# Busted At Circuit City



## Bob_G (Sep 4, 2007)

Interesting read I thought. 

http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city


----------



## Norm (Sep 4, 2007)

That's pretty crappy. Sounds like the land of the not so free. 
Norm


----------



## light_emitting_dude (Sep 4, 2007)

I would love to hear the officers side of the story.


----------



## Carabidae (Sep 4, 2007)

I know here in california, if you bring somone back into the store or attempt to, youd better have it on video of them stealing something, otherwise your open for lawsuit.


----------



## jch79 (Sep 4, 2007)

I was falsely accused of stealing from a grocery store when I was 17. They thought I stole, of all things, cigarettes (even though I've never been a smoker!), so the manager brought me into the his office and searched me, without ever calling the police or my parents - both of which were big no-no's when you're dealing with a minor! (it was literally the day before my 18th birthday).

My father wasn't retired from the police force yet, and when I came home, he was a bit... upset. He made the grocery store pay me some money (it was something like $200), and made them put an ad in the paper issuing an apology to me!

There were _some_ benefits for having a police officer as a dad! :shrug:

 john


----------



## geepondy (Sep 4, 2007)

As he stated, he knew what he was getting into so we'll see what happens. I assume he never shopped at Costco as we know they inspect every receipt at the door. I don't think being asked to show a receipt at the door is an extreme violation of my human rights but of course that's just my opinion.


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 4, 2007)

I've responded to another thread similar to this situation. And I have seen the massive blowback from an "attitude check" arrest.

Not only do I respect the author of the blog, I might have done the same thing if I were in a particular mood. Circuit City goofed, and so did the police officer. The author could have left without waiting for any officers to arrive. 

If the Circuit City people knew for a fact that the author was stealing (or committing any other crime), they could have arrested him, using a limited amount of physical force. However, merely not checking in with private security is not probable cause to arrest.

I despise shoplifters, one of whom murdered a Navy man moonlighting as security at Kmart a mile from my apartment last month. The killer was arrested by good samaritans. However, guards and police are required to know and abide by laws, and constitutional protections--like the 4th amendment. You swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not frigging Circuit City's profit margin.


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Sep 4, 2007)

What a sucky series of events. It's like the blogger said, his day could have gone much smoother had he complied, but it's his right to only provide name, DOB and address. I'd imagine he'll beat it. I wonder how the cases against the officer and CC will go.

Anyone know what Indiana's laws are on self-ID req's or where I can find them? Also, IN's laws on bag/car inspection would be helpful.


----------



## 3rd_shift (Sep 4, 2007)

OK, here's the deal.
If a law enforcent officer asks for your driver's license, you are supposed to provide it.

If you can't have one, you should have a personal ID card to present instead.
This also applies to peace officers last I heard.

If a store manager, or other private citizen wants to see either, yes you can refuse if you should so desire to. 

Don't get into a whizzing match with a law enforcement officer.
You can easily lose.  :mecry:

A store manager or other private citizen is another story if you leave soon enough.
If you want to keep coming back to the store later, send over an incident report with copies of the facts to the store manager's boss, or bosse's boss and go from there.


----------



## Oddjob (Sep 4, 2007)

Shoplifting is rampant in many large store where it is fairly easy to walk out with something. Loss of product through shoplifting causes stores to up their prices to make up for lost revenues. Maybe there should have been a publicly posted policy regarding random bag checks. 

On some level, is someone standing there asking to see your receipt not similar to walking through the antitheft scanners? Both methods are there to ensure you are leaving with paid merchandise and are there to deter theft. If I feel that I should not be scanned because I lawfully paid for my merchandise do I then walk around the scanners? If someone saw me do that they would immediately be suspicious.

I do not know what really happened because after all it is only one side of the story so I can neither say if it was right or wrong but in the end something has to be done to stop shoplifting because we are all paying for it in the long run.

With regard to what happened with the LEO, I usually comply when asked to do something I think is reasonable. I do not know what the law states about showing ID but I never saw it as an unreasonable request considering that some bad people have been apprehended in this way.


----------



## Groundhog66 (Sep 4, 2007)

Sounds like a lot of trouble for nothing....:shakehead


----------



## DonShock (Sep 4, 2007)

I bookmarked this article about shoplifting a while back because it contained a statistic my parents (who worked at Kmart at the time) had told me about years ago:

"About *47 percent of the dollars lost came from employee theft, while shoplifting accounted for about 32 percent*, according to the *National Retail Federation* report. Administrative errors account for 14 percent, while supplier fraud accounts for 4 percent. The remaining 3 percent is unaccounted for."

The employees steal more than shoplifters but they have the employees checking all their customers, not just the suspected shoplifters? :thinking:


----------



## InTheDark (Sep 4, 2007)

I've heard in the membership-type stores, like Costco or Sam's club, the rules are different and they can legally search you and detain. Something about it being in the contract when you apply for membership, that you agree to abide by those rules. Anyone know if there's any truth to this rumor? Is this something where they can legally detain you, or just cancel your membership?

Usually, if the store is empty and I'm walking past the security, I'll just wave the receipt and they let me pass. Most of the times I'll still have the reciept in my hand anyway. There have been a few times where I did ignore them and walked right past even when they asked, but only if it's particularly crowded and I'm in a not so friendly mood. I just don't think that after I had to wait in a long line to pay for my stuff, that I should have to wait in an even longer line just to leave the store.


----------



## Brighteyez (Sep 4, 2007)

Costco checks your receipt against the items in your cart (usually by itme count or cursory inspection.) If they notice an item that the cashier missed ringing up, or notice that you were charged for more items than you have, they will direct you to the register at the membership desk to rectify the error. Your membership does not have any clause that consents to a search of the member. They also mark or punch the receipt so that it cannot be reused to exit the warehouse with merchandise. Items that they do pay particular attention to are cigarettes and any item that comes from their secured merchandise cage.

The times that I have seen shoplifters apprehended in our local Costco warehouses, they have been pretty discrete so as to minimize any interuption to the members who are shopping there. 



InTheDark said:


> I've heard in the membership-type stores, like Costco or Sam's club, the rules are different and they can legally search you and detain. Something about it being in the contract when you apply for membership, that you agree to abide by those rules. Anyone know if there's any truth to this rumor?


----------



## meuge (Sep 4, 2007)

InTheDark said:


> I've heard in the membership-type stores, like Costco or Sam's club, the rules are different and they can legally search you and detain.



You cannot waive your constitutional rights via a civil contract.


----------



## winston (Sep 4, 2007)

3rd_shift said:


> Don't get into a whizzing match with a law enforcement officer.
> You can easily lose.  :mecry:



They know their job better than you know their job. If you have a problem with someone at Circuit City, don't take it out on the cop who shows up to sort it out. By not showing him a driver's license, he was just trying to be a pain in the ***. It wasn't helping him prove his point about the store's policies or the implementation thereof. He was just making a random officer's day a little more difficult. That's lame. I have had many negative encounters with police in my life, but it is counterproductive to f*** with a cop who just wants to get through a shift without too many headaches. Don't give him your license because you are legally required to do so, give it to him because you have no reason *not* to. It's courteous and helpful. If you can't conduct yourself in a courteous and helpful manner, I don't see how you can expect courtesy from others. Yes, police get paid a lot of money. No, that doesn't give you the right to be a d***head to them.
-Winston


----------



## acourvil (Sep 4, 2007)

meuge said:


> You cannot waive your constitutional rights via a civil contract.



Last time I checked, Costco was not a government agency. And you can waive rights, subject to some public policy limitations.


----------



## greenstuffs (Sep 4, 2007)

The guy was being a pain in the @ss i hope he gets what he deserves. He thought he is smart, next time just shop online.


----------



## BB (Sep 4, 2007)

From the article and comments... There are between 2-7 states where a cop can demand a photo ID--Ohio is not one of them... The best the cop can do is ask for name, address and date of birth (If understand correctly).

And, just a while back, I read a case were a bar would not let a undercover officer into his bar for a customer ID check until the officer produced a driver's license or other ID showing his age (a requirement of his liquor license that everyone who enters is over 21--I presume).... Officer did not have it on him, and eventually the Senior officer got the younger officer in--days later they arrested and jailed the bar owner for obstruction of an officer (not sure about the time line--this may the be same event or an earlier event; "Ryan, whose arrest was thrown out by Judge Katherine Hayes in May, says he was retaliated against in response to critical comments of the police department before a budget vote.").

With Costco, you sign a membership application (PDF File) where you consent to a search at the door--However, I think the limits of their power of authority is that they can revoke your membership.

I am between the customer being a jerk (walking that fine line) with the officer and the officer filing false charge in reprisal (from what I have read--very probable).

The Circuit City, on the other hand, is hosed. They made a false arrest/detainment based on zero evidence--just a local store policy (or misunderstanding of policy/laws) on their limits of authority under the law.

The customer was harassed in some comments for making a false 911 call--IMHO, the customer was correct... He was being illegally detained by store security. Again, zero evidence of shoplifting on the part of the customer--just a store policy trying to prevent cashiers from giving friends a break (which a major reason for Costco's door search policies too).

-Bill


----------



## bitslammer (Sep 4, 2007)

Just one more reason to avoid the big chain stores. They offer little in terms of knowledgeable staff. Some like Best Buy hassle you for personal info like your phone number, and also try and sell you crap like magazines at the door, and many believe the only way to prevent theft is to hassle all customers at the door. 

The small/family businesses are free from most or all of these things.

I still cherish the day I went to best buy before a trip to pickup a camera, SD cards, a new cell phone headset, some PC games, and a few other things that totaled about $450. When I got the register the cashier wanted to take the "free" magazine offer for Sports Illustrated. I said I don't care for sports and he said well we have some others too. I said no. 

Then he asked for my phone number and I declined knowing that by giving them that they could then telemarket since I consented.

Finally he wanted to argue that I should take the extended service plan. I was so mad I said "I give up if you won't just ring this up without hasling me for all this stuff I'll take my money somewhere else and walked out. A manger quickly followed me out to the parking lot wanting to know what happened. I explained my displeasure and he replied that the cashier was following store policy. I replied that the store policy just lost him about $450 and he should let corporate know. He just sighed and went back inside muttering his displeasure.

Needless to say I don't shop at Best Buy unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 4, 2007)

bitslammer, you just hit the nail on the head why I pretty much avoid retail these days (that includes most mail order chains). I'd rather buy most things on eBay where I know I won't get harassed by telemarketers, asked to buy "extras" I don't want, sent tons of junk mail or catalogs from affiliates, or asked if I want service contracts. Don't these businesses realize that the aggressive advertising and pushy sales practices are starting to backfire? I hope that manager does tell the main office about your experience. And I really wish corporations would tone down the advertising. At this point ads are so ubiquitous that people just subconsicous block them all out.


----------



## Priestly (Sep 4, 2007)

I'm glad the author took a stand for his principles rather than sheeping along with Circuit City.

I'm also glad that it appears the police officer may now get a chance to do his job better for knowing the actual law.


----------



## Illum (Sep 4, 2007)

light_emitting_dude said:


> I would love to hear the officers side of the story.



+1


----------



## P7guru (Sep 4, 2007)

Good for him. I am glad somebody has the guts to stand up to these scumbags. Most folks, myself included, sheepishly assent to anything some yo-yo with a badge and a gun says. We are supposedly free people, and this gentlemen is trying to remind the powers that be of that fact.

I hope he makes a mint.


----------



## 270winchester (Sep 4, 2007)

winston said:


> Don't give him your license because you are legally required to do so, give it to him because you have no reason *not* to. It's courteous and helpful. If you can't conduct yourself in a courteous and helpful manner, I don't see how you can expect courtesy from others. Yes, police get paid a lot of money. No, that doesn't give you the right to be a d***head to them.
> -Winston



spoken like a true San Franciscan.


----------



## frisco (Sep 4, 2007)

I hate the whole check your bag/reciept thing and have pushed it to the limit a few times. 
I don't really mind the Costco "inspection" although I blow by them quite often telling them that it is optional.

Now Fry's Electronics is another story...... The dumbest people who can't find work, get hired at Fry's. I look the inspector straight in the eyes and say "Fork Off" If they come after me outside the store I tell them..... If you know I stole something, You better call the Police because stealing is against the law.

Now get this one..... I've since learned from the store manager at Frys Palo Alto CA. that the inspection is not to catch shoplifters..... It's cause they don't trust there own cashiers!

frisco


----------



## Sway (Sep 4, 2007)

Knowing only one side of the story makes me want to raise “caution” look before you leap. It sure didn’t take him a very long from being locked up to putting up a web page, blogging and posting a  address to assist with his defense. 

Good Grief!

The whole thing sounds kind of strange to me and could have been worked out at the scene with reasonable people……Still want to hear the other side of the story  


Later
Kelly


----------



## FlashKat (Sep 4, 2007)

I hope you lose your case for being stubborn. Circuit City was not asking much from you. All you did was waste the time of the Employees, and a Police Officer who could have been needed at another emergency call. Next time don't play stupid.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 4, 2007)

I aquiese to the costco check, since I did know about it when I signed up for the membership. 

I walk past the Fry's reciept inspectors with a polite "no thank you". I check the fry's reciepts much closer than the "inspectors" so they are un-necessary. They've never given me a hassle about it. I suspect that they don't know what to say in response to that particular phrase.

Daniel


----------



## elgarak (Sep 4, 2007)

frisco said:


> Now get this one..... I've since learned from the store manager at Frys Palo Alto CA. that the inspection is not to catch shoplifters..... It's cause they don't trust there own cashiers!
> 
> frisco


I don't think stores should annoy honest customers to catch their own perps.

If the story is told as happened (and reading some of his blog, I don't think he's a pathologic liar), this guy is absolutely right. Yes, he was a stubborn douchebag on purpose... but he did nothing illegal. The store guard and manager, however, did, by preventing him and his family to leave.


----------



## griff (Sep 4, 2007)

Is Michael the next P.T.Barnum?? or just another P R machine!


FlashKat said:


> I hope you lose your case for being stubborn. Circuit City was not asking much from you. All you did was waste the time of the Employees, and a Police Officer who could have been needed at another emergency call. Next time don't play stupid.


----------



## John N (Sep 5, 2007)

geepondy said:


> I don't think being asked to show a receipt at the door is an extreme violation of my human rights but of course that's just my opinion.



You are right. Not a violation to *ask*. But unless they have proof you engaged in a criminal act they have no right to detain you. He was well within his right to tell them to get lost.

I think this is very akin if you were stopped by an officer for a broken taillight and he asked if he could search your car. If law abiding citizens don't say 'no', then the act of saying no itself becomes an incrimination.

Bottom line, we have to use our rights if we hope to retain them.



3rd_shift said:


> OK, here's the deal.
> If a law enforcent officer asks for your driver's license, you are supposed to provide it.
> 
> If you can't have one, you should have a personal ID card to present instead.
> This also applies to peace officers last I heard.



I'm fairly conflicted on this statement. My understanding is that while you can be *detained* for not presenting ID but we still typically have no laws requiring people to have "papers", so technically there should be no grounds to charge him.

That said, my guess is that obstruction of justice laws imply that the citizen should comply with any request of the officer unless it directly conflicts with the rights of the citizen.

While personally I think he made a tactical mistake by refusing the officer's request to show his driver's license, I do think we need to start thinking real hard about what type of society we want to live in. Personally, I don't want it to be one where it is illegal to be sans "papers".



Oddjob said:


> On some level, is someone standing there asking to see your receipt not similar to walking through the antitheft scanners?



Yes and no. On one level, you *should* be able to opt not to be scanned. The fact that people didn't refuse has led this to be considered acceptable. 

There is a difference, however:

The scanner, in conjunction with a process (the deactivation of the tags at the counter), acts to alert specifically on the passage of items that have not been paid for and as a result, are "due cause" for you to be asked to see your receipt.

There is no cause in effect when they simply ask for your receipt to leave the store. 

Perhaps we should submit to searches whenever we enter the city because someone might have illegal items on their person? Maybe blood tests too?



Groundhog66 said:


> Sounds like a lot of trouble for nothing....:shakehead



Sorry you feel that way. Personally I feel like we all owe a lot of people that went through a lot of trouble that they didn't need to for the rights we enjoy.



InTheDark said:


> I've heard in the membership-type stores, like Costco or Sam's club, the rules are different and they can legally search you and detain. Something about it being in the contract when you apply for membership, that you agree to abide by those rules. Anyone know if there's any truth to this rumor? Is this something where they can legally detain you, or just cancel your membership?



AFAIK, your agreement to be searched is part of your membership agreement, but they still have no legal grounds to detain you unless they have some proof you did something illegal. That said, they are perfectly within their rights to cancel your membership if you do not abide by your part of the agreement.

Which is a good point. Circuit City is perfectly within their rights to kick out this guy and not let him come back if he does not abide by their policies.



winston said:


> They know their job better than you know their job. If you have a problem with someone at Circuit City, don't take it out on the cop who shows up to sort it out. By not showing him a driver's license, he was just trying to be a pain in the ***.



Perhaps, but as I noted above, there are valid considerations here as well.



winston said:


> It wasn't helping him prove his point about the store's policies or the implementation thereof.



Now here is where I agree with you. In his quest to address all the issues (or perhaps, just being a pain in the ***), he diluted his point and put himself at cross purposes with the officer which did not help make his original point. [Although I admit getting arrested has called attention to the matter which indeed probably is beneficial to his case, but it is unclear if he knew that in advance.]



FlashKat said:


> I hope you lose your case for being stubborn. Circuit City was not asking much from you.



I'm surprised and disappointed to see how many responses of this type. 

The world around us is more and more being driven by uninformed, scared and reactionary opinion. Being driven by emotion. We need to decide what type of society we wish to live in.

If we don't exercise our rights, they will atrophy.

I want to live in a society of freedoms and rights. 

Thank you for all the people that have been willing to be inconvenienced, gone to jail and worse on our behalf.

-john


----------



## BB (Sep 5, 2007)

John N said:


> Perhaps we should submit to searches whenever we enter the city because someone might have illegal items on their person? Maybe blood tests too?



Shhhh... Don't give anyone ideas...

-Bill


----------



## turbodog (Sep 5, 2007)

Save yourself some time and go read the comments at slashdot. They are much more well informed, polite, and grammatically correct than the other sites that are discussing this.


----------



## DonShock (Sep 5, 2007)

bitslammer said:


> .....I still cherish the day I went to best buy before a trip to pickup a camera, SD cards........... I was so mad I said "I give up if you won't just ring this up without hasling me for all this stuff I'll take my money somewhere else and walked out. A manger quickly followed me out to the parking lot wanting to know what happened. I explained my displeasure and he replied that the cashier was following store policy. I replied that the store policy just lost him about $450 and he should let corporate know. He just sighed and went back inside muttering his displeasure.
> 
> Needless to say I don't shop at Best Buy unless absolutely necessary.


I did something similar at Circuit City once. But my issue was that I couldn't walk two feet looking at the merchandise without some salesman asking if I needed help. After being asked for the third time in less than 5 minutes, I asked the salesman if he could hold the basket with my items. He looked at me strangely and said "Sure, I guess." I just turned around and walked out of the store. As I was driving off, I saw the manager (I think?) coming out the front door and looking around. I just waved at him as I drove past.

And I haven't gone to a Best Buy ever since they refused to budge $9 on an issue with a $900 refrigerator.

The only thing I see this guy did wrong in this issue is that some of his actions deliberately escalated the issue. I too have often refused to submit to these searches. But rather than make an effort to go around the checker and continue out the store, I politely offer to wait right there while they call store security and the police if they think I stole something. When they ask why, I take the time to explain that I am not trying to cause trouble, but I refuse to be treated as a criminal since I have done nothing wrong. It takes more time than if I just let them search me, but I have never had them even bother calling store security, much less the police. It's possible to stand up for your rights without aggravating the situation just by being overly polite. If you start getting indignant and shouting about how you know your rights, you look like a criminal. Don't you ever watch Cops? Every one of those crooks nabbed red handed immediately starts shouting "I didn't do nuthin, I know my rights" as they are getting handcuffed.

Yes, LEOs are used to dealing with the less savory side of society and sometimes treat law abiding people as though they are such criminal types. But I have found that if you treat the officer respectfully and make it clear that you aren't the one trying to cause problems, you can get them on your side. Not only have I never gotten myself put in cuffs at a confrontation, I have gotten a few friends that "knew their rights" released from their own set of bracelets. Calm and polite will do wonders.


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (Sep 5, 2007)

John N said:


> I'm surprised and disappointed to see how many responses of this type.
> 
> The world around us is more and more being driven by uninformed, scared and reactionary opinion. Being driven by emotion. We need to decide what type of society we wish to live in.
> 
> ...



John, I really agree with you. I think what this guy did (if it was done calmly, and respectfully) was very patriotic. I know patriotism seems to be an overused concept lately, but this guy stood up for his rights, and in doing so, in my opinion, is helping out his fellow Americans.

While some people might think that he gave the cop a hard time, but that his actions with the Circuit City employees were reasonable, I find this to be very hypocritical. He has the right to leave the Circuity City store at his own digression, and without being unlawfully searched. Sure he could have let the employee look through his things and at his receipt, but he decided that he wanted to exercise his right to leave freely. 

And by not showing the officer his driver's license, he was doing the exact same thing - exercising his right that he doesn't have to show all sorts of identification to the officer. It sounds like a name, address, and date of birth is all that is required in his state, and that sounds about right. Why does the officer need more identification than that? Heck, what if he didn't have any identification with him? Are people that decide to go out in public without identification looking for trouble? Or are they just not wanting to carry their wallet?

I think checking people at the door is a bad idea, period. You've just handed over your money to the store, and you're ready to leave. You don't want to be stopped, or wait in a line (as is often the case at my local Costco). You don't want to be treated like you've done something wrong, and you don't want to be sent back to the cashier. If there's a mistake, and you want something done about it, you'll take care of it. 

It's always annoying after waiting in line for a while at the door of my local Costco, when they look down the receipt in two seconds, mark it with their highlighter, and say "thank you". I always say "thank you" back to them, but only because I'm thankful they are finally letting me out of the store. They don't check to see that everything was paid for, and they certainly don't check for any pricing errors. They just waste my time, every time.


----------



## kitelights (Sep 5, 2007)

What I've not seen addressed is his own admission that he knew why he was being asked to have his receipt and bag checked, but he decided to play dumb instead. 

It doesn't sound like they wanted him for a random check, but for something specific. 

Let's hypothetically say that he entered the store with a CD in his jacket pocket and after paying for his purchases he discretely removed the CD from his pocket and placed it in the bag, yet he was observed by a store employee. He didn't steal anything, but he certainly gave the store reasonable cause to suspect that he did.

I personally think that there's a major fact missing here. It makes no sense that the store would go through all that trouble for a random check. If it turns out that he did something to provoke or cause the incident, he's still probably legally in the right, but if so, then I think he's a complete dxxkhead.


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (Sep 5, 2007)

kitelights,

The Circuit City near my house routinely has somebody waiting at the door who asks everybody to see their receipts, which leads me to believe it is very likely that he did nothing to provoke the incident. However, that is certainly a possibility.


----------



## John N (Sep 5, 2007)

kitelights said:


> What I've not seen addressed is his own admission that he knew why he was being asked to have his receipt and bag checked, but he decided to play dumb instead.
> 
> It doesn't sound like they wanted him for a random check, but for something specific.
> 
> ...



If the store had some specific reason to believe he had stolen something they would have called the police and accused him. 

I think they were checking everyone as they were leaving and he decided not to play.

-john


----------



## gorn (Sep 5, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> The guy was being a pain in the @ss i hope he gets what he deserves. He thought he is smart, next time just shop online.



You are right, he was trying to stir up a situation. But the bottom line is I'll be Circuit City ends up giving him a big chunk of change. Their employees were wrong for detaining him even though he was being a problem.


----------



## dano (Sep 5, 2007)

meuge said:


> You cannot waive your constitutional rights via a civil contract.




Constitutional rights only apply towards Gov't intrusion. I.E. the 4th Amendment does not apply to private citizen vs. private citizen. You can't sue someone for violating your Civil Rights.

Most states have some sort of merchant law regarding theft, In California, for example, it's Penal Code Section 490.5. Also, in California, there is no law stating that a person must carry any form of I.D., nor is there a penalty if you refuse to disclose your name to a law enforcement officer (unless you're a suspect, etc). 

This guy was looking for attention on some personal cause...


----------



## Aaron1100us (Sep 5, 2007)

I don't work retail but I do work security at a hospital. We, as citizens have the legal right to detain and search anyone on the property. There are even signs that say anyone entering this facility are subject to search. If we have a situation such as stopping someone for criminal tresspass and they don't give us any ID, we simply call the police and they can force the person to give us their ID. We can also detain people until the police get there and decide what to do with them. Its happened more than once. I don't feel sorry for this guy one bit. He should have cooperated from the beginning.


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 5, 2007)

Retail security has no special standing under the law. They are agents of the owner. Owners can make up any (legal) rules they want to enter or stay on their property. However, enforcing those rules under the threat of detention or force requires special authority that is otherwise limited to government entities. 

Since some private security handles many highly sensitive private and public installations, I have no doubt they have added authority, which includes powers of arrest, search and use of force that is similar to that of LEOs. I'm fairly certain that Circuit City doesn't apply.

The claim that CC employees "prevented" the author from leaving is pretty weak stuff. They didn't pull a gun or put him in handcuffs. Their conduct is probably not serious enough to be considered an arrest.

I am not sure what to make of the police action. Could be legit, maybe not. There are a lot of gray areas. This may be one.

I respect law abiding people who know their rights, but 99% of people who think they know their rights actually don't. This author seems to be sharper than average (and has some guts), but his desire to solicit money for himself or the ACLU doesn't improve my impression.


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 5, 2007)

I would like to know if this CC store had a sign upon entry stating something like "we reserve the right to inspect all packages..." If they do, then your entry into the store is an acknowledgment that you will abide by their rules. If that is the case then this guy is wrong for not complying with the rules he agreed to by his entry in the store.

As far as identifying yourself to an officer, check your state and local laws. The requirements vary by jurisdiction. 

In my experience, during most minor police encounters people tent to "arrest themselves." I think this is one of those cases.


----------



## John N (Sep 5, 2007)

Aaron1100us said:


> I don't work retail but I do work security at a hospital. We, as citizens have the legal right to detain and search anyone on the property.



Considering you are talking about a place open to the public, I think you are mistaken. Typically, we, as citizens, have the right to detain someone if they are engaged in a felony (citizen's arrest). Otherwise, we have the right to tell them to leave. Security other than LEO are not special, hospital , city/government employee or other.



> There are even signs that say anyone entering this facility are subject to search.



Which gives you the right to kick out anyone who doesn't comply.



> If we have a situation such as stopping someone for criminal tresspass and they don't give us any ID, we simply call the police and they can force the person to give us their ID. We can also detain people until the police get there and decide what to do with them. Its happened more than once.



In a place open to the public, I suspect it is only trespass if they refuse to leave when you ask them. Detaining them without a (serious) crime is a crime. 

If I were you, I'd do some research on the boundaries and sources of your authority.



> I don't feel sorry for this guy one bit.



As is your right. A right secured by other people who were nit picky about their liberties. 

Oh, and if you read his blog, he wasn't asking you to feel sorry for him.

-john


----------



## John N (Sep 5, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> I would like to know if this CC store had a sign upon entry stating something like "we reserve the right to inspect all packages..." If they do, then your entry into the store is an acknowledgment that you will abide by their rules. If that is the case then this guy is wrong for not complying with the rules he agreed to by his entry in the store.



The only penalty for not abiding by their rules is they can ask you to leave. They cannot detain you.

-john


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 5, 2007)

Well I got half way through reading this thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned. Did anyone read the linked articles on this guy? He is a bit of a child prodigy I'd say. He bought a house at age 19, has a 1/2 million dollar business at 25. I personally don't blame him for walking out of the store and what Circuit city did is nothing short of 'Illegal detainment' and they should have been arrested. But I'll say he was dumb for not showing his ID to the LEO - even if it was within his rights. That was just plain dumb on his part and hopefully he'll figure that one out. The guy seems like a decent person but I suspect he's got a bit of an ego that is going to get him into trouble unless he learns something from this.


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 5, 2007)

John N said:


> The only penalty for not abiding by their rules is they can ask you to leave. They cannot detain you.
> 
> -john



Depends on whether they had a reason to believe you stole or concealed merchandise. At the least they could call the police to get your information so they can serve you with a letter saying you are no longer allowed on the property.

Again, if you enter the store knowing the rules and you choose not to abide by them you are basically breaking a contract.


----------



## flashlite (Sep 5, 2007)

Very interesting discussion. Right or wrong (I believe he was right), he should be commended for standing up for what he believes are his rights. These types of situations are becoming more and more prevalent in our society and maybe it's time someone brings this issue to the forefront before our society becomes too complacent.

One thing I've always wondered (and related to this topic) - if you're detained by a store employee because they believe you actually stole something even though you didn't, and the employee called or was intending to call the police, are you obligated to wait there for the police? I understand that if the store detains you that they better have proof. But what if it's an eye witness account and the eye witness didn't really see what he thought he saw and they thought you were hiding the item on your person? If I know I didn't steal anything, I would certainly want to leave the store before the police showed up because the presence of the police would surly draw attention to the situation and could do harm to my reputation. Do you just wait for the police and then sue the [email protected]!!s off the store? Couldn't they just claim that you intended make them think you stole something so that you could later profit from being falsely detained?


----------



## FASTCAR (Sep 5, 2007)

I would also like to hear the other side of the story.

I remember in Tekrit a man that was heading through a makeshift checkpoint.We had an attached a news person ( woman).
Short story is : This guy seemed just off a bit.We gave him the normal questions.He started blabbing about rights.Non stop yelling about bush, rights, calling the embasy.The camera crew was foaming at the mouth.They wanted an anti bush/war story.News crew got a bit out of line , tried to tell us our job and tried to let him go.

Seconds b4 we let him go, the dog was pawing at the rear of the car.We checked and double checked this car 10 times.Sniffer box said it was A OK. Dog was acting wierd.

We detained him and took the car apart.The gas tank had been removed.
Seems they welded 1/2 of it air tight.Inside was 14 large I.E.D.s.We found a nifty trap door on top of the tank very gummy and dirty.

We may have saved 100s of lives that day.


Hell, I would have done what the officer did.I would be willing to bet IF this kid did show his I.D. , the LEO would have let him go.

There I said it

My 2cents


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 5, 2007)

flashlite said:


> Very interesting discussion. Right or wrong (I believe he was right), he should be commended for standing up for what he believes are his rights. These types of situations are becoming more and more prevalent in our society and maybe it's time someone brings this issue to the forefront before our society becomes too complacent.
> 
> One thing I've always wondered (and related to this topic) - if you're detained by a store employee because they believe you actually stole something even though you didn't, and the employee called or was intending to call the police, are you obligated to wait there for the police? I understand that if the store detains you that they better have proof. But what if it's an eye witness account and the eye witness didn't really see what he thought he saw and they thought you were hiding the item on your person? If I know I didn't steal anything, I would certainly want to leave the store before the police showed up because the presence of the police would surly draw attention to the situation and could do harm to my reputation. Do you just wait for the police and then sue the [email protected]!!s off the store? Couldn't they just claim that you intended make them think you stole something so that you could later profit from being falsely detained?



I highlighted part of your statement because I think your reasoning is flawed. If you did nothing wrong then you act in a civilized manner and let the police come and resolve the issue.

As for the liability of the store when they detain you, I would suggest you research the code in your state/city that covers such actions. For example, in Virginia here is the code that covers merchants in regards to shoplifters.

§ 8.01-226.9. Exemption from civil liability in connection with arrest or detention of person suspected of shoplifting. 
A merchant, agent or employee of the merchant, who causes the arrest or detention of any person pursuant to the provisions of §§ 18.2-95, 18.2-96 or § 18.2-103, shall not be held civilly liable for unlawful detention, if such detention does not exceed one hour, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest, or assault and battery of the person so arrested or detained, whether such arrest or detention takes place on the premises of the merchant, or after close pursuit from such premises by such merchant, his agent or employee, provided that, in causing the arrest or detention of such person, the merchant, agent or employee of the merchant, had at the time of such arrest or detention probable cause to believe that the person had shoplifted or committed willful concealment of goods or merchandise. The activation of an electronic article surveillance device as a result of a person exiting the premises or an area within the premises of a merchant where an electronic article surveillance device is located shall constitute probable cause for the detention of such person by such merchant, his agent or employee, provided such person is detained only in a reasonable manner and only for such time as is necessary for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device, and provided that clear and visible notice is posted at each exit and location within the premises where such a device is located indicating the presence of an antishoplifting or inventory control device. For purposes of this section, "electronic article surveillance device" means an electronic device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from the premises, or a protected area within such premises, of specially marked or tagged merchandise. 

18.2 95, 96 and 103 define the elements of various larcenies.

So you applaud people who stick up for what they believe are their rights? If I believe it is my right to molest little girls and I stand up for that "right" will you support that? I don't mean to bust on you but that is a vacant position to hold. Kinda like "celebrate diversity." Serial killers add to the diversity of a population, should we "celebrate" them as well?


----------



## flashfan (Sep 5, 2007)

IMO, this guy was a jerk, and the whole incident was about ego and one-upmanship (and perhaps making $$) rather than true "principle." He may well have been within his rights, but _did he do the right thing?_ Not in my book.

More distasteful is the fact that this guy is accepting donations, especially since by his own admission, he doesn't need them. What are the chances that he'll file a claim(s), and Circuit City et al will end up "settling" with him...which indirectly _we_ will all pay for?

So really, is it about principle, or about seizing an opportunity for financial gain? Yuck, gag.

If you don't like the store policies, don't shop there (in CPF lingo, vote with your wallet). If you so resent being stopped to show your receipt, head right back to customer service, return your merchandise, get your money back, and _then_ leave the store...never to darken their doorstep again.


----------



## 270winchester (Sep 5, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> So you applaud people who stick up for what they believe are their rights? If I believe it is my right to molest little girls and I stand up for that "right" will you support that? I don't mean to bust on you but that is a vacant position to hold. Kinda like "celebrate diversity." Serial killers add to the diversity of a population, should we "celebrate" them as well?




because molesting little girls is a serious felony and immoral, while not showing your ID is not a crime and is a liberty that many states recognize for citizens to protect them from random police harassment for no reason. . If you can't distinguish what's illegal and what's not you may need to rethink what the words "rights" and "law" mean.

in Communist countries citizens are required to carry indentity papers and the police is free to detain them without reason just in the name of public saefty. Last time we checked America still has the Bill of Rights and we do live by the rule of the LAW.


the reasoning of "if you are not hiding anything then you should cooperate" is a slippery slope that leads to a lot of civil rights infringements. I thought that was a part of the point of the Civil Rights movement. In America, men/women are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Or did we surrender that too?


----------



## matthewdanger (Sep 5, 2007)

Priestly said:


> I'm glad the author took a stand for his principles rather than sheeping along with Circuit City.
> 
> I'm also glad that it appears the police officer may now get a chance to do his job better for knowing the actual law.


 
Amen on both counts.


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 5, 2007)

270winchester said:


> because molesting little girls is a serious felony and immoral, while not showing your ID is not a crime and is a liberty that many states recognize for citizens to protect them from random police harassment for no reason...... .



Actually, depending on your state/local laws you may be required to identify yourself to the police under certain circumstances. That would not include just some random encounter where some cop asks for your "papers." It would include a situation where you were suspected or accused of committing a crime.

Your "rights" are those things that you can do by yourself, or with the consent of others, that don't infringe on some other persons rights. So since this guy did not own the CC he shopped at, he consented to their rules by shopping there. The store did not violate his "rights" by wanting to check his bag.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 5, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> If you did nothing wrong then you act in a civilized manner and let the police come and resolve the issue.


Even if you _know_ you didn't shoplift? I sure as hell have better things to do with my time than wait an hour for the police to show if some security guard out to make brownie points decides in error that I may have taken something, or maybe a customer I may have looked at crooked decides to get even by telling the security guard they saw me take something.

Besides all that, those scanners in stores never work right anyway. The ones in the local chain stores beep for every single customer. The guards now just give a quick glance at your cart, scribble on the receipt, and let you leave while the scanner's beeping away.

Regarding the original article, I'm still left wondering exactly why the author was singled out. No mention of his race but that is sometimes a factor. I suspect he may have purchased the items, by luck didn't have his receipt signed, then went back in and took the same items again. Since he had a legitimate receipt, it would appear that he wasn't guilty of anything but maybe someone saw him put one of the items into a bag. We're not being told the whole story here. Given the huge legal mess a store can have from falsely detaining someone, I would think they wouldn't do so on a whim.



> Actually, depending on your state/local laws you may be required to identify yourself to the police under certain circumstances. That would not include just some random encounter where some cop asks for your "papers." It would include a situation where you were suspected or accused of committing a crime.


Required to identify yourself and required to show some form of ID are two entirely different things. The first is relatively innocuous. The second reminds me of places where you have to have your papers on you at all times. As far as I know, it's not illegal in any state to walk out the door without some form of ID on you. I do this all the time. And unfortunately, thanks to the plethora of silly nanny state laws on the books, virtually every citizen technically commits a few crimes for which they can be detained every single day. Almost everyone jaywalks, for example. Most drivers at some point exceed speed limits, even if only by a few mph. Many cyclists run red lights and stop signs. Most drivers don't come to a complete stop at stop signs unless there's cross traffic. Thankfully the police usually use common sense in enforcing many of these laws, and will only stop you if you're actually putting others in harm's way. However, the potential exists for widespread abuse should some politician on a power trip decide that a "crackdown" is in order. I wouldn't want to be around should we ever start enforcing every single petty law on the books with zero tolerance.


----------



## Manzerick (Sep 5, 2007)

AMEN!!! 

We did some sorta' study at school on how American's are being "lulled" into a state of letting anyone do anything!! No one fights for OUR rights anymore!!!






Priestly said:


> I'm glad the author took a stand for his principles rather than sheeping along with Circuit City.
> 
> I'm also glad that it appears the police officer may now get a chance to do his job better for knowing the actual law.


----------



## John N (Sep 5, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> John N said:
> 
> 
> > The only penalty for not abiding by their rules is they can ask you to leave. They cannot detain you.
> ...



And they did not. He asked them point blank if they were accusing him. He told them to accuse him and call the police to which they declined. The grounds for detaining someone vary by state, but typically involve direct evidence of a significant crime.



Ras_Thavas said:


> Actually, depending on your state/local laws you may be required to identify yourself to the police under certain circumstances.



He did identify himself to the officer. He just refused to produce his motor vehicular operator's license.



> he consented to their rules by shopping there. The store did not violate his "rights" by wanting to check his bag.



Right, they did not violate his rights by *asking*. But the only penalty for breaking their rules is to be asked to leave. They did violate his rights when they detained him.

-john


----------



## Nebula (Sep 5, 2007)

This is a very interesting debate, and one that will surely continue long into the future. After reading the blog and the posts here, I find myself agreeing with many of the commentators, irrespective of "side" taken on the issue. That being said, I thought I would add a little to the debate by providing some additional information. To be clear, I am not taking sides on this issue. To be honest, I don't know what I would have done under the circumstances, at least with regard to the Circuit City employees. The police officer is another story altogether. I most assuredly would have provided my DL when asked. 

I have added some additional reading material for your edification. I commend you to read the cited Supreme Court case if you have the time. 

On June 21, 2004 newspaper headlines around the US read: Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refused to identify himself, and where reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--existed that he had committed a crime. The United States Supreme Court's ruling came in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,Humboldt County, United States Supreme Court, 03-5554, June 21, 2004.

With regard to the *Miranda* issues discussed in this thread, the following Q & A format might be helpful. 

Q. Can a police officer question a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes. The Miranda warnings must be read only before questioning a person who has been taken into custody. (Custody is the crucial element here). 

Q. Can a police officer arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statement(s) made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court. (A few Court's have interpreted this to mean that until "interrogation" commences, there is no requirement that a suspect be Mirandized). 

Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to a police officer?
A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given. (i.e., voluntary statements given by the suspect in the presence of the LEO). 


As an aside, I once had a client that was in line at the local grocery store to check out. His four year old niece was being a four year old, so he took a banana out of his cart and gave it to her. An overly agressive security guard detained him for shoplifting of all things. The police were called and my client was arrested (he spent three days in jail) and the niece was left - alone - in the store. After he made bail he came to see me. While he got a nice settlement, the security guard was not fired. 

BTW -my experience with both BestBuy and Circuit City are similar. I usually hold my bag up and offer it to the clerk at the door. 90% of the time I get waved off. 

My .02 cents.


----------



## KC2IXE (Sep 5, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> Depends on whether they had a reason to believe you stole or concealed merchandise. At the least they could call the police to get your information so they can serve you with a letter saying you are no longer allowed on the property.
> 
> Again, if you enter the store knowing the rules and you choose not to abide by them you are basically breaking a contract.



Yes - they CAN detain you - but they better be dammed sure that you actually broke the LAW, not a contract - the risk in a citizens arrest is that if you're WRONG, you're NOT protected by soverign immunity - aka you get your butt handed to you in the following civil case


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 5, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> Even if you _know_ you didn't shoplift? I sure as hell have better things to do with my time than wait an hour for the police to show if some security guard out to make brownie points decides in error that I may have taken something, or maybe a customer I may have looked at crooked decides to get even by telling the security guard they saw me take something.



Yes, but lets make it more interesting. Say the police stop you. They say, hey you match the description of a guy who just committed an armed robbery. You know you did not commit the robbery, do you just tell the officer that it could not have been you and walk away? There are two sides to every story.

Again, part of living in a civilized society means one must act civilized.


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 5, 2007)

The Virginia law provided by Ras_Thavas is the second time I've seen that here on Cafe, but a more detailed excerpt this time. That is interesting and I wonder about California.

If a property owner has a rule unrelated to the law, he or she may enforce it by exclusion or expulsion--not physical force or detention. If a person is in a run of the mill business which has a sign, "All persons subject to search," the business cannot use force or forced detention to enable the search. 

For example, I enter a movie theater that says, "Absolutely no outside drinks or food. All patrons subject to search." As I enter the lobby, a security team of 16 year olds approaches me and demands to search me for food or drink. The law says nothing about bringing food or drink into a theater. So I tell the teenagers to take a hike. They can legally force me out of the theater (physically, if reasonable), but they cannot legally force a search, nor "hold" me for police because I refuse a search. At this point, it's law of the jungle if I try to leave and they try to stop me. 

The Virginia law gives businesses cover against lawsuits during citizen's arrests of shoplifters, specifically stating electronic devices constitute probable cause to arrest. Seems reasonable to me.

Blowing past security without displaying a receipt when requested is certainly an element of probable cause, but in itself, seems insufficient, though I could be wrong. Having a bag of merchandise is also an element of probable cause. Attempting to flee security would likely be enough elements to justify the arrest, though in this story, it doesn't sound like the author was attempting escape. 

California law requires observation of a misdemeanor to make a citizen's arrest for it (and the crime must have, in fact, been committed). This is the general citizen's arrest authority, and there could be exceptions for stores or special security guards in high risk installations for all I know. Citizens can use reasonable force to make the arrest, but get no special legal protection as law enforcement officers do. Resisting a citizen's arrest is not against the law as it is when resisting a peace officer.

This is all from memory, so I can't vouch for the total accuracy of the above.


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 5, 2007)

Once again, we only have the one side of the story, and that side is clearly biased by the "victims" agenda.

Merchants in Ohio are allowed to detain persons who they think have shoplifted under the following code section.

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......(the rest of the code deals with museums, etc..)


It is conceivable that the merchant thought that Righi had shoplifted. There is no requirement that the merchant tell Righi, hey I think you shoplifted. I could probably make a convincing argument for probable cause based on his refusal to check the receipt, coupled with his odd behavior.


So now the officer gets there. There is no indication of any conversation between the officer and the store manager but I bet they talked before the officer asked Righi for his DL. Once asked, Righi says “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.” He is right and wrong here. He does not have to give his DL. He does have to give his name, address, or date of birth. This is from the Brooklyn Ohio city ordinance.'

525.17 REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE PERSONAL INFORMATION IN PUBLIC PLACE. 
(a) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense..... there is more but it is not relevant.

So the officer only needs reasonable suspicion to request Righi to identify himself. There is no doubt in my mind that his refusal to show the receipt and his odd behavior rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. 

I don't know enough about the obstructing code Raghi was charged with to know if it will fly in court or not. One really has to dig into local case law to find out if that charge will be upheld in court or not, and I don't care enough about to do so.

In the end, we have a person with a chip on their shoulder, who clearly wanted to be arrested, and got his wish. To compare what he did with the civil rights movement is a farce. He is no Rosa Parks. To quite a movie line " he is a f****ng t-shirt" at best.


----------



## DonShock (Sep 5, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> .......Again, part of living in a civilized society means one must act civilized.


EXACTLY!

You can start out being totally correct in exercising your rights, but if you follow that up by pushing the limits you can put yourself in the wrong. Even if you don't end up violating the letter of the law, you'll still end up in court as the defendant. After all that's what the courts are for, to settle guilt or innocence. If you want to have the officer give you the benefit of the doubt and avoid going to jail in the first place, you should be polite and cooperative (aka civilized). I suspect if this individual had been more cooperative, he would have had a good case as a plaintiff against the store. And his point about standing up for his rights would carry more would carry more weight. Instead, due to his actions after the initial cause, he minimizes the righteousness of his own issue.


----------



## John N (Sep 5, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> Once again, we only have the one side of the story, and that side is clearly biased by the "victims" agenda.
> 
> Merchants in Ohio are allowed to detain persons who they think have shoplifted under the following code section.
> 
> ...



If they think he had shoplifted, they have to call the police which they refused to do. As for probable cause based on the recipe, ah.. No. Refusal to a search is not probable cause.



> So now the officer gets there. There is no indication of any conversation between the officer and the store manager but I bet they talked before the officer asked Righi for his DL. Once asked, Righi says “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.” He is right and wrong here. He does not have to give his DL. He does have to give his name, address, or date of birth.



And he did NOT refuse to give his name, address or DOB. 



> In the end, we have a person with a chip on their shoulder, who clearly wanted to be arrested, and got his wish. To compare what he did with the civil rights movement is a farce. He is no Rosa Parks. To quite a movie line " he is a f****ng t-shirt" at best.



Certainly this is no Rosa Parks incident, but I have to disagree with you. If nobody stands up for our rights, we lose them. Sad but true. 

And everyone who stands up for their rights basically looks like a jerk. Rosa looked like a jerk to everyone no on her side of the issue. Why doesn't she just sit where she is supposed to?! It's the law!

-john


----------



## PEU (Sep 5, 2007)

Im not a US citizen, so Im not familiar with US rules but, why someone must be polite to be treated according to the law if nothing wrong according to it happened?
Being polite is not a clause to be considered a good citizen AFAIK. I know that being polite oils any conversation and I also know it would had helped in this particular case, but the guy choosed to fight these particular "wars" in his own way, and it seems many think that he was wrong for doing it...

There is a nice poem by Bertolt Brecht thats apropiate in this thread. 
Don't overlook these kind of things, rights are hard to obtain and easy to lose.


Pablo


----------



## Priestly (Sep 5, 2007)

John N said:


> Rosa looked like a jerk to everyone no on her side of the issue. Why doesn't she just sit where she is supposed to?! It's the law!



She sure would have made that Montgomery LEO's day a lot easier had she moved, hmm?


----------



## gorn (Sep 5, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> I suspect he may have purchased the items, by luck didn't have his receipt signed, then went back in and took the same items again. Since he had a legitimate receipt, it would appear that he wasn't guilty of anything but maybe someone saw him put one of the items into a bag.



Receipts have time and date stamps on them. That would take care of the issue you mention.


----------



## DonShock (Sep 5, 2007)

PEU said:


> Im not a US citizen, so Im not familiar with US rules but, why someone must be polite to be treated according to the law if nothing wrong according to it happened?
> Being polite is not a clause to be considered a good citizen AFAIK. I know that being polite oils any conversation and I also know it would had helped in this particular case, but the guy choosed to fight these particular "wars" in his own way, and it seems many think that he was wrong for doing it...
> 
> There is a nice poem by Bertolt Brecht thats apropiate in this thread.
> ...


For me, it's not that he was wrong in standing up for his rights, it's how he chose to go about it that lost him my sympathy. For example, I would be well within my rights to have my rifle strapped across my back and my pistol on my hip while I mow the yard. But I would also panic all my neighbors and probably have a few police cars rolling up in nothing flat. And being uncooperative because I knew I was within my rights would probably get me shot. I would be right, but I would also be dead.

Here's another real world example: One Christmas I was home on leave and was cleaning out some of my old stuff that had been stored at home while I was out of state. One item I found was a very old box of 0.22 ammunition. So I decided to get rid of it by firing it off (we're a semi-rural neighborhood, outside of city limits). As I was running the rounds through the gun and firing them into a large dirt hill on our property, a police officer came walking up and asked what I was doing. I was careful to be non-threatening, identified myself verbally, and explained what I was doing. It turned out he was the son of the people two doors down and was also visiting for the day. A quick "just be careful" and he was on his way. No confrontation or escalation of the situation because I understood his thinking in investigating and knew it was my job to reassure him that I was a member of the law abiding class.

If you look at LEOs as your friends instead of "the authorities" and treat them that way, you would be amazed at how quickly most of them will change their mindsets. You can't blame them for approaching every situation with forceful attitude. After all, their lives may depend on it. You just have to put yourself in their place to prevent problems and misunderstandings.


----------



## stephenmadpotato (Sep 5, 2007)

Do you have any idea how much money is lost due to shrinkage? By allowing them to search your and everyone elses bags you are indirectly lowering the cost of merchandise...


----------



## John N (Sep 5, 2007)

DonShock said:


> For me, it's not that he was wrong in standing up for his rights, it's how he chose to go about it that lost him my sympathy.



While many have asserted he acted like a jerk, we have no evidence to suggest he acted in a rude manner. 



> For example, I would be well within my rights to have my rifle strapped across my back and my pistol on my hip while I mow the yard. But I would also panic all my neighbors and probably have a few police cars rolling up in nothing flat. And being uncooperative because I knew I was within my rights would probably get me shot. I would be right, but I would also be dead.



I think this is a great example. The bottom line is nobody is keeping this right alive, so in reality, we have lost it. A right you cannot exercise is not a right.



> If you look at LEOs as your friends instead of "the authorities" and treat them that way, you would be amazed at how quickly most of them will change their mindsets. You can't blame them for approaching every situation with forceful attitude. After all, their lives may depend on it. You just have to put yourself in their place to prevent problems and misunderstandings.



I don't disagree in general, but if he was out to prove that particular point there was probably no way to do it other than to get detained. The thing is, if they had detained him for a while and then let him go they would have been in the right as well.

-john


----------



## BB (Sep 5, 2007)

Just out of curiosity--As John N said, I know of only two ways to change how specific laws (contracts, etc.) are enforced--1. is by changing the law (legislature, signed by executive). Or by 2., "breaking one" and having it adjudicated in court (obviously, this is a US question--other countries have different systems).

One can ask for legal opinion (Attorney's, Attorney General's, and even send a letter to a judge)--but none of those actually carry and force of law.

Does anyone have any other ideas of how one would challenge bad law / poor procedures (other than just by threats of lawsuits)?

-Bill


----------



## DonShock (Sep 5, 2007)

John N said:


> While many have asserted he acted like a jerk, we have no evidence to suggest he acted in a rude manner.


Pretending you don't know why you are being pursued, deliberately allowing misunderstanding by the other people in the vehicle is rude at best. It was potentially dangerous. If the others in the vehicle had misunderstood the pursuing store security as an attack, things could have escalated even more than they did. And since the only thing I read was his own account, it's his own fault if he came across as rude and deliberately provoking.



John N said:


> I think this is a great example. The bottom line is nobody is keeping this right alive, so in reality, we have lost it. A right you cannot exercise is not a right.


Yes, in a perfect world all by my lonesome I would have perfect freedom. But it's an imperfect world and you have to make some allowances to get along with, and protect, others. Of course life would be easier if I didn't have to worry about scaring others by openly carrying or having to get a CCW for concealed carry. But the reality is that there are bad people out there that carry weapons and many people consider anyone with a weapon as one of them. They are wrong, but with a little bit of compromise on both sides everybody can be happy. I can be careful with displaying my weapon and fill out some extra paperwork to try to keep guns out of criminal hands. The new push for shall-issue CCW is about getting back to reasonable rules after going too far towards outright bans. Compromise is about making society work, not making the world perfect.



John N said:


> I don't disagree in general, but if he was out to prove that particular point there was probably no way to do it other than to get detained. The thing is, if they had detained him for a while and then let him go they would have been in the right as well.
> 
> -john


Yes, he would have been detained and they would have wasted time and effort. Eventually, the store personnel would have been made to see that there were limits on what was permissable. But by escalating the situation, especially after the police arrived, he ended up getting arrested and now the store personnel think they did the right thing after seeing him hauled off. Even if a later court case finds him not guilty, it won't make a difference as far as changing the store's behaviour. A more effective lesson for the store personnel would have been for him to maintain the high road and take the time and effort to get the police on his side. The store personel would think twice the next time a customer refused to be searched if the police had been forced to allow him to drive off while telling the store that he had done nothing wrong and was being sent on his way.



stephenmadpotato said:


> Do you have any idea how much money is lost due to shrinkage? By allowing them to search your and everyone elses bags you are indirectly lowering the cost of merchandise...


As I posted earlier, with employees being responsible for 47% of shrinkage and only 32% for shoplifters, that's kind of like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. They would control shrinkage more by being tougher with their own employees instead of randomly accosting their customers.


----------



## KingGlamis (Sep 6, 2007)

Wow. A big stinking deal for essentially nothing. The funny thing is, if you don't buy anything and don't have a receipt they let you walk right out. And I'll bet most shoplifters don't buy anything.

This guy knew what he was doing. While the store and the officer may have over reacted, I think he wanted, even expected them to. To me he sounds like a paranoid kook just looking for trouble. But I must admit, this little stunt he pulled could make him rich, and if not, at least he has his 15 minutes of fame. :thumbsdow


----------



## greenstuffs (Sep 6, 2007)

Bah the receipt search was useless, i remember when during the Black Friday, i found out this guy didn't ring up a external HD, some small stuff and some games after i got home, well had over 2k worth of stuff in my cart, i just calmly showed my receipt and told the guy at Best Buy "hey pal you gotta long day ahead" he nodded and said "YEAH" and made a mark on my receipt i basically walked out of the store with $300 worth of freebies. Now this was not my fault i did not shoplift i went through the register and i made no attempt to steal i guess its their loss. The guy made an attempt to count the items fruitless needless to say, i just realize now that if i had been "caught" i may have to face trial, this is really BS. There should be a law that after passing the register you should have freeway their mistake they take the hit.


----------



## KingGlamis (Sep 6, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> Bah the receipt search was useless, i remember when during the Black Friday, i found out this guy didn't ring up a external HD, some small stuff and some games after i got home, well had over 2k worth of stuff in my cart, i just calmly showed my receipt and told the guy at Best Buy "hey pal you gotta long day ahead" he nodded and said "YEAH" and made a mark on my receipt i basically walked out of the store with $300 worth of freebies. Now this was not my fault i did not shoplift i went through the register and i made no attempt to steal i guess its their loss. The guy made an attempt to count the items fruitless needless to say, i just realize now that if i had been "caught" i may have to face trial, this is really BS. There should be a law that after passing the register you should have freeway their mistake they take the hit.



Good point and the opposite should also be noted. A store employee won't be charged with a crime if they accidentally charge you for two items when you bought just one (and I'm sure this happens all the time).


----------



## 270winchester (Sep 6, 2007)

I never said you have the right to not identify yourself. In california you are required to give your name, address, and DOB, if my memory serves me right.

Identify yourself does not mean showing them your ID on demand.

looks like jtr1962 beat me to it.



Ras_Thavas said:


> Actually, depending on your state/local laws you may be required to identify yourself to the police under certain circumstances. That would not include just some random encounter where some cop asks for your "papers." It would include a situation where you were suspected or accused of committing a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "rights" are those things that you can do by yourself, or with the consent of others, that don't infringe on some other persons rights. So since this guy did not own the CC he shopped at, he consented to their rules by shopping there. The store did not violate his "rights" by wanting to check his bag.





PEU said:


> Im not a US citizen, so Im not familiar with US rules but, why someone must be polite to be treated according to the law if nothing wrong according to it happened?
> Being polite is not a clause to be considered a good citizen AFAIK. I know that being polite oils any conversation and I also know it would had helped in this particular case, but the guy choosed to fight these particular "wars" in his own way, and it seems many think that he was wrong for doing it...
> 
> There is a nice poem by Bertolt Brecht thats apropiate in this thread.
> ...



couldn't agree more Pablo.


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 6, 2007)

My supervisor was sued for $2 million in a big TV news controversy for arresting some idiot with an agenda. The government ran away from the suit to leave the officer facing it himself until political winds started blowing the other direction. The government settled out of court, giving the guy money, 15 minutes and credibility. The officer was "retrained" according to public affairs. Major operational changes came down as a result and a total elimination of enforcement in certain areas.

If someone believes he is standing on principle, getting arrested (never resist arrest if you value your life) might make big waves and change things. I might not agree with the principle but that is vox populi in action.

But like I said, 99 morons will get arrested amounting to nothing (like one 4th amendment nut who was pulled through his car window and arrested after it was smashed by our officers) before 1 actually has a constitutional argument.


----------



## ampdude (Sep 6, 2007)

I've done the bag check routine at Best Buy a couple times as well. Talk about stupid. Next time I'm going to mention to the bag checker "why doesn't Best Buy doesn't trust their own cashiers."


----------



## kitelights (Sep 6, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> Bah the receipt search was useless, i remember when during the Black Friday, i found out this guy didn't ring up a external HD, some small stuff and some games after i got home, well had over 2k worth of stuff in my cart, i just calmly showed my receipt and told the guy at Best Buy "hey pal you gotta long day ahead" he nodded and said "YEAH" and made a mark on my receipt i basically walked out of the store with $300 worth of freebies. Now this was not my fault i did not shoplift i went through the register and i made no attempt to steal i guess its their loss. The guy made an attempt to count the items fruitless needless to say, i just realize now that if i had been "caught" i may have to face trial, this is really BS. There should be a law that after passing the register you should have freeway their mistake they take the hit.


I can't count how many times I've corrected a cashier or waitress and most often it's when it's been in my favor.

I'll bet if you had been overcharged $300 you would have gone back to the store and resolved it.

I have a pretty good idea what I expect my total to be when shopping, which I guess is why I easily find mistakes. It sounds like maybe you knew when you were checking out, too.


----------



## barkingmad (Sep 6, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> Bah the receipt search was useless, i remember when during the Black Friday, i found out this guy didn't ring up a external HD, some small stuff and some games after i got home, well had over 2k worth of stuff in my cart, i just calmly showed my receipt and told the guy at Best Buy "hey pal you gotta long day ahead" he nodded and said "YEAH" and made a mark on my receipt i basically walked out of the store with $300 worth of freebies. Now this was not my fault i did not shoplift i went through the register and i made no attempt to steal i guess its their loss. The guy made an attempt to count the items fruitless needless to say, i just realize now that if i had been "caught" i may have to face trial, this is really BS. There should be a law that after passing the register you should have freeway their mistake they take the hit.


 
Not sure about the US but pretty sure that here in the UK if you have knowingly been undercharged for goods it is still theft... like kitelights said if you had been overcharged I am quite sure you would have gone in to resolve it.


----------



## Aaron1100us (Sep 6, 2007)

Ok, I know that Loss Prevention people at a retail store can detain as well. Loss Prevention is not law enforcement yet they can detain. Detaining is different than arresting. I'm pretty sure they had the right to detain. 

According to our department SOP, We can detain and or handcuff people who are combative, the subject is carrying a weapon, or for holding the person until CRPD arrives (say we stop someone from criminal trespass and they don't cooperate) or if the person poses a threat. 

"Iowa Code

804.6 An arrest pursuant to warrant shall me made only by a peace officer: in other cases, and arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person as provided in this chapter"

804.9 A private person may make an arrest:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the person's presence.
2. When a felony has been committed and the person has reasonable ground for believing that the person to be arrested has committed it.

One other thing, just because we hand cuff someone doesn't mean that they are under arrest. Most of the time we detain the individual to keep the person from leaving (if we are waiting for the police to arrive and they are not being cooperative) or if they are being or are going to be a threat to someone else or themselves. 

This doesn't mean that I think all store employees should go out and stop anyone they want to. They better have a darn good reason for it. If they have a good reason (caught on video for example) that someone stole something, then its ok, otherwise its not.


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 6, 2007)

Again, people are hung up on the issue of Righi's "rights." It is not his right to go into the store and not follow their rules.

It is funny that Righi wants to impose his will on the store owner, when he takes no risk. Righi does not buy the building, nor the product, nor does he pay the employees and the insurance and taxes required to make this business run.

If he really wanted to be a hero he should put his own money where his mouth is. He should open his own electronics store and make one of the selling points to customers "We never check your bags on the way out."


----------



## John N (Sep 6, 2007)

Aaron1100us said:


> 804.9 A private person may make an arrest:
> 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the person's presence.
> 2. When a felony has been committed and the person has reasonable ground for believing that the person to be arrested has committed it.



The key here is that a crime has been committed. You have to SEE a crime or otherwise KNOW a crime has been committed before you can detain someone.

-john


----------



## John N (Sep 6, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> Again, people are hung up on the issue of Righi's "rights." It is not his right to go into the store and not follow their rules.



Actually, I'm hung up on the issue of *everyone's* rights. 

For example, I support the right of the store to kick him out and tell him he cannot come back. I support the right of the store to have him arrested for trespassing if he ignores that mandate.

Bottom line is even if you think he is the largest jerk in history, they (nor anyone else other than a LEO) don't have the right to detain him w/o evidence of a crime. The end.

-john


----------



## greenlight (Sep 6, 2007)

Nebula said:


> As an aside, I once had a client that was in line at the local grocery store to check out. His four year old niece was being a four year old, so he took a banana out of his cart and gave it to her. An overly agressive security guard detained him for shoplifting of all things. The police were called and my client was arrested (he spent three days in jail) and the niece was left - alone - in the store.



I seem to remember reading that Brazil has a law that defends the poor from prosecution from theft of food items. The problem is that some people are so poor that they resort to stealing food. 

I always thought that was a humane way to treat that particular situation. Punishing people who are hungry would be uncivilized. 

Maybe someone with more knowledge about this can explain better.

They also allow stop-and-go at red lights in Brazil. The problem there was that the driver sitting at the red light was an opportunity for carjackers. So it's safer to just keep driving.


----------



## Danbo (Sep 6, 2007)

Just MY opinion, but the official charges should be listed as "Being a dumbass who wouldn't cooperate with store security and police officers". 

Geez, why the heck wouldn't he simply show the security guard and store manager his receipt, unless he had something to hide, or was just a stubborn moron who obviously has problems with respecting authority?


----------



## Danbo (Sep 6, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> Bah the receipt search was useless, i remember when during the Black Friday, i found out this guy didn't ring up a external HD, some small stuff and some games after i got home, well had over 2k worth of stuff in my cart, i just calmly showed my receipt and told the guy at Best Buy "hey pal you gotta long day ahead" he nodded and said "YEAH" and made a mark on my receipt i basically walked out of the store with $300 worth of freebies. Now this was not my fault i did not shoplift i went through the register and i made no attempt to steal i guess its their loss. The guy made an attempt to count the items fruitless needless to say, i just realize now that if i had been "caught" i may have to face trial, this is really BS. There should be a law that after passing the register you should have freeway their mistake they take the hit.




Integrity. Look it up. It means doing the right thing, even when nobody is looking. The fact remains that YOU knew about the extra stuff in your bag that you didn't pay for, therefore YOU stole them, by not returning them. Because of shoplifters and people like you, all of the rest of us have to pay higher prices, as the store recoups their losses by raising prices.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 6, 2007)

Danbo said:


> Integrity. Look it up. It means doing the right thing, even when nobody is looking. The fact remains that YOU knew about the extra stuff in your bag that you didn't pay for, therefore YOU stole them, by not returning them. Because of shoplifters and people like you, all of the rest of us have to pay higher prices, as the store recoups their losses by raising prices.


I vehemently disagree. If a store is too cheap to pay enough to hire competent cashiers (or other positions, for that matter), then they deserve to lose money through employee error. And I don't expect a customer to do the cashier's job by catching a missed item. If the store is too cheap to hire more cashiers so as to reduce their chance of error it's not my problem. We have this problem at our local grocery stores. It's not like they don't charge enough for their products, either. At least then I might tolerate poor service. It seems not matter how crowded or empty the store is, they have only enough cashiers working to guarantee a 10 or 15 minute wait. And don't get me started on the local post office. That's an average wait of 3 hours. On a good day you might get out in an hour. On a bad one you could show at 9AM and not be taken care of by the time they close at 5. Sorry, but businesses want to be cheap, let them reap the consequences. Stealing? Well, they're stealing my time by making me wait longer because they're too cheap to hire more cashiers. How about a little integrity where the store considers the customer's time valuable?

Also, errors at the register work both ways. My sister was doubled-charged for two items at Home Depot a few days ago. She almost didn't catch it until my brother noticed that the total for the items she had seemed a bit high. She checked the receipt. Sure enough they rang up two items twice (an extra $63 with the sales tax). To add insult to injury she had to wait 2 hours at customer service to have the problem fixed. The customer service rep mentioned this was the fourth or fifth time that day this cashier had made a mistake. And I'm sure some people walked out without catching a mistake so it was likely more. Of course, I doubt the cashier will get fired or at least retrained. After all, I'm sure she works cheap, which is all employers seem to care about these days. There is an old saying you get what you pay for. It's well known that underpaid employees tend to steal more, and take their work less seriously. They justify it because of their low pay (not that I agree here, but that seems to be the prevalent thinking). A friend of mine had over $5000 from cash sales stolen by his secretary last year. And he wastes a lot of his time watching over new employees to make sure they don't steal. The sad part is he doesn't pay well because he really can't afford it, not because he wouldn't if his business did well.


----------



## Nebula (Sep 6, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> Bah the receipt search was useless, i remember when during the Black Friday, i found out this guy didn't ring up a external HD, some small stuff and some games after i got home, well had over 2k worth of stuff in my cart, i just calmly showed my receipt and told the guy at Best Buy "hey pal you gotta long day ahead" he nodded and said "YEAH" and made a mark on my receipt i basically walked out of the store with $300 worth of freebies. Now this was not my fault i did not shoplift i went through the register and i made no attempt to steal i guess its their loss. The guy made an attempt to count the items fruitless needless to say, i just realize now that if i had been "caught" i may have to face trial, this is really BS. There should be a law that after passing the register you should have freeway their mistake they take the hit.


 
Greenstuffs - 

Non in legendo sed in intelligendo legis consistunt
(The laws consist not in being read but in being understood).

Larceny: The taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive. 

Larceny of Property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake: a person who comes into control of property of another - that he knows to have been delivered under a mistake - is guilty of theft if he fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the person entitled to have it. 

Forgive me for sticking my nose in as I have no axe to grind. Certainly not with a fellow Okie. I grew up in Oklahoma, studied law in Oklahoma, and lived in Norman for many years afterward. For the most part I am very proud of my home state and its residents. Rationalize it how you will, but what you did amounts to larceny plain and simple. 

Non jus ex regula, sed regula ex jure (The law does not arise from the rule (or Maxim), but the rule from the law). 

KK


----------



## smokelaw1 (Sep 6, 2007)

Danbo said:


> Just MY opinion, but the official charges should be listed as "Being a dumbass who wouldn't cooperate with store security and police officers".
> 
> Geez, why the heck wouldn't he simply show the security guard and store manager his receipt, unless he had something to hide, or was just a stubborn moron who obviously has problems with respecting authority?


 
Of course you don't mean that, as what you are describing is not a CRIME. Ought one be imprisoned for being a dumbass? I happen to think not (my brother is a dumbass, and I would hate to see him in jail.)

Why not? "Because you have nothing to hide" is not a reason. I also do not choose to submit to full body cavity searches at the airport....even though I am not bringing weapons. It is a violation of my person. HOW MUCH of a violation of my privacy I will choose to allow is up to me. Now, he most certainly did break the store's rule. The store's one and only recourse without evidence of a crime to to kick him out and tell him not to come back. With evidence of a crime...possibly detain him and call the police. 
I have been stopped by the police for being White in the wrong neighborhood. (15 years ago...) I had nothing illegal on me, and the offcier put his hands in my pockets and searched me. There was NO reasonable suspicion (let alone probable cause). That is not something I forget lightly. As a teenager, I had a crappy car. I had a very wealthy friend, and I drove late at night to his house. I got pulled over in a place where NO house is under a million dollars. I was asked where I was going, and was told that no onw by that name lived in the area. I protested. I was pulled out of my car, I was searched, and the entire car was ransacked an searched. I had nothing to hide. Does this make it OK? I still say it does not. 
That giving up my rights hurts nothing else, does not make it OK.


----------



## kboy25 (Sep 6, 2007)

those check points don't work half the time anyways...
i've gotten free stuff a few times at costco....like for some reason they put product from someone else on my cart or something, or when I get home I realize they didn't charge for something.

happened several times.

only once did they catch something, and was I overcharged...
waste of time IMO.


----------



## flashfan (Sep 6, 2007)

Danbo's got it right. _Integrity_ and _doing the right thing _even when no one is looking. Add honesty and the Golden Rule, and we'd all be a lot better off.

You know what really is astounding? There has been no mention of the _real problem_ behind stores checking receipts_--the prevalence of __shoplifting. _Even with employee theft a larger problem, how many millions?/billions?/trillions? of dollars could be saved?


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 6, 2007)

Big difference between private security and police.

Law enforcement can search under many doctrines. Most people have no clue about any of them, or know one but not the others. People are best off assuming that LEOs know what they are doing.

There are about 8-10 different legal ways I can search someone and their vehicle (different agencies have different authority), so nobody should assume that I'm violating their rights. Terry frisk, probable cause, search incident to arrest, plain view, consent, inventory, and a few special others that are so broad as to give me more authority to search than I need. 

I have seen cars and boats cut open with drills and power saws. Nothing found, have a nice day. Completely legal.


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Sep 6, 2007)

Lightraven said:


> There are about 8-10 different legal ways I can search someone and their vehicle (different agencies have different authority), so nobody should assume that I'm violating their rights. Terry frisk, probable cause, search incident to arrest, plain view, consent, inventory, and a few special others that are so broad as to give me more authority to search than I need.
> 
> I have seen cars and boats cut open with drills and power saws. Nothing found, have a nice day. Completely legal.



Glad to hear due process is alive and well. Also glad to hear that a LEO has such a casual and cavalier attitude toward the destruction of property of a citizen. :thumbsdow

That said, in the few interactions I've had with a LEO, each has been completely courteous and respectful. He/she explained the situation, my rights, etc. I still got a ticket (14 mph over on a holiday weekend), but at least they were nice.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 6, 2007)

Nebula said:


> Larceny of Property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake: a person who comes into control of property of another - that he knows to have been delivered under a mistake - is guilty of theft if he fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the person entitled to have it.


In this case the property wasn't lost, mislaid, or delivered. And even if it were, the owner of the property (Circuit City) isn't a person.

No axe to grind here, either, but I'm sick and tired that whenever something like this comes up everyone takes a holier than thou attitude. Let's face it, the corporations and the politicians who run this country are the biggest crooks going. And a lot of those in the justice system aren't exactly squeaky clean, either. Yet for some reason a lot of people expect the average citizen to live their lives by standards of honesty which even so-called leaders fail to adhere to. So I guess everyone who is coming down hard on Greenstuffs never broke any law, not matter how small, whether through willful intent or just plain ignorance. Sorry, but there are and always have been areas of gray. We all technically break lots of minor laws every day just to keep society functioning smoothly. This is a gray area as far as I'm concerned. Would I have let the cashier know they were undercharging? Probably, but then again I may not have been paying attention to even catch a mistake. Or maybe I would have assumed that a lower than expected bill might have been because of sales on certain items which I didn't know about. Then again, if it were a few inexpensive items I might just let it slip by, especially it if were at a store I patronized frequently, or had previously been accidentally overcharged (yes, this has happened to me, although not by a large amount). The world isn't black and white. Application of the law shouldn't be, either. In my book intent counts for a lot. A person going into a store intending to take merchandise is a lot more guilty than someone who happens to not have some stuff they intended to pay for rung up. In this instance it sounded like the poor cashier was just overloaded with work. If this type of underringing was commonplace, then maybe that Circuit City should have hired a few more cashiers.

I'll also state for the record that I try to be 100% honest in my dealings with individuals, but not necessarily with corporations or governments because neither are ever completely honest with me. A single individual can be severely harmed by dishonesty on my part. Circuit City or the any government will get along just fine no matter what I might do. The few hundred in merchandise that Greenstuffs didn't pay for won't make Circuit City file for bankruptcy or cause anyone to lose their job. It's not like this can happen often enough to them to make that much difference.



flashfan said:


> You know what really is astounding? There has been no mention of the _real problem_ behind stores checking receipts_--the prevalence of __shoplifting. _Even with employee theft a larger problem, how many millions?/billions?/trillions? of dollars could be saved?


You're right of course, but guess who does most of the shoplifting? Usually it's minors who either can't afford the item, or are just doing it for a rush. It's rarely the slovenly, "suspicious looking" person the security guards seem to single out. Lots of kids I knew in grade school would steal packs of chewing just for the heck of it. Many even had a more generous allowance than I did, so they could easily have paid. Quite a few had parents who were way more honest than mine, so you couldn't say it was upbringing. Maybe peer pressure? College students tend to steal a lot for the same reasons. Shoplifting isn't a rational crime. The punishment from potentially getting caught greatly outweighs the value of the merchandise stolen as big ticket items are usually in locked cases. Were I to steal, it would have to be something in the millions of dollars that I could stash safely while I was doing my prison time (in the event I was caught). Something with a big payoff might be worth a few years of my life, but serving time or paying a fine for a pack of chewing gum is completely asinine.

In the final analysis shoplifting is hard to combat simply because it's not a rational crime. Even with all the intrusive security measures it still remains a big problem because those who do it are not in it for the financial gain. Like hackers, it's difficult to stop someone with no financial motivation who thrives on inventing new ways to defeat the system. Maybe Brazil is onto something. By making certain types of shoplifting defacto legal it may take the thrill out of other types. I wonder if shoplifting there is more prevalent than in countries where it's always prosecuted? And I wonder if the security measures taken by stores end up costing more than the merchandise which would have been stolen had they not been in place? Maybe treating customers as if they're honest may actually encourage such behavoir? Just a thought. I'm just sick of the paranoid times we live in where we always assume the worst intentions of everyone. Checkpoints at stores is merely another manifestation of that paranoia. I always tend to assume good intentions of someone, at least until they give me enough good reasons not to.


----------



## smokelaw1 (Sep 6, 2007)

Lightraven said:


> There are about 8-10 different legal ways I can search someone and their vehicle (different agencies have different authority), so nobody should assume that I'm violating their rights. Terry frisk, probable cause, search incident to arrest, plain view, consent, inventory, and a few special others that are so broad as to give me more authority to search than I need.


 
Even in the case of a Terry stop, does there not need to be some reasonable suspicion?


----------



## BB (Sep 6, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> Maybe Brazil is onto something. By making certain types of shoplifting defacto legal it may take the thrill out of other types. I wonder if shoplifting there is more prevalent than in countries where it's always prosecuted?



Visited Brazil many years ago--back then, they had gangs of young kids (home-less, parent-less) that would run through the major cities stealing anything not nailed down.

Got so bad, that, it appeared, that every homeless kid there ran through Rio De Janeiro--We came back to Rio a week later and wondered why there were cops on every corner... Also, read later about cops (and others) just killing the kids.

Not at all sure that I would make shoplifting a non-crime if one is poor. Because, in the end, it will be the poor that will probably suffer most.

Read about Zimbabwe and what happened when the president decided that food prices should be cut (using police force) to fight inflation (an estimated 80% of the country is under the poverty level):



> It is now ten weeks since President Mugabe forced businesses to slash prices of all goods and services in the belief that he could crush inflation, which he says is a plot by the Zimbabwean private sector, in collusion with Western governments, to overthrow him.
> 
> Two things have happened: inflation has rocketed and, according to the Government, the country will run out of wheat in three days. Zimbabweans appear set to face an almost total absence of food and ordinary household goods. An eruption of public anger, to be met with violent suppression by Mr Mugabe’s security forces, is likely to follow, observers say.
> 
> Initially Mr Mugabe’s June 25 price blitz sparked a gleeful storming of shops, where managers looked on aghast as their businesses were stripped at the Government’s bidding.


Anyone surprised with who ended up with the "reduced priced food"?



> Outside the OK in Mbare rows of women stand behind little stools, each bearing a long bar of carbolic soap, packets of cigarettes or bottles of vegetable oil. “These are the policemen’s wives,” Rosa said.
> 
> They gain their name from the latest phase of Zimbabwe’s descent into hunger and chaos: thousands of vendors have been arrested and their goods seized in Mr Mugabe’s attempt to smash the black market. “The policemen grab the goods, they give them to their wives and then they come and sell here,” said Rosa (not her real name - nearly everyone is too afraid to be quoted in Mr Mugabe’s Zimbabwe).


It will never hit the rich:



> The conspicuously wealthy ruling party elite feels none of this. Joice Mu-juru, the Vice-President, has just seen her daughter married in celebrations that included chartering an Air Zimbabwe Boeing 737 for $10,000 (£5,000) to fly guests to a lavish ceremony at a five-star hotel at Victoria Falls.


-Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 6, 2007)

Well, Brazil doesn't sound so great, so I guess legalizing certain types of shoplifting wouldn't work. And President Mugabe needs a few lessons in basic economics. Price controls almost always have the opposite effect, causing first hoarding of goods, and then black markets.


----------



## BB (Sep 6, 2007)

Just to be clear, I was talking about a ~3 week vacation to Brazil ~15 years ago--don't know anything special about what is happening there now.

(also saw the Red Light / Green Light inversion--at that time, when the traffic died down in the evenings, nobody bothered waiting for a green light because there was so little traffic--but it made every almost stop on green lights because of the high possibility of somebody else blowing through the Red Light)

-Bill


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 6, 2007)

Valpo, 

my LEO sense of humor doesn't translate well to a message board. There is more going on in these situations than damaging the property of a law abiding citizen. In fact, neither law abiding nor citizen applies. I am the nicest LEO most people have ever met, criminals or otherwise. But regardless, the law does provide a lot more authority to law enforcement than most people realize. That is the supreme court and legislature's doing, not mine. My job is to catch criminals, not hassle law abiding citizens.

Smokelaw 1,

Terry v. Ohio is a decision allowing officers to "frisk" for weapons and other threats to them. I rarely use this one myself, but it applies to persons, vehicles and buildings. I can "Terry frisk" a car, boat or house. However, Terry frisking a person does require a reasonable belief that the person has a weapon, assuming no other legal reasons to search. 

For example, I get a report of a person waving a gun around. I see a person on foot matching the general description, so I stop that person. Prior to talking to the person, I pat him down for weapons. I look through any backpacks or bags, and search the area around the person.

The purpose of Terry is strictly officer safety, not searching for evidence or anything else. I cannot search anywhere that couldn't reasonably conceal a weapon, nor can I expand the search to other things.


----------



## Mash (Sep 6, 2007)

Danbo said:


> Just MY opinion, but the official charges should be listed as "Being a dumbass who wouldn't cooperate with store security and police officers".
> 
> Geez, why the heck wouldn't he simply show the security guard and store manager his receipt, unless he had something to hide, or was just a stubborn moron who obviously has problems with respecting authority?



It is attitude and expectations like that, which lead to total abuse of power and loss of all rights.
How far would you take this? If they come to your house at 4 am and say do you mind if we search everything, your kids room, your wifes underwear drawer, your bank records, for no reason whatsoever do you agree? What if they come back again tomorrow and the next day? How about some checkpoints in the streets? How about being searched and frisked when getting on the metro (dont laugh, its happening in the UK, random metal detectors on London tube system)?
According to you, since you have nothing to hide, you wouldnt mind to any of the above, and would cooperate happily.
The simple truth is, that laws and the limits they set, and our rights, are there for a reason. This man apparently stood up within his rights and did nothing illegal. Your suggestion is that he should have accepted illegal behaviour by the shop staff and the LEO.
Once you surrender to illegal behaviour by others, and especially LEOs where is the end? Particularly with todays political climate and "official" abuses of power with the likes of the Patriot Act, Camp x ray, government approved torture etc etc. Although you might feel ok about the above cuz at the moment you think they are happening to "foreigners", "bad people" etc etc, it wont be long before it comes to you right at home. In some case such as the republican convention in NY city, domestic phone tappings etc, some people would argue that it already has.


----------



## Nebula (Sep 6, 2007)

*


jtr1962 said:



In this case the property wasn't lost, mislaid, or delivered. And even if it were, the owner of the property (Circuit City) isn't a person.

Click to expand...

*


jtr1962 said:


> _jtr - I always tell my friends that they are entitled to their owns opinions, but not their own facts. As a fellow CPF'er I would like to consider you a friend in a way. So, like I always say ....._
> 
> _With respect, under Greenstuffs "facts" property was "misdelivered" when the clerk bagged the items, and GS walked out the front door. The property did not belong to Greenstuffs when it was delivered. __It really is that simple_.
> 
> ...


 
_I agree with you. My father used to tell me that locks only keep honest people honest. Rings just as true today as it did 30 years ago. _

_All the best to you. Kirk _


----------



## Ras_Thavas (Sep 6, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> ....You're right of course, but guess who does most of the shoplifting? Usually it's minors who either can't afford the item, or are just doing it for a rush. It's rarely the slovenly, "suspicious looking" person the security guards seem to single out. Lots of kids I knew in grade school would steal packs of chewing just for the heck of it. Many even had a more generous allowance than I did, so they could easily have paid. Quite a few had parents who were way more honest than mine, so you couldn't say it was upbringing. Maybe peer pressure? College students tend to steal a lot for the same reasons. Shoplifting isn't a rational crime. The punishment from potentially getting caught greatly outweighs the value of the merchandise stolen as big ticket items are usually in locked cases. Were I to steal, it would have to be something in the millions of dollars that I could stash safely while I was doing my prison time (in the event I was caught). Something with a big payoff might be worth a few years of my life, but serving time or paying a fine for a pack of chewing gum is completely asinine.
> 
> In the final analysis shoplifting is hard to combat simply because it's not a rational crime. Even with all the intrusive security measures it still remains a big problem because those who do it are not in it for the financial gain. Like hackers, it's difficult to stop someone with no financial motivation who thrives on inventing new ways to defeat the system. Maybe Brazil is onto something. By making certain types of shoplifting defacto legal it may take the thrill out of other types. I wonder if shoplifting there is more prevalent than in countries where it's always prosecuted? And I wonder if the security measures taken by stores end up costing more than the merchandise which would have been stolen had they not been in place? Maybe treating customers as if they're honest may actually encourage such behavoir? Just a thought. I'm just sick of the paranoid times we live in where we always assume the worst intentions of everyone. Checkpoints at stores is merely another manifestation of that paranoia. I always tend to assume good intentions of someone, at least until they give me enough good reasons not to.



Can I ask you to cite your statistics. Shoplifting is absolutely a crime with a huge financial gain. I can site you many examples of people who we caught who make a living off of it. For instance, there was this one guy who we caught by analysis of his pawn records. He pawned dozens and dozens of the same dvd to various pawn shops. He was stealing the new releases by the cases and pawning them.

Last year there was a Russian immigrant gang that hit our city, and many more up and down the east coast. They stole big ticket items and went in the stores with 5 or more people at a time so if one got caught it would be better for the others because the loss prevention guy would be tied up with that person and not able to watch the others (hmm, maybe the CC manager thought Righi was a distraction for others...)

A few years ago the FBI got involved and broke up a ring of people who were stealing over the counter drugs. At first we thought they were using them to make meth, but there were items mixed in the thefts that had no known drug connection. Turns out all the items were being shipped out of the US where they were sold at top dollar.

Stealing power tool sets was all the rage over the last few years. Instead of pawning them and getting ten cents on the dollar value they would return the unopened set to a different branch of the store, usually in a neighboring city. That store would give them a gift card for the retail value of the tools. They would then sell that retail card for 50-75 cents on the dollar.



> In this case the property wasn't lost, mislaid, or delivered. And even if it were, the owner of the property (Circuit City) isn't a person.


You did read the code properly "Larceny of Property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake" 

Something stuck in your bag by mistake would be considered "delivered by mistake." Oh, and just because a store is not a "person" does not mean you have a right to keep it. The store is a legal entity entitled to own property. You could sue a store if they illegally detained you even though it is not a person.

If you re-read Righi's blog, he never was detained by the store employees. He made no attempt to leave, and they never put a hand on him. I suspect if he just walked off the property they would not have stopped him.

Again, everything you know about the case is based off his one sided version of the events. There are always two sides to every story.


----------



## John N (Sep 6, 2007)

Ras_Thavas said:


> If you re-read Righi's blog, he never was detained by the store employees. He made no attempt to leave, and they never put a hand on him.



While they didn't put their hands on him, they blocked his door so he could not close it and stood in front of his car. I'd call that physically preventing him from leaving.

-john


----------



## winston (Sep 6, 2007)

270winchester said:


> spoken like a true San Franciscan.



:thanks:


----------



## winston (Sep 6, 2007)

John N said:


> The only penalty for not abiding by their rules is they can ask you to leave. They cannot detain you.
> 
> -john



You can offer them a choice between: a) submitting to a search b) leaving
-Winston


----------



## John N (Sep 7, 2007)

winston said:


> You can offer them a choice between: a) submitting to a search b) leaving



Uh, that's what I said...

-john


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 11, 2007)

This is a tricky post to jump into, but I have similar reservations about being treated as a thief instead of a valued customer. Maybe I worked too many years in retail and have the whole "treat the customer with respect" thing burned into my brain.

I have a "problem" with Home Depot security, who around here actually demand to see receipts. I'll sometimes follow up a rude "I need to see your receipt" with a polite "why?" Usually I just walk by. I argued with a guy once who stood at my register, BSing with the cashier as he watched me pay, and still wanted to see my receipt.

Left another store once with a bag of purchases and the security guy asked, "May I see your receipt, please?" Since he was so polite, I agreed and gave him the whole bag. "The receipt's inside" I told him. "Can you take it out? We're not allowed to go through bags." I took out the receipt, gave it to him, he looked and immediately returned it. I told him he didn't even check the items in the bag. "No, that's OK" he said. I don't get it.

To sum it up, I'm opposed to bag checks without cause. I also expect store employees to be respectful to us, their customers. If that's not important to you and you want to go with the flow, then that's your choice. I'll respect you and not use the "sheeple" word - there's enough hostility already in this thread. But if enough of us complain and vote with our wallets, then the stores may get the point.


----------



## stephenmadpotato (Sep 11, 2007)

All that Circuit City would have to do is put up a sign saying, "By entering this store you understand and agree that before leaving you will submit to a bag search and provide a receipt".


----------



## Towel_E (Sep 11, 2007)

There are stores where if they suspect you have shoplifted , but they have no proof , as you exit the store , the scanner they use at the exit and entrance , will be tripped by an employee using some store merchandise.

Giving the pre-text for a search or detainment even ...I ve seen it done, I don't want to name store names but FUTURE SHOP comes to mind for some reason . 

(my advice would be to use violence against any aggressor )


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 11, 2007)

Sounds like the guy who got arrested was a bit of a jerk.

There's a K-Mart not too far from my job. I often go there for lights, shoelaces, belts, occasional T-shirt, etc.

I've been there enough times to know the procedure. Hand your receipt to the security guard by the door, he takes a quick look in your bag, initials the receipt, and hands it back to you. If you paid for your items, no problem. 

I honestly don't see how this is a violation of one's rights, or an accusation of being a shoplifter. Unless only a certain race of people had to go through the procedure, I can understand why this would be a problem. But not if every shopper goes through it. Don't like the procedure, don't shop there.

Granted, this was the first time the guy was in there. But he did act like a bit of an @$$ when he left the store. People nowadays are too sensative over trivial $#^%. 

If the guy by the door said, "Let me give you a quick pat-down," yeah; that's crossing the line. But asking you, and every other customer in the store to open your bag before leaving; come on.... 

Open it up, they take a quick look, and you go on your way. No problem.


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 11, 2007)

It is a problem if you've waited in a long line at checkout and now as you leave, there's a huge line at the receipt check, with only one guard and people with baskets filled to overflowing, screaming kids, etc. It's a hassle and tempts people to think, "Do I really have to stand here and wait for this?"

Legally speaking, I doubt it--sign or no sign. You have a record of paying for your purchases and are leaving the premises. A legal detention is going to require some amount of suspicion of criminal activity, not a violation of rules or store policy. A failure to show a receipt when asked and walking away is suspicious, for sure, but by itself, probably not enough in court. I think running away, or coming from an area other than the checkout area in addition to the receipt check blowoff would probably do the trick as far as reasonable suspicion, in states where reasonable suspicion is enough to detain for these sorts of things. 

The particular man in this story supposedly has taken $3500 in donations against a claimed $7500(!) in legal fees. Something not right here. . .


----------



## InTheDark (Sep 11, 2007)

Monocrom,

It's not so much the act of showing a receipt, as the principle of they are violating your privacy, even by a small amount. 

Where do you draw the line? Sure, showing a receipt is no big hassle, but some stores require them to look in your bag also. What if you decided not to get a bag, and just put the purchased items in a backpack or purse? Should the security be allowed to search it? What if you didn't buy anything, but were carrying a backpack, do they still have the right to look through it? Or what if they make you go through an full body X-ray scanner, like the ones they're currently developing for airports? What about checking everybody's car as they leave the parking lot? I know that's going to the extreme from showing a receipt to searching cars, but if you think about it, how different is that? You're still on their property, they are looking at items that are legally in your possesion, the only difference is the distance from the cash register and the size of the carrying container. I think what some people are rebelling against isn't the act of showing a piece of paper, but the direction that it's heading.

It's death by a thousand papercuts, they're taking away your rights little by little, and by the time you realize what's happening, it's gone too far to do anything. If left unchecked, what's stopping the stores from treating people similar to airline passengers? Pretty soon we'll be walking through x-ray machines half naked and barefoot just to get out of the store. I'm glad people are willing to go through the trouble of doing this (no matter what other ulterior motives he might have), but it at least shows that people aren't going to take this lying down. The problems he had with the cop is a whole separate issue, but then I guess he figured he'd gone this far, might as well go all the way.

I don't have a problem if the person is nice about it and there's no line. I know they're just trying to do their job, so even if I don't agree with the principle, I don't want to be rude to them (i know, i know, I should stand up for my rights). But when the checkers gets an attitude, or if a line's backed up into the store, I'm walking straight out of there. If the person absolutely needs to see my stuff, they're gonna be following me to my car on their time, not mine.


----------



## 3rd_shift (Sep 11, 2007)

bitslammer said:


> Just one more reason to avoid the big chain stores. They offer little in terms of knowledgeable staff. Some like Best Buy hassle you for personal info like your phone number, and also try and sell you crap like magazines at the door, and many believe the only way to prevent theft is to hassle all customers at the door.
> 
> The small/family businesses are free from most or all of these things.
> 
> ...



And, that's another reason I generally stay away from retail shopping.
Not just Best Buy.

There are still a few retailers that do "get it" and still remember that the customer is thier boss.
I still shop at those. 
Yet too many don't and are now :banned: from my wallet until further notice.

Buyer beware, and remember who's supposed to be doing the pleasing.

Happy shopping.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Sep 11, 2007)

Towel_E said:


> There are stores where if they suspect you have shoplifted , but they have no proof , as you exit the store , the scanner they use at the exit and entrance , will be tripped by an employee using some store merchandise.
> 
> Giving the pre-text for a search or detainment even ...I ve seen it done, I don't want to name store names but FUTURE SHOP comes to mind for some reason .
> 
> (my advice would be to use violence against any aggressor )


I don't mind showing my receipt as long as they are making everybody show them. I'd hate to get banned from my favorite discount store. I'd also hate to see Towel_E banned from Costco.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 12, 2007)

InTheDark said:


> Monocrom,
> 
> It's not so much the act of showing a receipt, as the principle of they are violating your privacy, even by a small amount.
> 
> ...



Here's the thing..... If you make a big deal about something that most folks consider to be trivial, it lessens the importance of those things that are not trivial. 

Where do I draw the line? Where a lot of folks would. As I posted before, I'm not going to put up with being patted down. It's not a case of realizing too late that my freedoms are gone. It's about knowing where to draw the line. 

As far as principle goes, there are several things an individual can do. Main one being, don't ever shop there again. Before you leave, make it a point of letting the manager know that you will be spending your money over at their competitors. I've done this a handful of times, usually when I've been treated very poorly. And I keep that promise.

Tell your friends, family, and co-workers what you went through. If I know someone who is a decent person was treated badly at a store, I'm not going to shop there.

If you are someone with a bit of clout, organize a boycott of the business until they drop the offensive policy. Or stand on the sidewalk, not blocking access to the store, and hand out photocopied pages warning potential customers of the store's offending policy..... One creative individual a few years ago stood outside on the sidewalk, right in front of a car dealership, with the following sign..... "_______ cheated me. Ask me how." (The blank represents the name of the dealership which has since gone out of business).

There are definitely ways to fight back..... far better ways than getting arrested.


----------



## daveman (Sep 21, 2007)

Personally, I wouldn't mind showing my receipt IF AND ONLY IF there is no line for me to wait in (quite ridiculous if you think about it, VOLUNTARILY putting myself in line to wait for a VOLUNTARY check), and that I do NOT allow my shopping bags, bug-out-bag, jacket pockets, shirt pockets, jeans pockets, shoes, socks, or any other physical orifice to be searched.

I think the essence of the story, which many folks seem to have missed, is that the BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON THE SUSPECTED, BUT THE SUSPECTOR.

*No suspect has to prove himself innocent, it is the state (plaintiff) that has to prove him guilty. Can't believe some people don't know this...


----------



## 3rd_shift (Sep 21, 2007)

This really does look like a good topic to discuss over at the www.officer.com forums.
In thier "ask a cop" section.
I occassionally ask a tough question, or two there and often am pleasantly surprised with the professional responses from sworn law enforcement officers there answering my questions. :thumbsup:
Give it a whirl if ya got time.


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 21, 2007)

Suprised no one has checked the progress on this. Charges were all dropped - he was offered a deal if he didn't file suit against the police, discuss the agreement etc etc. I haven't read the whole thing in detail but other than causing himself a lot of trouble I'm glad to see we still have rights. Personally I would not have refused ID to the LEO even if I knew I could have. I think it would have been very interesting to see what would have happened if he was fully cooperative with the police what they would have done at that point. I would have liked to have seen CC manager get arrested for illegal detainment myself. He even donated all funds received for his defense to the ACLU. Story from his web site:
I think he wants this story to be out there so I doubt it would be a problem but you have a good point - should have just given the link:

http://www.michaelrighi.com/


----------



## Empath (Sep 21, 2007)

Matrix, please provide a link to the text and remove the site's verbatim text, unless you can vouch for authorization to publish from him. Otherwise, we'll be in violation of copyright.

Thank you.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Sep 21, 2007)

These states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

The Supreme Court that's OK. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

It sounds like this guy is hardly in the same league as Rosa Parks. From the linked article: "The city prosecutor on Wednesday dropped a misdemeanor charge of obstructing official police business against Circuit City shopper Michael Righi. And Righi agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting him after he refused to show his driver's license outside the store Sept. 1."
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1190278957130100.xml&coll=2


----------



## John N (Sep 22, 2007)

Art Vandelay said:


> These states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes



And Righi did identify himself in accordance with his state's law. Further, Righi didn't complain that the officer detained and questioned him. He objected that he was arrested with a bogus charge. Note he wasn't arrested on charge of the identify law.



Art Vandelay said:


> And Righi agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting him after he refused to show his driver's license outside the store Sept. 1."
> http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1190278957130100.xml&coll=2



And you'll note on Righi's blog that he notes that he was misquoted.

-john


----------



## Optik49 (Sep 22, 2007)

This guy is a total JERK and probably looks to cause a problem and create an issue 24/7. 
However the store employee & manager did go overboard. Basically the seize/detained him which is a false arrest on their part. If they don’t have a policy to check every customer leaving, then they have even more of a problem. Most retail stores follow a 5 step rule for apprehending shoplifters.
1. See the customer enter the store or department. 2. Observe the customer select merchandise. 3. Observe the customer conceal the merchandise and know exactly where it is. 4. Maintain 100% surveillance after the merchandise is concealed insuring it is not discarded. 5. Let the customer pass the point of purchase or exit the store. (However some States have shoplifting laws which state, the minute you conceal the merchandise you have shoplifted and can be apprehended) It’s the stores in these states which usually like to give the person the benefit of the doubt, by letting the person exit the store. It also shows the intent to deprive the merchant of full retail value of the merchandise. Also, if you are observed or video taped removing the price tag, from the merchandise that shows your intent not to pay for the item.
As far as his arrest, well he decided to walk himself right into those handcuffs didn’t he? Had he cooperated with the police office he would have not gotten arrest and had the officer’s incident report to help his complaint with the store. But of course he has to have a problem with everyone. Hopefully he will **** off the judge as well. Then he turns around and says how the kids were crying when he created the entire situation. So back to my first sentence HE IS A JERK! The worst part is he does not even know it. Don’t give this guy a cent. Give your money to something worth while or where the recipient is truly a victim (not an instigator) Something like Childrens Hospital. Just my two cents.


----------



## 3rd_shift (Sep 22, 2007)

There were several mistakes made to bring this to where it is.
One of them was made by Circuit City as we later learned.
This was where it began.
Not that Mr. Righi was without fault either. :shrug:
He helped make things worse too, after calling Police. 

Fry's Electronics has a similar policy of checking reciepts at thier Arlington, Tx location.
However, there is less room for people to slip by unchecked, and there are usually 2 receipt checkers there, not just one along with a nearby merchandise check-in station for goods being returned nearby.
After checking, the receipt gets marked in pink marker to "activate" it and make it good for any merchandise that may need returning later.
Without that pink mark, the receipt is no good for returning merchandise, and no good for anything else other than for one to blow thier nose in.

A store that is big enough to have some, or all of thier cash registers far from the exit door may need something like this.
Fry's in Arlington is a good example of this.
And a store this big should have no issue with having better trained and more than one person there to do this.
Smaller stores with the registers closer to the exit seem to get by just fine without receipt checkers at the exit. 

Just my 2 cents from working as a security officer for 5 years.
I'm putting Circuit City on my bad list until they have a better store security policy in place, and/or relocate thier registers closer to the exit, and/or secure the exit path from the registers to the exits to eliminate the need for expensive reciept checkers who are (in effect) paid to make some people not want to come back to that store and take thier business elsewhere. :wave:
It may not be easy to document, but the losses are likely there and big enough for someone to want to address. :shrug:


----------



## Mash (Sep 22, 2007)

Optik49 said:


> This guy is a total JERK and probably looks to cause a problem and create an issue 24/7.
> However the store employee & manager did go overboard. Basically the seize/detained him which is a false arrest on their part.




How can you say the store people went overboard, made a false arrest on him, BUT he is a jerk looking to cause problems?
Does your statement seem sensible?
How would you react to someone trampling all over your rights? Would you call yourself a jerk for standing up to illegal actions of others being taken against you?


----------



## greenlight (Sep 22, 2007)

3rd_shift said:


> After checking, the receipt gets marked in pink marker to "activate" it and make it good for any merchandise that may need returning later.
> Without that pink mark, the receipt is no good for returning merchandise, and no good for anything else other than for one to blow thier nose in.



That sounds like BS to me. "There is not pink mark on your receipt", "There was no one checking when I left"


----------



## Optik49 (Sep 22, 2007)

Mash said:


> How can you say the store people went overboard, made a false arrest on him, BUT he is a jerk looking to cause problems?
> Does your statement seem sensible?
> How would you react to someone trampling all over your rights? Would you call yourself a jerk for standing up to illegal actions of others being taken against you?


 
:shakehead Ok, let say the store does and was checking everyone. That’s all he had to do is let them check and be on his way (he did not) He says no thank you and walks outside, gets in the vehicle parked in front of the doors. Then doesn’t drive away, he opens the door. Then he says he did not tell anyone in the vehicle, what had happened inside earlier. He says, he was later told some one was standing in front of the vehicle, blocking the vehicle from leaving. Again, yes, I do think the store employees screwed up BUT this guy was not an innocent victim. He clearly baited them into this situation. Then he attempted to bait the police officer by not cooperating. This guy was clearly looking for a problem or a law suit with anyone he could find or bait. When the police officer arrived on scene, I would imagine the officer wanted to first know who he is dealing with, for his safety. The two employees were a given. But he needed to identify the customer IE make sure he’s not a legit shoplifter. I’m sure the vehicle at the front door might seem a little suspicious (Not that you can’t park in front of the store but a small red flag because it’s a common shoplifter tactic). The officer then probably wanted to make sure the guy was not wanted and the vehicle was not stolen. After he determined exactly what took place he would have became the customer’s biggest ally. I am sure the last thing the officer wanted to do is make an arrest for something like this. Often they prefer to summons an “actual shoplifter” to court if they can make a positive identification. So to answer your question I would not be happy if someone trampled all over my rights. But I know I would not have put my self in that situation and I bet a lot of other people wouldn’t either.
I hope this clears it up a little. If it makes you feel better the employees were jerks also but what was their intent. They were just trying to do their job and most likely went above and beyond what they were required to do. But I don’t think they were saying hey lets go trample someone’s rights today. They should have just wrote down the license plate and called the police. Maybe they were not trained properly or forgot their training. 

Mash, I value your opinion and maybe we will agree to disagree. I do think it will turn out to be guilty on the arrest charge and a settlement on the civil suite which will be against the store. I guess I see it as again “not a 100% innocent victim”. I will not post anything further on this because I have said all I have to say regarding the topic. I am not bailing out of the debate. It’s just that I enjoy coming here to unwind and learn. Oh ya and spend money LOL and I don’t want to change that.


----------



## Empath (Sep 22, 2007)

Optik49 said:


> Maybe they were not trained properly or forgot their training.



LOL!

I'm sure it wasn't intended to be funny, but I got a laugh out of it.

A short time ago, Circuit City fired all their senior employees and kept only their new employees as a cost saving maneuver. They don't likely have anyone that is trained properly, or has even been there long enough to "forget their training".


----------



## 3rd_shift (Sep 22, 2007)

Ah! 
So thats what happened. 
That explains a lot about why the trouble started there. :shakehead
Not so sure it will save them $$ in the long run though. oo: :devil:

Circuit City really needs to get it together again, and soon imho.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 22, 2007)

Empath said:


> A short time ago, Circuit City fired all their senior employees and kept only their new employees as a cost saving maneuver. They don't likely have anyone that is trained properly, or has even been there long enough to "forget their training".


 
The exec. who came up with that idea deserves the Corporate dumb-*** Award.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Sep 22, 2007)

Did anybody else think of Holden Caulfield when you read about this in the news and on the guy's blog?


----------



## John N (Sep 22, 2007)

Optik49 said:


> this guy was not an innocent victim. He clearly baited them into this situation. Then he attempted to bait the police officer by not cooperating.



Let's say you are right. So what? Do jerks not deserve rights? Our rights are our rights. They apply to everyone. The question I think we should be asking, is why so many people think he 'got what he deserved' because he didn't "cooperate".



> When the police officer arrived on scene, I would imagine the officer wanted to first know who he is dealing with, for his safety.



And he was asked his name, which he provided as required by law.



> The officer then probably wanted to make sure the guy was not wanted and the vehicle was not stolen.



So, he had the plates and the name. The name matched credit card receipt that he had checked. If he had additional question about his identity, he could have asked for his DOB and address as well.

-john


----------



## John N (Sep 22, 2007)

Monocrom said:


> The exec. who came up with that idea deserves the Corporate dumb-*** Award.



Perhaps, or maybe just desperate. Note that CompUSA and Circuit City both recently closed a bunch of stores. Not the sign of fiscal success. They might well be running low on options.

-john


----------



## flashfan (Sep 22, 2007)

Sure the guy _has rights_, BUT did he _do right???_ Not even close. There was some provocation here, and whether the full response was warranted, in essence he picked the fight.

This reminds me of an incident long ago. A colleague and I were checking out a multi-storied office building that was for sale. As part of our work, we were taking photos and a video of the building to send to potential clients.

While I was down the street and unbeknownst to me, a building security guard approached my colleague and asked him, "What are you doing?" My smart aleck associate replied, "What does it look like I'm doing?" and walked away (he was videotaping the building).

A few minutes later when I had rejoined my colleague, two police officers approached us (they had been parked across the street from the building--we had walked right by them just a few minutes earlier). They demanded ID, and seemed ready to arrest us. I was shocked and embarrassed, but nevertheless complied, wondering what in the world we had done.

It was while the officers were inspecting our IDs that I learned what had transpired between my colleague and the security guard, which prompted them to call the police. Way over the top maybe, but...

We spoke for a few minutes with the officers, explaining our presence, and asking what the problem was (we were in a public place, taking outdoor photos of a building--nothing illegal that I knew about). From the little the officers did/could say, we surmised that one of the tenants in the building was of a "sensitive" nature, and hence the extra security.

In the end, we got our licenses back and were on our way. Did security over-react? Perhaps. And I was livid, but it was with _my colleague._


----------



## John N (Sep 22, 2007)

flashfan said:


> Sure the guy _has rights_, BUT did he _do right???_ Not even close.



If we do not exercise our rights, we will lose them. A right that you cannot exercise is not a right. 



> There was some provocation here, and whether the full response was warranted, in essence he picked the fight.



So? Most protests are that way. People chain themselves to gates just to get hauled off.

-john


----------



## Lightraven (Sep 22, 2007)

How many times have I had police officers confront me at gunpoint? Or interrogate me and demand identification? Half a dozen or more? Some before joining law enforcement, some after.

Many people feel "embarassed and shocked" but really shouldn't. It's just a basic investigative process that lasts a few minutes. I have never been arrested, because I don't commit crimes. The perception that police "were ready to arrest" is probably based more on fear of such than the likelihood of it happening.

I'm not thrilled to have a gun pointed at me, nor answer gruff questions and baiting taunts, but that is how bad guys are caught. I also don't enjoy going to the dentist and having sharp metal tools scrape my teeth and gums, but it needs to be done for the greater good.


----------



## Samuel (Sep 22, 2007)

One of the law enforcement boards I frequent recently discussed this same topic - not the actual incident itself but the principle. It was interesting to see that even sworn LEOs were divided on the subject (for various reasons).

I've never had to wait more than a minute for someone to check my receipt/items. No big deal. If I had to wait in a monstrous line to be "cleared", I might feel differently (AND, more importantly, I would probably not go back to that retailer in the future).

As far as that guy calling 911? That was BS and stupid. It was NOT an emergency.

As far as identifying subjects go, if I want to verify who a person is, a genuine governmentally issued ID card goes a LONG way farther than just a claimed (verbally given) name/dob/address, etc. LEOs get lied to ALL THE TIME - that includes criminals giving fake names/information. The more "clever" BGs will memorize one or more sets of someone else's personal info (or make them up). 

In this day/age of identity theft and forgery/fraud, I'd rather show my good ID (and have BGs be forced to show ID) and lessen the chance of being a victim of impersonation... Do you give retailers a hard time when they ask for your ID when you make a credit card purchase? Isn't your "word" of who you are good enough? <---- that's rhetorical btw...

Oh, also, even if you are totally "in the right", the time and place best suited for you to make your argument may not be right then and there. E.g. IF I ever get felony-stopped, I'm going to go along with the program (i.e. follow the LEO's orders/directions) - even though I KNOW it's some sort of mistake/mix up. I know it will get cleared up later and I'm not a fan of being dog-piled and/or shot.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 22, 2007)

John N said:


> Perhaps, or maybe just desperate. Note that CompUSA and Circuit City both recently closed a bunch of stores. Not the sign of fiscal success. They might well be running low on options.
> 
> -john


 
He still deserves the award. A far better solution would be to fire the newer employees, and re-distribute their work among those who have more experience. By doing what he did, it's only a matter of time before those who were allowed to keep their jobs will move on. Right before they move on, safe to say they're not going to do nearly as good a job at training the new employees. In a few years, CC will have workers who barely know how to run the cash registers. Even a blind man can see that's going to be very bad for business.

BTW, I agree with you.... The guy who got arrested certainly has rights, even though he was a jerk. *But*, when you act like a jerk, you have no right in the world to be surprised when folks treat you like one! Trust me, I know. I deal with rude jerks all the time where I'm from.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 22, 2007)

Lightraven said:


> .... I also don't enjoy going to the dentist and having sharp metal tools scrape my teeth and gums, but it needs to be done for the greater good.


 
Greater good??

I can honestly say that my two visits to the dentist last week, followed by another visit this upcoming week, had nothing to do with that.

When you wake up in the middle of the night and can no longer eat due to the pain, definitely time to make an appointment.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Sep 23, 2007)

I'd like to hear what he said in the 911 phone call to get a Police response in two minutes. 

To me, it sounds like the manager guy would not give him permission to leave, but he was hardly being imprisoned. Instead of telling his Dad what was going on and just to drive away, he let him be surprised.

From his blog: "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." http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

Then he opens the door and "played dumb". He is arguing with the manager with while is sitting in the car. The manager was standing on the side of the car.. When I heard he was blocked in I assumed he meant with a car. When the manager would not back despite the threat of a 911 call.

From his blog:
"Joe didn’t budge. At this point I pushed my way past Joe and walked onto the sidewalk next to the building. I pulled out my phone and dialed 911." http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

Why not just get back in the car and leave instead of sitting down on the side walk and dialing 911? If had "pushed" past the guy then the manager was obviously not still standing by the open car door. 

Was this an emergency? If not, why dial 911? What was said to get a response in two minutes?

Under the law he did not have to give his license. That's a fact in Ohio. 

I do question weather it is wise to call the 911 emergency number, then not cooperate with the Police that have shown up (at your request) to help you.

Maybe next time the Officer will let it slide, or maybe he will use a different charge. I hope he is not the only one who learned a lesson here. On his blog the guy says he spent $7,500 to $10,000 on legal fees. In return for those fees he got the charges dropped, in exchange for a promise not to hold the City or the Police responsible. Also in the agreement the City and the Police do not admit doing anything wrong. Is that a victory?


----------



## John N (Sep 23, 2007)

Samuel said:


> As far as identifying subjects go, if I want to verify who a person is, a genuine governmentally issued ID card goes a LONG way farther than just a claimed (verbally given) name/dob/address, etc. LEOs get lied to ALL THE TIME - that includes criminals giving fake names/information. The more "clever" BGs will memorize one or more sets of someone else's personal info (or make them up).



If the existing law (name/dob/address) isn't enough, they need to change the law.

-john


----------



## John N (Sep 23, 2007)

Samuel said:


> As far as that guy calling 911? That was BS and stupid. It was NOT an emergency.



So let's say some dudes come up and come onto your front yard and are yelling at you. You tell them to leave but they don't. What do you do?



Art Vandelay said:


> To me, it sounds like the manager guy would not give him permission to leave, but he was hardly being imprisoned.



The manager had forced himself so that the car door could not be closed. Also, as he learned later the other guy had placed himself in front of the car. Just because he could have driven off earlier, doesn't mean they were not blocking him from leaving at this point.



> From his blog:
> "Joe didn’t budge. At this point I pushed my way past Joe and walked onto the sidewalk next to the building. I pulled out my phone and dialed 911." http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/
> 
> Why not just get back in the car and leave instead of sitting down on the side walk and dialing 911? If had "pushed" past the guy then the manager was obviously not still standing by the open car door.



If the guy is blocking the car door by standing there, you 1) can't close the door and leave, and 2) as long as he doesn't grab and hold you, yes, you can get out.



> Maybe next time the Officer will let it slide, or maybe he will use a different charge.



Using a "different" charge was exactly the problem here. 

-john


----------



## Samuel (Sep 23, 2007)

John N said:


> So let's say some dudes come up and come onto your front yard and are yelling at you. You tell them to leave but they don't. What do you do?



I wouldn't call 911 for some dudes simply 'coming up onto my front yard and yelling at me'... Where/what is the urgency/exigency/emergency? 

E.g. who are they, do I know them, what do they look like, are they armed, if so with what, how many of them are there, what are they yelling, are they threatening, are they under the influence of something, am I inside or outside of my house, how close are they to me, if inside is my door locked, what time of day/night is it, do they know me, what do I believe they intend to do, how are they making me feel, what exactly are they doing, are they staying put or are they moving, are they committing any other crime besides trespassing, am I alone or is my family with me, are there any other relevant circumstances/conditions in the scenario, IS THERE IMMINENT DANGER TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE? etc...



Edited to add: Actually, I should have qualified my opinion that a business disturbance as described in the original story would not qualify as an emergency _where I work_ (as opposed to persons requiring immediate medical treatment, fights, robberies, assaults with deadly weapons, domestic violence, rapes, at risk missing persons/children, certain felonies in progress or just occurred, certain weapons involved misdemeanors in progress or just occurred, etc)...


----------



## BB (Sep 23, 2007)

Samuel said:


> Edited to add: Actually, I should have qualified my opinion that a business disturbance as described in the original story would not qualify as an emergency _where I work_ (as opposed to persons requiring immediate medical treatment, fights, robberies, assaults with deadly weapons, domestic violence, rapes, at risk missing persons/children, certain felonies in progress or just occurred, certain weapons involved misdemeanors in progress or just occurred, etc)...



Assuming that he told the truth to the dispatcher (was being prevented from leaving the store), I would assume that the dispatcher was responsible for prioritizing the call based supplied information and available officers to respond. At least, that was what was presented to us when I was on a jury earlier this year. In general, suspicion of holding somebody against their will gets lots of police dispatched to the scene (case I was on--boyfriend/girlfriend reported kidnapping by friends of the girl).

-Bill


----------



## Samuel (Sep 23, 2007)

BB said:


> Assuming that he told the truth to the dispatcher (was being prevented from leaving the store), I would assume that the dispatcher was responsible for prioritizing the call based supplied information and available officers to respond. At least, that was what was presented to us when I was on a jury earlier this year. In general, suspicion of holding somebody against their will gets lots of police dispatched to the scene (case I was on--boyfriend/girlfriend reported kidnapping by friends of the girl).
> 
> -Bill



True. I worked as a dispatcher for 18 months before I became sworn. We "triage" calls for service. Sometimes dispatchers will make mistakes. Sometimes units are immediately available and sometimes not. False imprisonment or kidnapping especially when it's related to a domestic violence type relationship is going to get a higher priority than a guy calling and stating that he is unlawfully being detained by store security. Even if we got a call from store security that they were detaining a shoplifting suspect, that would still be lower in priority. If, however, more exigent circumstances were thrown in the mix - e.g. threats being made, fight pending or in progress, weapons displayed or being used, etc - then it would be upped...


----------



## Owen (Sep 24, 2007)

Rights. Seems like the only people I ever see crying about stuff like this are people who are in the wrong, have no respect for others, and think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want with no consideration for anyone else. 
What kind of retard could think this guy displayed sensible behaviour? 
He's nothing but an overgrown brat looking to create an issue everywhere he goes... 
If I had been the Circuit City employee this little smartass would have gotten dragged out of that car and stomped into the sidewalk-as a suspected shoplifter whose actions had pretty much verified his guilt.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 24, 2007)

Owen said:


> Rights. Seems like the only people I ever see crying about stuff like this are people who are in the wrong, have no respect for others, and think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want with no consideration for anyone else.
> What kind of retard could think this guy displayed sensible behaviour?
> He's nothing but an overgrown brat looking to create an issue everywhere he goes...
> If I had been the Circuit City employee this little smartass would have gotten dragged out of that car and stomped into the sidewalk-as a suspected shoplifter whose actions had pretty much verified his guilt.


 
I can understand your anger. But then the guy would have an excellent lawsuit on his hands.... And that's what some guys are after, a free ride. :thumbsdow


----------



## Samuel (Sep 24, 2007)

Monocrom said:


> ... And that's what some guys are after, a free ride. :thumbsdow



All too true these days... :sigh:


----------



## raythompson (Sep 24, 2007)

3rd_shift said:


> OK, here's the deal.
> If a law enforcent officer asks for your driver's license, you are supposed to provide it.
> 
> If you can't have one, you should have a personal ID card to present instead.


Nope. Not even close. All you are required to do is give your name. Only when you are operating a motor vehicle are your required to produce a drivers license. You are not required to have any identification as there is no law that says you need to carry identification. The US is NOT a police state.

Of course, I see no harm in showing identification to the police. They generally are not harrassing you, just want to make sure you are who you say you are. I would not want to be detained because I matched the description of some ner-do-well and refused to show ID.

What is fun is getting stopped by a rent-a-cop because you are taking pictures of a federal building from a public sidewalk. I refused to give my ID and had him call the local police. If he had touched me he would have been quilty of assault. As it was he was told by the police that he was on shaky ground when confronting a person on public property and could be up for a civil suit.


----------



## StefanFS (Sep 24, 2007)

Tonight my wife was asked to show her little shoulder bag by the cashier at the local Lidl grocery store. In a almost empty shop the cashier chose to ask this of us, a well dressed 30+ couple shopping some standard groceries at night. I asked the cashier: What did you just say? My wife started to open her little bag, then thought about it and said NO. I told them to keep their merchandise. We left it on the conveyor and walked out of Lidl forever. Luckily not much staff were present so we went out in peace. Had we been stopped we would probably be facing concealed weapons charges for carrying our flashlights (two Liteflux LF1, one D-mini and my Tiablo A8) and small pocket knives, mini SAKs and Swisstool Spirit. Flashlights and pocket knives are perfectly legal to carry in Sweden during "normal" use (which is as long as you don't threaten anyone). But the police here is known to turn it to weapons charges anyway, as soon as somebody is checked out for a thing like suspected shoplifting (even if it turns out the somebody didn't do it). During mass screenings at soccer matches a lot of people having mini SAKs on their key rings become criminals with a concealed weapons charge to their name.
Stefan


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 25, 2007)

raythompson said:


> What is fun is getting stopped by a rent-a-cop because you are taking pictures of a federal building from a public sidewalk. I refused to give my ID and had him call the local police. If he had touched me he would have been quilty of assault. As it was he was told by the police that he was on shaky ground when confronting a person on public property and could be up for a civil suit.



Don't you just love it when the cops give out the wrong legal advice?

Although you didn't go into details, there's no law that says one citizen can't ask questions of another one. That includes asking for I.D. (Had the Security Guard demanded to see it, that's a different story). Even when in uniform, a Security Guard is still considered to be a citizen, with no special powers shared with LEOs. 

If he made a call to the police, saying there was a suspicious-looking person taking pictures of a Federal building; what's he going to get sued for? How he confronted you is another story. Again, if all he did was ask for I.D., there's no law against that. If he demanded I.D. or refused to let you leave, that might be grounds for a civil suit.


----------

