"Your Papers, Please", Ohio Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Receipt at Circuit City

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So just what is your point in all this?

There are a lot of them.

1. Despite what you said, you are not giving up your rights just by entering the private property. While some (but not all) rights could be given up, the current situation is that it has to be done explicitly. And, unless you're dealing with government official, in writing.

2. The store has the right to set up the policy, and enforce it by not allowing the people who do not agree to the said policy to enter the store (and have to be able to prove it later in a court that the person has agreed to it). However the store has then the responsibility to enforce this policy, because if you lawfully enter it without agreeing with the policy, their right to refuse you to enter has been already waived.

3. There are some rights which are protected by law, and some which are not. Your right to enter the store is not protected, but your right not to be searched unlawfully is. You could give it up voluntarely, but it does not go away just because the store has some policy.

I hope we're clear with those three issues now. Let's move on.

Quote

Maybe your point is that no rights were violated when they asked to see his receipt? Agreed. But then why are so many here bitching about it?

Because the store employee violated his right by detaining him. I do not bitch about it, because when I tell the store employee that I will not show him a receipt, he goes away, and my rights are not violated. His rights were.

Quote

Checking a receipt agaist the contents of the bag is not a search but a verification that all that was paid for is there and nothing more.

So what IS a search then in your terms? Is checking your pockets or purse also just a verification that there is nothing more in your pockets than just what you paid for, and you didn't forget something in the store (your cell phone, for example)? And if I put everything in my backpack, should it be checked too, and should I explain why those snacks I have here are not mentioned in receipt?

Quote

Don't want to go through that? Don't shop there.

I have no problem with this as long as they have a policy, informed the customers about it BEFORE they enter the store, and refuse entry to the store to those who does not agree with the policy. It could be done - for example, Costco is doing this through the membership agreement, and they only allow the Costco members inside. I don't like it, and I don't shop there.

Quote

As for me, I'm not a whiny little snot nose crying because the mean man asked to see my receipt.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not see anyone crying. I do see, however, the legal rights violated - not by asking a receipt, of course.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[SkyDekker 1,465]

7 pages on whether or not some one should be polite enough to show their receipt to keep the costs of electronics low.

1 reply to the biography of President Bush which outlines your country is being run by a moron who hears voices, sees ghosts and cries on the shoulder of God.

I think that says enough.

[Zipp0 1]

Well stated.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

7 pages on whether or not some one should be polite enough to show their receipt to keep the costs of electronics low.

Questions of liberty and freedom, even small ones, have become important considerations due to the crying, ghost viewing moron.

Quote

1 reply to the biography of President Bush which outlines your country is being run by a moron who hears voices, sees ghosts and cries on the shoulder of God.

Maybe nobody was surprised

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

due to the crying, ghost viewing moron.

Ebeneezer Scrooge?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[willard 0]

Ah yes, another self-educated lawyer. Pointless to argue with those!

[willard 0]

Quote

Sorry for not posting this earlier, but I've been busy vomiting after reading some of the pansy responses in this thread. If you haven't kept up with Michael Righi's website updates, here's an email he received recently:

To the people here who only care about status quo, about don’t rock the boat and d-d-d-do right, about a few tears in a moment of stress - you are cows. Myers-Briggs normal junkies; play along law-fodder, don’t stand out, homogenised, be sensible, inch deep, cattle.

You deserve nothing you have lost, or will lose, as you cling to the illusory prairie you only wish you inhabited. There are mountains to be climbed in this existence, and eluding the grasp of people, who presume to own your individuality, counts as one of them. “Being Adult” must not include domestication. Adult cattle are still herded and fed to their masters. “Adult” must mean something more, a self-possessed state of independence and freedom of movement.

Pragmatic passivity has become the modern life drug of choice; the one no wars will be fought against, if we leave it to you - because you love being hooked on indulgent expediency, because the authorities need your addiction and will never jail you for being a compliance junkie, and because you have an appointment somewhere more comfortably familiar, and apparently self-seving, than the realm of individuals.

You see it as virtue, as maturity, but you dream. Michael Righi has stirred you from your dream and you resent it as you would if every day were Saturday and, inexplicably, your alarm just went off.

And here's another great quote from some old guy:

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Benjamin Franklin

I read that on the web site. To me it is just the ravings of someone who doesn't like society and thinks anyone who plays by the rules is a mindless mole. Sorry, but most people in the circles I spend my time in tend to be somewhere in between. They are law abiding citizens who know that not all battles are worth fighting and the time and place to fight those that are worth fighting should be chosen, if possible, to give one the most advantage.
The person who wrote that is most likely the type who would refuse to stand and allow you to pass to get to your seat at a ball game just because you have no right to make him.

Nice quote by ol' Ben. But I've said it before and I'll say it again....he had his head up his ass that day. In any civilized society in which people have rights, it is necessary, from time to time, for each citizen to temporarily relax their hold on one or more of those rights for the sake of others and society as a whole. You give up the liberty to burn old tires and society is better off for it. You give up the freedom to shoot your guns in a residential area at 3:00 AM so that others may sleep.

CC did not violate a single right of the kids while he was in the store. They did when he was in the parking lot. When a cop asks for a drivers license you don't have to show it. You can use some other form of ID that he will accept (I used my private pilot license once) or you can make things difficult and refuse, which is within your rights, but the cop has the right and, depending on the situation, the duty to verify your identification. This can take a while and may get you hauled downtown.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

what? no concealed weapon on your person???

Huh no. That happened in Minnesota 15 years ago and only the criminals have guns in Minnesota.

So you are okay with muggings?

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Nonsense. If someone in Square One buys something, goes in the back, seems to grab something else, and walks out, then the people there will likely try to check his bag again. What would happen in the real world is that Dave would stop him and check in his bag. If he gave Dave lip, several skydivers would assist Dave in checking his bag. If there was nothing in it, then Dave would say "sorry" and the guy would be on his way. No fantasy world of strip searches, armed resistance, Kung Fu moves or SWAT teams.

The real world isn't all that different. Common sense and all that.

But walking in the back and appearing to grab something gave the shopkeeper (dave) reasonable suspicion to detain the guy. If he hadn't done anything suspicious, Dave has no cause to stop him.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But walking in the back and appearing to grab something gave the shopkeeper (dave) reasonable suspicion to detain the guy.

And the shopkeeper doesn't have the right to detain him under those circumstances. Either witness the whole act of theft and arrest him, but you can't just detain him on reasonable suspicion....only a LEO can do that.

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

To me a search would involve them actually searching me.

Legally, there is no distinction. I don't care if there is a huge sign by the door and a super cub towing a banner stating the policy. I might still miss it or choose to ignore it. The second I pay for the merchandise, it becomes my personal property. The store has no right or authority to verify the receipt by forcibly looking in my bag or my pockets (same difference). They can ask or demand all they want, but the second they try and detain me they have made a big mistake. All they can do is tell me not to come back and charge me with tresspassing if I do.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[willard 0]

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


2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.
(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.

I guess a judge will have to determine whether the kids actions, i.e. refusing to show a receipt and then getting into a car waiting for him right outside the door w/engine running and a driver, would give the CC folk probable cause to believe he had illegally taken goods from their store.

I bet the kid didn't know about that little statute when he walked out of the store.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

7 pages on whether or not some one should be polite enough to show their receipt to keep the costs of electronics low.

1 reply to the biography of President Bush which outlines your country is being run by a moron who hears voices, sees ghosts and cries on the shoulder of God.

I think that says enough.

We've had hundreds of threads describing how GWB is an incompetent power hungry warmonger.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

7 pages on whether or not some one should be polite enough to show their receipt to keep the costs of electronics low.

1 reply to the biography of President Bush which outlines your country is being run by a moron who hears voices, sees ghosts and cries on the shoulder of God.

I think that says enough.

We've had hundreds of threads describing how GWB is an incompetent power hungry warmonger.

And every one of them just a matter of opinion, and we all know what opinions are worth.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

But walking in the back and appearing to grab something gave the shopkeeper (dave) reasonable suspicion to detain the guy.

And the shopkeeper doesn't have the right to detain him under those circumstances. Either witness the whole act of theft and arrest him, but you can't just detain him on reasonable suspicion....only a LEO can do that.

Nope. Shopkeeper's Privilege.

"The shopkeeper's privilege, a defense to false imprisonment, expressly grants authority of law to detain customers to investigate ownership of property in a reasonable time and manner if there is reasonable belief that theft has occurred."

The state may also have a "shoplifter's statute" that allows a shopkeeper to detain someone until authorities arrive.

Refusal to stop for a cop or security guard alone doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion for a search. (Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673). A search is defined as an examination of an individual and/or his/her premises for evidence of criminal activity. Seems like a search of a bag an individual is carrying would qualify.

[billvon 3,114]

I have this image of Joe Personal Rights standing up for his inalienable rights at a Best Buy somewhere -

He gets up in the morning and drives to work. On his way he stops at a traffic light. There's no one else coming down the cross street, but still he sits there. Wouldn't want to get a ticket!

At work he puts in a few hours before leaving for a business meeting in another state. He's salaried, so he gets 8 hours a day pay - but the government is going to take 25% of that, and there's nothing he can do about that.

On his way to the airport he notices his car's registration is about to elapse. He's going to have to go down to the DMV, show them ID, pay for new registration, and then get his car inspected by a government-licensed mechanic to prove that its brakes, lights, emission systems etc work.

He gets to the airport. There, he stands in several lines, then gets to security, where they X-ray his bags and check him with a magnetometer. Something beeps, so they search him, finally finding a forgotten metal pen in his pocket. They scold him a bit. His bag has something opaque in it, so they riffle through the contents to check it. Nothing suspicious, so they let him go on his way.

He gets to his destination, rents a car and gets a hotel room. Both places he is required to show ID, give a credit card, and other personal information (car insurance, car license #.)

He has nothing to do for the rest of the day, so he goes across the street to where there's a free outdoor concert. At the entrance security guards search his bags and check his jacket. He listens to the band for a while, then leaves.

There's a Best Buy nearby, and he goes in to get a CD. He gives his credit card and ID to the cashier. She asks if he has a Reward Zone card, and he hands it over. This card allows the store to track him and his buying habits to better target ads to him.

On his way out, a guard asks to see his recepit. "No fucking way, and if you so much as touch me, I will kick your ass and THEN sue you for assault! No one touches me, goes through my stuff or gets personal information from me! EVER!" And then he storms out triumphant, assured that he is protected from intrusion into his personal life.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Learned something new, up here in the great white north there is no such thing.

Just polie people who don't have an issue with showing their receipt. never even occured to me it is a very serious civil right that is being infringed upon.

[Nightingale 0]

There's no law against asking to look at a receipt or search a bag, and there's nothing prohibiting someone consenting to that if they want to be polite, but if someone doesn't want to waste the time, or have a security guard look through their stuff, unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they've done something wrong, the store can't force the person to submit to the search.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they've done something wrong,

What about being showing ID when you pay with check or CC? By asking for ID aren't they implying you are not who the CC says you are? Where is reasonable suspicion?

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they've done something wrong,

What about being showing ID when you pay with check or CC? By asking for ID aren't they implying you are not who the CC says you are? Where is reasonable suspicion?

j

The difference here is that stores do not have to accept credit cards or checks. They must accept cash (legal tender for all debts, public and private), but can accept other forms of payment at their discretion, under their own terms. Also, it is usually part of their agreement with the credit card company that they must check IDs prior to accepting a credit card, and as a card-holder, you have also agreed to abide by conditions placed upon your use of the card.

Once you have paid for your items, the items and receipt belong to you, not the store, so they can't force you to do anything with those items that you don't want to do with your own property.

Edited to add: The store can't force you to produce an ID for your check or credit card, but you can't force them to accept the check or credit card without your ID.

Edited again: and there is nothing wrong with them ASKING for your ID. There is no law against asking for ID, just like there is no law against asking to look at a receipt or in a bag. They just can't force you to comply if you don't want to.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Nope. Shopkeeper's Privilege.

"The shopkeeper's privilege, a defense to false imprisonment, expressly grants authority of law to detain customers to investigate ownership of property in a reasonable time and manner if there is reasonable belief that theft has occurred."

The key word in there is 'reasonable', That word introduces way too many problems into the law. What is considered reasonable varies widely from person to person.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Er...I still write one check a month. Rent.

I finally got off of that one check - the billpay service prints their own check and mails it. So now I only write checks for the occasional dentist and random event.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Nope. Shopkeeper's Privilege.

"The shopkeeper's privilege, a defense to false imprisonment, expressly grants authority of law to detain customers to investigate ownership of property in a reasonable time and manner if there is reasonable belief that theft has occurred."

The key word in there is 'reasonable', That word introduces way too many problems into the law. What is considered reasonable varies widely from person to person.

A "reasonable person" standard is an objective legal standard based on what a reasonable person in the same situation would think or do. The law is written this way mainly to preclude people from simply acting on hunches and feelings, rather than some supporting evidence.

If someone goes into a back stockroom and is seen acting like they're putting something in their bag, it's reasonable to conclude they did so. However, if they just walk past a receipt line, it's probably more reasonable to conclude they're in a hurry or just don't want to bother. The question the court will try to answer is "would a reasonable person, under the same circumstaces, draw the conclusion that a theft occurred?"

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

7 pages on whether or not some one should be polite enough to show their receipt to keep the costs of electronics low.

Pal, I have to say you completely misread the thread.
No one here is ever discussed whether you should be politely enough to show your receipt, and the issues discussed are not related to politeness at all.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Ah yes, another self-educated lawyer. Pointless to argue with those!

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *