willard

I believe you would be correct in that assumption. I, for one, have no problem showing my receipt if it helps prevent theft and thereby keeping prices even 1% lower. Is it giving up any of my rights? I don't think it does, it only requires that I put forth a minimum of effort. But if I am asked to bend over and take it in the ass then I will turn around, get a refund, and never go there again.

I'm not quite sure what your angle on this is. they could 'ask' him to bend over and take it up the ass and they wouldn't have violated his rights, it's always going to be when they try and force him to comply that the issues start, right? Now you're catching on! However, I suspect that if a store had a habit of asking it's patrons to bend over and take it up the ass then they wouldn't have much of a customer base.

Nice interpretation. Have you been hanging around Kallend?

Some of the Hindu religion. I don't believe in it, and it is obvious that you don't. But they do. Different cultures make the world a colorful and interesting place to live. Even when they slaughter goats to fix an airliner.

I assumed that was what he meant, but with Kallend one never knows for sure. He could have posted the link to show everyone how checks are in place to find missing weapons, or maybe to instill confidence in others that these checks do work.

So what's your point? That these items could had been in anyones hands being that they were unaccounted for, for several hours? I can imagine the point inwhich they were very frantic trying to figure out where the bombs went! Kallend...you changed you screen name!

Well, obviously you do since you gave a link to the ORC and the kid wasn't even cited under that code. That's a poor assumption. How many times have you actually had your bags checked and searched when leaving a store that asks to see your receipt?

So what's your point?

Of course they didn't violate any rights by making a request - however they treated it as a demand and tried to force him to comply. You agree that there was absolutely nothing wrong in what the author did in refusing to show his receipt? No. The store has a right to see your receipt. He actually violated the store's right to see it. They're not doing a search, rather a verification which is within their rights. Nonsense. They already saw it, and then gave it to him. It's now his, as is the merchandize. If the store layout were such that each checkout line exited through it's own doorway to the outside then you are absolutly right. There would be no reason to check for a receipt even if the cashier were crooked. But stores aren't like that. The checkout lines exit into a common area with usually one exit to the outside. It makes sense that a store put someone there to double check people as they leave to make sure they did indeed pay for what they are carrying. After all, that is their last chance to catch a thief before they leave the store. Whether that thief is working alone or with a crooked cashier is moot. The store has a right to prevent theft and this is a very reasonable measure.

Okay Georgie, maybe it is a comprehension problem on your behalf as I believe that I have answered your question. You want to know what rights have been violated? I believe it was an attempt to search personal property withouut reasonable cause. Once the transaction of full payment has been made the goods purchased becomes the sole property of the person making the payment. If a store asked to pat you down would you allow that? I see it as the same as asking to inspect my purchase for stolen property. I know the law in the state inwhich I live and now I know a lot more about the law in Ohio after reading the codes. I suggest that you do the same. How is it his obligation to seek out the stores policy towards unwarranted search? Do you walk into a store and immediatly ask for their policies? If a store wants me to be aware that I may be searched they need to hang a sign at the entrance informing me beforehand. Not while I am leaving after patronizing their establishment. Great. That's all the world needs is another self-educated lawyer. FYI, they didn't attempt or even ask to do a search. They only asked to see his receipt. According to the kids own article they didn't even ask to look in his bag, only to examine his receipt. Nothing about that violated his rights until they stopped him from leaving the parking lot. BTW, since you callled me Georgie does that mean you are female? I only ask because it's really kinda strange that a man would call me that.

Maybe they should carry an extra goat onboard just in case something needs attention inflight.

I'd love to see that entry in the maintenance logs!

Sure he should have been surprised, as would I. If the nimrod tries to physically prevent me from leaving with no legal justification, I get to physically defend myself against unlawfull detention/assault. Good times! Oh, really? You'd look pretty silly when that "nimrod" body slams you onto the ground.

Yep. The store was within it's rights to ask, he was within his rights to refuse. He will probably sue CC. Whether or not he has a case strong enough to stand up in court is for the lawyers to decide. My feeling is he does not. His refusal to show his receipt (even though not required by law, as far as we know) and getting into a vehicle waiting just outside the exit may be considered by a judge or jury to be enough to cause reasonable suspicion. But that is for a judge or jury to decide. The citation he was issued has nothing to do with what went on in the store and everything to do with the way he interacted with the police officer. What exactly went on is something we don't know. People have rights. Many people, this kid is obviously one of them, don't understand that with those rights comes the responsibility to exercise them wisely. He was well within his rights to not show his receipt, but it wouldn't have hurt him a bit to do so. He should not have been surprised at the reactions of the store personel.

Your link to the Ohio Revised Code is irrelevent. He was not charged with a crime under the ORC.

Unless they have a prominent sign at the entry stating "Enter here and you may be detained until you agree to be searched", or equivalent wording, he has every right to refuse and leave. Agreed 100%! And that is what he did, and that is when the CC folk crossed the line. But they still didn't violate any of his rights by asking to see his receipt.

You still haven't answered my question. Which of his rights were violated in the store when they asked to see his receipt? It can't be too hard to figure out, right? I mean, after all, you do know your rights, correct? It is not the obligation of the store to know his personal policies. He came onto their property. Invited there or not it is their policies he must follow, not vice-versa.

There is this odd belief that one must be a lawyer to know his own rights. One lawyer here likes to perpetuate this nonsense. Seems very European to me. The stuff is covered even in the lame high school civics classes. Quite true. However unless he's lying about the charge brought against him, the opposing story falls apart. They didn't charge him with shoplifting, nor did they for not having a license. So how do you explain that, lacking any evidence to support your fantasy counterclaim? Lot's of people here claiming to know the law, not just their rights. Without reading the officers statement and report, and that of the store employees, none of us here have any means to judge whether the kid broke any laws or not. However, to satisfy you curiousity, I suspect the charge of interefering with and officer in his duties stems from making the 911 call and then not cooperating with the officer. I also suspect the kids attitude toward the officer made a difference. Smart asses seldom get a break.

Don't need one, willy. I know my rights. I'm not morally obligated by law to do anything. You know the law in Ohio well enough to know under what circumstances you are required to produce an ID? Knowing your rights and knowing the law are quite different. But, since you claim to know your rights, why not answer the question nobody here has...what right of the kid's was violated when they asked to see his receipt? Everyone defending the kid here is assuming everything he wrote in his web site is the truth. Very seldom is one person's version entirely accurate. Isn't anyone interested in hearing what the store personel ahve to say? Or the cop? Could be some eye opening details there that the kid conveniently left out. I don't feel one bit of sympathy for this kid, hope the judge finds him guilty of interferring with the cops duties, fines him the max allowed, and sends him to bed without any supper. BTW, don't call me willy. That is not my name and I take it as an insult and a personal attack. Yu can call me Willard or you can call me George. Hell, you can even call me Georgie, but I don't think any guy ever has.

I see this as being this guys point. He did nothing to be made to look like a thief. He paid, he was leaving. He was stopped and a demand was made to search his purchase. He was made to look as if he was stealing something. All the guy wanted was to see his receipt! He didn't try to strip-search him, omly asked to see his receipt. No rights were violated until it spilled over into the parking lot. I can see where the store would think he was stealing. He refused to show a receipt, which in itself is not unusual for people to refuse to do but we don't know what the kid said, do we? Maybe he said "Fuck off, asshole" or something similar. He claims to have just said "No thank you". Then he gets into a car that, by his own admission, was sitting in front of the door waiting for him. CC guys went beyond their rights in stopping him, no doubt about that, but they should have called the police and gave them the plate number and let them handle it from there.

Sorry you felt embarrassed, but shit happens. I've been stopped more than once because the CD or DVD didn't get deactivated but I don't feel I was made to look like a thief. If I had run out of the store after the alarm went off THEN I would have looked like a thief.

He did cooperate within the boundaries of the law. We are not required to hand over paper to an officer. Be it a DL, passport or birth certificate. I went 12 years without a DL. Should I be arrested if not able to hand over a DL if requested to do so? The charge against him is a trumped up general purpose charge. The cop has nothing and is only wasting the taxpayers money. Any smart prosecutor would run far away from this one. You have a law degree? Where from? As my post stated, he also had a MORAL obligation to cooperate. He was, after all, the one who called the police, why would he NOT cooperate???

We know that because the kid did indeed pay for the surge protector (we assume he is telling the truth) and that he went through the checkout line. What we DON'T know (and you are assuming) is if the security person actually saw him go through the line. It is possible, nay, LIKELY, that he didn't and wanted to see the receipt to ascertain the kid did pay for what he was carrying. This THREAD isn't about someone who bypassed the cashier, but has evolved to include those who do. Threads evolve, remember? So you're saying that the security person was lax in that he failed to observe the customer come through the checkout, and therefore, having NO probable cause for suspicion, is entitled to detain the customer against his will until a receipt is shown. I THINK NOT. Nice kind of country you'd like us to become. That is not what I said, Kallend, and you know it. If you had taken the time to actually read my posts in this thread you would know that I do not agree with the way he was treated for not showing a receipt. After he called 911 he had an obligation, moraly if not legally, to cooperate with the officer sent. He did not do this and was cited. Whether that citation holds up is yet to be seen. Why don't you answer this...what rights of his were violated by them asking to see a receipt?

You are talking about the "show receipt" policy. In that case there is no receipt, and therefore "show receipt" policy does not prevent anything at all. It does if the merchandise is either in the open where it can be seen or in a bag, the circumstances we have been discussing all along. If it is hidden from sight then other measures must be taken to detect and hinder theft.

Maybe because the stuff the thief stole before coming to cashier is usually not hidden in the bag the cashier hang to him? I'm sure that in some instances the cashier is involved, but I would guess that more often people just walk around the cashier line and out the door, something not at all difficult to do. One way to avoid that situation is to have a security person at each checkout line who you hand all items to and they escort you through the line and directly out the door. Once out the door the only way back in is through a security check where all items you bring in are recorded and tagged. But somehow I don't think people would patronize a business that was run that way. So someone comes straight from the cashier lane to the exit with their goods in the bag. What purpose is served in asking for the receipt? This discussion is NOT about someone who bypassed the cashier. We know that because the kid did indeed pay for the surge protector (we assume he is telling the truth) and that he went through the checkout line. What we DON'T know (and you are assuming) is if the security person actually saw him go through the line. It is possible, nay, LIKELY, that he didn't and wanted to see the receipt to ascertain the kid did pay for what he was carrying. This THREAD isn't about someone who bypassed the cashier, but has evolved to include those who do. Threads evolve, remember?