the author had been held in police custody (read: at a jail) without access to legal counsel or being informed that counsel was available to him, then a Miranda complaint makes more sense.

[jberryhill]

573. Significantly

Did you notice that he struck up a conversation with the police officer in the car, and the officer wasn't particularly interested in discussing the charge?

There was a reason why the cop didn't.

[datasuspect]

620. this thread is a litmus test

and so are others like it.

people who index strongly on authoritarianism and compliance scales are intellectually suspect.

i keep an eye on them and observe their patterns.

[populistdriven]

738. 'this is why our country is going down the tubes'

to quote my favorite MN cop

[fishwax]

617. or you could simply politely refuse to comply, and if they don't like that policy, they

can refuse your business. But a retailer's policy doesn't have the force of law, and doesn't give them the right to detain you.

[havocmom]

91. When he gave them the $$, the bag and contents became his property!

If they wanna SEARCH HIM, they have to state why and take the risks that go along with calling an innocent person a shoplifter. They don't do that because they damned well KNOW that will get their asses sued.

[proud2BlibKansan]

113. When I worked retail, we had to have EVIDENCE before we

could accuse ANYONE of shoplifting. We had to wait until they left the store and were off of the sidewalk in front of the store. And for the charges to stick, we had to have videos or still shots of the customer actually concealing the shoplifted items.

I was an asst manager of a large dept store and I can't even remember how many times we could NOT press charges when we KNEW a person had shoplifted because one of our employees had not followed the rules to the letter. Inspecting these bags while the customer is still in the store will not turn up evidence that can be used in court, since the customers are still physically on store property when "caught".

[northzax]

132. they aren't interested in convicting people

most places like this don't even press charges for small items, it's a waste of time. they are interested in stopping shrinkage. if the store posted a sign, in an obvious place, that all Circuit City bags were subject to receipt checks at the door, then that becomes part of the terms of sale, the author agreed to those terms when he purchased an item from the store.

[tabasco]

205. Total utter made-up bullshit.

"most places like this don't even press charges for small items"

You just made that up. It is patently false.

[northzax]

238. as you wish

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/business/13walmart.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=0f8c11decc453439&ex=1189224000

Wal-Mart is not alone in giving shoplifters some leeway. Its new policy “is consistent with guidelines many retailers use,” said Joseph J. LaRocca, vice president for loss prevention at the National Retail Federation.

Retailers, he said, have learned that prosecuting small shoplifting cases “does not warrant the store resources or the judicial resources required, given the dollar amount that was stolen.”

you're the expert though, not the National Retail Federation. What would they know about retail?

[tabasco]

550. .

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/7/12/walmart_toughens_shoplifting_prosecution_procedure.html

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/7/12/walmart_toughens_shoplifting_prosecution_procedure.html

http://news.ufl.edu/1997/11/26/security/

[tkmorris]

399. No. it is true

They do of course try to stop shoplifting from occurring, no matter the cost of the items, but once it has many stores will not pursue the matter if the items stolen are of little value.

[tabasco]

559. Retailers were nearly nine times more likely to seek prosecution of shoplifters ...

Retailers were nearly nine times more likely to seek prosecution of shoplifters than cases of employee theft.

http://news.ufl.edu/1997/11/26/security/

Wal-Mart toughens theft policy

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/323399_walmart12.html

Retailers' message to shoplifters: Pay up or risk prosecution

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/12/11/retailers_message_to_shoplifters_pay_up_or_risk_prosecution/

[havocmom]

142. Absolutely. Been there, done that just like you

And lots of good cops in my family too. ;) They taught us to NOT surrender rights, EVER!

[The Doctor.]

666. Absolutely correct...

"In a more civilized age" They had to have proof you were a thief before detaining you.

I guess they figured they could save more money if they just assumed all their customers were shoplifters until they proved their innocence.

Well, they lost my money.

Hehe... or maybe I'll go in one day just to fuck with them. :evilgrin:

I'll buy 2 or 3 items, pocket the receipt, and when they ask to inspect my receipt and bag, I'll tell them since I'm the owner of the property and the receipt, I'll take those with me... and then I'll hand him the bag for inspection while I walk out with my receipt and merchandise in hand.

:evilgrin:

[SmokingJacket]

131. Exactly!!

They have HIS money. Can he go back and check the drawer to make sure they didn't take too much?

[northzax]

138. sure.

you have the right to ask that a cash drawer be counted, in front of you, and checked against the tally on the machine, if you believe you have been shortchanged. I've done it (not for pennies, for a 20, when I was a poor student)

[SmokingJacket]

IF you believe you have been short changed.

IF they believe you have been shoplifting, they can search your bag. But searching because of POLICY is entirely different. I think it's a subtle but actually important difference.

[northzax]

161. for the government, sure

not for a private corporation on private property.

[MUSTANG_2004]

441. You have the right to ASK

But you can't require it. That's the important point.

I was on the opposite end of that once. A customer came back and said he'd paid with a $20, but I'd given change for a $10. We couldn't close the register for a proper tally (it was the only one). A cursory recount didn't show the difference so I didn't give him the $10. At the end of the day, we were $10 over. Twenty years ago, and I still feel bad about it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

806. That's horrible. I can imagine.

[huskerlaw]

137. They didn't search HIM

They searched his bag. And he consented to the search by purchasing goods, knowing full well the store's policy.

[havocmom]

146. His bag, just like his papers & personal possessions

He did not consent to an unlawful policy. He made the point that the policy was not lawful.

[northzax]

157. he consented by conducting a transaction at the store

they didn't stop him on the sidewalk out front when he was just walking by, right? when you conduct a transaction, you accept ALL the terms of that transaction that are posted, be that the 30 day return policy, a restocking fee, a discount for anyone wearing red socks, whatever. in this case, one of those terms was a receipt check at the door. he accepted those terms by buying something.

[havocmom]

175. Then why didn't the store charge him?

Hmmmm?

Cuz they would get their asses sued and the corporation damn well knows it.

[northzax]

181. charge him?

he didn't commit a crime by not consenting to the search, he violated a civil contract. not worth it. it would be a civil matter, and cost to much to pursue.

[havocmom]

231. So why did they detain him?

HE DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME. But they did attempt to detain him. Now, if he violated a civil contract, they do have the opportunity to sue him, as most other violations of civil contracts are handled.

And the corporation would likely suffer greatly when they got laughed outta court.

[Cronus Protagonist]

248. Great point

Refusal of search, even under an implied or explicit contract would not allow detention or obstruction, but would merely provide for resolution of this civil contract in a court of law... and what would the company gain from that?

Hahahahaa :P

If it were me in this case, I'd slap an unlawful imprisonment lawsuit on the store, the guard, the guard's employer and the police department. I also like to think I would not have been the one calling the police. I would let them do it so that the perpetrators fully implicate themselves in their criminal activity, on the record.

[huskerlaw]

379. IF they tried to detain him...

which, again, we're only hearing one side of the story...it's because at that point they believed he was shoplifting. It is logical, from the store's point of view, to believe that if someone refuses to open a bag or show a receipt, they're trying to hide something.

Given the man's conduct, the store would have reasonable suspicion of shoplifting. Therefore, they had the right to "detain" him.

[huskerlaw]

158. Except that the policy IS lawful

That's the whole problem with this guy's protest. He protested a legal search.

[havocmom]

178. And that's why the store pressed charges?

Oh, wait, they didn't?

:rofl:

[northzax]

201. what charges?

it's a civil matter. repeat after me. it's a civil matter. there are no 'charges' because in civil matters, you don't charge anyone, you sue them. you will, no doubt, remember that from your first year of law school. yes, they could have voided the transaction, refunded his credit card and taken their merchandise back, that is their only remedy for a violation of the terms of sale.

Frankly, I think it would have been awesome if the store manager had done exactly that, voided the sale and asked for the merchandise back, due to violations of the terms of sale. if he refused to give them back (which something tells me he would have) THEN he's stealing.

[havocmom]

THAT'S my point! They didn't charge the man for not going along with their policy

because they can't legally enforce it.

Their employee DID attempt to detain the man without legal cause.

The cop was called, by the man being prevented from leaving and he was buffaloed into arresting the man, even though he didn't have a clue as to why.

Repeat after me: I won't be a sheep. I won't be a sheep.

[northzax]

230. they can void the transaction

and sue to get their property back, it will just cost a lot of money to do that, so it's not worth it.

last time. the transaction between the store and the man was a civil matter, and violations of the terms of that transaction are a civil matter, NOT a criminal one. they can't charge anyone, only the government can 'charge' someone.

[EFerrari]

When they kick my door down, I'm PMing YOU.

lol

:hi:

[havocmom]

277. OK, Have your people contact my people about a mutual defense pact!

havocmom is too damned old to get a tat on her back that says "WELCOME'.

[LiberalFighter]

610. Except it may be difficult to void the transaction if

the customer refuses to provide identification to void it.

For some reason after the initial transaction is completed identification is required even though the transaction is voided immediately.

[huskerlaw]

370. They aren't required to

The store is not required to press charges every time someone violates their policies. In fact, it's probably standard procedure not to. The lack of lawsuit proves NOTHING.

[mindwalker_i]

299. The policy IS NOT LAWFUL

Numerous court decisions have affirmed it is not lawful. You can detain a person if you HAVE EVIDENCE they shoplifted. Circuit City had no EVIDENCE, just a POLICY of assuming everybody is a crook. See my post below and the link to the slashdot article. They are links all through the comments on cases of this nature.

-mwalker

[Orrex]

319. Your objection is based on hearsay

We have only the word of our beleaguered narrator that he was, in fact, detained by Circuit City against his will. Based on his one-sided account of the event, we can make no determination re: wrongful detention.

[huskerlaw]

369. I checked the article that you link to

and there's a lot of information about the legality of the policeman asking for his driver's license. That's not what I'm disputing here. I'm saying that Circuit City had every right to ask/require that he show his receipt and open up his shopping bag.

I glanced through the thread, but admittedly did not read it all. If I'm missing the point where they cite a case that found Circuit City's policy to be illegal, please direct me to it.

[MUSTANG_2004]

378. Interesting article here. Says it cannot be REQUIRED.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm

I agree with their advice and don't shop at stores that use bag checkers.

[huskerlaw]

381. That's nice, but

it's still not a link to "numerous" cases which state that Circuit City's conduct was illegal.

The thing is, the way in which the guy refused quickly gave Circuit City reasonable suspicion of shoplifting. Once that was established, their attempt to "detain" him (assuming this one-sided account is 100% accurate), was also legal.

[jayfish]

444. Insanity!

The refusal of a search constitutes reasonable suspicion? Good deity, WTF do we even need judges to issue warrants for? Oh and if the one-sided account is 100% accurate, Mr. Righi said "no-thanks" when asked to show the receipt. If he had jumped up and down while shouting "No, No, No" would that have been a better way to handle it?

Jay

[blonndee]

634. Wrong, Refusal such as his is NOT "reasonable suspicion," at least

not according to the article the other poster linked to:

Probable Cause Steps
To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should be follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm

Clearly, the staff COULD NOT have established this type of "probable cause" or as you call it, "reasonble suspicion," because the man did NOT steal the item and so such observations would have been impossible.

[yardwork]

551. I agree completely.

If the store is going to insist on searching people's private property as a condition of allowing people to shop there, then they should post this rule at the front door and have everyone sign a waiver before the enter the premises. The waiver could read something like this:

"In return for the privilege of entering Circuit City, I hereby waive all my rights as a citizen of the United States of American, specifically... (and here the form could list all the rights the person is waiving.)

No signed waiver, no right to unlawful search and seizure. That's the law. I'll be very interested to see how this case plays out.

[George II]

760. Most stores do that by posting a sign at the entrance....

"All packages subject to inspection" or something to that effect.

Do a survey everyone, I guarantee you'll find a majority of stores with similar signs. Walking past one of those into the store implies agreement with their policy.

[yardwork]

793. Without a signed waiver, I don't think that a posted sign has any legal weight.

I believe that the point made by this protester is that there are a lot of areas where we, as US citizens, simply "go along" with what amount to violations of our constitutional rights. These violations take on a much greater meaning in the current political climate. I agree with this protester's decision to make a point about the law.

In a country where anyone can now be thrown in an overseas jail, without being charged with a crime and without being allowed an attorney, and tortured by the U.S. government, all on mere suspicion of some vague concept of "threat to national security," it's important for all U.S. citizens to stand up and insist on our constitutional rights.

Allowing stores to search our private belongings used to be a courtesy. In this climate, it's become a form of collaboration with the enemy.

[GOTV]

179. But the items are now his property. Suppose they ask to see women's breasts?

after all, she came into their store.

[tkmorris]

410. It has happened

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a strip search has been attempted by bored loss control specialists who spotted a pretty girl on the security cams, under the guise of "suspected shoplifting".

[ronnie624]

306. "because he is in their store" is incorrect.

Ohio's citizen arrest statutes do not allow a non-law enforcement citizen to detain another, without having witnessed a felony crime. it is illegal to hold someone against their will, even if the detainee is on the detainer's property.

[northzax]

503. question wasn't whether he could be detained

it was whether he could be asked for his reciept.

[ronnie624]

653. No it wasn't.

The 'question' was whether or not the manager could legally force the customer to show his receipt and the contents of his bag.

As far as I know, it is perfectly legal in all 50 states for someone to 'ask' just about anything of anyone.

The Circuit City manager in question however, clearly intended to force his will on the customer, as illustrated by the positioning of his body in a manner that prevented the customer from closing his car door. Then, adding insult to injury, the responding police officer proceeded as if the store manager had a legal right to deprive the customer of his freedom of movement - clearly, an idiot with a badge.

You should not be so quick to bow and scrape before perceived authority. Those in power would love for us to voluntarily hand over our rights and freedoms without question. They are making an earnest attempt to strip away those rights, even as we...type.

[Riktor]

678. That's an issue of responsibility

It isn't the customer's job to account for the retailer's stock. That's what stock clerks and cashiers are for. If they are incapable of keeping an eye on their merchandise then they need to hire more people to work the floor or employ closed-circuit cameras or magnetic gates.

Every single Circuit City I've been to uses cameras and gates, so I am tempted to ponder the use of the bag checker. If my criminology isn't as rusty as I think it is, I would venture a guess that the bag checkers are nothing more than a deterrent. The store appears to be on the lookout for shoplifters, ergo shoplifters will not be tempted peddle their craft therein. I daresay the sweeping majority of those bag checkers have never caught anyone shoplifting.

So are we therefore required to take part in this charade?

[WinkyDink]

26. You have missed the point entirely.

[NMDemDist2]

57. did I?

he is concerned with the slippery slope of eroding civil liberties. I got that.

why did he give them his money then? I refuse to support stores whose business practices I disagree with. (see post 49)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1745824&mesg_id=1746031

[LSK]

and the part about the drivers license???

:shrug:

[redqueen]

169. Whether the cop was within his rights to ask that is another issue.

Most people seem to be all outragey that he even has to show his receipt.

Madness.

[LSK]

219. I am fine with the receipt part, not with the license part

[MiniMe]

263. I agree with you totally

An electronics store unfortunately has a lot of things that can just be slipped into a bag. Comparing what is in the bag to what is on the receipt when you leave the store is fine with me, shoplifting costs all of us money. And that isn't to assume that the blogger is shoplifting, however, the store's policy is to check all bags. The only way I wouldn't agree with this is if it was impossible to go back into the store after checking out.

[DS1]

414. Madness you say?

see directly below

[redqueen]

479. You mean your sig?

The NAU hologram on licenses?

[NMDemDist2]

185. now here's something to get outraged about

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1746418&mesg_id=1746418

[marions ghost]

489. agreed

"radio frequency ID chips" (RFID) in people's drivers' licenses is a FAR more scary scenario than some unpleasant encounter with a bumbling store employee who's trying to do his job too diligently...I'd rather not tangle with store goons and save my energy for the bigger more invasive battles about civil rights which we are facing. Maybe the writer who chose to do this is psyching himself up for bigger battles, maybe he's just looking to test himself against "the authorities." But it can backfire.

Many of those responding here --who are rightfully worried about illegal searches and surveillance--are really showing a sense of powerlessness in this thread IMO. I feel powerless too but this isn't worth the fight. Fighting the right to not open your shopping bag is not how the system gets changed. Store owners have it all stacked on their side. You only get written up as a troublemaker.

What I would have done: After the obstruction of the car I would have walked calmly back in the store with the bag and everybody there as witness. Asked the clerk to show that I had paid for all purchases. I would then have made a strong speech as to how the store treats its customers so that EVERYONE in earshot could hear (loud). Then I would have asked for a refund on the entire purchase, leaving the merchandise behind. I would take down the name of the offending employee and the store manager. Then I would have left the store. If I cared to make a further point about this, I would have written a strong letter of complaint to the head office, citing the man's obstruction of the vehicle, which absolutely was wrong.

There's no way I would have called the police.

People need to realize what their "rights" are in these situations before they assume they have any worth defending by going to civil court. Chances are this customer has very few.

This is the heart of the matter--we really do NOT have the rights we think we have in so many cases, and there are better ways to change that than by doing little grandstands that backfire like this.

I'm with the writer in spirit. I tend to be a fighter against injustice too. But this is too trivial.

[havocmom]

105. Not everyone going there to shop knows about the practice

and the corporations expectation that they will voluntarily give up their rights.

How can we insist our DEM reps grow spines and stand up against illegal shit that ends up being tyranny by habit, then default, if WE don't have spines and stand up against illegal shit that ends up being tyranny by habit, then default?

:banghead:

[BlackVelvet04]

348. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[ronnie624]

365. Completely irrelevant.

The issue here, is whether or not it is legal for a store manager to deprive you of your freedom to come and go as you please, when you have obviously committed no crime.

We may or may not agree with the 'business practice' of retailers searching their customer's bags - I've submitted to such searches myself - but I don't want to live in a world where retail managers have the law enforcement powers of police officers.

I find it rather strange that this police officer believed that the store manager had a legally enforceable 'right' to detain and examine by force, a customer's bags.

[MUSTANG_2004]

398. It's possible that he didn't know.

Until I read his blog, I didn't know Circuit City required receipt checks. The last few times I shopped there, they didn't have anyone checking receipts.

[Joe Chi Minh]

810. But your apparent policy of silence and non-criticism amounts to

complicity with this ever more overweening authoritarinism. Instead, you reserve your criticisms for a person who has made a stand, and is publicising an ever-growing danger to society, while you continue to meekly go about your business elsewhere, conselling others to do so.

[Feron]

124. Not always

I've shopped at Circuit City a few times and this particular location never checks receipts. It'd be stupid if they did because the door is only a few feet from the register.

Anyhow the point is that you shouldn't have to prove your innocence. The burden is on Circuit City to prove your guilt. CC should only detain people the employees know for certain is shoplifting. Walking out of the store and refusing to have your bag of purchased merchandise examined is not proof of guilt.

[GOTV]

151. Because it's not right, even if it's legal, for them to inspect your bags.

Not a difficult concept.

[mindwalker_i]

265. Yeah, just do the easy thing

It's easier to just go ahead and show your receipt than it is to fight it, I agree. But it's always easier to give in to authority than to demand your civil liberties. It was easier to give up our liberties than to fight Bush, the patriot act, etc. Look where we are now?

There's a great thread on slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/03/1449200) about this incident. I read all the comments - there are a lot of them - and it's clear that there are two issues. First, the guy would not show his receipt because he objected to, basically, an illegal search by someone who was not even an officer of the law and second, demanding his drivers licence when he wasn't even the driver of the car is also illegal. The charge that he was arrested under was that he was "obstructing official business" and there is a law about it. The law also states that you can not demand a license in a case like this - look on the slashdot article for the original story (it has been included in the replies since the original blog is no longer up).

The arrest for not showing a drivers license is pretty clearly a retaliatory action by the cop, who happens to be friends with the store manager (see the slashdot comments near the top). Cops can demand your identity (name and address) but not your drivers license. Like the initial post here says, that's demanding to see you papers.

Now take a closer look at the idea of requesting your receipt. This is basically demanding you allow them to search you. They do have the right to ask, but you also have the right to refuse. If they have probably cause to believe you have shoplifted - meaning they saw you, watched you during the rest of the time you were there, and saw you leave without paying for it - they can detain you and call the cops. Refusing to show your receipt is not probably cause. Saying it's their store policy to search everybody is not sufficient reason to demand they can search you. What if their store policy was that every woman had to remove all her cloths in the store? They could have that as their policy, but if they actively tried to rip the cloths of women, there'd be hell to pay (to put it mildly). This is NOT a far cry from demanding you submit to a search of yourself and your property.

It's sad to me to see somebody here, of all places, advocating that we all just let them do a search because it's just easier. The social conditioning that makes people submit to this kind of thing without even questioning it is scary, and people here should be aware of how dangerous it is. As people become more and more used to allowing their rights to be taken, it becomes more and more easiy to take more rights away.

The courts have ruled many times that stores can not detain a person for not showing a receipt. It amounts to kidnapping or making a citizens arrest without evidence. See the slashdot article for more info on this, as well as links to the court cases. Personally, I blow by the Fry's people all the time, and it is my DUTY AS A CITIZEN to not submit to an illegal search. They never bother me, but if they did, I'll discuss it with them. If they lay a hand on me, it assult and I will call the cops and press charges. I advise everybody, especially here, to stand up for your rights or you are responsible for losing them.

-mwalker

[habitual]

674. i appreciate this post, thanx. n/t

[defendandprotect]

496. Why would anyone shop at a store where they transact business this way -- ?????

I certainly would have returned to the counter -- returned the merchandise and left the store.

[Lucinda]

527. I agree....when I am forced to go to Wal-mart I always

go out the garden section and they always look at my receipt. Its silly, becasue they never check my packages, but it's their policy, so I stop and let him use his yellow highlighter. Takes about 2 seconds.

[smiley]

626. they have never examined mine

I thought that's why they put those detectors in front of each door. so that they know when someone is shoplifting.

[GMFORD]

655. That doesn't mean they have

the right to examine it against his will. He's right in this case - once he bought the merchandise and was given the bag, it belonged to him. Forcing someone to hand you their property against their will is mugging, isn't it?

[redqueen]

2. They do that at all their stores.

Other stores do it, too.

[EFerrari]

3. It's fascism now. Goodbye, rule of law. n/t

[LeftyMom]

4. I used to work for Circuit City- unless their policy has changed detaining somebody is not permitted

Back then (I last worked for them in 2000) the company line was that there was nothing in the store worth getting hurt or sued over.

[Gormy Cuss]

183. That sounds like a sensible policy.

I'm no lawyer but I've always thought that the receipt check thing is essentially voluntary (those 'reserve the right' signs notwithstanding) and that the stores count on the majority of honest customers cooperating with it. I have walked out of some stores bypassing the bag check because the lines were too long or there was some other delay and I've never been accosted in the parking lot. I figured that the worst that would happen is that someone would chase me into the lot and do the bag check there.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I sure hope he sues the pants off Circuit City and local police....

It is a scary and sad commentary on what is going on this country.

The terrorists are winning because we are becoming them...;(

[LynneSin]

8. Sue for what?

A common practice that most major stores practice to help prevent merchandise theft.

I had it 2 days ago at Best Buy - took 2 whole seconds and I was out the door.

I find this article nothing more than stupidity trying to be masked as some sort of rallying cry against Circuit City. Personally I can find better reasons to not shop there

[Occulus]

12. READ THE WHOLE THING, Lynne

The part we all should be concerned about is at the END. The receipt was only the catalyst for the eventual wrongdoing.

[LynneSin]

16. The person resist arrest for a stupid receipt check

Like I said - what the hell does this guy have to sue about. As far as Circuit City knows this person was walking out the door with stolen merchandise.

Show the damn receipt.

Stupidity should not be rewarded

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. No that isn't what he got arrested for

READ THE WHOLE THING

[LynneSin]

33. Yes he refused to co-operate. Stop making a rallying cry out of every stupid thing

I would have done the same thing too. The person didn't want to show the receipt, was difficult to the manager - I don't call this person a hero - I call them a dumbass

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. The store didn't call the police; he did

I am not making a rallying cry "out of everything", I just happen to think that forcing a person to show a drivers license when they aren't even driving a car and have DONE NOTHING WRONG is fascist.

But of course you are free to disagree.

[LynneSin]

85. And the police realized this person was causing an issue

You did read the part where the guy said "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. "

If the police showed up on his phone call and then proceeded to arrest him - my assumption is there is more to this story then what we read.

You do realize that there are 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth. I highly doubt the police would have arrested him if the blogger didn't make an ass of himself.

[Occulus]

116. Stop being obtuse, Lynne

You know damn good and well you're in the wrong on this one.

At this point Officer Arroyo asked to see my receipt and driver's license. I handed over the receipt, and stated that my name is Michael Righi. Again, Officer Arroyo asked to see my driver's license. The conversation went something like this:

Me: "I'm required by law to state that my name is Michael Righi, but I do not have to provide you with my driver's license since I am not operating a vehicle."

Officer Arroyo: "Give me your driver's license or I will place you under arrest."

Me: "My name is Michael Righi. I am not willing to provide you with my driver's license."

Officer Arroyo: "Turn around and up against the wall."

AND:

September 1st, 2007 @ 10:50PM Update:The police officer never read me my Miranda rights. I've heard differing opinions on how much this really matters and will certainly be bringing this up with my attorney.

September 1st, 2007 @11:34PM Update:I found the detail on Ohio's "stop and identify" law. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but I will spell out the important part:

2921.29 (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.

This wasn't about a receipt. The receipt was only a catalyst.

[Cronus Protagonist]

155. You're casting pearls before swine (n/t)

[Occulus]

170. I know. It's not the first time I've seen this from her, either. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

207. I had to update my options twice today

I think you know why.

:P

[Occulus]

459. I finally had to do it myself.

I just can't stand Authoritarians anymore.

[TreasonousBastard]

244. Then he was arrested for the worst offense you can commit...

being an asshole in the presence of a police officer.

I thought everybody knoew that you cannot tell a cop how to do his job and then just walk away.

Sorry, but this asshole has been weaiting for years to become the Case of the Century and this is the best he can do. If he was protesting at sdome military base, or refusing to pay "war taxes" or something else that actually takes a pair and carries some real risk then maybe he would deserve a modicum of respect.

But he made his stand with a Circuit City security guard.

Pathetic loser.

[Kingshakabobo]

289. "TreasonousBastard".......wtf?

With a screen name like that? You are OK with someone being arrested for being an "asshole" and/or refusing to show papers? Huh?

[TreasonousBastard]

318. Yeah, I am. You choose your battles, and he chose wrong. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

350. And YOU get to decide what his battles should be? n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

358. No, but I can opine that his choices are incredibly stupid. n/t

[Occulus]

309. But he gave the cop the receipt when asked!!

How was he making an issue with the cop? The store employee was detaining him!

One would think, if the items on the receipt matched the items in the bag, the officer- whom he called would have ended the incident, but noooo- he had to have the guy's ID (for what?), and, when he didn't get it, arrested the guy who called him- instead of the guy who was unlawfully detaining him!

How was he "telling the cop how to do his job"? By verifying the claim made by someone else that he was a shoplifter? By calling the cop to be released from detainment in the parking lot?

Or was it by simply telling the cop what his rights were?

:crazy:

[TreasonousBastard]

335. All from the blogger's side of the story, and...

would anyone bother to tell me why a cop would bother to go through the aggravation of an actual arrest, with the paperwork that entails, over such a stupid little incident without some provocation?

I've spent a lifetime watching police malfeasance and prosecutorial indiscretion, but the fact remains that most of the time whern the cops bust someone, it's for good reason. I'm not about to simply accept the claims of a whining arrestee without something to back him up.

And I'll certainly not accept those claims because of my own bias against the store or its policies.

[druidity33]

577. um...

because he's friends with the store manager? read the slashdot comments...

you say,"the fact remains that most of the time whern the cops bust someone, it's for good reason. I'm not about to simply accept the claims of a whining arrestee without something to back him up."

why that's a load of poop and you know it!

[LynneSin]

301. Obtuse for what - assuming everything the blogger said is what happened

Boy I'm gonna start my own blog and post shit like this. Perhaps I can even get a legal fund setup to make money off of the deal.

[Occulus]

360. About the actual reason for the arrest n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

861. k

[GOTV]

218. So, "cauing an issue" is not to be tolerated?

[Cronus Protagonist]

236. Absolutely NOT!

Not in fascist American anyway....

:sarcasm:

[Joe Chi Minh]

812. Hitler certainly thought so. One of those wonderful 'conviction' politicians the far right is

always claiming. It's turned out though that their convictions have tend to have been decided by courts of law to their detriment, often by way of heavy fines or prison sentences.

No, Lynne, there are not 2 sides to every argument. Not rational or principled ones, anyway. But sometimes principles are worth making a stand on. Not that I'd risk invite the hassle, myself, but I have nothing but admiration for the guys on here who do their best to ram their own principles down the throats of unprincipled or plain dopey would-be policemen.

[jberryhill]

197. That's the freakin point - HE called the police

...and thereby consented to cooperate with them.

You are confusing a consent situation with a non-consent situation.

[conscious evolution]

456. Why do I get the feeling

that you would have been glad to take the shower and encouraged others to do so also?

[brg5001]

739. Best post so far. Stop turning your issue into a federal case

This forum has now deteriorated to the point where a moron is asking for a national outcry because he he wouldn't show his receipt to a guy just doing his job at Circuit City, and then fought with store security and police. OK, argue all you want about the details. That's the essence of what happened.

I don't see this as a civil rights issue, it's a STUPIDITY issue. For that alone he deserved a handcuffing. Please, pick your battles for crying out loud. If you don't like showing your receipt then order online and GET OVER IT. I prefer to post in forums that focus on issues. And no, I won't let the door hit my ass on the way out!

[Joe Chi Minh]

814. Buh-bye. I'm keeping a tally. 240 posts.

[Crabby Appleton]

856. Me too! nt

[jberryhill]

48. I read the whole thing

The author is the one who called the police.

If you are walking down the street - no you do not have to answer unreasonable questions by the police.

If you are arrested - no you don't have to answer any questions.

If you call the police you have necessarily waived those rights by voluntarily asking them to come and investigate. If you then refuse to cooperate with the investigation you requested then you are obstructing an investigation.

But, even prior to that, I will bet you my socks the store has a posted bag inspection policy. Again, if you do not consent to that policy, then you turn around and walk out of the store.

The author is a self-centered jerk.

[rateyes]

128. How did he obstruct an investigation? He was asked by the

cop for the receipt. He handed it to the cop. He obstructed nothing. The obstructionist was the manager of the store who obstructed him from closing his car door and leaving the parking lot as a passenger.

Furthermore, he was lied to by the store manager, and by the police officer about the law. The dumbasses here are the store manager and the cop.

[jberryhill]

198. Go read the Ohio merchant search law, and get back to me /nt

[rateyes]

314. Why don't you just point me to the relevant section of that

law. Doesn't seem to come up on "google."

[Kingshakabobo]

334. I tried 'the google' but couldn't find it....................

You gotta da linky?

[jberryhill]

576. I posted it a bunch of times in this thread

and am trying not to be repetitive.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/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.

There is likely a fair amount of interpretive case law that covers the precise situation here, but I'm getting out of the business of researching stuff for free.

[Kingshakabobo]

602. I saw that. To be fair, I was one of the first people to axe for the link..........

........in response to your post/mention of the code......but thank you for the link.

Now that you mention it......I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of a "consent to search notice" as it pertains to this part of the statutes and the right of the store manager to detain. It seems to me, "the search notice" is, AT BEST, a civil matter/contract - something you can basically wipe your ass with unless the store wants to sue in civil court.

I think the search notice only serves to muddy the waters. I know you think that refusal to submit to search is, in itself, reasonable cause for the manager to detain - I disagree....and I think most retail stores' loss prevention policies disagree as well. Any policy I have ever been involved with (I worked retail) or heard of (my brother managed a large department store, I've had friends that were loss prevention people) ALWAYS required the actual theft to be witnessed - I think THAT is what is reasonable. Like you said, it will be for the judge to decide.

I think the fact that the customer blew past the search person will probably save the store manager from a criminal charge but I think he is in hot water should it come to a civil case - especially when the store's LP policy is subpoenaed and it forbids physical detention absent witnessing an actual theft.

As for your fees - Put them on account. On accounta I ain'ta gonna pay. :)

[jberryhill]

607. Depends on how you characterize the receipt check, as well

Verifying the receipt can also be viewed as the final step of the checkout process. That's not to determine whether the shopper has shoplifted, but to determine whether the check-out clerk was accurate.

After all, you wouldn't want to be over-charged, would you?

You no pay da fees, I give a you da feest. An I ainta gonna use da margarine.

[WinkyDink]

31. "Resist(ed) arrest" FOR WHAT, is the point!

[Occulus]

36. That's not why he was arrested.

This person was arrested for failing to produce his driver's license upon request. The actual charge was "obstructing official business".

In what way, exactly, is an employee's request to look at the receipt considered "official business" under the law?

But again, this isn't about the receipt at all. It's about the arrest, and why it happened. The receipt was only a catalyst; he could as easily have been taking a stroll down the street and resembled someone in the area who was fleeing the scene of a crime (this actually happened to me about thirteen years ago, but I wasn't asked for my license).

The point is, this person was arrested for failing to produce his license while NOT driving a vehicle- something NOT required under Ohio law. Nonetheless, he was arrested- and, according to him, NOT Mirandized.

It appears you didn't read the article too carefully.

[H2O Man]

45. The "official business"

refers to the police officer, not the store employee. I do not say that as an endorsement of either side of this discussion, just to clarify the charge.

[Occulus]

70. Oh, *I* know that, H2O Man

Authoritarians, however, will bow to any Authority figure, store managers included.

[H2O Man]

84. I'm not disagreeing

with what you are saying. There are some interesting points being raised by both sides in this discussion.

[jberryhill]

189. The thing a lot of folks don't get about basic CrimPro

...is that "consent" throws the whole ball of wool out of the window. Calling the police is consent to all sorts of things.

It's like the old myth about having to invite the Devil to come inside.

[jberryhill]

74. The "official business" was the call made by the author

The author called the police and requested a criminal investigation.

The author then refused to cooperate with that investigation.

The point is, this person was arrested for failing to produce his license while NOT driving a vehicle- something NOT required under Ohio law.

The point is, the author voluntarily waived his rights relative to the investigation by ASKING THEY INVESTIGATE A REPORTED CRIME.

The author did not need to be Mirandized. Is there some post-arrest statement which the police are using in support of the charge? No. So then, tell me the relevance of Miranda here.

[rateyes]

159. The cop was called to investigate the STORE MANAGER'S

crime. He wasn't called to investigate a theft. The store manager had not called the police.

Again, this man did not obstruct ANY investigation. He handed a receipt to the cop which matched what was in the bag, and UNLAWFULLY allowed the store manager to inspect it as well.

On edit: On top of that, the cop admitted to being surprised that the man hadn't stolen the merchandise. Guilty until proven innocent.

[jberryhill]

203. No, the cops are not valets

You call a cop to investigate X, and the cop has two things to investigate:

1. X

2. Whether your report was false.

You have consented to the investigation of number 2 there, bub.

[rateyes]

298. And, he investigated....

1. He checked the receipt, "bub," and found it to match the contents.

Beyond that, he had NO REASON to ask for ID, and no lawful authority to arrest the customer for not producing it.

The cop should have simply said, "Have a nice day," and allowed the customer to go on his way.

[tridim]

310. Yea, like the time I called the police after hearing a neighbor beating up his wife

After giving the report they accused ME of "retaliation" because the man happened to be black and I happened to be white. They assumed I was a racist. I ended up telling the officer to "go to hell" and they left without investigating the assault I witnessed. Worthless assholes.

Did I consent to that sort of treatment? I think not.

[GOTV]

235. I don't think you waive any rights by appealing to the police for help n/t

[jberryhill]

283. Well, you do

If you call the police to arrest the guy who broke into your living room, and the police see your marijuana on the table, they do not need to go back and get a warrant to seize that marijuana and arrest you AND the burglar.

When YOU call the police, you waive Miranda, the Fourth Amendment, and a host of other things.

[High Plains]

355. I think you are mistaken. You don't waive rights by calling police.

You have the right to remain silent.

You don't waive your Miranda rights.

You don't waive your Fourth Amendment rights. Just because you call the police does not mean they can enter your home without probable cause or a warrant.

Go back to law school. I think you missed the day they were studying constitutional law.

[jayfish]

419. I Like The One Where The Refusal Or A Warrantless Search...

is equivalent to probable cause. Amazing.

Jay

[jberryhill]

505. Well, take that for a spin....

Call the police for assistance and when they come tell them you are going to exercise your right to remain silent.

You will definitely be arrested for that.

[habitual]

676. like they say....

there is always somebody at the bottom of the class, even in law school.... :)

[LSK]

81. you need to read the whole thing, you are wrong in this case

[havocmom]

82. Charge wasn't resisting arrest. Read it. It's important.

While being driven down to the station in the back of the police car I struck up a conversation with Officer Arroyo. I asked him if he was surprised that my receipts matched the contents in the bag and in a surprise moment of honesty he admitted that he was. I then asked Officer Arroyo what charges were going to be brought against me. He explained that I had been arrested for failure to produce my driver's license. I asked him what would happen if I never learned to drive and didn't have a driver's license. After all, at the time that he arrested me I was standing on a sidewalk outside a Circuit City. I wasn't driving a car, and even when I was seated in the Buick I was a back seat passenger. The officer never gave me a satisfactory answer to this question, but promised to explain the law to me after I was booked.*

<snip>

Shortly after being booked, fingerprints and all, Officer Arroyo presented me with my charges:

ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)*

(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.

* bold mine

Read further in linked piece to find out that the law they booked him for being in violation of does not require anyone to give more info than name, address and DOB to an officer who asks if that person is not driving a vehicle.

The cop was WAY outta line and grasping at straws. Too many cops think they have to do what businesses want and don't question enough themselves. The merchants are making the beat cops do their bidding and take all the responsibility for going beyond the law.

There are reasons the merchants have employees say and do certain things: they want us to voluntarily give up our rights so they don't get their asses sued for violating them. When we don't go along with their bully tactics and surrender our rights, they try to convince some poor cop on the beat to take the responsibility for trashing civil rights.

The corporate merchants have a win/win situation. It is you, me and the snookered cops who pay the price, one way or another. And when cops get snookered into doing the dirty deed of violating rights for the corporations, you, me and the rest of the taxpayers end up footing the bill. The bill too often costs local law enforcement enough that their budgets have to be adjusted; you, me and the rest of the tax payers end up paying yet again by the likelihood of cutbacks in police protection.

It ends up being MORE corporate welfare when the corporations avoid litigation by putting the risk on the shoulders of public entities like the local P.D. Support your local police - Make sure they don't fall for this crap.

[Oeditpus Rex]

101. By that logic

everyone who walks out of a store where receipts aren't checked is potentially carrying stolen merchandise. :shrug:

[redqueen]

135. Apparently it was "abusive" to order him to show the receipt.

I don't get it.

[John Q. Citizen]

199. How did he resit arrest? Why wasn't he charged with resisting arrest?

The stupidity is people who give away their constitutional rights. When he paid for the goods the bag and the merchandise became his personal property.

The bag no longer belonged to the store, and the the receipt doesn't belong to the store, and the merchandise doesn't belong to the store.

When they detained him, for not allowing them to search his personal property, they broke the law.

Detaining a shoplifter is essentially a citizen's arrest. The store committed false arrest.

When Rosa Parks refused to abide by the policy of the transit district, and was also arrested. People made the same argument you are making, "If she doesn't like their policy, don't get on the bus."

But it's a spurious argument.

[GOTV]

200. The person did not resist arrest. Jeeze. n/t

[truth2power]

208. False imprisonment? False arrest?

IANAL, but seems to me those might be causes of action. Guess it's for the courts to decide.

Judging by the number of people here who think he should have been just an obedient prole, I can understand how we're on the road to fascism. YMMV

[Orrex]

461. :eyes:

Judging by the number of people here who think he was the victim of authoritarian police-state oppression, well...

[rateyes]

328. He didn't resist arrest.

He didn't fight the cuffing or the ride to the police station, the booking or anything like that. He resisted handing over his driver's license, which, by law, he didn't have to hand over.

But, when he was arrested, he went with the officer. No resistance there.

[Orrex]

28. Here's the money shot

However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.

This could reasonably be paraphrased like this:

I don't care that it was my sister's birthday. I don't care that relatives from across the country had come into town for a family reunion. I don't care that I over-reacted to a store's quite understandable policy of loss prevention. All that matters is that I've decided that we live in a police state, and all other considerations are secondary to my wish to make a political statement, regardless of how trivial and regardless of who might be hurt in the process.

It's my understanding--though please correct me because I could easily be wrong--that the Supremes ruled that it is not unreasonable for police to ask for someone's license. You and I may disagree with that policy, but while the law is in place we must either conform to it or rebel against it and accept the consequences.

Either way, a little girl's birthday was ruined for the sake of a he-said/she-said blog entry.

[LynneSin]

39. Is this the part I"m to read? "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. "

The guy is a dumbass and even stated that he is not about to do common practice.

[GOTV]

240. Yes, it's quite clear that living your life smoothly is your highest priority....

... he's not a dumbass for choosing different priorities.

[jberryhill]

578. And getting revenge against your half sister for your parents' divorce...

...by acting out on her birthday, can be a high priority too.

Read between the lines. He didn't want to buy her a present in the first place.

[WinkyDink]

43. Hello. I learned to drive at age 23; I know several AMERICANS who are of age and don't drive.

So how precisely can we all be compelled to SHOW A DRIVER'S LICENSE?

Why don't YOU provide the link to your SCOTUS "info"?

But a birthday is WAAAY more important than our Civil Rights.

[Orrex]

93. Well, start with Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt Count, et al

Again, the money shot:

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Petitioner’s conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 3—13.

If this judgment was later reverse, could someone please provide that link?


I didn't have a driver's licence until I was 30, an unlicensed 23-year-old doesn't impress me. Did you have no form of state identification, by the way? Were you employed?

But a birthday is WAAAY more important than our Civil Rights.

Way to avoid hyperbole.

Our civil rights aren't at issue here. What we have is a simple case of non-compliance with posted store policy and one customer's self-righteous decision to make himself the center of attention regardless of who might have been affected by his decision.

[northzax]

114. the difference here

is that Hibbel plainly refused to identify himself (something, it's worth noting, that I have done when arrested in a protest environment) the author did, in fact, identify himself (assuming his story is correct) he just refused to provide additional verification when asked, Hibbel doesn't say anything about that.

I have recieved a traffic ticket (ok, it was jaywalking) without identification, I simply told the officer my name and address, and he believed me. no biggie.

[WinkyDink]

118. The poster doesn't say he was allowed to show alternative ID. And what if I HAD been unemployed?

We still don't need National Identity cards.
And BTW, you mentioned "the" Supreme Court, not a Nevada Court.

[Orrex]

129. Click the link

It goes to an archive of Supreme Court decisions.

If you'd been unemployed, then bully for you.

[sinkingfeeling]

173. It is a civil rights! I was told by an attorney that my son was not required by

Arkansas law to present his drivers' license to police who questioned him while he reading a book at a Hooter's restaurant.

[Orrex]

186. Reading? At a Hooters? What was the book? (nt)

[sinkingfeeling]

210. Funny. It was the 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'!

[northzax]

222. that's potentially questionable, actually

Hooters sell alcohol, right? depending on the jurisdiction, you may need to prove your age upon request.

[truebrit71]

401. Only if he had an alcoholic beverage in front of him...

...otherwise the pigs get to step off...

[northzax]

483. depends on the jurisdiction, as I said

and perhaps the time. In DC, for instance, if you are a tavern (as Hooters are here) then anyone in the place after 9pm must be an adult, minors can be on the premesis before 9pm in the presence of a parent or guardian. in Oregon, you must be accompanied by a guardian if you are under 21 in a tavern at any time, with a parent or guardian. in Maine, minors cannot enter a tavern, hotel bar (unless it is a restaurant) or certain lounges at any time, parent or no. So yes, you can be requested to provide proof of your age in those circumstances.

I listed these states because they are the ones I know off the top of my head, since I am licensed to train alcohol servers in all three. I am sure most, if not all, states and jurisdictions have similar laws about minors on the premeses, even if they are not drinking.

[rateyes]

194. There's a difference...

between Nevada law and Ohio law. Ohio law doesn't require what Nevada law requires.

[John Q. Citizen]

212. Do you know that it is posted?

[Orrex]

225. A phone call to Circuit CIty indicated that it is corporate policy and it's posted

That's here in Pittsburgh. But if it's corporate policy, then it would apply to any store in the chain.

[John Q. Citizen]

254. they should have sued him, instead of false arresting him. i bet the corporate

heads wish they had, at this point.

Or they should have given him his money back and taken their merchandise back.

But when they illegally detained him, it was CC who broke the law.

[Orrex]

278. This is where hearsay becomes a problem

We have only the word of our beleaguered narrator as evidence that he was detained by the store. If, indeed, he was so detained, then I agree that he has a case against them.

The store likely has cameras trained on the parking lot; that should clear up whether or not he was falsely detained by CC.

Additionally, consider this part:

At this point I pushed my way past Joe

That may qualify as simple assault, if it involved physical intervention to make Joe move out of the way against his will (assuming, for the moment, that he wasn't unlawfully detaining our beleaguered narrator).

[proud2BlibKansan]

330. Just like we only have your word that a phone call was made to Circuit City

:eyes:

[Orrex]

341. Fair enough. Call them yourself.

Really, if that's the strongest objection you have...

[GOTV]

256. Anether "Money Dribble", that case was in Nevada, concerning a Nevada law. This case is Ohio.

We may both be fly-over states but there is a difference.

[Feron]

149. A state ID works just as well as a driver's license

I don't drive and I have one. It's hard to get a bank account and things like that without one so I doubt there are many 23 year-olds running around without an ID of some kind.

If anything they'll get the ID to buy beer with. :D

[WinkyDink]

156. Did the Ohio cop ask for one?

[John Q. Citizen]

233. Is it a law that people carry ID? Not to my knowledge.

[reggie the dog]

591. but

They may have id cards but why carry them if you do not need them? Carry your ID to get tobacco, alochol, and to cash checks but if its just to go get groceries or whatever that you can pay in cash and you do not drive why take up the place in your pockets?

[Occulus]

55. You forgot to mention this part:

September 1st, 2007 @11:34PM Update:I found the detail on Ohio's "stop and identify" law. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but I will spell out the important part:

2921.29 (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.

This thread is chock FULL of Authoritarians.

[Orrex]

104. Check out 1968's Terry v. Ohio

This thread is chock full of people positively desperate to cry wolf.

[H2O Man]

144. A link

to a description of this important case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

It is interesting to note that there was a well-reasoned dissent. Both sides being taken by DUers seems to be represented here. Of course, one side won the case.

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. And birthday parties are more important than our constitution

:sarcasm:

I applaud him for teaching his sister a great lesson. Can't think of a better birthday present.

[Orrex]

117. Then you're not thinking very hard

How about the lesson of propotional response? Nope--our beleagured narrator decided that a quick display of self-righteous civil disobedience was more reasonable than a simple, clarifying question. Additionally, he demonstrated his view that anyone can enter a business and violate with impunity whatever policy he wants to violate. "Happy birthday, sis! Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Instead of pissing high on a tree trunk, our beleagured narrator could have asked Santura or Mr. Atha why it was necessary to present his receipt. Instead, he violated the store's clearly posted policy and exited the store.

The account from that point becomes one-sided hearsay and must be discarded as tainted.

[Occulus]

163. You're making assertions that aren't actually stated in the article

Your entire opinion on this receipt thing seems to hinge on the policy being posted, but nowhere in the article does it state the policy was posted. You're assuming it was- something that, in my experience, isn't usually the case. I have yet to see a sign on entry into ANY store that says your belongings may be searched at will while on the premises.

If it's not posted, it's not store policy and it cannot apply to you as a consumer.

[Orrex]

182. I just got off the phone with Circuit City, as it turns out

It's a corporate policy, and it's posted at the front of the store. I suspect that it's probably on one of the entry doors. If you or our beleagured narrator hasn't seen it, then that's another matter.

I have yet to see a sign on entry into ANY store that says your belongings may be searched at will while on the premises.

Really? Where do you live? I'm in Pittsburgh, and off the top of my head I can think of over a dozen stores wherein that policy is explictly posted and in plain view.

[Enrique]

706. i'd like to hear Santura's side of the story

I'd bet there's something we could learn from hearing it.

My guess is that this narrator deliberately provoked Santura into wanting to go after him, for example by being abusive when refusing the request.

[jberryhill]

582. Half Sister

Read carefully.

The little brat seems to be the spawn of Dad's second marriage.

Why should her birthday matter anyway. He thought Dad invited him for the holiday weekend, but it turned out to be her birthday. Yeah! Where was Mom and Dad for HIS birthdays after the divorce? Why should she have it any better?

Lots going on in that story.

[Swagman]

106. he gave his sister a better present-hopefully

standing up to unbridled authority when it's out of control is a heroic act-no matter who small or big. It's quite clear the police officer over-stepped the mark and was just being bloody minded by arresting him and it looks like he most certainly can sue the store clerk for harassment and the police officer for unlawful arrest.

This is what freedom is about-you are even free to shop in a store you don't particularly like and that doesn't entitle them to harass you and it doesn't entitle a cop to arrest someone because he agrees with the store policy.

Maybe in time his sister will understand that this was a very important birthday if she learns the difference between keeping your head down and trying to avoid authority ( especially when they are out of control) or standing on your principals which will inevitably mean you won't have a peaceful life.

Too many people have died in the USA upholding these principals.

The guy explains his case very clearly and I applaud him for it.

[Orrex]

192. "Unbridled security?" Oh, please.

Our beleagured narrator wants it both ways. He wants to violate a posted policy and to bitch about being held responsible for it. Apparently the present that he wants to give her is the notion that no one needs to abide by any rule that they find inconvenient. Happy birthday, sis!

[GOTV]

247. Is it impossible that some things are more important than a little girls birthday party?

Then don't expect payment for that "money shot", more of a money dribble.

[Orrex]

281. Way to stay focused

Plenty of things are more important than a little girl's birthday.

But the dubious and self-righteous posturing of a blogger (with a propensity for distractngly poorly-written dialogue) is not among them.

[mindwalker_i]

342. If you're interested in living a smooth life...

Then by all means submit to "authority," when they ask you to, give up your rights at will, and all will be fine until you run into some person who will abuse that "authority" for their own purposes (think Bush, the patriot act, the no fly list, etc.). It's easier to live a smooth life and not defend your rights.

Then STOP COMPLAINING WHEN YOU LOSE THOS RIGHTS AND LIVE IN A FACIST STATE. Whats the next step? WEll gee, it's their store policy to require all women to go naked in their store, and I agree to that, so I guess I'll strip at the door. Well gee, they strip search everybody leaving, including the round of cavity searches - "snap" from Beavis and Butthead Do America - so I guess I'll just het the stop loos guy stick his hand whereever he wants because it's "sore policy" and I agreed to it by walking in the door...

-mwalker

[Orrex]

366. Hey, strip at the door if you want to

Fear-mongering invocations of this or that "inevitable" fascist outcome of this dubiously perceived slippery slope are pointless.

The store had a standard, legal, and posted policy that our beleaguered narrator agreed to and then chose to defy. And when he was held accountable for his actions, he cried about the police state and the authoritarian brutality of the midlevel manager.

[mindwalker_i]

629. Where is it legal?

At what point is it legal to require someone to submit to a search of themselves and their property to a search (they have legally purchased stuff, so it is theirs). I keep seeing people say it's a legal policy and also claiming it is posted. Why is it legal?

-mwalker

[OzarkDem]

345. Cost his dad $300, too

It seems he could have chosen another day to make a stand against Circuit City. Perhaps he wanted attention from his family.

I agree with his position, just think he should have done it at a time when he wasn't inconveniencing his family.

BTW, Brooklyn is a pretty blue collar suburb and the cops and courts there are real hard asses.

[Zookeeper]

466. "I don't care that it's my sister's birthday..." Bingo.

He clearly has a lot of free time and energy on his hands. If he wants to make a point, fine, but he should have done it on his own time.

But, I suspect he was showboating for his captive audience (family), OR, was completely disinterested in the hassle and unhappiness he was creating for his family on a special occasion. The nice term for this is "selfish."

I doubt that his young brother and sister understood his point. Hopefully, they won't decide to imitate his actions when they are teens, without an attorney handy.

[jberryhill]

584. Did you notice...

That it was his "father and his wife"?

There seem to be two adult children, two very young children, and a second wife.

I think that young "half" brother and "half" sister, got the point very well.

[Zookeeper]

585. I did notice that, but didn't think immediately about the possible..

underlying emotional issues.

Good point, jberryhill.

Whatever noble point he was trying to make with his actions, was negated by the hurt and chaos he created for his "loved ones."

I also don't think it's all that brave to raise a stink when your daddy is around to bail you out.

[jberryhill]

597. Yeah, but it sure got the spotlight of of her "special day" didnit?

Mission accomplished. He was invited out by Dad for Labor Day Weekend. He didn't want to buy her a present.

[EFerrari]

17. This isn't about Circuit City. It's about civil liberties and slippery slopes.

Rendition is a common practice. So is spying on dissenters. Letting the little things go got us to this part of our slippery slope.

What's scary to me is, it's never occurred to me, not once, to question this practice. That says much more about me than it does about Circuit City and other stores that treat their customers that way.

[LynneSin]

29. You have got to be fucking kidding me

Even before 9/11 Circuit City was doing receipt checks. They don't write anything down - just confirm that what's on the receipt matches the items.

Most of the time all they do is just a quick glance

BTW - did the person purchase with a credit card? Because they're spying that too

[EFerrari]

50. That's right. This practice preceeds the New Pearl Harbor.

Circuit City and other retailers count on you and me to let them invade our privacy and treat us as suspects rather than come up with a lawful practice that protects their property. Just like cops depend on you and me to go quietly when they make bad arrests. And if we don't, they can taser us.

God bless America. lol

[H2O Man]

58. It is actually

a very good idea to go quietly, even if you are fully convinced that you are being improperly arrested. No civil rights attorney worth their salt would suggest otherwise.

[EFerrari]

72. I'm not advocating getting yourself shot but only illustrating

the degree to which the habit of civility has been eroded.

[H2O Man]

The life of a social

activist goes much smoother when they use good judgement in deciding which battles to engage in. Without taking either side in this discussion, I would suggest that the first "battle" -- with the store -- might be better done on another field.

[EFerrari]

160. That might be true. This might have been the wrong fight to choose.

For some reason, this week the issue of the militarization of the culture is a topic for me. So, whether this was the right or wrong venue, the gesture this man made interests me a lot more than whether he was right or whether the store is right.

Maybe what I'm really talking about is compliance. There is a catalog sitting on my table. The cover is divided up into four fields. In each field there is a figure that looks like a member of the 101 Airborne standing somewhere in Iowa. The catalog is for hunting and fishing gear. It sat here for four days before I even noticed that military figures had been chosen to sell the product over, say, a family fishing or even a group of friends.

I realized that I didn't even notice the militarization of this product and in a sense, the way I see is compliant. And if I don't do something about that, I suspect that also makes me complicit.

I'm not causing a public disturbance and won't be arrested. But it makes you wonder what other influences detrimental to our democratic society become "invisible" out of habit?


/oops

[H2O Man]

223. One good habit

is to learn from history. When we look at the civil rights movement, and the examples of people like King, Parks, and those brave folks who did the Freedom Rides and the lunch counter sit-ins, we find that planning was always a key. That includes being aware of what the laws are, knowing the risks of being found guilty on a local level and having a good case for appeal, and having the intelligence to get a legal opinion before engaging in an action. (Of course, Martin did not always follow attorneys' advice -- but he always sought it before taking an action.)

It seems possible, from reading the OP, to think it is possible the fellow was reacting in an emotional way. I remember my friend Ben Franklin saying, "When passions drive, let reason hold the reins." In this case, though we may share (to some extent) the fellow's concerns, a familiarity with the law would likely support the idea that he will be found guilty should he fight the charge, and that he has zero chance of "winning" any civil suit he might imagine he has.

[EFerrari]

367. Do you think he will be found guilty? My sense is that this will be

tossed because the charge is misplaced.

I wouldn't have gone down this road in this way. He could have raised the same question without the high drama by simply asking both the store employee and the cop quietly, "Is this legal here in Ohio?" And more usefully, too, without wasting time and resources. Unless he really has a thing for room temperature bologna sandwiches.

I also wonder how old this blogger is. It's easy from the vantage of these fifty years to see alternatives. He sounds very young. But then, most people do.

lol

[H2O Man]

402. Sure.

I think that if he contests this, he will be found guilty. More, I think that he has zero (civil) case against either the store/employee and/or police officer. No good lawyer would accept the case, and if he does locate the other type, the case will be tossed in under ten minutes.

Reading this thread has reminded me of how differences in age can result in differences in not only opinion, but also tactics, too.

[EFerrari]

412. But, the charge was obstructing official business? Not resisting

arrest or anything you can really grab by a handle. It's hard to see how a D.A. would invest in that. There may well be an OH law about producing ID on demand but it doesn't look like the charging officer knew what it was and if there is one, he didn't use it. Another day at the circus.

I'll be interested to see if this blogger posts updates.

[H2O Man]

437. Actually, that

is an easy one. The police officer was there on official business. The fellow had called him for exactly that purpose. Then, he behaved in a manner that meets the standard that he was charged for. His best bet is to get an attorney, and listen to the advice of his legal advocate.

[EFerrari]

460. I was involved in a very similar situation. And, it's inside out

but in practice, the way these things play out.

The blogger called the police because he was being detained and because he disagreed that the detention was lawful. It was a judgment call on the cop's part that the officer had to make on the scene such that the person who asked for police arbitration (always a risky proposition) wound up being arrested. Someone nailed this down thread: after the cop checked the receipts, that should have been the end of it. That would have been reasonable. But, the cop's training kicked in ("Take charge") and he most likely asked for ID reflexively -- playing into the same invasive practice that the subject objected to in the first place.

My situation was: my husband acted out one night, hurt himself and wound up bleeding from the head. So, I called 911 because I didn't know what else to do. I wound up being arrested on suspicion. It was other worldly. I had blood on the lower part of my jeans because I had knelt to try to assess his injury while placing the 911 call. None of the spatter was consistant with giving someone a foot taller than I am a head wound. It was awful and that's just how things go in these situations. Later, I was asked to sign a slip that said I had only been detained and not arrested. (So long and thanks for the sandwich. lol)

In a different time, I would have been subpoenaed, not arrested and tossed into the pokey just because I was there. In another time, this blogger would have been cited and not subjected to an arrest after the police had examined his receipts.

I have a real worry about where this is all going, my friend.

[H2O Man]

488. Right.

One of my concerns, which I am considering writing an essay on, is how the laws which apply to people in public are often different than we might think ..... the Amendment 1 rights per gathering in public to air concerns with the government have never been as inclusive as, say, freedom of speech and of the press ..... and how the Cheney administration has expanded the Huston Plan of the Nixon era in ways that are far more serious than what is described in the OP here. There are issues that are far more worthy for our consideration, at least in my opinion.

[EFerrari]

491. I agree. And I guess I see this blogger's post

as a metonymy for the situation. This person will be okay or he will be fined. That needn't concern us very much. The right or wrong of his claims or actions aren't as important to me as are the questions he raises, no matter how clumsily they were raised.

Negotiating our civil rights is so hazardous right now, so I appreciated his account because it helped me think for a minute.

fwiw

[reggie the dog]

596. guilty?

Guilty of what, he provided his name. I will say it again. I NEVER carry ID if I am not driving and we are not going to some kind of place that asks for ID, like a bank or a bar. Going to a store with my parents driving would mean that I could tell the officer my name but not show ID because I wouldn't be carrying any. No ID, no credit card, just cash.

[WildEyedLiberal]

538. I think that is the objection most people in this thread are raising

"He could have raised the same question without the high drama by simply asking both the store employee and the cop quietly, "Is this legal here in Ohio?" And more usefully, too, without wasting time and resources."

Precisely, and I believe that is what most of the people objecting to this blogger are really saying. But all semblance of civil discussion on this thread has disappeared beneath hastily-flung accusations of "fascism", "authoritarianism", and "blind obedience." There are unfortunately way too many people on this thread (not you) who have seized upon this blogger's account, accepted it at 100% face value, and have adopted it as the latest outrage du jour. Anyone who says that this guy was overreacting, that he was grandstanding, that he was just making a scene for his ego's sake, are being called all that and more - I've even seen several allusions to the Holocaust. And then everyone scratches their head and wonders why civil discussion on DU is so impossible. Name calling and pompous grandstanding seem to come before anything else. The word fascism is way too serious for me to bandy about in such a trivial matter as a self-important wannabe revolutionary refusing to show a Circuit City flunky his receipt.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it's an age issue at all. Several of the DUers I've seen flinging about the accusations of "fascism" and "blind sheeplike obedience" and "authoritarianism" are older folks, from what I've gleaned from their previous posts and allusions to having kids, etc. I don't think middle-aged folks are any less susceptible to losing their minds over this kind of thing.

[jberryhill]

670. My sense is...

The judge is going to have a different view of this guy tying up a police officer with his tantrum.

[EFerrari]

723. If it happened in this venue, the DA would dump it because

it's a bad arrest.

[progressoid]

152. Huh?

This guy wasn't interested in being civil (he even says so in his blog entry "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly"). He wanted to defy something or somebody. So he chose Circuit City. :eyes:

And policemen are supposed to be suspicious of people - it's part of their job. Most of the time, most of them do it well. I've been stopped by policemen a number of times in relation to my work. Simple explanations and a calm demeanor work quite well. If I took the tactic he took, I'd be in jail too.

This guy wanted to make a point. And he did. The point is - he's a dick.

[EFerrari]

214. Fine. The issue isn't this guy's personality but the law.

Whether he's oppositional or not, it looks like the law is on his side -- both in his contact with the store manager and with the police.

It's possible that this guy is a "dumbass" as Lynne says AND that he was within his rights to do what he did.

[jberryhill]

239. The law in Ohio

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters

(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.

Probable cause arose from refusal to comply with a reasonable and posted policy on checkout.

[EFerrari]

268. What constitutes probable cause in OH? It can't be holding

a shopping bag because that's too broad. It's more likely seeing someone put something in their coat. Do you know?

[jberryhill]

274. The detention didn't occur then.

The detention happened after the shopper refused to show the receipt and the merchandise on the way out.

[EFerrari]

282. I realize that. I was asking about how probable cause is construed

in OH.

[H2O Man]

344. In a very real sense,

that is where the fellow's personality does come into play. Probable cause is generally viewed in terms of what a police officer thinks is reasonable. Putting aside any consideration of if the store policy is "good," and instead looking at it from the perspective of an officer responding to a call and attempting to verify exactly what was causing the conflict, asking for identification would not seem unreasonable. Of course, the fellow in question believes differently, and he has the right to test his beliefs in court.

[EFerrari]

383. I agree. His handling could have been more constructive.

The police make judgment calls far more often than most people know. And they are between a rock and a harder place much more often than most of us realize.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the answer to that problem isn't to arbitrarily impose authority because you can. It's a fine negotiation and most cops don't have the time, the training or the inclination to do that I'd last about two hours in that job.

[H2O Man]

434. Valid points.

The officer's point of view certainly isn't reflected in the blogger's version. And, even if the blogger is being as honest and accurate as he possible can, he is still by definition reporting from a subjective position.

The majority of objective people will look at the circumstances, and perhaps feel some sympathy for the blogger -- the impersonal nature of stores is often frustrating, and it can easily be viewed as insulting -- but the fellow did not stop with making the interaction with the store employee a conflict. He called the police, and when he felt his needs were not being met with instant gratification, he choose to make his interaction with the police officer a conflict as well.

Had he taken a different approach, he might have had an outcome that included having the police officer -- who also is a human being who probably has found shopping less than an pleasure -- taking his side. Or, maybe not -- but he still would have been on his way without the hassle with the officer.

When I say these things, it is not to imply I do not agree with the fellow about the obnoxious, intrusive nature of the store. And there are many cases where people are subjected to crap that clearly is illegal in stores; I could easily list a few examples from family members' experiences. Instead, it is because in situations such as this, I know it is important that people access the circumstances, and make the most intelligent decision.

[snappyturtle]

628. As I read this story I can see both sides although I'm more inclined

to understand the shopper's side. I think this episode exploded and could have been avoided. One, why didn't the store "inspector" point to the door and tell the shopper the policy is posted? That might have diffused the situation. Two, I think the shopper could have expressed his displeasure and made a point to Circuit City by complying with the inspection and immediately going back into the store and returning the items for a refund with an explanation to the store manager.

I always comply with such inspections, e.g. at Sam's Club, but I always act exasperated and put off by such an inspection. After I check out I put the receipt in my zipped wallet and put the wallet in my purse, just like I always do. The examiner at the door has to wait for me to fumble through my purse to get my wallet, unzip it, and present the receipt and then reverse the procedure. I know this sounds stubborn but it is my only way to let them know, I am not pleased. Having lived in a remote region, a trip to Sam's was an all day event, thankfully, I don't have to do business with them anymore.

Who is it these stores don't trust? Their employees or their beloved customers? (Do you know that Target refers to their customers as "guests"?) If they are afraid their checkers don't get every item properly checked, then they should watch the checkers like the casinos watch their dealers. If inspections provide the merchant with anything valuable, why don't all stores do this?

[sinkingfeeling]

68. It sure seems like a stupid policy to me. You stand at a checkout line, right in front of the door,

and pay for your purchases. The clerk bags them and puts the receipt in the bag and you walk 5 steps to the door and they want to check you haven't stolen something?

Of course, last night when I bought two books and three DVDs at a local store (much better than Circuit City or BestBuy), they didn't put them in a bag. Just handed them to me with the receipt!

[jberryhill]

83. Because, duh....

Most inventory theft involves complicit check-out people.

This also catches check-out errors.

[MadHound]

119. Umm, you're wrong

Most employee theft, the largest source of inventory shrinkage, goes out the back door, not the front.

[jberryhill]

176. Google "sweethearting", thanks /nt

[MadHound]

221. Show me some stats,

I've already gone and looked at them, so since you're already on google, it won't be that hard for you to do. I'm not denying that merchandise goes out the front door, I'm simply telling you that you're wrong in your assertion that most of it goes out the front door.

[MiniMe]

295. That is fine if you can't re-enter the store, but you can

You can check out, and take your bag back into the store with you. However, as I understand this discussion, it isn't the store policy that is being questioned, it is the cops reaction.

[BlackVelvet04]

377. Well, if you don't like the policy

of dissenters being spied on you should move to another country.

Yes, that's sarcasm.

[EFerrari]

391. That's the running thread isn't it?

It maybe that this guy was foolish in his handling but it all sounds so familiar, "Put up or shut up".

:shrug:

[TrogL]

530. "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy

[jberryhill]

579. Especially if you are measuring that "slope" with a spirit level /nt

[havocmom]

Common practice to prevent lawful egress? Maybe, but it's not legal

Either they claim you shoplifted and face the consequences for falsely accusing, or they have to let you leave.

It is time the common man and women stood up and insisted in being treated lawfully. At present, it seems those who stand up for their rights are the uncommon man and woman.

And think of it this way: How can we insist our reps stand up to tyranny and bullying if we don't do it ourselves? 'If the people will lead, the leaders will follow' and all that. ;)

[Orrex]

61. Not true

Circuit City (in Pittsburgh, at least, though I imagine it's standard corporate policy) has a posted notification stating that they reserve the right to inspect packages leaving the store. That includes your rucksack and my Circuit City bag. If you don't like it, then you're welcome to shop online or to avoid the store altogether.

No claim of shoplifting need be made. In fact, if they make such a claim and they turn out to be in error, their potentially liable for slander. So your demand that they put themselves at risk in this way is simply untenable.

[skygazer]

78. Just because they have a posted notification

Does not make it legal. Unless it's a store like Costco at which you have to be a member to shop there (and so agree to abide by their policies), they cannot actually force you to show your receipt unless they have probably cause that you have shoplifted.

People are such sheep - I could post a notice saying just about anything but that wouldn't make it either legal or valid.

[havocmom]

115. BINGO!

Even the cop didn't really know what to arrest the citizen for until they got to the station, and likely had a CYA consult with others. Turns out the charge was not in accordance with the way the law was written, so again, there was the hope that the aggrieved citizen wouldn't know his rights and let them be trod upon.

[Orrex]

171. Not so fast

People are such sheep

Right, right. Do whatever you want, or you're a sheep. Ho-hum.

I could post a notice saying just about anything but that wouldn't make it either legal or valid.

The difference is that when you enter a store and make a purchase, you are conducting business and must abide by the terms of the contract implied thereby. If you want to make post some policy by all means feel free to do so, but don't expect anyone to feel compelled to conform to it unless it coincides with a larger contract that you and this hypothetical person have entered.

Your post makes several pronouncements as if we're dealing with clearly settled law. In fact, the matter isn't resolved, so we're actually dealing with differing opinions. Your choice to insult those who disagree with you is disappointing, but it has no bearing on the validity of your argument or mine.

[skygazer]

226. You're taking something personally that was not meant personally

When I speak of people as being sheep, I mean it in the general sense - people ARE sheep and tend to act within a group without really thinking. If you choose to take that as a direct insult, I'm sorry but that's not how it was meant.

As for the matter of opinion, I have always been under the impression that what I stated WAS law. It's interesting that what I post as my understanding of law is labeled by you as opinion yet you state what I can only assume by the lack of any corroborating link or evidence is opinion also ("The difference is that when you enter a store and make a purchase, you are conducting business and must abide by the terms of the contract implied thereby.") and label it truth.

This may be only applicable to California where I live but for what its worth, here you go - "The law says that any time a merchant intentionally and without your consent, deprives you of "freedom of movement" - no matter how brief - that merchant is committing a crime if the merchant has no reason to believe you committed an offense."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/consumeractionline/2005/05/receipt_checkpo.html

[Orrex]

241. Whoops. I may need to retract part of that, then

When I speak of people as being sheep, I mean it in the general sense - people ARE sheep and tend to act within a group without really thinking. If you choose to take that as a direct insult, I'm sorry but that's not how it was meant.

Fair enough. Sorry to have over-reacted--no apology necessary, but I appreciate it.

As for the matter of opinion, I have always been under the impression that what I stated WAS law. It's interesting that what I post as my understanding of law is labeled by you as opinion yet you state what I can only assume by the lack of any corroborating link or evidence is opinion also ("The difference is that when you enter a store and make a purchase, you are conducting business and must abide by the terms of the contract implied thereby.") and label it truth.

I may be losing track of my posts here. What I read most recently online is that police in Ohio support the policy of right-to-inspect, but legal experts aren't convinced that it's legally binding. That's the part that I was referring to when I called it a matter of differing opinions. If you were linking to actual law, then I was off the mark. I'll see about finding a corroborating source.

This may be only applicable to California where I live but for what its worth, here you go - "The law says that any time a merchant intentionally and without your consent, deprives you of "freedom of movement" - no matter how brief - that merchant is committing a crime if the merchant has no reason to believe you committed an offense."

That sounds like a lot of wiggle room, to me. What constitutes "reason to believe" in such a case? And depriving one of "freedom of movement" is likewise a little slippery. If the store requires that you pay for your merchandise before exiting, but the checkout line is very slow, has the store deprived you of your freedom?

Not trying to be snarky in that last part. My point is that the law as written seems to be begging to be challenged.

[skygazer]

275. Well, you're in the checkout line by choice

No one is making you stay there.

What it boils down to, to me, is that these checks are invasive and assume guilt on the part of the consumer without any cause except the presence of said consumer in the store. I don't like them and I don't believe they do anything substantial to cut down on theft.

As for their legality, as I said, I'm only speaking from California but they seem to have very thin ground anywhere by nature of the lack of any real probable cause to suspect theft. So I'm always glad to see someone challenge them.

Thanks for a civil discourse. :hi:

[Ignis]

499. Excellent point.

I'm not really certain why this is so hard to grasp, but the State has the authority to make/enforce laws. Merchants can set whatever policy they like for their businesses, but they are NOT empowered to enforce those policies--especially if the enforcement involves felonies such as kidnapping or false imprisonment!

Also, a posted policy does not a contract make. There is a significant difference between refusing a bag search at a 'membership' store and doing so at CC or another standard merchant.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

284. Alright then.

If the guy doesn't like the reciept check he has the right to walk right out the front door.

[BlackVelvet04]

400. Just like people who don't like bush's wiretapping can

leave the country....right?

[Joe Chi Minh]

815. You're sound like a bornaginhooligan any mother would be proud of.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Did you read the whole thing?

Fascist business practices and fascist police practices. That's not okay with me, not in the least.

I hope this guy sues the shit out of Circuit City and the local police force.

[Richardo]

110. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There's nothing 'fascist' about the business practice or the police practice. But thanks for continuing to devalue what used to be a powerful perjorative :thumbsup:

[proud2BlibKansan]

204. Forcing someone to show ID is fascist

Sorry that doesn't bother you.

[Dystopian]

446. The only thing I can say....

in response to any of the posts is that I'm with you 100%. I don't have to say anything....yet I just did.


peace~

[Richardo]

541. No it's not. Plenty of left-wing dictatorships force you to show ID.

So I repeat: you don't really know what 'fascist' means.

[proud2BlibKansan]

555. Yes I do; you are the one who is confused by this term

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[WildEyedLiberal]

542. No, it is not

That makes a mockery of the severity of fascism.

[jberryhill]

608. Buying Disney Merchandise supports... uh.... what, exactly?

Disney screwed up copyright law so that we can live for a hundred year Mickey Mouse Reich which, unlike Hitler's, really WILL last a hundred years.

Supporting corporate monopolism, Chinese slave labor, the appropriation of folk tales for "proprietary" culture.... That's what this guy's purchase of a Disney product says to me.

When you are buying corporate media junk merchandise from a company founded by a racist eugenicist, don't come crying to me about fascism.

Got it?

[conscious evolution]

467. Papers please

Where have I heard that one before? Anyone know?

[Richardo]

539. Maybe Nazi Germany. Maybe Eastern Europe. Maybe China.

Only one of those governments was fascist.

[reggie the dog]

601. Paris

Probably at an ID checkpoint in Cannes or Paris.

[jayfish]

47. I Think The Story Is BS...

as I read a remarkably similar story a couple weeks ago only the culprit was Tiger Direct rather than Circuit City. That being said, if the neighbors who live at the ends of your street were checking drivers licenses to confirm that people who traveled the street resided on it; would you be ok with that? I mean it only takes a couple seconds.

Jay

ON EDIT: I just read a follow-up to the story I mentioned and may have to retract my BS theory.

[Orrex]

270. Big difference

The street is a public thoroughfare, so a private citizen has no authority to demand identification.

[MadHound]

97. It is called standing up for your rights and respect

Frankly I'm sick and tired of being treated like a criminal whenever I go shopping. Sure, this practice is rather limited right now, but it is becoming more and more common, especially in the chain stores.

It isn't about the time, you're right, it doesn't take long at all. It is about retaining your dignity and your right to privacy. Sadly, more and more people are willing to give up both of these things. People have slowly but surely becomed accustomed to obeying "authority" no matter who or what that "authority" is, be it a clerk at the door or the cop on the beat.

I'm tired of being treated like a criminal, tired of being guilty until I prove myself innocent. In the America that I remember, the one that used to exist before we started submitting to fascism, people were treated with respect, weren't required to prove their innocence at every turn, and were allowed to have their dignity and privacy. Apparently many, if not most Americans are all too happy to part with those things. No wonder this is a nation of sheep.

Sure, this may seem like a small, simple, stupid thing to do. But the guy was well within his rights, and frankly I hope they drops the charge against him and he sues the hell out of Circuit City. Perhaps when corporations start feeling the pinch in their profits, they will start treating their customers like people instead of cattle.

[Sherman A1]

123. Precisely

By entering the store and making a purchase, he agrees to their terms of operation, which I in this case may include being asked to show a receipt prior to exit. Any retailer can challenge a person to produce a receipt prior to exiting the building and while on their private property. There is no cause for a legal action in this case and it would be dismissed almost immediately. The retailer has everything on their side in this issue and the shopper in this case has nothing but a bit of arrogance.

[truebrit71]

395. Illegally detaining him, and sue the pig for being a nazi...

...This isn't the fourth reich YET and the thought that some jack-booted thug gets to arrest you because you don't show ID is bullshit...

[treestar]

513. False Imprisonment - it is a tort as well as a crime

People are liable for torts they commit, and there is no defense of "well, it isn't that much of a bother to the plaintiff if I overstep the line."

There are many law cases on this subject, very frequently involving stores and suspected shoplifters. Some body of law has developed allowing shopowners to detain customers long enough to bring the police in - but they have to catch the shoplifter actually shoplifting first.

[emilyg]

651. I don't mind -takes less than a second

More important things to worry about and fight.

[oldtime dfl_er]

89. Me too

and this is why I contribute to the ACLU. I hope they examine his case carefully.


www.scarebaby.com

[mike_c]

6. K&R-- read the whole article-- it's pretty good....

eom

[LynneSin]

7. I'm not getting what's wrong here and why this is some sort of liberal "rallying cry"

It's not uncommon to ask for a receipt. They are not taking your name or reporting you to some secret government plot. It's just inventory control. If they check receipts and purchases they can cut down on the amount of theft that occurs in this store.

Personally I think it was a dumb stance to take about showing the receipts and callus of the writer to assume it's some sort of rallying cry for the liberal masses.

Personally I would have hauled off the person for stupidity. Showing a receipt at the door is a 2 second thing that would have saved alot of hassle

[Occulus]

10. you're not getting what's wrong because you didn't read the whole thing n/t

[SaveOurDemocracy]

20. Agreed ... this was not an unusual request.

Much ado about nothing.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. This is why this situation is so important..from the article

Snip

At this point Officer Arroyo asked to see my receipt and driver’s license. I handed over the receipt, and stated that my name is Michael Righi. Again, Officer Arroyo asked to see my driver’s license. The conversation went something like this:

Me: “I’m required by law to state that my name is Michael Righi, but I do not have to provide you with my driver’s license since I am not operating a vehicle.”
Officer Arroyo: “Give me your driver’s license or I will place you under arrest.”
Me: “My name is Michael Righi. I am not willing to provide you with my driver’s license.”
Officer Arroyo: “Turn around and up against the wall.”
Snip
While being driven down to the station in the back of the police car I struck up a conversation with Officer Arroyo. I asked him if he was surprised that my receipts matched the contents in the bag and in a surprise moment of honesty he admitted that he was. I then asked Officer Arroyo what charges were going to be brought against me. He explained that I had been arrested for failure to produce my driver’s license. I asked him what would happen if I never learned to drive and didn’t have a driver’s license. After all, at the time that he arrested me I was standing on a sidewalk outside a Circuit City. I wasn’t driving a car, and even when I was seated in the Buick I was a back seat passenger. The officer never gave me a satisfactory answer to this question, but promised to explain the law to me after I was booked.

Snip
Shortly after being booked, fingerprints and all, Officer Arroyo presented me with my charges:

ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(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 offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Not being able to find the law in the books that states that a citizen must provide a driver’s license while walking through a parking lot, Officer Arroyo had to settle for “obstructing official business.” Keep in mind that the official business that I was supposedly obstructing was business that I initiated by calling the police. I called for help and I got arrested.

[droidamus2]

52. Little things add up

I think his point is that when we allow ourselves to be cowed into these little inconveniences and the idea that they have to verify that we are not theives we are giving up a small part of our freedoms as United States citizens and human beings. Yes it is only 2 seconds and if you don't want your day 'disturbed' you can be a sheep and let them do it (I admit I don't question it and half the time they don't even really check'). The writers point is to get across the idea that you 'don't have to'. The choice is up to you not the store. This idea that 'they're a business so they can do anything they want' is another form of obedience training of the public. As a citizen you have a right to be informed and when somebody is acting outside the law to be able to stand up for your rights. If you would rather give up the 2 seconds of inconvenience that is your right but I think you should think twice about criticizing those that are willing to stand up for the rights of the citizens of this country. As they say 'QUESTION AUTHORITY!'.

[reggie the dog]

604. searches and searches

Well there are searches and searches. Here in France they do not search the bags the store gives you when you buy something. If you are wearing a backback the chekout clerk sometimes looks in or sometimes they ask you to check your bag in when you get to the store. The only searches I have ever heard of are searches of backpacks while leaving the store. I have had my backpack searched but they did not look into the bag I just bought. I have always thought that this policy was reasonable because they could just refuse to let folks in if they already had a sack with them. Some stores avoid all of this and just put in electronic sensors at the exit.

[northzax]

86. not to mention that this is a good policy by Circuit City

why, you ask? because it complies with any and all discrimination codes. They check everyone's receipt, that way no one can say that they were asked because they were being targeted. Would we prefer to have security guards that focus on people they think look suspicious?

I am a bouncer at times, and I card everyone I don't know personally, no matter how old they are. I do this because, frankly, I don't want to be exposed to trouble when someone says that I didn't let them in because they are black/old/asian/gay/straight/fat/ugly/dressed badly/disabled/etc. I can cleary state that only people with valid IDs, and all sober people with valid IDs, can enter, no matter who you are. I am not making a judgement call, there are no biases evident, only the legal requirement to have ID to drink.

[LynneSin]

337. That's another great point

thank you for that post.

I'm not this anti-Bill of Rights person. For all I know this could be the way it happened. I guess I'm just cynical in wanting to hear both sides before I jump on the bandwagon. Helps to make me look just a little less stupid should I find out that I was wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

127. I think the main problems are:

1. they admit they didn't think he was shoplifting--why can they stop him on the way out?
2. Even if you don't have a problem with that, he was OUT OF THE STORE. why can them stop him outside their property without claiming shoplifting? Wouldn't that be false imprisonment?
3. the cop just sided with the corp. for no reason and did nothing about the false imprisonment.

[Gormy Cuss]

165. Focus on the other half of the story: the arrest.

He is claiming that he was arrested on a bullshit charge because the cop made a mistake by assuming that failure to show a driver's license was an offense under Ohio law.

As for the receipt: the Circuit City receipt part of the story is relevant because the store personnel tried to prevent his departure without cause. Sure, showing the receipt would have prevented a lot of hassle but does that excuse the behavior of the others in this narration?

[ComerPerro]

336. Its just more stupid "truth to power by sticking it to retail employees" bullshit

every now and then DU has a circle-jerk thread about how so-and-so is some sort of hero because he told a cashier to fuck off.

[Zookeeper]

476. Yes, aside from whatever ego problem drove him to choose...

a special family occasion to take his stand, he also took it out on someone who probably has a lot less power and money than he has.

[MUSTANG_2004]

532. The police officer and a store manager?

Say what you want, but this wasn't telling off a lowly clerk.

[Zookeeper]

583. It started with the clerk...

and arguing with a Circuit City store manager is not exactly "stickin' it to the man."

He was really brave when his daddy was there to bail him out and he had an audience. I'd be more impressed if he made his point alone, with no back up and no one to show off for.

[jberryhill]

598. No.. it was telling off Dad for having a second family /nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

524. I really do get sickened by those threads

That's reich-wing behavior, not progressive behavior.

[BlackVelvet04]

404. It's not about the time it takes to show a receipt.....

obviously you don't get it.

[jberryhill]

580. GIVE ME DISNEY LICENSED MERCHANDISE OR GIVE ME DEATH /NT

I will purchase my perpetually-copyrighted Disney merchandise that spews out of the Chinese factory in the manner I want, thank you.

[Warren DeMontague]

606. Because no one is thinking of the poor shoplifter and his or her right to ply their trade.

Without harassment from "the man". :eyes:

[havocmom]

11. To the Greatest Page with ya. Get this topic out there around water coolers

Time to stop being sheep and start insisting on our rights. If we don't, how long before some of us end up in trains leading nowhere?

[LynneSin]

18. Why would this be on the greatest page - because some dumbass wouldn't show the receipt

and yes, I read the entire article. As far as Circuit City was concerned it was shoplifting since the person arrested refused to show a fucking receipt

[EFerrari]

37. The law seems to go the other way, Lynee. The dumbass knew that

and Circuit City didn't. So, the dumbass was pressing for the rule of law which doesn't seem very dumb to me.

[LynneSin]

51. For a common routine receipt check? Did we run out of other causes to rally around

And you're believing the blogger. Should we assume everything that blogger wrote is the truth. There are 2 sides to every story.

The guy is a dumbass

[redqueen]

150. Follow the dumbass!

No, follow the "sheep", who don't mind showing a fucking receipt on their way out!

UGH!

[GOTV]

294. Really? what's the other side to the story "The guy is a dumbass"?

[EV_Ares]

715. LOL, exactly.

[jberryhill]

246. The law says....

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters

(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.

Probable cause arose from refusal to comply with a reasonable and posted policy on checkout.

[EFerrari]

297. You keep posting that but it doesn't answer the question at

the crux here. What if that "reasonable and posted policy" is unlawful? Just because a sign is put up doesn't mean what it says conforms to the law.

And it doesn't seem to conform with the courts have interpreted similar laws. :shrug:

[jberryhill]

304. Private property

I can throw you out of my nudist camp for wearing clothes, whether you have a right to wear them elsewhere or not.

[MUSTANG_2004]

320. Right - but you can't detain me if you have no evidence

that I committed a crime. Not consenting to a search is not evidence of shoplifting.

[jberryhill]

332. The receipt check is not a search

...it is the final part of the checkout procedure. Someone other than the clerk checks the receipt for accuracy and to avoid "sweethearting" by the clerk.

[MUSTANG_2004]

Sure it is. You already own the bag and everything in it.

Or are you suggesting that you don't own the merchandise until after the receipt check?

[jberryhill]

372. If the receipt is wrong, you don't

That's the point.

[MUSTANG_2004]

393. By then it is too late

If the store doesn't have a reason to believe you have the wrong merchandise, they can't search your belongings. Once merchandise and money have changed hands, the exchange is done. If the store got it wrong, they need to have some evidence of that before they can force a remedy of that.

I fully support the rights of a store to do a receipt check. They cross the line when the detain anyone who doesn't agree to it. Look at it this way - to detain someone, you have to have reason to believe that they committed a crime. Not allowing a search is NOT a reason to believe someone is a shoplifter.

[jberryhill]

405. Last time(waster)

You are welcome to come to my house.

I only have one rule.

If you say the word "margarine" in my house, which I do not allow, you will have to leave.

Okay?

[MUSTANG_2004]

418. Your analogy is terrible. Get a better one and we'll talk. /nt

[jberryhill]

500. Okay, but you are still welcome to visit

Just avoid... you know... that word.

[Evoman]

484. Last time (waster)

You are welcome to come to my house.

I only have one rule.

If you say the word "margarine" in my house, which I do not allow, you will have to stay, no matter what, until you apologize.

If you do not apologize, I will physically restrain you and you will not be allowed to leave.

Okay?

[jberryhill]

502. You know....

I think your house might be more popular than mine! :evilgrin:

Ohio does have a law which permits merchants to detain suspected shoplifters, though.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. That's not what he was arrested for

Go back and read it again. :)

[Mike Daniels]

79. This reminds me of when someone here wanted people to boycott Barnes and Noble

because of the store's reaction when the poster decided that he/she could just arbitrarily decide where a book should be positioned on the store's shelves.

It amazes me when a store's reaction to someone acting like a total twit turns into a rallying cry by said person to condemn the "repressive/facist" behavior by the store.

[havocmom]

Because We The People only get to keep the rights we are willing to take risks defending

It isn't about "a fucking receipt". It's about the corporate training of the people AND law enforcement to do their bidding, whether it is legal or not.

More cowbell?

[meegbear]

13. Oh good gravy!

Does this guy set off metal detectors at airports because he keeps a small steel copy of the Bill of Rights in his pocket?

No sympathy.

[Orrex]

14. Difficult to respond to one side of a story

I'd be interested to hear Mr. Atha's take on what transpired.

Many stores reserve the right to inspect packages; if such a policy is posted somewhere, then by shopping at the store you are entering into a social contract whereby you explicitly agree to conform to store policy. Additionally, you have no idea what kind of security measures you may have activated without realizing it; if your duly purchased items weren't duly demagnetized, they may have triggered alert without notifying you, in which case Santura was acting in accordance with policy.

You have a right not to wear shoes or a shirt, too; does that mean that stores that decline to serve you are totalitarian regimes?

And, frankly, you chose kind of an odd moment to launch your political protest. Was it worth fucking up your sister's birthday just for the chance to howl about how the hegemonic police state wants to check your bag?

[LynneSin]

46. That's the other thing

And like I said the blogger claimed: "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. "

There are 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth.

We have better issues to rally around.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. This reminds me of when your wife or girlfriend ask you if she looks fat

You could 'live life smoothly,' or casue yourself lots of problems.

[GOTV]

308. If it's such a stupid issue, why have you devoted so much time to it?

Is this really more important than the iraq war to you?

[Orrex]

326. That's right--because we can't possibly discuss more than one issue at a time

Which issue, in your view, should get all of our attention?

Surely it can't be the war in Iraq, or else you wouldn't be posting here...

[BlackVelvet04]

423. I hate to break the news to you......

(well, not really) but YOU don't get to decide what issues are important to other people.

[BlackVelvet04]

615. Like what?

Changing the world by removing yellow ribbons from suv's?

[droidamus2]

87. Question

My question would be, 'Just because an establishment posts somekind of sign does that necessarily make it legal and enforceable'. This may be a stretch but for those that say 'just shop somewhere else'. Would you have said to black customers in the South in the early 60's that if they did't like the fact that an establishment refused to serve them they should just find one that will?

[Orrex]

220. A valid and reasonable question

My question would be, 'Just because an establishment posts somekind of sign does that necessarily make it legal and enforceable'. This may be a stretch but for those that say 'just shop somewhere else'. Would you have said to black customers in the South in the early 60's that if they did't like the fact that an establishment refused to serve them they should just find one that will?

One difference is that the posted policy at Circuit City applies to everyone equally. I grant that it could be argued that the policy might be enforced unevenly, but that's a separate issue (though still worthy of examination).

Another key difference is that Circuit City's policy is not inconsistent with other laws. Some will no doubt claim that it violates the Fourth and maybe the First Amendments, but I've heard no convincing argument that this is the case. Instead, the store had added a sort of "entry requirement" to people who elect to enter the store, and by entering the store the customer has accepted the terms of that entry. It's a social contract but not an unreasonable one.

A final difference is that our beleaguered narrator, by his own admission, acted in a brusque and, frankly, provocative manner. This, too, will no doubt be contested by some here, but the point remains that his conspicuous over-reaction to a posted and reasonable policy makes his behavior sufficiently suspicious to justify further measures taken by the store.

However, I'll add this: if it's true as stated that the manager physically prevented his departure from the parking lot, then it may be worth pursuing a claim of false imprisonment. But that's true only if the blog entry is accurate.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. Sweating the small stuff?

I must admit, I wouldn't pick this battle but maybe if more of us would, we wouldn't have so many HUGE battles to wage.

[Canuckistanian]

23. When I worked in retail

You could not detain someone unless the thief was actually spotted "in the act".

Back then, they had security people roaming the stores. And they were good. They could spot suspicious behavior easily. They must have been well-trained - and expensive.

Now, it looks like the stores are cheaping out and instituting these "inspection" policies in lieu of bona fide security people.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Yes same here

And all of the critics here who obviously have not read the article would discover when they do actually read it that he wasn't arrested for shoplifting or for refusing to show his receipt.

Papers please!! :mad:

Wow it just blows my mind that this story doesn't bother people.

[grasswire]

24. I salute him

"I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver's license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.

I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today."

[LynneSin]

41. For WHAT??

The guy also said: "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly."

So you salute stupidity?

[Cronus Protagonist]

147. Grasswire salutes the courage and fortitude to stand up for one's rights

Grasswire is obviously not one who's saluting stupidity, as anyone with sense would easily deduce.

[proud2BlibKansan]

257. Most activists aren't interested in living their lives smoothly

That really seems to bother you. How come? What if Gandhi had lived his life smoothly? What if Rosa Parks had lived her life smoothly?

No I am not comparing this act by this guy to those of Gandhi or Rosa Parks. Just pointing out that "living life smoothly" is not all it's cracked up to be.

[Occulus]

351. It's what comes after that phrase you keep repeating

that alters the context of the phrase itself.

But you.... you're not interested in meaning-altering things like "context".

Here's what came after the phrase you keep fixating on:

I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.

You're being as obtuse here as you were upthread, and it's blindingly intentional. Please stop.

[BlackVelvet04]

428. I'm not saluting you.....

does that answer that question?

Civil rights activists all choose not to live life smoothly.

[Ignis]

501. Very classy.

So anyone who isn't "interested in living <...> life smoothly" is stupid?

MLK, Rosa Parks, Gandhi -- these are all people who would appear to fit the above description. I'd be happy to be considered stupid in such company.

[grasswire]

518. I don't call that stupidity.

I call it patriotism.

Imagine the American Revolution if citizens were called stupid for their rebellion against authoritarianism?

Gee!

I salute him. He's standing up for rights we all desire. (Or most of us, anyway.)

[jberryhill]

30. What an A-hole

If you do not wish to consent to the POSTED rules on someone's property, you are not compelled to enter their property.

If you do not wish to consent to police questions, then you do not CALL the police.

The author has his head up his ass. The entire statute about answering police questions is irrelevant, since he had waived that by CALLING the police in the first place. If the author wanted to report a crime to the police, then the author has to assist in the investigation, otherwise the author is obstructing an investigation (including the always relevant aspect of false reporting) which the author provoked.

[Stuckinthebush]

69. Yep....

When on private property he must abide by their rules. At a retail store, the management can search your bags to make sure that the receipt matches the items.

The parking lot is still considered private property and I'd imagine that the management can chase down a thief in the parking lot without violating the law. As far as management was concerned, the man stole merchandise.

The officer was foolish to arrest the man for not producing a license. All he needed to do was check the receipt and tell management that the guy had not stolen anything and told everyone to move along. The whole "check your identity" thing may or may not be upheld in court.

This sounds like a story of a guy who has good intentions but is picking the wrong fights. He was foolish to ignore the requests of the store while in the store. He has no right to do that. He is on private property. The officer probably was pissed off at his foolishness and didn't want to take his crap anymore so he arrested him. That was foolish on the officer's part.

My guess is that his charges will be thrown out and his suit against the store will be dismissed due to lack of merit. The officer will be reprimanded and life will go on as normal.

[GOTV]

311. Well, then at least some good was done

[Stuckinthebush]

609. maybe...maybe not

[Goblinmonger]

134. So because you call the police

and tell them your name, you can be arrested for not showing a driver's license? You really think so? Damn, I don't want to live in that world. And if you call the police for someone falsely imprisoning you, the police should then just be able to ignore that and arrest you for some bullshit charge? Yikes.

My local grocery store also has a sign posted that they are not liable for damage from their carts. Just because they paid money to put it in print doesn't mean it isn't a load of shit.

[SidDithers]

227. But what if the posted rule is unlawful, or unconstitutional...

I respect your opinion here, John. Do business practices trump legal or constitutional rights? Am I compelled to agree to a search of my bag, just because it's posted policy? How about a pat-down? Cavity search? DNA sample?

Regardless, it's an interesting situation, and I'm curious to see how it all plays out.

Cheers.

Sid

Edit: I'm not assuming a search is unlawful. I really don't know anything about the law :)

[jberryhill]

251. Because every state has about the same, tested, law on its books

To cover precisely this situation:


http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters

(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.

Probable cause arose from refusal to comply with a reasonable and posted policy on checkout.

As far as the cop goes, the blogger consented to the investigation by calling the police, and then refused to cooperate after consent was given. That's obstruction.

[Orrex]

333. Very nice

You handily refuted pretty much the entire argument as put forth by our beleaguered narrator and his outraged supporters.

Well done!

[SidDithers]

376. Thanks :)....nt

Sid

[NewJeffCT]

417. Does probable cause arise from not showing the contents of your bag?

Is the policy actually posted at Circuit City that all bags are subject to search? I've been in plenty of Circuit Cities over the years and cannot recall seeing that posted in any of them, or having to show my receipt when I left the store with a bag.

The only place I know I've had to show my receipt as I've left a store was at BJ's Wholesale Club - and I assumed there was something in my membership agreement that required it.

[jberryhill]

618. It arises from the totality of the circumstances....

...and we have heard the story of one party here.

[GOTV]

305. He consented to all police questions.

He refused a police order, which is different, and he may have been within his rights. Time will tell.

[ComerPerro]

343. no kidding. The story is completely one-sided, and I still thought the author was a huge dickhead

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

520. He's also an asshole for calling 911

I bet there is more to this story......

[Mad_Dem_X]

701. Exactly

"If you do not wish to consent to police questions, then you do not CALL the police."

That's my thinking as well - why call the police and then complain when they ask you questions??

[Demit]

35. That's a hell of a long story to have to wade through. This guy is a little too self-important

for my taste—or sympathy. I can understand standing on principle in declining to show your driver's license, but he wouldn't have gotten to that stage if he hadn't pulled the stunt of refusing to show his receipt. This guy, I think, has a hostility problem. My sympathy in the whole affair is with the cop. What a waste of his time, by a self-important idiot who is probably the sort to scream "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!" at somebody on a regular basis. Feh.

[Midlodemocrat]

42. I wonder how everyone would be reacting had this happened at Costco.

Because, I have yet to leave Costco without having to show my receipt. :shrug:

[Balbus]

66. Don't rock the boat.

The ship of false outrage is sailing along smoothly.

[Midlodemocrat]

71. LOL. I guess I don't get it. I shop at Costco every week

and have always had to show my receipt. In fact, little known fact about Costco, if there is something in your cart priced at less than $5, you don't have to pay for it. Considered cashier's error and no reason to make you go get back in line.

[northzax]

187. Costco is on even firmer legal ground

since they are a private membership club, and you agree to the terms and conditions of the sale, in writing, when joining. But it's the same issue, yes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

273. Costco is a private members only store

I would imagine you consent to letting them search your bags when you sign the contract joining the Costco club.

[Pithlet]

338. You have to be a member to shop at Costco.

Before you even go into the store to shop, you sign an agreement. That's the difference. Around here, Costco is the only store who does this. I've never been asked to stop and show my receipt for any other store, Circuit City included. I think it's a stupid policy, but I wouldn't refuse to do it because I don't want to face the hassle of not complying. There's a big part of me who applauds those that do, however.

[Midlodemocrat]

457. Interesting. You can purchase a membership on the internet

without signing an agreement of any kind.

[Pithlet]

473. Whether or not you have to sign an agreement

You can't enter their stores unless you're a member of their establishment, and that is a little different than freely allowing the public to come in and shop. You may not have to sign anything, and I honestly don't remember if I did, but the membership itself is a gate key of sorts, and it's likely they've reserved the right to deny membership. Even if they haven't, I don't think any store has the right to detain you against your will unless there is actual evidence you've committed a crime, Costco included. They can set up just about any policy they wish as long as it's not discriminatory, and not allow you to patronize them if you don't want to comply with those policies. But, they can't hold you against your will because you won't. If I decided to make an issue of it next time I shop at Costco, they can cancel my card and not allow me to shop there again. But, they can't detain me. Failure to follow a store's policy isn't a crime, and no one, store managers included, can legally detain me unless they've seen me commit or attempt to commit a crime.

I agree that testing this policy is probably not a wise battle to pick, and the guy in the OP's story is probably a giant prick, but I think the point that stores don't have the right to detain people illegally is an important one.

[sinkingfeeling]

44. I certainly hope that ACLU takes this on. I don't understand what's happened to our

police in this country. They used to be here to protect us and now they all seem to want to be military organizations, trampling civil rights. It's like here where we had more cops at the anniversary of the Iraq invasion protest than protesters! They didn't bother us, but I wondered why we needed 25 police officers watching a couple of dozen people stand on the public square and pray!

[LynneSin]

54. I hope to god the ACLU ignores the stupidity of one circuit city shopper

And they probably will.

I think the ACLU has bigger fish to fry then some guy who wouldn't bother showing his receipt

[mondo joe]

394. I believe the ACLU's stance is that if the policy is posted, the consumer

agrees to it on entering.

[sinkingfeeling]

517. It has nothing to do with Circuit City and the stupid receipt. It's that the cops cannot

demand you to produce a drivers' license. They can ask you to identify yourself and that's all.

[mondo joe]

529. There are two issues being discussed, and that's one.

I do not believe you can legitimately have your license demanded by the police (certainly not when you are not driving), and am fairly certain the ACLU concurs on this point.

The other issue is the store and the receipt.

[jberryhill]

568. In a non-consensual situation, sure

He called the police and requested an investigation. Then he refused to cooperate in the investigation of his own complaint.

That's a different kettle of fish from the police wandering up to you on the street.

"Help, Police, I've been assaulted!"

"Okay sir, are you injured? Where were you hit?"

"I don't have to answer your questions, pig! My medical information is private."

Geez.

[H2O Man]

75. What specifically

would you hope the ACLU would do? I am not asking because I take one side or the other in this interesting discussion. But what would the ACLU's purpose be?

[sinkingfeeling]

195. Ohio has a law that the police cannot force you to show an id. He was arrested

for refusing to show the cop is drivers' license, not for refusing to let Circuit City check his receipt.

[H2O Man]

261. I think that law

has to do in the general sense of if you are walking down the street, minding your business, and a police officer requests/demands that you identify yourself. In the above discussion, a post (#104) mentions the 1968 case of Terry v Ohio. I provide a link in post #144. This case, which included a fascinating dissent that reflects what many DUers are saying on this thread, also includes the majority decision that details, in general, how an officer can reasonable interpret circumstances that allow him/her to make demands that would otherwise be viewed as unreasonably intrusive.

Whenever there is a solid dissent in a Supreme Court case, it is possible for another good case to come around to challenge the first one. It may be that there will be just such a test case regarding the rights of a citizen when an officer demands a form of identification other than a verbal response. This does not seem to be the case, in my opinion. But I respect that others view it differently.

[progressoid]

53. Itching for a fight.

"However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly."

Then don't bitch about being arrested douche bag.

[LynneSin]

59. Exactly!! I'm guessing DUers ran out of other important things to rally over

I mean we do have a war going on but who cares - this idiot doesn't want to show a receipt and even claims in his blog that he wants to be difficult.

[FredScuttle]

92. If I had been in the car

I would have left his self-important ass on the sidewalk.

Fight the power on your own time asshole....we have a birthday party to get to!

[Goblinmonger]

140. So if you had been in the car

when the manager forcibly kept the door open and intimidated your family member, THAT wouldn't piss you off?

[Orrex]

340. That question is based on one-sided hearsay

We have only the account of our beleaguered narrator as evidence that the manager acted in this fashion. That account may be accurate, but I am reluctant to believe it without further corroboration.

In the meantime, we can't make firm claims about what the blogger should or shouldn't have done in response to the manager's alleged action.

[FredScuttle]

382. The manager wouldn't have kept the door open long

once I pull away.

I'm sure, once he gave it careful consideration, he would agree that letting a customer leave uninspected is not as damaging as being introduced up close and personal to my right rear wheel well.

Why did this clown open the door anyway? Couldn't he have rolled down a window?

[Patriot Abroad]

725. eh, we don't have to worry about the war anymore

the surge is working! Didn't you see the republican debate?

[EFerrari]

107. Maybe and he does come off that way. But, what's interesting here

to me, anyway, is what the law says. And the difference between what the law says and what we put up with every day without a peep.

[RamboLiberal]

60. I think this is an idiot stand on principle

I don't take it as a particular affront to let a store examine my receipt on leaving. Certainly it is a loss of freedom but sure not worth the hassle of going to jail over. I think the author made an idiotic stand on principle. But who knows - maybe he'll win a big lawsuit with Circuit City.

I've had receipts examined at Best Buy, CompUSA, Costco, Sam's Club, Wal-Mart, etc. Stores do lose a lot through shoplifting - don't know how they'd stop it if they can't examine receipts. Hey remember the WH aide who got caught ripping off Targets(?)? Last month I almost got knocked over by a big teenage shoplifter bolting out the doors of Target. The stock kid at the door tried to figure out where he ran to in the shopping center but lost sight of him. I was a bit pissed and wished he had been caught. Stealing is just wrong!

Always amuses me though the stores who put up the fancy alarms at the doors - then ignore them when they buzz. Or Wal-Marts that station senior citizens at the door checking receipts. I also think there is some profiling going on at Wal-Marts on whose receipts get examined. Being an older white female they almost never ask me - not that I go to a Wal-Mart that often. Maybe once every couple of months for something I absolutely need at some hour everyone else is closed.

Some stores do post they have a right to examine bags coming in or out of their stores (don't know their real right under the law). And some post that you have to check any bags at the customer service counter (I hate that and won't go there if I have something they'd want me to check).

I'll be curious to see how this story plays out. Not a stand I'd be willing to make or go to the trouble over.

[LynneSin]

67. BTW - those stores you listed - most of them were doing it before 9/11

This isn't a patriot act thing.

This is loss prevention.

[Johonny]

63. checking the receipt

The funny thing about checking the receipt is it's clear the person doing it has no interest in the job. 99 % of the time the person simply puts a check mark on the thing without ever looking at the bag. 100 % receipt checks probably hurts finding shop lifters because it leads to complacency in the security staff.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

65. let's see if this makes sense

this guy walks into Circuit City with a bag he brought with him, and he put his jacket in there because he was hot. He decides not to buy anything there and walks out. He refuses to let loss prevention examine his bag, because it's "against his civil liberties".

Do you really think this man should be allowed to walk out of the store without letting Circuit City check his bag for shoplifted items? If you think they should, how in the hell should Circuit City prevent shoplifting? Would you prefer video cameras watching your every movement on every aisle?

What's the difference between this example and what the code orange guy did? All loss prevention knew was that the guy had a Circuit City bag.

This guy has a Christ complex and wants to be made a martyr. If you don't like the policies of Circuit City then don't shop there. Order online. Use ebay. Write a letter to someone who cares. But taking it out on Joe Blow who works there for $8/hour is probably not the best solution. Not to mention the cop whose afternoon was wasted on your self-absorbed arse.

[LynneSin]

90. Come on - there is nothing else for DUers to rallying around

so this guy is getting a boost.

I agree with you anyone who said "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. " probably was doing more than what he posted in his blog. He called the police and yet the police arrested him.

I'd love to hear the other side of the story but I guess as DUers we have to assume that all police & circuit city employees are facists hell bent on curbing our rights.

:eyes:

[Occulus]

449. Wow. Just wow.

"this guy walks into Circuit City with a bag he brought with him, and he put his jacket in there because he was hot. He decides not to buy anything there and walks out. He refuses to let loss prevention examine his bag, because it's "against his civil liberties".

He is on camera the whole time. If he enters, removes his jacket, and continues shopping, the guy at the door- the one taking the receipts- is likely to see it. The cameras certainly will.

"Do you really think this man should be allowed to walk out of the store without letting Circuit City check his bag for shoplifted items? If you think they should, how in the hell should Circuit City prevent shoplifting? Would you prefer video cameras watching your every movement on every aisle?"

That last is already the case everywhere I shop, especially the big box stores. Those black globes on the ceiling? Those are called security cameras. Perhaps you've seen them before.

"What's the difference between this example and what the code orange guy did? All loss prevention knew was that the guy had a Circuit City bag."

In which case they have no cause to detain him. Loss prevention must actually see you conceal and attempt to leave with an unpaid item. All loss prevention personnel who are properly trained are aware of this. It's basic.

"Not to mention the cop whose afternoon was wasted on your self-absorbed arse."

What about the cop who unlawfully arrested the shopper after being shown the receipt the store employee was asking to see? The cop the shopper himself called because he felt he was being unlawfully detained by the store employee? Oh, that's right- it's the same cop.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

464. the guy refused to show the cop his ID

you left that part out.

So if someone walks out of a store ala Pinto in Animal House (the grocery store scene), their pockets bulging, their clothes odd and lumpy, in your world the clerks shouldn't say anything if they didn't see him actually steal it?

I don't think you believe that. So why are you arguing otherwise?

[crispini]

88. Good for him. We need more people to hellraise.

To be perfectly honest, doing this would not occur to me because, well, I'm pretty focussed on getting on with my life and getting things done, and it's really no skin off my nose to show someone my receipt. But we need people to continually keep 'em on their toes. Right on, dude.

[LynneSin]

100. Hellraise for what? Stupidity

Seriously - I think DUers can find better things to do than to rally around a guy who said in his blog "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. ". He called the police and the police chose to arrest him. Perhaps there's more to this story then meets the eye and showed up in the blog

[crispini]

317. I think it comes from a perception (which I share)

that we are increasingly giving up our rights in the name of "security" or "safety" or so on. It's a little thing, yes, but all of these little things then add up to big changes.

[BlackVelvet04]

612. Do you have any thing to contribute besides

repeatedly saying how stupid everyone but you is?

[renate]

99. you can't be arrested for being a jerk

When I read the beginning of the article I was on Circuit City's side, but of course there are two issues here:

One is the question of whether Circuit City can ask you to show your receipt before you leave. I don't particularly like being asked to show a receipt either, but I realize that they have to ask their honest-looking customers for receipts so they can justifiably ask people whose coat pockets are bulging suspiciously to show their receipts too. Personally I think this guy was kind of a dick for making such a huge production out of it, especially with his dad and little siblings looking on. If he'd been singled out to show a receipt when other customers weren't, refusing to do so would have some moral standing, but he wasn't, so it didn't.

But there doesn't seem to be much room for debate about the other question: whether the police officer was justified in arresting him for not showing him his driver's license. Clearly he wasn't. Mr. Righi wasn't operating a vehicle, and he gave the officer the information he was required to by law. Apparently the officer didn't know the law as well as a regular citizen did, and apparently the other officers at the station don't know it either, which is pretty damn troubling, so I hope he wins that part of the lawsuit. But I still think he was obnoxious to not just show the receipt.

Edited because in the time it took for me to read the article, make a cup of coffee, and write my post, a gazillion other people pointed out the same things I did. :)

[LynneSin]

103. problem is - we only know the blogger's side of the story

Why would the police arrest the blogger if the blogger called him in the first place.

[TX-RAT]

111. Why would the police arrest the blogger

Failure to identify. All he had to do was show an ID and nobody would have went to jail.

[Goblinmonger]

145. So the police

have the ability to arrest you if you don't give them proper ID? Really? Kinda Naziesque, isn't it?

[LynneSin]

245. So you trust everything that the blogger wrote about

A blogger who already admitted to not wanting to live life smoothly.

There are 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth. We assume too much that this guy blogged everything that happened.

We need to stop rewarding people like this with our support. We have so many better causes that we can rally around that I'm embarrassed that even I'm still posting in this thread let alone the people of GD want to have it put on the home page of DU.

[TX-RAT]

424. Not sure why you said that.

The blogger is an idiot that deserved what they got. He should have shown the receipt to the clerk and he should have given his ID to the officer.

[conscious evolution]

475. right on

He should have been glad to show his reciept and id.
Such people should also be glad they are getting a free train ride with a nice hot shower at the end also.

[WildEyedLiberal]

545. That is disgusting and tasteless

Comparing showing a receipt to the Holocaust is the epitome of stupidity, classlessness, and poor taste.

[conscious evolution]

594. I would say ignoring history

is the height of stupidity myself.
How does that old saying go? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
That is one the things criminals who have hijacked our country are counting on to hold onto power.

Why do you think they are pushing for 'private' or 'religon based' education?

Why do think they are wrecking the puplic schools systems?

Which would you think they would rather have? Smart well educated citizens or illiterate morans?People who know and understand their rights and responsibilities or sheep to be herded until time for the slaughterhouse?

Do you even have a clue to why these corporations arer allowed to get away with the bullshit they are pulling over on us?

[WildEyedLiberal]

639. Tell a Holocaust survivor

Go on, I fucking dare you to tell a Holocaust survivor to their face that Circuit City checking for a receipt is the first step towards genocide. Or do you just spew this ignorant, hysterical crap on the internet, safely away from the scorn it would so justly receive in the real world?

[conscious evolution]

646. Don't need to.

I've had a holocaust survivor tell me the fascists were back.
She knew exactly what we are facing.
And yes I do point out the rise of fascism in this country every chance I get.And I really don't care what people think about it.

Never forget.

I heard those words when I was a kid.
I haven't forgotten.
I wish I could say the same about some of the others around here.

[WildEyedLiberal]

647. Was she talking about Circuit City checking people's receipts?

Or was she talking about the Bush Junta?

Cuz there's a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE between the two.

[conscious evolution]

652. I understand now

There is no difference between them.
They are all the same people.
The same people who own the circuit cities,the shell oils,the general electrics are the same people who 'own' our goverment.Or at least they think they do.
When they can't use the goverment to control us they use 'private enterprise'.
And when they can't use private enterprise they use religion.
You don't think they are capable of committing a holocaust?
Why don't you go ask an Iraqi that.Or an Iranian.
I dare you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

654. Who is capable of committing "a holocaust"?

Bush? Or Circuit City?

CostCo is a blue company that treats its workers well and is not part of the same homogenuous mass of "corporofascist" whatevers that you are blathering about in your post. AND YET, they - gasp - check your receipts at CostCo.

So is Costco bankrolling a future Holocaust, too?

[conscious evolution]

660. They may not be bankrolling them.

But they sure are enabaling them.Probably don't even realize it either.Just like people,normally well intentioned comporations can fall for the justifications too.


well its been fun argueing with you but I gotta call it a night.gotta get up early.
Peace.

[WildEyedLiberal]

667. Okay, well, I guess if you're determined to see fascism in everything...

Have a nice night, peace.

[Occulus]

133. "Officer Arroyo: "Give me your driver's license or I will place you under arrest."

He had already given the officer the receipt.

You're just not a very careful reader, are you?

[LynneSin]

288. Did you get that from Officer Arroyo or the Police report

Or are you assuming the blogger is telling us everything 100% accurate.

[ComerPerro]

407. how do we know that the author's very biased, one-sided account is even remotely true?

[0rganism]

482. We don't, but does it really matter?

From following the discussion, it appears that even taken hypothetically as completely accurate his complaint may lack merit. Naturally, it would be nice to have access to other documentation, e.g. the police report or surveillance camera videos or whatever, but even in their absence it's quite possible to present what appear to be valid legal counterarguments.

[ComerPerro]

519. actually, in this case, where he seems to be quoting the officer, yes

[0rganism]

528. I doubt the police officer would offer a conflicting quote in his report

That part would probably read more along the lines of a summary statement: "Requested ID from suspect, suspect refused to show ID."

I haven't read many police reports, but those I've seen seem to leave exact statements and quotes of this kind as a matter for juries to sort out from witness testimony.

Even if the quote is 100% accurate, it's debatable whether the officer indicated a direct misapplication of law in a circumstance where the person who requests the investigation refuses to cooperate.

[ComerPerro]

544. well, point is, it matters whether this is a true account or not

because it shows whether the cop was being unreasonable and fascist, as the author contends, or if the author was just being a douchebag for no reason and is making the cop out to seem like a dick in order to further his case.

[0rganism]

553. can I pick "all of the above"?

My impression is the cop had an impatient and somewhat fascistic overreaction in his handling of what he likely saw as unnecessary douchebaggery on Righi's part. The officer really shouldn't have had to make an arrest in this scenario, but Righi was probably pissing him off pretty good by not showing a driver's license. Had the author intended to exaggerate Officer Arroyo's response purely for effect, he could have invented far more outrageous activities by the policeman. If Righi plans to pursue any legal counters, it doesn't behoove him to make public statements that fall far afield of the actual events -- even a grade-A douchebag should be able to figure out that much.

So, I'm inclined to think that any inaccuracies with respect to the officer's behavior are more along the lines of omissions of attempts to mitigate or mediate the situation than deliberate and direct untruths. True or not, it's raised some interesting questions about what's legal.

[ComerPerro]

558. true, it doesn't have to be either or. All parties involved could have been jackasses

[Ravy]

102. What many people seem to forget...

that Constitutional rights (such as against unreasonable search, freedom of speech, etc.) prevent the GOVERNMENT from restricting those rights. Well, that was the idea, anyway.

I don't believe you have a constitutional right to prevent Circuit City from inspecting your bags as you leave. I would not shop there if I was offended by their actions.

However, I agree that the person should not have had to present a driver's license, but I *suspect* it was the attitude by which the refusal was delivered that really brought about the arrest.

The blogger was asking for a fight, and got one.

[flvegan]

141. And we have a WINNAH!

Corporate real property, and you're on it. The store employee is NOT an entity of the State.

If I had a party, and 1,000 people showed up, I'd have the right to make sure nobody was leaving with my property on their way out.

[WinkyDink]

153. And as such (not an entity of the State), said store employee cannot legally detain an American

citizen in his own vehicle. Said store employee CAN call a cop, though.

[flvegan]

190. You're exactly right. The unlawful detention would (and could) make a nice lawsuit.

He should have stayed in the car, called the police and charged the employee. Had the officer allowed the detention, then the city/county could be Defendant #2.

[Pithlet]

507. Not true.

You cannot hold anyone against their will, not even on your own property, without probable cause. Guests are free to leave your home unless they've actually attempted to commit a crime. You can't force them to stay until you're sure they haven't done anything wrong.

[flvegan]

549. I didn't say detain. I could check a bag or box, though.

If they chose to not let me, then I'd have to let them go unless I suspected something. I NEVER, repeat NEVER mentioned detaining anyone, thanks.

[MUSTANG_2004]

534. Actually, you wouldn't

You don't have the right to search guests when they leave your house. What makes you think that's ok?

[Goblinmonger]

148. And when he LEFT that property,

he was wrongfully detained by another citizen, called the cops to report that false imprisonment, and got arrested for his efforts.

[Ravy]

180. Is not the parking lot private property as well?

I suppose it could be or perhaps not be... but without knowing that we would just have to guess.

[Goblinmonger]

184. But who's private property?

Does the parking lot belong to the store or more likely some other company. And they can only detain you if they have a reasonable suspicision that you have shoplifted, which they didn't so it is still false imprisonment. And the guy was in the car. Certainly that doesn't belong to the store.

[Ravy]

213. I don't know about the car part of the argument...

since the car was *probably* on private property (we don't really know if it was, or not).

I couldn't see what rights being in your car on private property could give you more that what rights being in your shoes on private property would give.

I am pretty sure if you park on private property that the owners could have your car towed if they wanted (and I think they frequently do).

I am not a lawyer, and there may well be laws that govern this. I just wanted to remind everyone that the Bill of Rights decribes limits to the Government. You have no right to keep and bear arms on my private property unless I say that you do.

[Goblinmonger]

217. False imprisonment

is illegal. The manager can't detain you without reasonable suspicion which they had none of.

[Ravy]

561. I wouldn't say there was none of it.

A person refusing to have their receipt checked may be viewed as suspicious.

In fact, the blogger made a point that they (at least the policeman) was surprised that everything checked out. To me, that means they *thought* they were holding a shoplifter.

Whether it was reasonable for them to think that depends on things that we are not privy to, although, perhaps I am over reading into some of the narrative. The blogger made a point to say that he made two purchases. So, one was made before the other. Perhaps the employee saw the second transaction and then saw the blogger walk off not knowing if he had paid for the other item. Who knows?

I find that easier to believe than a store employee and manager decided to harass someone for absolutely no reason. After all, they aren't TSA. *grin*

[Cronus Protagonist]

224. Public access makes it public

If the lot's doors are open and the public is invited, it's public property. I had a cop explain this to me last week in CA because I was teaching my nephew to drive in an empty parking lot. He pointed out that as long as the gates are open, I'm subject to all driving laws and therefore could not continue to teach driving to my nephew until I get him a license.

I presume the same concept applies generally.

[Left Is Write]

380. Does it matter? Unlawful detention is unlawful detention, whether the property

is public or private.

[jberryhill]

258. No, Ohio law permits store detentions in the vicinity of the store

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters

(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.

Probable cause arose from refusal to comply with a reasonable and posted policy on checkout.

[Goblinmonger]

302. I would then point to the phrase

"probable cause" for which they had none.

[Orrex]

353. We can't say that, based on the account we have available to us

Who knows what might be at play that the blogger didn't (or was unable to) report?

Here are three possibilities, intended to make a point:

1. He may have been seen handling merchandise and putting it down in a different location.

2. He may have tripped an electronic sensor because the cashier failed to deactivate the security tag in his lawfully purchased merchandise. Not his fault, but it does give probable cause.

3. He may fit the description of a known shoplifter.

Any of these would supply sufficient "probable cause" to satisfy the statute. Granted, they're hypothetical, but they're intended to show that other factors may have been at play of which the blogger was unaware (or forgot to or chose not to report). AFAIK, the store is not under any obligation to reveal the source of their probable cause, at least not at the time of the receipt-check.

[Goblinmonger]

440. On a theoretical level, I agree with you 100%

We also don't know if this story is just a fiction. But my reactions and statements have been made to people that are responding to the blog entry AS IS. They see no problem with the story as it is reported. And that bothers me. They aren't saying what you are saying, but instead saying that the story as presented is not problematic as regards the store manager and the cop. Not sure if that is crystal clear or not as my prep hour ends in just under a minute?

[Orrex]

447. Ah! I see what you're getting at

You're arguing at the next level, as it were, addressing the points as made by the various posters. That's certainly valid.

My BS detector went off as soon as I read the overwrought dialogue as recounted in the blog entry, and I just haven't been able to get past my suspicion that the tale has been rather pointedly embellished.

[Goblinmonger]

468. I would like to go on the record and say

that my BS meter went off too. My reaction is solely to what posters here are saying when they seem to be reacting to the blog as written.

[Orrex]

471. That's good to hear!

For a while there, I was wonder what had happened to the real Goblinmonger!

[jberryhill]

605. I'm also influenced by what appears to be an emotional subtext

...of two adult children from a first marriage being invited out for "Labor Day Weekend" and then being "reminded" that it is the birthday of a half sibling child of the second marriage.

There's a whole brew of emotional subtext there in the blog entry "AS IS" as you put it.

My Dad, for example, despite other wonderful qualities he had, did not like to do housework. His way of expressing this was to "accidentally" break a lot of dishes if he ended up washing them.

Righi almost points with satisfaction to having escalated this to the point where the two younger children were crying.

Yes, there are all sorts of facts that could make this thing lean one way or the other, but on reflection it was the cues about the family history that I realized made me feel as if the acting out doesn't have as much to do with "civil liberties" as it may appear. I could be wrong about that too, but I am slower to recognize my own emotions and how they influence my opinions at first glance, and it was the emotional content that makes me believe the guy was acting like a prima donna for reasons other than proving a point.

If he wanted to prove the point, he could have gone back later and made a purchase without the whole family in the car. You don't make kids part of your civil disobedience exercise. They have utterly no choice in the matter, and were the purest "hostages" on the scene.

[Pithlet]

711. It isn't probable cause.

Refusing to comply with store policy isn't probable cause that the person actually committed a crime. That is why it's actually against the law for stores to hold someone for not showing their receipt. Knowing your rights and exercising them, no matter how much of an asshole some people might think that makes you, isn't evidence of guilt.

[TahitiNut]

743. Precisely. It's deeply disappointing that progressives don't comprehend "probable cause."

Our civil liberties absolutely depend upon a full comprehension of that firewall phrase.

[Pithlet]

775. I think people are focusing on the receipts.

They're hung up on that. I don't know why. It's obvious the problem lies with the detention over not following the policy. I've said it over and over as well as others. But it's still "They just want to check your receipt, what's the big deal!!!!" They can ask all they want. We have a right to refuse it, and the worst thing that they should be able to do about that is ban us from the store. Not frigging hold us against our will.

[TahitiNut]

813. Think about this ...

When was the last time you exited a store WITHOUT BUYING ANYTHING that you were asked to show a receipt??

You see, this is "probable cause" turned on its head. The store is implying that the GREATEST "probable cause" for a receipt check is that someone actually bought something and is carrying it out. (In fact, there's NO "probable cause" whatsoever .. and it's exactly the opposite.)

[northshore]

732. You must be a neo con

You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again hoping that it will become truth by the sheer force of will.

They did not, at any time, by their own admission accuse or suspect him of shoplifting. Therefore the entire journey down ORS 2935.041 Lane is meaningless.

[jberryhill]

211. The second right was waived by consent when the blogger called the police /nt

[ComerPerro]

346. no kidding, seems to me like he was wanting to cause trouble. And he found it. That's the problem

with a lot of todays wannabe "activists".

They stir up shit, as activists should, then get outraged when they have to face consequences.

[WinkyDink]

108. 1. He committed no crime, at any point; 2. the store has no legal right to detain a citizen

in his car; 3. the police in Ohio have no legal authority to demand that a citizen produce a Driver's License; 4. it is not a crime to refuse an UNLAWFUL demand by a police officer.

So, yes, this CONSUMER might have shopped elsewhere, if he objected to CC's policy; but this CITIZEN was within his rights AS a citizen, once he exited the store, and THAT is the larger issue---larger than a birthday party; larger than a store's attempts to crack down on shoplifting and most people's unquestioning acquiescence; and way larger than police acting beyond their legal authority.

Where is it stated that American citizens must CARRY ID?

[Ravy]

193. You seem to be making a point about leaving the store...

but parking lots are commonly also private property. Is there some right you gain by walking through a door yet remain on private property?

[WinkyDink]

206. No store employee---i.e., another run-of-the-mill citizen---has a LEGAL RIGHT to PREVENT

ANOTHER CITIZEN from getting into his car! WTH, don't you know this?? The employee could have called the cops, but HE HIMSELF has no authority to detain anyone!

And yes, you DO gain rights AFTER exiting a store; that is why the stores must try to catch shoplifters INSIDE the store. Do you think employees can just go running around parking lots, demanding to inspect the contents of vehicles?

[jberryhill]

237. Who owns the parking lot?

Go read this Ohio law:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters

(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.

Probable cause arose from refusal to comply with a reasonable and posted policy on checkout.

[WinkyDink]

259. YOU read it: "probable cause" is the OPERATIVE TERM.

Refusal to comply with the store policy is NOT "probable cause", no matter how many times you say so.

[jberryhill]

276. Oh... I see... what controls here is your "say so" /nt

[WinkyDink]

359. No, the term "probable cause", like THIS:

Probable Cause Steps
To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should be follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm

[jberryhill]

374. the person who gets to decide

...is a judge, not the author of that website.

[WinkyDink]

589. Fine. Taking bets on which side wins?

[jberryhill]

600. No, but I'll be happy to collect fees!

Legal arguments are all well and good. Once you reach a triable issue of fact, when the test is a "totality of circumstances" one, then it comes down to whether Juror Number Eight likes your shoes.

[truebrit71]

390. Exactly. Having worked in retail it is impressed upon all employees...

...time and time again that in order to stop someone after they had made no attempt to purchase the merchandise you had bloody well better know exactly WHAT was stolen and WHERE it was being concealed...if you didn't know that and you hadn't kept them under constant surveillance and they had managed to dump the merchandise and you detained them anyway, you, the store and the company were in some real shit...

[Ravy]

630. The police could not stop him without probable cause either.....

so what good would calling them do???

Either probable cause existed or it didn't. I would say that it did.

[Throd]

109. What a dipshit

[mdmc]

112. at least they didn't ask for a urine sample

:kick:

[tiptoe]

689. or a cavity search.

[LSK]

120. so if I am just talking a walk around the block without my wallet, is that illegal now?

:shrug:

[jberryhill]

262. No, as long as you do not wish to make a criminal complaint

by calling the police when you are out on that walk, and then refuse to cooperate in the investigation of your own complaint.

[0rganism]

509. this seems like a dangerous precedent, legal or not

hypothetical: I'm taking a walk, I don't bring any ID with me, but I do have a cell phone. I observe a crime in progress, and call to report it. The police arrive and even after verifying key points of my story they arrest me for failing to present official ID when asked.

Regardless of whether that's the legal precedent in operation, is that the situation we would prefer to live with?

Doesn't that have the potential to deter reporting of serious crimes in a timely manner?

And what if, instead of not carrying ID with me, the crime I observe on my walk is the theft of my wallet which holds said ID? How could I report the theft of my wallet without being liable for not being able to present ID when requested?

[reggie the dog]

830. exactly

You are one of few people here who get the true point of this article. If I don't drive and I am not going out to a bar I do not carry ID on me while in my brith country of the USA. Here in France I was required to always have my titre de sejour (green card) on me at all times while I was a resident alien. Now that I am a citizen I can just tell them my name, but if you have an accent, or some hash in your pocket, it's easier to just carry the ID card so that you can show it to the police at an ID checkpoint and just quilckly move on once they see that your papers are in order.

[huskerlaw]

121. I'm all for civil disobedience, but

he willingly went into Circuit City and purchased items, knowing of their policy to look at the contents of the bag. Which, frankly, doesn't strike me as a violation of his rights in the least anyway. He just had those items spread out at a check-out stand for all the world to see, so who gives a shit if some guy at the door looks too? It's not like he was asked to spread the contents of his wallet on the floor.

He might have a better point regarding the driver's license. But then again, he WAS the one who called the police. If he's so concerned about America becoming some sheep-herded police state, why did HE call the cops? Particularly when HE was the one being contrary.

I don't agree with the arrest, obviously. But if this guy had followed the policies of the store that he knew of when he CHOSE to enter the premises and buy their goods, none of it would have happened.

Something tells me the ACLU won't jump all over this one.

By all means, fight the good fight. But for pete's sake, pick your battles wisely.

[jberryhill]

313. Something tells me

...that he is going to hear pretty much the same thing from an ACLU attorney.

[Connonym]

122. I see the guy's point and I have to admire him a bit for having the courage

to not just blindly comply. Seems to me like the manager effectively held the man against his will and I hope he sues the store and wins. We still supposedly have the presumption of innocence and there's (unless this slipped past me) no law that requires one to carry identification papers. Yeah the guy could have rolled over and complied but I think it's cool that he was willing to take a stand against our eroding civil liberties. I'm curious whether the store has a posted policy that they expect you to waive your right to be searched. It's one thing if they post that and you know before you enter that by shopping you are agreeing to allow search but if they don't let you know in advance that it's a condition for shopping, well I think that's wrong. They might be able to nail this guy on some legal technicality but in principle I think he's right and kudos to him for not being one of the sheeple. I think we could use a few more hell raisers here in the US.

[TahitiNut]

130. I, for one, am glad there are people willing to take a stand.

As can be seen from this thread, very few of us are willing to rock the boat for something seen as 'trivial' (compared to our very important daily activities) and I guess I'm not much different. Where I am different is that I'm not willing to demean and diss someone who "does the right thing" merely because I usually make a different decision to comply with such 'trivial' intrusions on my liberties. I don't feel obliged to defend my choice by attacking his - since I'm not that insecure. He's 'right' and I'm 'wrong' ... in principle.

[MUSTANG_2004]

312. Agreed. I'd never do it, but admire people who do. /NT

[Magrittes Pipe]

136. Michael Righi thinks the rules don't apply to him.

Bush thinks the same thing.

Defending Michael Righi's actions is tantamount to defending the Bush administration.

Is not showing your receipt at Circuit City as bad as bombing thousands of innocents? Of course not. But his idea that he is above the law and the restrictions put in place by Circuit City is no different than Bush's idea that he can do whatever he wants, and nobody can stand in his way. It's as though nobody else really exists.

Seems to me like Michael Righi is a sociopath.

[H2O Man]

162. "Sociopath"

Naw.

[WinkyDink]

167. You forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[Magrittes Pipe]

234. No, I didn't.

The guy's either incomprehensibly stupid, or honestly deluded to the point where he doesn't think he has to live by the same rules as everyone else.

[reggie the dog]

831. wrong

It was the cop that thought he did not have to live by the rules. He arrested the lad for not showing an ID card after the lad had given his name. Giving ones name is all that is required in Ohio.

[sinkingfeeling]

267. No, Michael Righi knew the law and obeyed it. No police officer has a right to

demand you show him your drivers' license as identification under Ohio's laws.

[Magrittes Pipe]

300. And it's absolutely impossible that Michael Righi is just making shit up.

If you believe half of what you read on the internet, I have a bridge to sell you. Right-wing bloggers used to post the same kind of ludicrous stories in the '90s.

[Matariki]

321. Do they have the legal right to demand *some* sort of identification?

[JVS]

789. You are blowing it out of proportion

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. He Reminds Me Of The Guy In Tom Wolfe's " A Man In Full" Who Ended Up In The Hoosegow Over A

Traffic Violation.

[Goblinmonger]

154. I am pretty much embarrassed

for the number of people that aren't pissed off at what happened AFTER this guy left the building.

[proud2BlibKansan]

285. So am I

It's jaw dropping that so many see nothing wrong with what happened to this guy.

[madmom]

166. so what's wrong with the electro magnetic things or whatever they

are that you have to walk thru as you're leaving, they buzz if your purchase has not been demagnetized at the checkout, seems it would be a lot less intrusive and easier, unless some management type needs to justify their existence.:shrug:

[OnyxCollie]

631. Most likely, Circuit City is not using security cages or sensor tags

unless the CD/DVD/game is source tagged when produced. Alpha cages (those plastic things that the cashiers take off) cost about $2 apiece. The Sensormatic tags are about a nickel apiece. The cages are reusable, the tags are not. The cages take time to put on, need to be stored, and in general are a pain in the ass for the employees.

About four years ago, I applied for an assistant manager position at Best Buy. I noticed the employees putting out product without keepers or tags. I asked the interviewer about it and he told me Best Buy relies on cameras, watchful employees, and yes, receipt checks for their loss prevention.

I walked out of the interview when I was told the wage would be $8 an hour.

[Cronus Protagonist]

168. I walk right past these people routinely

I've even had an alarm go off when I walk out of a store, and I ignore it, get in my car and drive off. Never had such a problem, but then again, I guess I've never had a Gestapo-like security guard attack me with no reason like this person.

[jayfish]

174. Similar Story Results In Apology From Retailer.

Original Story

Follow-up

Ask The Consumerist: Do I Have To Let Stores Check My Receipt?

The Straight Scoop On If Stores Can Legally Stop You And Check Your Receipt


Jay

[IndianaJones]

177. If he didn't do anything wrong, why worry? Sound familiar?

I'm not surprised in any way in some of the reactions I see here. What a bunch of sheep.

[MUSTANG_2004]

260. I agree. Stores used to have to actually have a reason

to believe the person stole something before they were allowed to detain them.

People may think he was a jerk looking to cause a ruckus, but it is exactly those sorts of people who help keep businesses and governments from stepping on our rights.

[WinkyDink]

188. TigerDirect APOLOGIZED, in similar incident. LINK:

http://consumerist.com/consumer/followups/tigerdirect-apologizes-for-unlawfully-detaining-customer-for-refusing-to-show-receipt-293353.php

Also, re: Costco: Customers sign a CONTRACT. See links.

[EFerrari]

243. Nice find. n/t

[rateyes]

242. Here's the cop's mistake...

after checking the bag and the receipt and seeing they matched should have said to the customer: "Have a nice day." There was no need to ask for I.D.

Sounds like the cop was trying to make a point, too.

[EFerrari]

249. Yes, he was. And it will likely get thrown out, n/t

[LynneSin]

252. Assuming that the blogger posted everything that happened that day

I'm not saying I trust the police 100% - I know better. I'm just saying that there are 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth. The blogger is an admitted trouble maker just from his statement in the blog that he 'doesn't want to live life smoothly'.

[rateyes]

272. I'm interested in hearing what happens to

the store manager in court for impeding the customer from leaving the parking lot.

[LynneSin]

286. I'm interested in reading the police report and then deciding who to support

There are 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth

[rateyes]

303. And, that's the reason I said that I'm interested in hearing

what happens in court...where both sides get to tell their stories.

[MyNameGoesHere]

433. you forgot to point out again that the

blogger does not want to live life smoothly.

[Occulus]

458. Yes. Because we all know that standing up against something

you don't, in principle, agree with, makes you a self-absorbed, troublemaking asshole.

He should have kept his powder dry.

:rofl:

[bemildred]

253. Contempt of Cop is always a crime. nt

[WinkyDink]

250. The FINAL LEGAL WORD:

"Are Door Bag Searches Legal?
Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details

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

[jberryhill]

269. "Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary."

Which is why, voila, the policies are usually POSTED. Don't agree. Don't buy anything.

There is a specific Ohio law posted in this thread, which over-rides a general non-authoritative web page.

[Orrex]

290. And, to underscore the point...

Circuit City's policy re: inspection of packages is posted, as a matter of corporate policy.

[WinkyDink]

354. A specific Ohio law about stores' inspections of customers' bags?

[BlackVelvet04]

450. Merely posting a policy does NOT make the bag search voluntary.

Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details

[Perky]

266. Poor little martyr...

:nopity:You picked a fight you dd not have to have.

:nopity:It was a simple courteous request that you chose to ignore.....

:nopity:Your daddy had to bail you out

:nopity:You ruined the family reunion and your sister's birthday

:nopity:You juat simply had to score some mysterious point about personal liberty in the age of rampant shoplifting. despite the grief/agrravation it caused everyone around you.


:nopity:Then you blog about it. and then you brag about it on DU.

:nopity:Great badge of honor. A Police record solely for deciding to play the martyr.

:nopity:Here's a hint. Martyrs don't get props when they are just being silly.

:puke:

[LynneSin]

291. great post

:D

[Perky]

361. OP's actions are beneath contempt

[Dukkha]

403. nice!

another grandstanding spoiled brat crybaby trying to make himself out like a victim, like all those poor oppressed christians.
If you don't like the store's policy then don't shop there. or if you DON'T want Wal-Mart to assimilate the entire retail world then help other stores keep their overhead low and profit margin up by reducing theft.

There are other reasons not to support Circuit City, like their firing of their long term employees to bring in cheaper labor. I prefer the Internet for electronics myself.

Rosa Parks you are not blog baby. Now go do something productive with your life for a change.

[banjosareunderrated]

661. So, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide," eh? n/t

[Perky]

686. Did I say that?

I am not esaying thet the Circuit Policy is completlyh appropriate.



I am saying it is nothing that some mutual common courtesy would solve everttime.


The OP is a self-confessing self-absorbed so-n-so, who cant see that his self-important actions had ripple effects beyond his ownn highlt inflated image of himself.

[banjosareunderrated]

829. yes, you did.

There is no "common courtesy" involved. Unless it's common courtesy to ask what you have in your pocket right now..... (sigh)

A BB/CC/Big Box bag is no different than a man's wallet or a lady's purse after they've paid for their item.

And, btw, this story was huge on digg and slashdot and a few others many days before it made it here. The OP is, more than likely, NOT the person that blogged.

And, the cop that demanded to see this person's DL...... wait, you prolly didn't read that far. NM.

[Mad_Dem_X]

700. Great post!

I can't believe, all this trouble just 'cause the OP wouldn't show a damn receipt. :shrug:

[reggie the dog]

832. terrible post

he was not arrested for not showing his bag, he was arrested for not showing his ID, something there is no legal obligation to do if you tell the police your name.

[Danger Mouse]

852. I'm glad some people at DU haven't lost their sanity.

:pals:

[derby378]

287. I'm on Michael Righi's side on this one

This has clearly ventured into the realm of Fourth Amendment violations. I hope Righi and his legal team gives 'em hell.

[0rganism]

516. This isn't a 4th amendment case at all, really

Mr. Righi cannot be said to have a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated. Remember, according to his story he refused to comply with the store's bag check policy, and as a result they never inspected his bags. Righi voluntarily complied with the police request to compare his receipt with contents. For legal purposes, Righi's papers and possessions were secured throughout.

Righi's potential complaint is on grounds of unlawful detention, more of a 5th amendment issue.

[Catherine Vincent]

293. Didn't Walmart/Sam's start this crap? n/t

[valerief]

296. If that happens to me, I'm turning right around and returning the merchandise.

And I'll state my reasons for it.

[Matariki]

315. Excellent response!

[Occulus]

323. It's even better if you buy it on a credit card.

They get to pay the transaction fees :D

[LynneSin]

325. You'll have to show them your receipt

oh well I've returned stuff for even dumber reasons

[WinkyDink]

357. Yes, but that would then be the customer's voluntary action.

[proud2BlibKansan]

349. I stopped shopping at Circuit City back when they fired all their

employees so they could hire new people and pay them lower salaries. That was all over DU. I am now stunned to see so many 'progressives' condoning this policy by this store. Six months ago I would have sworn hardly any DUers shop there. Now they think it is okay to search bags and arrest people for not producing identification papers.

This place is not at all the same place it used to be. :wow:

[Occulus]

352. It's the Authoritarians.

People who Obey.

[Fox Mulder]

772. Same here.

[Burma Jones]

316. I had this happen to me at K mart a couple days ago

well, the receipt check thing. I had not had that happen before....but this Kmart is frequented by minorities and I wonder whether this happens in all their stores, or just the ones frequented by minorities.

I do nearly all my shopping at Target or online....so, I haven't seen much of this receipt checking

[LynneSin]

327. I've had it from Circuit City for well over a decade

I use to buy alot of CDs from the one in Montgomeryville PA - which is more in affluent Montco area of Pennsylvania.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

329. I can empathize with his stance

Having had a SO who was put in a similar situation, I agree that some things should be questioned.

My story:

My SO took our vehicle, which was registered in both our names, and went to see a friend in the hospital that had just been in a vehicle accident.

He was shaken by the fact that our friend was in the hospital with broken vertebra in his neck and in a hurry to get in to find out how his condition was and made two mistakes which landed him in jail. He locked the keys in the car and forgot his wallet in the console of said vehicle.

When he left the hospital that night he discovered his error in leaving the keys in the car and proceeded to call me and ask that I come bring him the spare set. It took me an hour to get there as I was out of town. When I arrived I was able to find the vehicle but my SO was missing. I tried to call him on his cell and kept getting the voice mail. I checked in the hospital and at the nearby convenience stores to no avail. After two hours of searching I called the police. It was another 1.75 hours later that I finally found out my SO had been taken to jail for not having a valid from of ID on him. And it wasn't even the police who were able to give me this information, but my SO.

The police had come up to him while he was at the car in the parking garage and asked what he was doing standing there leaning on the car. He told them he'd locked himself out of his car and that I was on my way to bring him a set of keys. They asked him for his ID which he went to provide for them only to realize that he'd locked it in the car also. He was able to peer in the window and see his wallet sitting there in the console, and pointed it out to the police. He gave them his name and address and again told them I should be along within the hour. They asked what he had been doing there in the first place and he told them of the friend in the hospital and that he'd been shaken and obviously screwed up and locked the car without making sure he had his things on his person.

They ran the car and said it did come back to being registered to the person he was claiming to be. The then asked him to turn around and place his hands behind his back. When he questioned them on why they said because there's a law that says you must have valid ID on you at all times and since he did not they were going to have to take him down to the station. He tried to explain that I would be there shortly and then he could give them his ID and all would be well. They insisted on handcuffing him and taking him downtown.

Once they got him downtown they fingerprinted him and since he'd been arrested once on traffic warrants years ago his prints were in the system. I'm sure he never expected to be happy for that fact, but as things worked out he was. You see once they were able to prove it was him they believed that it was his wallet they could see in the vehicle and let him go. Which brought about a whole new problem, he was 3 miles from where his car was and his cell phone battery was dead from my repeated calls and voice messages. They refused to return him or to even call him a cab or let him use the phone. They let him out the main door and were finished with him.

He walked back to his car in the middle of the night. He said all the while he was wondering if someone else had seen the wallet in the console and had broken into the car while the police were busy dealing with him, and what I must be thinking if I saw the car broken into.

Finally he shows up at the vehicle to find my friend that I had stationed there as a watch person waiting for him while I was out driving the area looking for a sign of him.

It was one horrible night for all of us that should never have happened in the first place.

He filed a complaint and last I had heard nothing ever came from it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

356. WOW

Brown shirted thugs enforcing fascist laws.

But the response from the Circuit City cheerleaders is likely to be one of the following:

1. he deserved to be arrested for being stupid

2. if your car really had been stolen, you wouldn't want the cops to let just anyone stand next to it - especially if their wallet is IN THE CAR!! OMG That is proof he probably stole the car!!

3. he should have been jailed longer - that would teach him to stop leaving his keys and his wallet in the car!!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

375. I hadn't actually read the thread itself yet when I posted

I'd only read your OP and the story at that link.

Having now glanced through the thread I see I took the incident differently than most people here. I suppose that's due to my personal experience with what I consider to be a draconian, and needless law.

To be honest, I don't care what others have to say. What I took the most exception to was that the person in the OP was arrested for such a useless reason. It's asinine that that we're required to carry on our person our valid ID at all times when we leave our homes. If anything I feel that my experience goes to show how situations can arise which make this type of law more of a hindrance to dealing with crime than a help.

[BlackVelvet04]

622. Well just how stupid is he?

Didn't he know it was private property and he had no right to stand there? Didn't he know that in the land of the free and the home of the brave he has to carry his papers at all times? How dare he be so stupid as to actually forget his keys and wallet?

(Yes, sarcasm).

What a crappy night that must have been for you and your S.O.

[LiberalAndProud]

331. U.S. Retailers Losing $31 Billion to Theft

Retail Theft and Inventory Shrinkage
2002 Retail Security Survey Shows U.S. Retailers Losing $31 Billion to Theft

http://retailindustry.about.com/od/statistics_loss_prevention/l/aa021126a.htm


I really don't mind showing my receipt at the door, or being scanned by EAS machines on my way out. The initial catalyst for this little skirmish is petty and stupid. Being arrested for not showing ID ... another story, I think.

[MiniMe]

339. As others have said, it would be interesting to hear both sides of the story on this one

I'm not siding one way or the other. One thing to keep in mind is that we know what Michael said that he said to the manager and the cops, from Michael, and even if we assume that it is a factual account, we don't know the tone of what he said. Tone can be everything in a confrontation like that.

[ComerPerro]

347. Has anyone stopped to think that this guy did everything he could to get arrested, for the story?

[WinkyDink]

364. Did he? Breaking a non-existent "Give me your license" law? Not complying

with an arguably unenforceable store policy? Trying to escape from an aggressive person who was unlawfully preventing his departure, or even his closing his (private property) car door?

I see unlawful detention (store employee) and false arrest (cop).

[ComerPerro]

368. who knows how true any of it is. It could be entirely bullshit

[TX-RAT]

435. and false arrest (cop).

Failure to identify can lead to an arrest. His being a complete jerk didn't help.

[WinkyDink]

588. He gave his name. He was ARRESTED for not providing a DL; a crime that is not a crime.

[Pithlet]

362. I don't think stores should be able to detain you.

for refusing to show a receipt. I think they should be able to ban you from ever shopping in the store again, but detaining people who have committed no crime goes way too far. Yes, showing a receipt is no big deal, and I can see why it seems like making a mountain out of a molehill for some. But the store is also in the wrong for attempting to detain him. The guy may possibly be an ass who likes to make trouble, but he could also be the type who stands on principle, and I do think we need more people like that. Maybe stores would think twice before having these stupid policies to begin with. For some reason, stores don't do this where I live, but I can see this becoming very tiresome and I'd probably stop shopping at the stores that did this. But I'm not going to judge someone for standing up for something based on principle, even if it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The store shouldn't have detained him, and whether he blogs about not wanting to live life smoothly is irrelevant.

[HEyHEY]

363. That guy's a twat

[terrya]

371. If you're asked to show a receipt, show a receipt.

Christ, it's not THAT much of a imposition.

[Debi]

392. It seems the argument here is it is the beginning of greater things to come

first they ask for your receipt

then they ask for your driver's license

when does the slippey slope end?

I guess it started when they asked for an ID when I wrote a check? or my phone # or zip code when I used a credit card at a store?

[Pithlet]

408. For me, it isn't that they ask to see a receipt

It's the fact they may attempt to detain a person for not complying. I don't think the store has a right to actually physically detain anyone unless there is sufficient evidence that a crime has actually been committed. Failing to follow store policy is not a crime. Failing to follow a store's policy should warrant removal from the store or banning, but not detaining. Refusing to show a receipt IMO isn't sufficient evidence. Just because a store's policy is to treat everyone like a potential criminal doesn't mean one is suspicious because they assert that they aren't.

[mondo joe]

415. But, if the store has reason to believe you have stolen, do they not have

the right to stop you from exiting with what they believe are stolen goods?

For get Circuit City. Let's say it's a small independently owned bookstore, and the owner believes someone pocketed a book and is walking out with it. Does he have no right to stop the person?

If it was your house and you thought someone was stealing, would you have the right to detain them while you called the police?

[Pithlet]

431. I don't believe they have the right unless there is evidence it actually happened.

No, I don't believe anyone has the right to prevent me from leaving any public place unless I have given probable cause I've committed a crime. And failing to comply with a store policy isn't sufficient evidence, IMO. I think the owner has the right to approach me and speak with me, and then tell me never to come back if they don't like my behavior and/or I'm not complying with their policy. But, unless they saw me steal or attempt to steal something, no, they don't have the right to detain me. I think stores can ask me to show a bag and a receipt after I've made a purchase, but they cannot compel me to do so with force. It's my bag. My stuff. I can comply with your policy so I can remain in good standing with your company. But, you cannot stop me from leaving your store because I won't. Edited for clarity.

[mondo joe]

443. Point of clarification please:

What would you consider adequate evidence that "it" (theft) really happened?

[Occulus]

463. These criteria:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal or carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting2.htm

[Pithlet]

465. There are numerous signs a theft has occurred.

I couldn't possibly list them all. Things like concealing a store's item in a bag or article of clothing, and attempting to walk out of the store without paying for it. Witnessing a person walking into a store with an empty bag, and then attempting to walk with an obviously full one. The same standard as anyone in any public place. Witness a person actually attempting to commit a crime is cause to do something about it. Assuming that everyone has potentially committed a crime around you isn't.

Choosing to patronize the establishment isn't evidence a crime has been committed. Asserting your right to not be searched without cause isn't evidence a crime as occurred, no matter how petty and insignificant some may find that battle. I'm not arguing that a store shouldn't be able to ask everyone to see a receipt and prove they haven't stolen anything. They have the right to ask. I'm saying they don't have the right to use force against anyone unless they witnessed the person actually attempting to commit a crime, the same standard as anyone else. If they didn't see anything, they don't have the right to use force, and that is what detaining someone against their will is. They can kick me out of the store and tell me not to come back because I've violated their store policy.

[Bonescrat]

643. A Witness...nt

[Pithlet]

481. No. I wouldn't have the right to keep them from leaving my house.

Not unless I actually witnessed them attempting to steal something from me. I can't legally hold anyone, anywhere, just because I think they might have done something wrong. Neither can stores, regardless of their size. The independently owned bookstore doesn't have the right to detain the person simply because they suspect he/she pocketed the book but didn't actually see it happen. They can approach them, and speak with them. I have no problem with that. But, unless they saw the person actually attempt to commit the crime of stealing the book, they cannot legally physically stop them, and that's as it should be. The person can legally say in effect, "Screw you, I haven't done anything wrong" and leave. Just like the person I'm suspicious of at my own house.

In other words, no, I don't think I have the right to throw a party, and then suddenly out of the blue decide I'm not letting anyone leave my house unless they can prove to me they didn't steal anything from me. I can ask people to show me their pockets and purses as they leave, but they can legally tell me to fuck off and then leave. Then I can decide they're never coming to my house again. I don't think stores have the right to do that to their customers, either. They can certainly ask, and then bar anyone who doesn't comply from coming back.

[Debi]

422. Then don't frequent a store that you disagree with their policies

The item the man purchased is available at many retailers (many that don't have disagreeable store policies) and the less people shop at stores that have inappropriate policies the easier it will be to get the store to change.

I fall into the choose your battles category on this.

Why not file a civil rights complaint against Circuit City? Why not fire off a letter to the local ACLU? Why not head down to the local police department and complain that your civil rights were violated b/c the employee pursued the policies outlined by his employer?

Or get arrested in front of your entire family on your sisters birthday during a family reunion weekend making your father bail you out of jail and your siblings cry because there is no way in hell you're gonna bow down to the man?!

[Occulus]

438. Put up or shut up?

Keep my powder dry, you say?

All-righty, then.

[Debi]

452. *sigh* I am not the enemy

boycotts work.

[Pithlet]

442. Sorry. Just because I don't have to shop there

doesn't give stores the right to detain me without probable cause if I do choose to shop there.

I'm in the choose your battles wisely camp, too. If someone asks me to see a receipt, I'll show them. But, I won't defend the practice of detaining those who won't. A store can set up just about any policy they want to and kick anyone out and ban them for not complying. They don't have the right to detain people against their will, unless there is evidence an actual crime has been committed, and failure to comply with store policy isn't a crime.

[WildEyedLiberal]

640. It's the first step on the inevitable road to the Holocaust

According to one buffoon upthread.

[reggie the dog]

834. damn right

The point where you can be put in jail for not having your papers is very "unamerican". I live in France, a "show me your papers" country. I was born in the USA and lived there for 24 years and I loved the fact that it was not a "show me your papers" country. I think it is terrible that French police can do ID checks anywhere they want to and that they can know
1. Who is French and has a blue ID card
2. Who is a resident alien and has a pink ID card
3. Where everyone was born (it is written on our ID cards) so they can know if you are a "native born" or "naturalized" French citizen

IF they want to start rounding up people born outside of France they do not even need to change the law to legalize the ID checkpoints, they are already legal. To do the same thing in the USA would require changing the law and making the USA a "show me your papers" country.

This has basically nothing to do with the bag check, it has to do with showing an ID card versus telling your name.

How many of you have children or teenagers that often ride their bikes around town with no ID card on them?

Would you like it if your son or daughter was put in jail for not showing an ID card when they do not have one?

[reggie the dog]

833. if you

If you are asked to show your passbook proving that you are not a Jew, just show it, it's not that much of an intrusion.

[BattyDem]

373. Best Buy, Costco, Circuit City, CompUSA ...

Those stores and many others always ask to see the receipt as you leave. I believe every one of those stores has their policies posted. You're accepting those policies if you shop there. Of course, some stores say something like, "We inspect your bags and receipt before you leave the store in order to be certain that you have every item you purchased." In other words, they try to make it sound like they're looking out for YOUR best interests, LOL!

I hate this "police state" shit as much as anyone else, but you have to pick your battles. This seems like such a silly thing to take a stand on. They're not randomly searching people - they look at everyone's bags and receipts, so it's not as if the guy was targeted. Very often, if the store isn't busy and the "doorman" sees me pay for the items (the registers are usually near the door), he won't even bother asking for it. I'll reach into the bag to get it and he'll just say, "Forget it, it's fine. Have a nice day."

What happened after the police arrived could have been avoided. As "rateyes" said in a post above, once the cop saw that the receipt and the merchandise matched, he should have said, "Have a nice day" and let the guy be on his way. There was no reason to ask for ID in that situation ... assuming that it happened exactly the way the blogger said it happened. The cop and/or witnesses may tell a very different tale. Who knows?

But as for checking the receipt at the door ...
Unless I felt that I was being unfairly targeted or harassed in some way, I would have no problem showing the receipt. There are important battles to fight in the war on our civil liberties ... but taking a stand with a Circuit City employee over a store receipt does not reach the level of "important battle" for me. JMHO :-)

[Pithlet]

385. It must be a regional thing.

Except for Costco, none of those stores ever stop me for a receipt, and I don't recall ever seeing them do it to anyone else. But, I agree with you that there are better battles to pick. I just don't think they have a right to detain people for failing to comply. Ban the troublemaker from ever coming back to the store, but I do think detaining goes too far. That's where the store was in the wrong, and of course the cop was in the wrong for arresting him for not showing a license, and the fact he may or not be a PIA isn't really relevant from a legal standpoint. This is definitely low on my outrage list, though.

[mondo joe]

387. Also, Costco is a membership organization - only members can make

purchases, and part of membership is agreeing to the policies.

[BattyDem]

409. That's a good point

:toast:

[Occulus]

420. That's just another way to say, "keep your powder dry". n/t

[BattyDem]

432. That's right. Showing my store receipt is the same as our Congress ....

ignoring their constitutional duties because they don't want to cause "trouble" and are afraid of the political ramifications. My actions (or inaction) will cause the downfall of our democracy because I chose not to pick a fight with a store employee over the store's POSTED POLICY.

Get real. :eyes:


On edit: I think impeachdubya's post sums it up best:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1745824&mesg_id=1747701

[dysfunctional press]

384. boy- the guy sounds like a TOTAL ASSHOLE. i'm GLAD he got arrested...

maybe he'll learn a little something about life in the REAL world.

although that seems a little doubtful.

[EFerrari]

397. Whatever happened to creating your own reality?

lol

I wonder how old he is. :)

[reggie the dog]

835. great post obey all

Your name is question all and you are happy that someone got arrested for not showing an ID card in a country that has no law requiring that ID cards be carried or shown to police officers. In the "real world" cops are expected to follow the laws too.

[Debi]

386. If he didn't like Circuit City's corporate policies

why did he choose to shop there? If he didn't like the rule why not just turn around, return the merchandise and go down the road to a store that would sell him the merchandise with out the 'check your receipt' policy?

Then he wouldn't have gotten arrested (I know he didn't get arrested for that but he never would have been in the position to call the police if he wouldn't have gotten into the confrontation with the employees), he wouldn't have made his little sister cry on her birthday (that he forgot until the entire family was at the grocery store??? okay, whatever). And he would have had to find another way to protect his civil liberties. Oh, and he wouldn't owe his dad $300.00 for bail money either.

[BlackVelvet04]

624. What happens when because of automatic compliance

all stores start demanding to see a receipt? then where does a person shop who thinks it's wrong to demand receipts?

[Roon]

864. You get the bail money back

after court

[Left Is Write]

388. Re: the receipt check itself.

I hate receipt checks. I absolutely hate the presumption of dishonesty, particularly after I've been to the register and shelled out a bunch of my money.

It's a useless practice anyway. I have never seen a receipt-checker inspect all the bags and parcels to be certain each item is accounted for on the receipt. "Checking" the receipts pays only lip service to loss prevention, and it ticks off customers. Besides, these stores have sensors to detect merchandise that has not been deactivated.

[Debi]

396. And yet the practice gives one more person in America a job

:shrug:

Like the greeters at other stores.

[Left Is Write]

411. Let them be greeters then, if it's about providing a job.

I don't think stores need to harass their customers to be adequate employers.

[Debi]

427. And people who disagree with the store's policies can choose not to frequent

those establishments. No customers, no store, no questionable policies.

[Left Is Write]

436. I don't disagree.

It would be really nice, though, if those receipt checkers realized that the customer is under no legal obligation to allow his belongings to be searched.

[Debi]

451. It would also be nice if jerks wouldn't shoplift and we could trust everyone who walked into a store

We actually worked for a lady here who brought store-name bags into the store (shoved into her pockets) and filled them w/merchandise as she wandered the aisles. Then she went out the side around the checker and walked right out the store. Employee stops her - she yells and causes a scene "the checker just BAGGED my purchase can't you SEE THAT" - they call police and arrest her b/c she can't provide a receipt (she blamed checker for not giving her the receipt). I won't tell you how much our office charged for her criminal defense - I will tell you that we cut our fee so she could pay her fines after she found out the store had surveillance cameras and agreed to plead guilty. Yet, she still says she did nothing wrong.

I realize that is just one case - but it obviously happens and thieves have gotten smarter and sneakier - the receipt check is just a small way to attempt to counter theft. (I'm not a fan of it either btw and cannot recall the last time I set foot in Circuit City or Best Buy - my way of letting them know I'm not a fan of their policies).

[RamboLiberal]

439. I have had every bag checked against the receipt

Been awhile. Before I was enlightened about Wal-Mart a Sam's Club I went to did check every item against the receipt.

And a CompUSA store near my office that I frequented that is now closed for several years checked every item in the bag against the receipt. Sometimes Best Buy will do this as well in my area.

[FredScuttle]

389. "I reopened the door to talk with Joe "

I wonder why he didn't just roll down the window?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

416. I've got to laugh at this jerk inconveniencing his family...

sitting there in the car while this guy was 'grandstanding'. I'm sure that was how they planned on celebrating the family reunion and his sister's birthday. Wonder if that monkey bread ever got made. I'd have driven off and left his ass there.

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.) ...

<snip>

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....

[jberryhill]

512. Something about the early part of the story...

Gave me the impression this family doesn't get together any too often, and there are probably complex reasons for that.

[mitchum]

421. Off topic: The Power Squid is one of the greatest products ever!

Hell, I would do unpaid commercials for the thing

[orleans]

425. from what i remember, circuit city has cash registers spread out all

over the store. if they have such "issues" with store theft then maybe they should line their registers up in one spot like a grocery store.

can you imagine someone at a grocery store checking everyone's receipt on their way out the door?

back in the day, stores had to have a reason to search a purse or bag, such as a store detective following you around and seeing you slip something in your purse.

if circuit city doesn't check EVERY FUCKING PERSON then they are profiling--they're looking at the minorities, the people with a tattoo on their arm, the ones with a rip in their jeans.

[Tesha]

474. Your memory is oncorrect; the cash registers are lined up at the front. (NT)

[orleans]

658. nope. my memory is correct. i just asked my daughter (who went with me

a few years ago--the only time i was ever in a circuit city store) and she said yes, they had registers spread out around the store--because we paid at a register that was toward the back of the store.

she also tells me that she went back there lately (since christmas--she got a gift certificate) and the registers are up near the front. so they changed their layout, but they used to be all spread out like penny's or carson's registers at the mall

[Tesha]

684. Then your Circuit City is arranged differently than my Circuit City. (NT)

[Crabby Appleton]

820. Last time I was in a circuit city (about 10 years ago)

that was the layout - cash registers spread out.

[Warren DeMontague]

445. Oh, for fuck's sake. Not this bullshit again. If you want outrageous encroachments on freedom, try

the folks doing 20 year mandatory minimum sentences for growing pot for cancer grannies.

This numbnuts played some silly, smarmy game with store security and now he's a brave Spartacus fighting for freedom? Gimme a break. I spent years working in retail and I know precisely the personality type. Always trying to game the system, always trying to weasel some bullshit scam. Scratching out the expiration date on the .50 cent off coupon. Arguing for an hour with the video store guy about the late fee, because "if I dropped it off after 10 pm, no one else could rent it anyway". :eyes:

Sorry, but if you shop at a store you are subjecting yourself to their policies. Costco- a fine establishment that I am glad to patronize- checks everyone's reciept upon leaving the premises. Big fucking deal. Unlike the GOP, they're not trying to make your birth control against the law- they're trying to prevent shoplifting.

This is not an "assault on our freedom", this is some doubtless some anarchy-symbol tatooed community college asshat with WAY too much time on his hands.

[BattyDem]

453. Exactly.

:toast:

[likesmountains 52]

454. Thank you...I have never batted an eye when I have to show my receipt at Costco or any other store..

seems like this guy was hoping to stir something up..

[Raejeanowl]

523. You've Got It!

Way too much time for dreaming up ways to waste everyone else's time.

[SallyMander]

455. Choose your battles, people

just show the daggone receipt.

Save your jailtime for something that matters, like protesting the illegal war we're currently engaged in.

If there were evidence that, for example, only black customers were being made to show receipts, then THAT would be something to get up in arms about. This was just some poor shmo trying to do his job, treating everybody the same.

Just my 2 cents.

[reggie the dog]

836. the jailtime

The jailtime had nothing to do with the recipt and everything to do with not showing an ID card in a country where you do not have to show ID cards. He was not arrested for refusing to show his receipt because there is no LAW reqiring him to do so, just a store policy.

[Raejeanowl]

462. What a Tempest in a Teapot

You know, there are battles and there are battles. This guy's overweening vision of himself as a champion civil libertarian-provocateur, as told by him in his blog, is not one I wish to endorse.

I think he is a self-delusional ass, and a discredit to civil rights activism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

469. Last timeI was challenged at FryiesI

I start quoting the Fourth Ammendment...

They back down so quicly it is actually funny

But this is califoornia... and I would have an easy time suing the pants out of them

[ecstatic]

472. DRAMA. KING. to the 10th degree. LMAO nt

[Tesha]

477. The *NEXT TIME* anybody gets in a huff about why this country is in the toilet...

The *NEXT TIME* anybody gets in a huff about wondering
why this country is in the toilet and we can't muster
enough people who seem to care, remember this thread.

This is *EXACTLY* an example of why we can't get people
to oppose Bush and the rest of the fascist agenda. We
can't even muster a plurality of DUers to oppose this
guy's blatantly illegal arrest.

Tesha

[LynneSin]

493. There's a big difference opposing Bush and the rest of the fascist agenda

vs. Showing your damn receipt before you leave circuit city.

It's called priorities - the guy clearly was looking to make a stink over something that personally 99.999% of the world could care less about.

[Tesha]

515. That's not what he was arrested for, Lynne, and you've been told that repeatedly. (NT)

[LynneSin]

548. No - you don't understand

This all started because he felt for some godforsaken reason to not show the receipt. This guy was itching for a fight - he even said "I don't live life smoothly"

Seriously - get a clue. And btw, don't believe everything you read just because it's on a blog. He called the police and yet the police arrested him - I'm thinking he started threatening the police and/or the store employees

I'm embarassed that DUers think this is some sort of rallying call. We have bigger fish to fry

[Pithlet]

552. I don't think preventing stores from being able to hold us illegally is that petty of an issue.

If stores are detaining people because they aren't complying with their foolish receipt policy, then that is a big deal. People don't have the right to detain other people against their will without probable cause, and store policies do not override that. We aren't defending the idiot's actions. We're defending his right to not be held against his will. It doesn't matter how stupid or itching for a fight he was. The store did not have the right to do that to him, even if he's the most ridiculous blogger on the internet. The right not to be detained against ones will is not a matter to be taken lightly. No, I don't make a big stink when a store asks to see my receipt. But I still won't defend the store if they hold someone else who does. The principles that are involved are important, and it's possible to feel strongly about that and care about other important issues as well.

[Tesha]

554. And I don't think false arrest on trumped-up charges is a petty issue either.

(Agreeing with Pithlet)

[Pithlet]

556. Definitely not.

It's not about whether someone is a selfish jerk who just wants to stir the pot and live dangerously, and posts to a stupid blog. The law is the law. I'm not making any judgments about the case being discussed, but generally speaking, if the law doesn't require you to turn over your DL to the cops, then they don't have the legal authority to arrest you for it. If a store asks you to show the receipt and you don't, they don't have the right to hold you. I don't get why those points are ridiculous or frivolous.

[LynneSin]

563. So you assume everything you read in that blog is 100% accurate

I mean, why did the guy get out of the car - why not just roll down the window?

Personally I think it's scary that people are making stupidity a rallying cause and why the fuck was some liberal protest shopping at Circuit City anyways? It's a red company that laid off long term employees to help save money. I quit shopping there over a year ago

[Pithlet]

571. I don't assume any of it is true.

But, if it is true, then the blogger is in the right, then it is absolutely a perfectly valid cause to rally around, and an important one if one so chooses. Nothing scary about it. We're talking about basic rights, here. People will often discuss these things and the "if it is true" is implied. It is also true that stores have indeed done what Circuit City is accused of doing, and it's possible for a person to discuss the issue generally. I think the innocent until proven guilty principle is a very important one, even if I don't personally choose to challenge a store on a stupid receipt policy. Sometimes it is the small battles that count, and I don't find it particularly galling for a person to stand up and say "I haven't done anything wrong, and I resent your implication that I have." And when they do, the consequences should be no more severe than the store saying "Fine. Don't shop here again if you don't like our policy".

ETA that yeah, I don't shop there anymore either after they pulled that stunt with their employees. But, that's irrelevant, because that guy could be the most right wing ass on the planet, and I'd still defend him just as vigorously, assuming the story is true.

[bananas]

504. Exactly correct. nt

[EFerrari]

510. Get back in line!

:(

[treestar]

514. Exactly. It is remiscent of the Keeping Our Powder Dry argument

If somebody has the gumption to stand up to it, the last thing anyone needs to be doing is lecturing people about Choosing Your Battles. If someone else chose a battle, at least they did that rather than just giving in. When you start giving in, you keep giving in and that's how this country got to where it is today.

Nobody should shop at this store, and if one cannot afford the stuff they sell elsewhere, then do without it! Teach them not to overstep our boundaries like this!

Instead we go on teaching them that we'll take it, and so they increase it another level, and then we take that, because we're keeping our powder dry and choosing our battles.

[Ian_rd]

480. Wow. I wish I had the amount of free time this dude must have.

[Blue-Jay]

485. I don't get it.

Taking five seconds out of your day before leaving someone else's PRIVATE PROPERTY in order to prove that you actually purchased something is neither an invasion of privacy, nor is it a Big Deal.

[reggie the dog]

837. I don't get it

Taking 5 seconds out of your day to show the passbook that lets you come into and out of GAZA is no big deal.


If the police have the right to randomly ask for ID cards who know's where it will stop.

Ther is a no fly list, and a list of people to hassle when they fly. Why not start random ID checks and fuck with the same people that are on these lists in places other than airports, I mean with computers, it will only take 5 seconds.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

490. Well, he got what he wanted

Me and a bunch of others to waste three minutes of our lives reading about some Andy Kaufman-like stunt at a big box store.

[treestar]

497. They have no case under that ordinance

It refers to "public officials" and the store and its security people are not public officials.

Once you've paid, the contract is over - if they can't trust people to go from the cash register to the door without stealing something else, they need to change their layout.

Or get out of the business - if they can't come up with a better way to prevent theft than this.

Most people would just give in to this, so :yourock:

It's the kind of mental conditioning that makes people into sheep.

Usually authoritarian wannabes like Joe know when to back off - sounds like this one thought the power of the state should honor his "authority."

[John Kerry VonErich]

511. I see the author getting sued

he used real names, and you cannot do that without permission of the person named.

[Raejeanowl]

525. Wonder If He Knows This

Since he's such a law expert.

Seems his main concern is getting HIS side of the story out there first.

[ret5hd]

531. Shows what you know.

[MUSTANG_2004]

536. Is this a prank?

Of course you can use someone's name without permission. You can't libel them, but stating facts is fine.

[John Kerry VonErich]

546. We only know through his eyes.

What does the other side say?

Let me clear this up more, naming the police officer is fine since that is public record. But he named the manager he had a problem with in full. He could've used his first name only, then things would've been fine. Now the manager might as well suffer harrassing calls at work and maybe at home. If you were in the manager's shoes and gotten those thing only to find out your real name is in a ranting blog, you would think differently. The author is right, but he could've written it much differently so things can be settled more peacefully.


And you don't have to be a law expert to see that.

[blonndee]

635. Jeez, anyone who's seen even a few episodes of Judge Judy

knows more than you do about libel and slander.

[Maddy McCall]

533. K/R

Mr Righi is right on.

[Raejeanowl]

535. I Shop at a Local BJ's

And there is frequently a uniformed county police officer present at the exit, SIDE BY SIDE with the person checking receipts. And if you don't frequent BJ's, they don't use bags, but OPEN shopping carts.

People, what don't some of you get about the part where you are removing merchandise from their store and they're asking you to prove you (now) own it? We're not talking about opening your purse or emptying your pockets or showing why you have a lump in your shirt.

This is part of a loss prevention program that is attempting nothing more sinister than keeping profits reasonable and prices in check. If you believe this is Big Brother's way of spying on your purchases and your Constitutional rights are being abridged, then perhaps those who opt-out and bypass the voluntary inspection, should opt-in to paying a 10% loss prevention surcharge on all merchandise, then going straight to the express exit.

It's this kind of petty, middle-school-level b.s. than earns liberals a reputation as cranks and nut jobs.

We have bigger fish to fry.

[american_typeculture]

537. Per haps I will just post No Trespassing signs in my yard.

If anybody comes on my property, I will just shoot them in the face. I mean, I posted no trespassing signs. Certainly they can read and since I posted the signs I will be well within my right to shoot any trespassers.

:sarcasm:

I might actually get away with that in Florida.

[taterguy]

557. The guy wants his rights respected but doesn't respect my right to clean air?

What the fuck is he doing driving a car to Circuit City? Are his legs broken? Is he unable to walk?
Has he noticed that the environment is being trashed and people are dying every day because people are too fucking lazy to get anywhere unless they have a crutch of an outdated internal combustion engine?

[jberryhill]

565. HIS RIGHT TO BUY DISNEY MERCHANDISE IN THE MANNER HE CHOOSES

[taterguy]

570. Do I have a right to clean air?

It's a simple yes or no question

[jberryhill]

574. It was an ironic comment

...about a guy buying Disney crap and complaining about fascism.

Put the gun down.

[taterguy]

575. So now you're assuming that I'm predisposed to violence

How dare you :)

[jberryhill]

587. But of course...

You... you.... clean air thug, you.

Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

And that goes for your clean air, too.

Er, uh, something like that.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

560. I need to examine your brains and posts before letting you leave this thread.

[slowry]

567. Reminds of those PrisonPlanet kids

who go to political conventions / gatherings / whatever, and scream "questions" at politicians, non-stop, until they are (naturally) escorted out -- "FASCISTS!!!!!".

[jberryhill]

572. Psychologists, check in please

Okay, "my father and his wife".... one adult sister and two little sisters... "had forgotten" one of the little sister's birthdays, which they were then going to celebrate.

Acting out can compensate for a whole lot of unresolved hurt.

I'll take bets on how old he was when his parents divorced, and how that compares to the age of his little sister.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

581. very observant

I'd say he was 9 to 12 when the divorce happened - His little sister is about 9 to 13 years younger than him.

I've been following this thread all day (I'm crazy that way)

It has run off the tracks and jumped back on a few times...

I am conflicted over this a bit... BUT - I do have a story....

I live about 2 blocks from a FRY'S Electronics - It is VERY handy to have this so close... BUT - they too have the check your receipt and bag rule.

I was with my two kids and pushing a cart full of various stuff when I got to the door and couldn't find the f-ing receipt... I had just had it in my hand and yet, for the life of me, could not find the G-D receipt. All my stuff was bagged but the guy at the door just could not believe that I wasn't shop lifting all this stuff.

He would not let me leave until I located said receipt.

I was almost crying... probably due to having two kids under the age of five with me and a case of PMS (this was about 4 years ago.) I dumped the entire contents of my purse out on a table to inspect every nook and cranny... No receipt. Finally - I noticed my little boy had a long streamer in his hand...
He had the sacred receipt... After all of this and getting back in line to wait my turn to be "inspected" the same guy looked at the fucking receipt and didn't even look at my cart full of crap as he drew a pink line on it and told me to go ahead and leave... I WAS SO PISSED OFF! He didn't even look at my stuff and yet he was intent upon making my life a living Hell... I went and ratted him out to the management who were hiding behind a mirrored wall watching all of this...
I told them how much I hated being treated like a criminal and that Nordstrom doesn't torture their customers like this and so on....

They smiled and patted me on my head and sent me on my way...

I have never misplaced the receipt again - ever.... I MEAN I WILL HOLD IT IN MY TEETH to keep from losing it... BUT I still shop there because it has stuff that no-place else, on the planet, has.

So... I have screwed myself out of a civil liberty...

[jberryhill]

613. "He didn't even look at my stuff"

They catch him letting you out the door without marking that receipt - he's fired.

I have a similar story too, though....

I was at a shopping mall in a state that doesn't have an indoor smoking ban. It was freezing cold outside and I had to wait for some people.

It had been about two hours since my last cigarette, so while I was walking around the Pepperidge Farm I lit up a cigarette.

I had security on me like white on rice telling me the entire MALL had a "no smoking policy". I told them that it was LEGAL to smoke indoors in their city and state, and they weren't having any of it.

Some people... I'll tell ya.

[The Doctor.]

664. Oh dear God...

When a place goes so far to inconvenience someone, they should be inconvenienced in return and in kind.

I would have seriously considered dumping each of my bags on the floor in front of the exit 'looking' for the receipt. I would explain to the people trying to enter and leave that 'they wouldn't let me out until I find it, can you please help?', until I had a half-dozen people helping. I think it would make the point that such requests aren't that important. -Ok, that's one option.

I remember a more civilized age when store would have 'security' that would surreptitiously monitor customers and only stop them after they left the store and only if they were certain and could prove that the person stole something.

I'll admit to being somewhat torn on the issue, but I tend to side with not wanting to be treated as though I'm a criminal on my way out of the store.

I'll avoid CC.

[AZBlue]

590. Interesting point

I mean, I'm sure this isn't the first time he's been asked for a receipt. Why pick a family gathering and your sister's birthday as the day to cause trouble.

Much ado over nothing if you ask me. I only wish people asking me for a receipt was the worst of my problems!

[jumptheshadow]

845. Bingo

That's what leapt out of the OP. A reunion with his father's family...buying a sister's birthday gift...children in the car crying...deliberate actions taken that will result in an arrest and will ruin the sister's birthday, the reunion with his father's family AND inflict a psychic injury which the kids feel for life. This guy was a self-centered jackass or he was acting out an old psychic wound. Or both.

Stores like Circuit City have had this policy for years. Mom worked at a department store when she retired and had to show her bags and receipts when she punched out. Shrinkage can mean the difference between a healthy store or a closed one. If you don't like the policy then you have the right not to shop there.

[reggie the dog]

586. you are missing the point

So many of you have cars that you are missing the point. There is no legal requirement to carry ID in the USA like there is where I live now in France (you can have another witness to back up your claim of name but if you are alone you need to have your national ID card on you). In the states you only need a drivers permit to DRIVE. If I am not driving I carry no ID when I am in the USA. I would not have been able to show my ID because I wouldn't have had it with me. Would it have been right to take me to the station too? How could I have been busted for interfering with official business if I did not have the document the cops were demanding and have no legal obligation to have said document in my possession?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

592. He Should've Just Let Them Look In The Bag. However, I Absolutely Applaud Him For Standing Up To

the cop in the way he did, because he's absolutely right when he says he didn't have to comply. Knowledge is power and in this case he exercised it. Unfortunately the cop chose to act inappropriately by falsely arresting him, but undoubtedly (if his version of the story is true) the charges will be thrown out and the cop even potentially scolded. I give him much kudos for standing up as he did. But that's separate from the receipt issue. He should've just let them look in the bag and not created an unnecessary problem (since they do have the right to look in the bag, and they're not being evil or something by doing so. Just be polite and open the bag). So on that front, I think he was being overly dramatic. But that's irrelevant as it relates to his arrest, and insofar as his convictions in standing up to the officer by using knowledge of the law, I absolutely applaud him.

[johnnie]

645. He called and demanded an investigation

Part of the investigation was to prove who he was and he refused to do it. He interfered with the investigation and was arrested for it.

[RamboLiberal]

593. Hope this idiot is telling the truth cause so far he's raised

The total raised so far is $3,225.55. (This amount represents the total after PayPal took their cut.) I will use this money to fight the charges brought against me by the Brooklyn, Ohio Police Department. If any money remains after paying my attorney I will donate the excess money to the ACLU so that they may fight to prevent this from happening to others in the future. September 6th, 2007 @ 7:53PMEST Update: My legal fees have already exceeded $7,500. Donations are still kindly welcomed, but not necessary.

.....

If anybody is still confused about why I choose to live my life based on principles, I recommend that you read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. If only this world had more Howard Roarks…

http://www.michaelrighi.com/

I still think he's a doofus for not showing the receipt and just be done with it. Could've shown the receipt, complained to the manager, wrote the company - course now he'll be a celebrity! And an Ayn Rand fan at that!

[Liberty Belle]

595. I can envision all sorts of reasons why a person would not want a bag searched.

I'm a reporter. I've been known to talk with sources on my cell phone while out at a store, then stash my notepad in my bag. These are confidential sources.

What if a teenager stashed a personal note from a boyfriend or girlfriend in a shopping bag?

Or you had your shopping list in there which including some embarassing personal items? Or you'd just come from the doctor's office next door and had your medical test results that you'd tossed in the bag to avoid carrying a bunch of loose papers?

Or you're a pregnant Mom who didn't quite make it to the store restroom in time and stashed your damp unmentionables in that bag?

Or you've got your kids with you and junior's favorite toys are in there?

The list goes on and on, but the point is it's nobody's business what's in your bag unless the store has probably cause to believe you stole something (such as someone seeing you shoplift or if you are caught on tape).

[Boudica the Lyoness]

599. I'm not a common criminal

and I'm sick and tired of being treated like one. I plonked down $4000 in Comp USA about 7 years ago and when we were leaving some punk went all through every single bag in the cart comparing each item to the receipt. We even had the store employee with us the whole time who put our order together and stayed with us through the check out to help us get it in the rig. When I complained I was told that there are employees who help customers steal stuff. You'd think when a customer spends $4000 that they'd be treated well instead of being humiliated like that. From now on when I'm treated like shit I go to customer service and get my money back and not shop there again. Well done on making a stand. Airports are the same only worse. At airports we are treated like potential killers, even my MIL 80+ in a wheelchair!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

627. Should have demanded to return the merchandise w/full refund

on the grounds that the following humiliation was not worth it.

[RamboLiberal]

603. This smells - people this guy is a millionaire

Check out what I discovered using Google!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1750542

[proud2BlibKansan]

633. Well that does it

We now know this story has to be bullshit since he is a wealthy man!!

:sarcasm:

[reggie the dog]

838. all the better

I am from a relatively well off middle class family (my parents were more well off than I am today) and knowing that my parents could help pay for lawyers was a relief. I stood up to the cops BS policy of pulling teenagers over for driving while young, I REFUSED to grant consent to the cops to search me, they searched with no warrant, found cannabis, and I was found innocet in court BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
I protested against govt. policy that takes financial aid away from students with drug convictions by participating in a smoke in on campus (which got no real attention from anyone, including the cops) because I knew that I risked very little considering that my parents paid for my education and could pay for a lawyer.
I fought authority at high school when district policy said that you could not wear tshirts advertising for beer, tobacco and illegal drugs. They tolerated the budweiser shirts with the frogs, but my legalize cannabis shirt annoyed them.
Being well off and having a chip on my shoulder I threatend the administration with a law suit, because my shirt was clearly not an ad for illegal drugs, it was a political statement demanding a change in law. Well I never had a problem with that tshirt again.


having money does not automatically make you an asshole.

lots of people that have money are on the left (Kennedy brothers, Gracus brothers).

To this family the 300 dollars bond isn't shit so why not let them fight the battle against mandatory ID cards?

[L. Coyote]

619. Was this person shopping while black?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

623. "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly."

Gee, had me fooled.

[ronnykmarshall]

625. Circuit City sucks in the first place.

They laid off "over paid" workers. I wouldn't buy a stick of gum in that dump.

[Crabby Appleton]

638. I agree nt

[onehandle]

632. Another Stupid Ass Non-Issue gets voted up to the front page.

You can find the dumbest shit at DU in three places.

1) The DU Lounge

2) The September 11 Forum

3) The Front Damn Page


The top dogs at DU really need to rework how things get to the front page.

[LynneSin]

636. Hey but at least in the lounge we don't take it as serious

:shrug:

Come hang out with us - we're a fun crowd and we won't insist on looking thru your bags or demanding a receipt

[Danger Mouse]

826. I'm going to have to ask you to leave the premises.

:evilgrin:

[everydayis911]

637. Sorry to

Hear you got arrested, but it is a private establishment and it's no big deal. Now if I am walking down the street and some guy in a Circus City uniform grabs my bag and tells me he wants to see my receipt that's an invasion. But at Circus City that is his job. Even Best Buy does it. Doesn't make it any better, but most stores that carry electronics do that. If you don't like it don't shop there, it's been their policy for years.

[proud2BlibKansan]

644. He didn't get arrested for refusing to show his receipt

[BlooInBloo]

641. I don't really have anything to say, I just wanted to be a part of the longest GD thread I've seen.

[ruiner4u]

650. im bullish on kudzu

its going places...

[RamboLiberal]

648. Story has made the Cleveland newspaper - Plain Dealer

-----

When officer Ernie Arroyo arrived a few minutes later, Righi wouldn't cooperate and refused to hand over his driver's license. Arroyo charged Righi with obstructing official police business.

“We have the right to inspect parcels leaving our premises,” Circuit City spokeswoman Jackie Foreman said. “This is a common practice in the retail industry designed to hold down costs and prevent shoplifting. We think most consumers understand this.”

Brooklyn police seem to agree.

“If you don't like their policy at a particular store, don't shop at that store,” Deputy Chief Scott Mielke said.

But is that stance legal?

No, according to law experts, the Ohio attorney general's office and the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/other/118906951630511.xml&coll=2&thispage=2

[bridgit]

649. Wherever is seems such measures are Draconian, these are not issues...

that impugn unduly upon 'civil liberties' so most as they are attempts to deal with larger retail/merchandising of grift, graft & loss prevention from employees to customers in the 100's upon 100's of millions of dollars if not billions

i don't find it a mere happenstance that the byline is Circuit City. Personal home electronics stores where many smaller items are found easily concealable i.e. CD's, DVDs, game boxes & games, ink cartridges, audio/video connection equipment (a 6' HDMI cable at Best Buy is some $55 + tax and could be slipped into a coat pocket), are ripe for stuff walking out both the front door and the back door

sure it effects other people down the line, but the matter of loss prevention is a real one, if over zealous security personnel are too froggy that is another matter...

they ask for a receipt walking out i just show them the damn thing and it's done

[jberryhill]

671. Yeah, sure, that's what you do TODAY....

...but next week you'll be saying the same thing while you round up DU members and load them onto railroad cars to the camps.

Your kind is a threat to human rights.

Or, whatever.

[bridgit]

693. pft, from the piece nut-ball, "I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had...

"...agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver's license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being."

you wanna live your life sticking the tip of your pee-pee into mouse trips you do have the right to do so :rofl:

you have the right to fuck up your very own labor day on a whim with a Buick pulled up outside like a getaway car as well for that matter...just be little surprised if & when you run up against others exercising their perceived or codified rights as well

it is because of people just like YOU that the rest of us now have to empty our pockets before some minimum wage shit-head just to get home thanks allot ya'dim wit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxyJ6OYLVzg

[Liberal_in_LA]

668. Brooklyn, Ohio Police Chief's contact: [e-mail]

City of Brooklyn

Police Department
Mark Tenaglia, Police Chief

7619 Memphis Avenue

Brooklyn, Ohio 44144

[phone]

[e-mail]

[AtomicKitten]

675. I read only stores like Costco can demand to see a receipt --

and it's because they wrote it into the membership contract.

Otherwise, a customer is not legally obligated to cough up a receipt.

[sss1977]

680. Shameful DU responses

At first, while reading this story, I thought it was silly for him to not show his bag, but after reading the entire thing and then reading the hundreds of responses to it, I'm extremely proud of him for what he did. Don't you get it? There are no small battles. All this pick your battles wisely crap is just that. He knew his rights and he stood up for them. No matter how small a "battle" that is, he's still doing more to protect his own rights and by extension all of ours, than those of you who willingly give them up for convenience. And I think it's even worse that we should so willingly even call it a battle at all, to not have your rights violated.

By choosing the difficult route, and posting his story, it created a discussion that has prompted many responses for and against his actions, and these are exactly the kinds of discussions we need for things like this that we consider to be such an everyday violation of our rights, that we no longer care. Wake up people, you have rights, either fight to keep them, or give them up, but don't look down on others for fighting to keep them, no matter how small you feel those rights are.

There are two issues here that hopefully people will walk away from this story having permanently gleaned.

1) Of course the store has the right to request to see your receipt, but they can not force you to do so. It's good policy for them to ask, but that's all they can do. They hope you will do so, and if you choose to do so by actually making that choice instead of believing you have no choice, great, you are helping them. If you refuse, they must let you walk out the door unless they have some kind of evidence that you actually may have pocketed something without paying for. And I have to say in response to someone actually saying probable cause is refusing to show the contents of your personal possession... wow... just wow. For anyone to think that would be true, must mean they are so used to being searched they think declining a search shows evidence of guilt. That's just sad.

2) The cop obviously either didn't know he couldn't ask for the driver's license with no car involved, or he knew and did it anyway. Either way, the author did nothing wrong. He gave his name and then declined to show his driver's license. The cop did everything wrong by falsely arresting him.

Think about it. He knew his rights. He obviously has taken the time to study his rights. And not only that, he has decided to forego convenience to fight for them, all of them. He is an informed citizen. Now think of what the country would be like if there were more informed citizens? If everyone cared more for their "small" rights, do you think they'd be so willing as they are now to give up their "big" ones? Still feel like calling him an asshole or a loser?

However small an issue you may think this is, the receipt checker learned something new, the cop learned something new, and every single person to read the description of these events and the discussion it has caused in multiple discussion forums has learned something new.

I say bravo and thank you, both for the post itself, and the resultant discussion.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

688. Excellent post.. Thank you.

You made a very good point, there are no small battles when it comes to protecting our rights.

[EFerrari]

690. Welcome to DU, sss1977.

:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

695. Thank you

and welcome to DU!! :hi:

[Pithlet]

710. Great post. I don't understand why people think stores should be able to enforce their policies

as law. I don't get it, myself. There's a thread about the no call list, and people are upset to find that there is an expiration date on the list. I wonder why no one is arguing that it's no big deal, just don't answer the phone, or hang up on them. It takes two minutes. Why get so upset and make a mountain out of a molehill? People who fought for and put themselves on the no call list are just jerks who like to make trouble. Just hang up and be done like the rest of us. :sarcasm:

[Xipe Totec]

756. Welcome to DU!

Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[banjosareunderrated]

784. great post.

[BlackVelvet04]

800. Great post.....

thank you.

[TahitiNut]

863. Excellent post! Welcome to DU. Lucid thnking and writing benefits ALL of us.

:hi:

Most of the folks here who say "pick your battles" are merely picking their noses.

Just like DUmbya.

[Danger Mouse]

682. This is one of the silliest thread I've ever seen on DU.

I agree that the fact that the guy was arrested was absurd and should not have happened. HOWEVER, he also should have shown the damn receipt. What's the big deal? How is it an infringment on civil liberties? What is with this 'papers please' bullshit?
I don't have a problem with it. It's not like you're devulging anything. I've worked in retail before, and you lose a LOT to shoplifting. I WISH we had done something like that at the store I worked at, just to cut down on 'shrink' even a little. There are so many things DUer's should REALLY be concerned about right now (what about fucking IRAN, for one?)
This is one hell of a stupid thing to get so shrill about. Keep whining about this poor, oppressed moron right up to the moment Bush nukes Tehran.

[proud2BlibKansan]

696. Don't you get it?

The reason bush CAN nuke Iran is because his 'people' are conditioned to act like sheeple and NOT object when asked to show their 'papers'.

[Demintheusa]

699. Not the receipt...the fact the cop the COP violated his rights

OK THE COP PEOPLE THE COP not the receipt you all focus on gawd...

[proud2BlibKansan]

782. Where did I say the receipt?

"Papers" means identification. Doesn't it?

[reggie the dog]

839. papers?

I got some papers, 1.5's......


a bit of humour to one of the few people that understands the significance of this story.

I vote on the left, Communist and Socialist here in France, Green and Democrat in the USA.

Economically I am on the left. But as far as my liberties are concerend I am very libertarian (small l because I do not like the political party that would stop funding public schools etc). This is problably because so many members of my family are criminals thanks to the war on drugs. If they can stop and ask for your ID, because it only takes 5 seconds, they could also ask you to empty your pockets (only 5 seconds) and bust you for the joint you have. To those of you that think I am just a criminal I think I am one of many people who have 1 out of 3 members of their extended family considered criminals because they use cannabis, probably a lot of you are in a simillar situation.

[Danger Mouse]

827. A good deal of the people who are screaming the loudest...

are those focusing on the receipt.

[Danger Mouse]

824. Papers? Papers???

It's a receipt. Again, what's the big deal?
I'm sorry. I don't get it. I don't see what this has to do with Bush. The police officer was out of line, but I can't get behind what the guy did to land himself in that situation in the first place.

[Demintheusa]

697. Your right lets focus on the wars

and piss our rights away while doing it good call =)

[Danger Mouse]

825. Piss away our rights? What righ, specifically, is being violated by being asked to show a receipt?

[reggie the dog]

840. what right?

This person was arrested for NOT SHOWING AN ID CARD AFTER GIVING THE COP HIS NAME.
This is about our right to circulate freely within our own country without having an ID card with us.

[Danger Mouse]

850. I thought it was routine for the cops to request identification.

Especially if the person involved is being an obnoxious prick.

[reggie the dog]

859. It's the USA

They can ask you who you are, acording to recent supreme court rulings, but there is no law that requires that you carry ID. If they was it would be normal to get arrested for not showing your ID card.

[spindoctor]

683. Amusing foremost. Definitely unwise. No bigger battles to fight?

I didn't read all the comments, but I didn't see any actual legal knowledge at first sight.

I think that as long as you are on CC property, they can pretty much ask you to do anything or refuse you to take your (possible) purchase out of the store. Once you're out the door, then that's it.

I have some sympathy for their policy because I know how some stores have to suffer from shoplifting. You can joke about it, which is basically what you are doing, but what do you suggest stores do to prevent their inventory from being jacked from under their noses?

So basically you are fighting two underpaid store attendants and a cop being put in a difficult situation. My heart is bleeding for the injustice bestowed upon you and I have no doubt that you will make it into the book of martyrs for those who think that prinicples should trump reality at all costs.

But I find it most entertaining. Too bad you don't have it on video.

[lapfog_1]

704. Applicable law in CA

Here is the applicable law.

(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.
A theater owner may detain a person for a reasonable time for the
purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the theater owner has probable cause to believe the person
to be detained is attempting to operate a video recording device
within the premises of a motion picture theater without the authority
of the owner of the theater.

The key here is "probable cause"... You not wanting to show your
receipt or have your shopping bag opened is NOT probable cause.

Settled case law in CA... Which is why, whenever I leave Fry's Electronics,
I breeze right by the checkout guys... and they NEVER EVER say a word other
than to offer to check my bag. Because they've been instructed to not
detain anyone that doesn't want to be checked.

[spindoctor]

730. Does the OP have a problem with the usher in a theater checking his ticket?

Seems pretty much the same thing to me. Since you brought up theaters, this jumped to mind.

I knew you need probable cause to search or detain a person, but does the same apply to the goods that are carried out the store? I would think that they can't check your own bags and that their bag becomes your bag after the financial transaction took place but that's the legal part that I am not so sure about.
What if they would cover their ass and print a disclaimer on the receipt: "By purchasing these items you can be subject to an extensive cavity search?"

[lapfog_1]

751. Probable cause extend to your person and your immediate possessions

however, there is a "plain sight" exclusion, meaning that if I have the merchants goods sticking out of a bag and he or she reasonably believes that the merchandise isn't paid for, he or she can detain me.

Otherwise the merchant needs a witness or some sort of evidence (security cam, rfid, something) to have probable cause to detain and search.

As for the theater thing... *I* didn't bring it up, I just cut and pasted from the actual penal code on this subject.

As for someone wanting to examine a ticket... that's simple, at any time while on the premises, the theater owner or employees can demand to see "proof" that you have their permission to remain on the premises (the old "we reserve the right to refuse"). If you cannot satisfy the owner or employee that you are currently invited to remain on his private property, they can reasonably ask you to leave. They cannot, however, detain you or search you UNLESS they can show probable cause that you have stolen something of value (one example might be a specific time at a specific place - your seat while watching a movie you didn't pay for)... if they can show probable cause, then we are back to pure theft and they can detain you and call the police.

And, yes, I believe they actually CAN sell you a ticket (permission to enter the premises) with search permissions ON THE WAY IN. Much like almost every stadium venue does now to all kinds of events (sports, concert, monster truck rallies, etc). They cannot detain you on the way out. On the way in, you are volunteering to enter their private property and be subject to their exclusions, and you can always choose to NOT enter. Detaining you on the way OUT is another matter, without probable cause. Now, if on the way in, they search you and find illegal materials, they now have probable cause to detain you and have you arrested. If, on the other hand, on the way in you agree to a search and they find "banned" material (not illegal, just not approved by the property owners) all they can do is refuse entry (eject you).

[Vinca]

691. If you don't like a store's policy, don't shop there.

With 7 more dead soldiers in Iraq and nukes being carted around the country, I don't really care about this guy and his reciept. Vote with your feet. Don't shop there.

[Demintheusa]

698. Again focus on the war and not the fact that

the police officer violated his rights you people have this HARD ON about the receipt it's not about the receipt get that through your heads.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

703. Try posting a thread about...

The fact that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world..

And then watch it sink like a stone..

[reggie the dog]

841. right

and how many of the folks in jail are there for either having or selling drugs other than alcohol or tobacco?

Legalizing the possession and sale of all illegal drugs would greatly reduce the prison popluation and it would not lead to increased use, because trust me, you can get any drugs you want in the USA very VERY easily.

[iamahaingttta]

694. I let them check the receipt...

...and the bag for my purchase.

I NEVER EVER EVER let them check my personal bag. EVER. This has caused me quite a bit of hassle, in a number of stores, none of which I go back to. I am adamant about them not being able to check my personal bag, and I LOVE it when I get challenged. They don't do this as much as they used to, and I'm sure it's because of people like me.

It's really a hell of a lot of fun yelling in front of a store full of people at a group of managers that they will never under any circumstances be allowed to look in my personal bag. If they want to call the police, they are welcome to, I will allow a police officer to check my bag. If they think I've stolen something, then they can call the cops, but some kid in a yellow shirt is never going to look in my bag. I don't care if it's your store policy, and obviously I and all these people within earshot are never coming back into this fucking store. No, I will not lower my voice, you are treating me like a criminal and if you think I've stolen something, call the cops.

I've done this just for fun. FUCK CORPORATIA!!!

[Enrique]

705. we working people should stick together

I don't know about the civil liberties issue, it sounds pretty iffy to say the least. I'd be surprised if the ACLU gets involved in this, but who knows? I'd be interested to see what happens with the case.

What I do know is that this guy made Santura's job a lot harder. The guy talks about how his own life would be a lot smoother if he would behave differently, but it's also true that the working lives of the service employees he deals with would also go a lot smoother.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

709. He also talked about standing on principle

Something we *all* should be doing more of in every walk of life.

[Enrique]

761. Conflicting principles

the principle of not wanting your receipt checked vs. the principle of giving a fellow worker a break.

[EV_Ares]

721. I agree, as many important cases as the ACLU has to defend, I doubt

very much if they are going to put time and energy into this weak of a case.

[L0oniX]

708. So quit shopping at JERKIT CITY

[Broadslidin]

713. Expressing a Little Pity towards the Circuit City employee from the lower class.....

may be in order...!

After all,
the pathetic "door guard unit" will soon be history
when the promised pay raise finally nears.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

717. I have no pity..

He acted illegally and like a real officious, authoritarian jerk.

As did the cop.

[NastyDiaper]

718. Reciprocity. Next time the store overcharges me, I'm calling the cops.

It's very important that authorities have a warrant (a writ of justification) for searches from a separate authority. If we allow searches or taps where authorities do not have to justify why they engaged in the search, then the only thing that stands between you and jail are the ethics and merit of a single authority. And that authority could easily take the form of a pissed off cop or security joe.

Or some lawyer who draws a check from Abu Dhabi and does top-shelf and medium-rare lunches with congressmen.

Put it this way. If the judge does not hold a receipt, there is no telling what the cop may have in his bag of suspicions.


But as far as his lawsuit goes, I think it's dead-ender and I'm no fan. The dude refused to hand over the wrong item; He should have handed over the drivers license. To make his point, he should have continued to demand a reason for the search. Would the store accuse him of shoplifting or not? That the cop "didn't agree" store policy was wrong does not change the fact, as I read it, that Mike voluntarily handed over receipt and bag. gg.

[whistle]

719. What would he have done if the store had an electronic detection device

...which was triggered as he left the store? This happened to me the other day at K-Mart which also have door inspectors. As I was leaving I walked through the EDD and right behind me only a step away were two ladies also each carrying bags. We were all asked to go to the customer service desk located inside by the exit doors, to have our bag contents examined along with our receipts. My bag was examined first as I was the first person to go through the EDD. I was cleared, but the second lady had one item which had been paid for but apparently had not been properly demagnetized.

Although this was an inconvenience and also a little embarrassing especially when the EDD was set off, shop-lifting at large retail stores is such a major problem, that I have no objection to such precautions on the part of retail stores to protect their merchandise from theft.

[NastyDiaper]

720. But i always get waved through when i beep,

I'm middle-age white.

[NastyDiaper]

724. The receipt checking is more for the employees than the customers.

If you go through checkout, you put your stuff on the counter. Anything in the damn bag was put in by the employee.

If you are walking out without checking out, you don't have a damn receipt anyway. And presumably no bag.

(so what i derive form this is that suspicion of customer theft simply does not exist at the point of search. and that the store does not have a right to search bags. any problems they have are with the sales transaction, which is now history)

[guruoo]

731. Righi brought this all upon himself

Anyone that pulls a stunt like this in my store better have their bail bondsman on speedial!
:rofl:

[Swagman]

735. there are very important issues here...

now I haven't a clue about what the hell Circuit City is but I'm guessing it's a chain store that has as few staff as they possibly can..and overwork whoever is there. That's what every other big store is doing to maximise profits.. and probably buy their stock in China to boot so are helping with the death of US manufacturing.

IF they had enough staff they wouldn't need to be "checking" people's receipts.

I don't blame the guy for not wanting to show it even if it is the store's policy.

But the cop was way out of order and he felL into line with corporate power and falselessly arrested him. (providing we are being told the truth)

THIS HAPPENS EVERY DAY AND IT'S GETTING WORSE AND WORSE.

Now I wouldn't have handled it like this but I'm old and have learnt from bitter experience to STAY AWAY FROM THE COPS BECAUSE THEY TELL LIES AND OFTEN BREAK THE LAW.

He's chosen to handle it his way so good on him.

and his sister shouldn't need another damned present anyway.

[kirby]

745. I am shocked at many on DU

I'm really shocked and surprised. This guy stands up against authority and many many on here just don't get it and/or think he is not just in defending his (our) rights.

The fact that a store detained someone, by impeding the vehicle, because of their store policy is a problem for me. I empathize that stores have issues with both shoplifting and inside theft. However, why is a remedy of detention or search of a persons personal property justified? There are other solutions available. The 'receipt' looker can be moved to the register area so that a view of what is going in the bag or security cameras can monitor the cashiers. Obviously the lowest cost/tech solution is to force customers to comply like sheep to whatever their policy is.

Miss, you'll need to remove your shirt and bra so we can ensure the cashier did not give you money from the register. We require everyone to submit to this so we are not discriminating.

The responding officers lack of understanding of the law and punishment for someone asserting their rights that they are not required to show a drivers license when they are not driving a vehicle seems to be met with equal defensiveness among many here.

[ewoden]

752. I don't let it happen to me anymore

On the receipt checking: like most I'm stopped periodically to have my receipt checked. I ask the nice paper checker to do the following. Write down why I am being checked. I then ask the checker to summons a manager. We then have a friendly discussion. I say I want to continue to patronize the store. However, in the interest of my time and dignity I cannot submit to these random searches of my possessions throughout the day. I calmly let the manager know that I will gladly submit to the search once he adds his signature to the written statement made by the receipt checker. Then I inform both that if the receipt matches my parcels, I will return all the items immediately for a refund, I also will submit a copy of the written statement to the store's senior management, and I will consider what legal actions to take based on the written statement signed by the manager. At that point they just wave me through. Usually I am never checked again by that store, unless another manager is on duty. Eventually we get these things straightened out after a couple of visits.

At some stores, some receipt checkers will say they are there to protect me, i.e., to make sure that the clerk did not overcharge me for something. I usually respond that I can add and am satisfied that the receipt is accurate. The previous exchange often ensues thereafter.

Identity check: I have been asked for my driver's license on the street a few times. I have always responded with my name, address, and birth date. I also state that I do not believe I have my driver's license with me. Most times that was sufficient. I once had a Montgomery County Police officer tell me that he could take me into custody for failure to produce a driver's license. I asked for a declaration of the probable cause for his impending detention of my person. He realized that he was overstepping his bounds right quick.

Once, when I was a minor sitting on the front step of my home I was approached by an officer to ask what my business was there. I was dumbfounded by the officer's question. I frankly could not answer. he took me into custody, down to the station. My father came and got me after the neighbor kid informed him that nice policeman took me away in a squad car. At the station my dad and the "arresting" officer had a great discussion, but that is another story for another day.

[iamthebandfanman]

753. lol

so you dont have time to submit to a search of only your bag(with the purchased items) on a private property by the owners/workers of that property but you have time to call the manager and discuss it with him?

[ewoden]

755. Absolutely, because i am in it for the long run.

If I pass the check 100 times after blindly submitting to it, I'll be subject to a thousand more of these checks at that store. If I let them know how irritating it is to me, I seldom have to endure it more that twice. Unlike the originator of this post though, I have never blown by the checker.

[Swagman]

763. and none of this would be necessary if they employed more

people.

In fact I don't know of any other country in the world where this "receipt checking" goes on..never heard of it actually.

But the USA is leading the charge in "downsizing" staff so it will probably spread everywhere else.

Don't they have vido security ??..it sounds like a right pain in the arse to me.

[George II]

747. I think paranoia is getting the best of everyone....

It is not unusual to be asked for a receipt and bag at many of these types of stores (Circuit City, Compusa, Best Buy, etc...)

Sam's Club stores all have people at the door checking receipts and counting items. It's just a routine thing now.

They handle of a lot of small expensive items that can be lifted by putting in a bag with other items. I don't see a problem with it. I don't know you, but I think you overreacted for some reason. He didn't accuse you of anything, just wanted to confirm that everything was properly paid for.

[ewoden]

754. I beg to differ with you, It is not paranoia to not want strangers

constantly checking your person every time you go out for victuals or whatnots.

If loss prevention is so serious an issue, the establishment is free to unobtrusively watch me shop with cameras and roaming store detectives. Stopping me in the course of my day to verify that I am honest is insulting and a waste of my time.

If the accuracy of cashiers is the issue, then monitor the employee. I am not responsible for their inaccuracies, so I should not be inconvenienced.

Anyway, the issue of identity check is of more concern to me than the store receipt issue.

[George II]

762. But if the receipt and bag contents had been allowed to have been checked...

there would not have been any issue about "identity check", and a whole lot of people wouldn't have wasted a whole lot of time discussing this everyday occurrence.

[ewoden]

764. For want of a horse the war was lost. . . .

[iamthebandfanman]

750. no offense but

what was the big deal about them looking in your bag?

they do it to everyone practically.


u know the logic behind it right ? its the ole if u have done nothing wrong u have nothing to fear tactic.

i dunno
seems like an aweful big waste of everyones time just because you decided not to stop for someone doing their job for the whole minute it would have taken.

oh well tho.
whatever floats ur boat.

edit
and btw, im suprised u havent encountered this before given ALOT of stores do it.
ive seen walmart and best buy do it , just to name a few.

[George II]

758. Go back to the store and check the notices posted as you go in!

MOST stores of that kind have signs posted saying that they reserve the right to inspect all packages. If you go PAST those signs and enter the store, you have tacitly agreed to the stores' terms and conditions. By not allowing the person at the door to inspect your package YOU violated the terms under which you agreed to shop there.

I think you just have on huge chip on your shoulder, as proven by you attitude with the police officer as well.

This thread has nothing to do with freedoms whatsowever.

[Swagman]

769. OK..everyone ignore the guy's complaint but when they get the

power to enter your house without a warrant just to make sure your possessions aren't stolen goods or indeed there isn't anything else illegal there..don't complain.

There was a day not too long ago when shopkeepers where happy to see their customers and treated them with respect and didn't automatically think that everyone should be checked for theft. Remember...mom and pop shops.

Now it's creeping corporatism and it looks like a lot of people don't even see what's happening under their noses.

Your'e not looking at the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM...the cop who sided with the store and arrested someone for absolutely no reason and gave a completely false and illegal reason.

It ain't full blown Facism...just a tiny step on the way.

## PS..about 40 years ago something similar happened to my mother like this..she was stopped and asked to produce goods and receipts...she sued for libel and the shop settled for about $1500..big money then. And there were never signs saying they had the right to search your bags.
AND MY MUM WAS A STORE DETECTIVE.

[EFerrari]

787. Bingo! n/t

[reggie the dog]

842. personally

Personally I shop in mom and pop shops as much as I can, or in the open air markets we have here in France. These places never search in your bags, they often smile at you and talk about the sunshine or the rain a bit. I make a point to pay them in cash so they can avoid the fees from the credit card companies.

[benEzra]

770. Except they can't legally detain you to do so. (n/t)

[Fox Mulder]

774. I absolutely hate shopping at Sams Club because of this.

They check through your cart and look at your receipt to make sure you didn't steal anything. It makes me feel like a criminal.

I salute Mr. Righi.

[mondo joe]

778. Does it make you feel like a terrorist when you pass through security at the airport?

[Fox Mulder]

779. I don't go to the airport.

[mondo joe]

780. Because passing through security would make you feel like a terrorist?

Or do you not think that would happen?

[ewoden]

783. Nope not me, but you should see the

faces of the TSO's when their magic wand is set off by the steel in my kidneys!!

[reggie the dog]

843. yes

With all their random "extra" checks, the fact that they ask me to take off my shoes even though I passed the metal detector. the fact that I cannot bring a bottle of water through security but that I can buy one for 3 times the price on the other side and bring it on the plane. Ah for the good old days in the mid 90's when you could just hop on a domestic flight. Now we have all of this because some guys smuggled 2 inch box cutters onto planes.

[JVS]

788. Wow, this thread is HUGH!

[ewoden]

790. Rubbernecker!!

Gawking at all us outraged consumers :rant:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

792. This Might Be The Longest Thread Ever

I just want to be part of internet history.

[conscious evolution]

794. with only one deleted post

That has to be record also.

[Nutmegger]

797. Kick!

:kick:

:evilgrin:

[slowry]

798. Yawning in a legendary thread.

:boring:

[alittlelark]

799. I'm bullish on Kudzu.........

it's going places.:P

[BlackVelvet04]

801. Everyone is always talking about wanting our country back.....

well actions like Mr. Righi's are part of that taking back of America. I'm sick of being hassled when I shop. The receipt thing is only part of it. I bought something in a store a couple of weeks ago and there first question was "Name?" Who cares what my name is? Then it was phone number? Screw you, that's private. Then it was "Zip code"? Shit, I was paying cash, just let me make my damn purchase. I won't be shopping in that store any more.

When I'm shopping, making the marketing easier for the store, or life easier for the security is not my goal. It's not my problem. Hire more fucking people and let them do their job but leave me the hell alone to make my purchase and get out of your pathetic paranoid irritating store.

Corporate america thinks it has the right to all of our private information and the right to hassle us all in the name of what? Making more money or saving a few bucks?

I will no longer quietly give my name or zip code. I never give my phone number. No, they can't see the receipt as I leave the store. No they can't have my personal information and yes I will be shopping with cash from now on.

Fuck corporate america.

[renie408]

817. I would be happy to just have the DU back. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

819. when I see threads on DU I'm not interested in

I don't click on them.

[reggie the dog]

844. i give fake info

I use a bs name like mark anselmo, with a bs zip code and a bs phone number just to fuck with the stores when they do that. This only happens in the USA, I have never been asked similar questions here in France.

[Fox Mulder]

849. When they ask me that information at the store, I make it all up.

There is no need for them to know my real information.

[Danger Mouse]

851. You don't have to give the information. My friend Dan outright refuses to give it when asked...

and has never once been hassled for it. I just don't care.

[Joe Chi Minh]

846. On further reflection, the two examples given respectively by Proud2Belib and

Ghost in the Machine are ignificantly different, raising an issue that I don't believe has been directly addressed.

In the former case, the security guard may well not have been able to see the P2Bl paying for his goods at the checkout. And I don't necessarily see the matter as a threat to civil liberties, but just a practical measure by the company concerned.

On the other hand, the actions of the security guard were patently unlawful, and you have to question, indeed roundly impugn the management for failing to train their guards properly. That blame must go right up to the senior management, and is certainly of a piece with the lawless way in which companies are apparently now seeking to vote as natural persons, thereby nullifying any vestige of a democracy the rest of the election fraud and voter suppression may have left extant; all the while, actually having the gall to claim this corporate usurpation of the citizens' rights as an enhancement of democracy.

In the case of Ghost in the Machine's little contretemps with our black-eyed friend, the same applies, but with the difference that the latter was a jumped-up power freak who had watched his progress through the checkout and out into the foyer.

[helderheid]

858. WOW. I'd love to see him interviewed by Keith.

[and-justice-for-all]

865. You can not just 'Search' someones bag...

If you do so, it is an accusation of theft and you better hope your right, otherwise they will and can sue your ass off.

My partner is a Cop, has worked security for Macy's and now the entire Mall. If you have a 'bad' stop, like accusing someone of theft who has not done so, does not work in the accusers favor. There is more then enough surveillance, at least in our Circuit City, that Joe is not needed.

I have never had any Circuit City employees ask to see my receipt on my way out the door, their shit has security tags on it and they better damn well be right that I have stolen something or I will be owning an entire chain of electronic retail stores.