Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License 1972
NMerriam writes "Michael Righi was arrested in Ohio over the weekend after refusing to show his receipt when leaving Circuit City. When the manger and 'loss prevention' employee physically prevented the vehicle he was a passenger in from leaving the parking lot, he called the police, who arrived, searched his bag and found he hadn't stolen anything. The officer then asked for Michael's driver's license, which he declined to provide since he wasn't operating a motor vehicle. The officer then arrested him, and upon finding out Michael was legally right about not having to provide a license, went ahead and charged him with 'obstructing official business' anyways."
Sigh - we took out dood's website (Score:4, Informative)
Here is another blog that for the moment isn't dead and has the story.
Full text since site is down: (Score:5, Informative)
funds are raised than are actually needed I will donate the excess to the ACLU. Donations can be made via PayPal to: paypal@michaelrighi.com.
Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my father's side of the family and got arrested. More on that arrested part to come.
For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh to visit my father, his wife and my little brother and sister. Shortly after arriving we packed the whole family into my father's Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (It's my little sister's birthday today and that was her cute/bizare birthday request.)
Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. (The Brooklyn, Ohio Circuit City to be exact.) Having forgotten that it was my sister's birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disney's "Cars" game for the Nintendo Wii. I also needed to purchase a Power Squid surge protector which I paid for separately with my business credit card. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, "Sir, I need to examine your receipt." I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, "No thank you."
As I walked through the double doors I heard Santura yelling for his manager behind me. My father and the family had the Buick pulled up waiting for me outside the doors to Circuit City. I opened the door and got into the back seat while Santura and his manager, whose name I have since learned is Joe Atha, came running up to the vehicle. I closed the door and as my father was just about to pull away the manager, Joe, yelled for us to stop. Of course I knew what this was about, but I played dumb and pretended that I didn't know what the problem was. I wanted to give Joe the chance to explain what all the fuss was for.
I reopened the door to talk with Joe and at this point Joe positioned his body between the open car door and myself. (I was still seated in the Buick.) Joe placed his left hand on the roof of the car and his right hand on the open car door. I asked Joe if there was a problem. The conversation went something like this:
Me: "Is there a problem?"
Joe: "I need to examine your bag and receipt before letting you leave this parking lot."
Me: "I paid for the contents in this bag. Are you accusing me of stealing?"
Joe: "I'm not accusing you of anything, but I'm allowed by law to look through your bag when you leave."
Me: "Which law states that? Name the law that gives you the right to examine my bag when I leave a Circuit City."
Of course Joe wasn't able to name the law that gives him, a U.S. citizen and Circuit City employee the right to examine anything that I, a U.S. citizen and Circuit City customer am carrying out of the store. I've dealt with these scare tactics at other stores in the past including other Circuit Cities, Best Buys and Guitar Centers. I've always taken the stance that retail stores shouldn't treat their loyal customers as criminals and that customers shouldn't so willingly give up their rights along with their money. Theft sucks and I wish that shoplifters were treated more harshly than they are, but the fact is that I am not a shiplifter shoplifter and shouldn't have to forfeit my civil rights when leaving a store.
I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands. I then gave Joe three options:
1. "Accuse me of shoplifting and call the pol
Re:He will be fouhd guilty of the charge (Score:3, Informative)
September 1st, 2007 @ 10:50PM EST Update:The police officer never read me my Miranda rights. I've heard differing opinions on how much this really matters and will certainly be bringing this up with my attorney.
September 1st, 2007 @11:34PM EST Update:I found the detail on Ohio's "stop and identify" law. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but I will spell out the important part:
2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
I stated my name to the police officer, and if he had asked me for my address and date of birth I would have provided that as well. The officer specifically asked for my driver's license and this is what I was unwilling to provide. If I'm reading this correctly it would appear that Ohio's law specifically protects citizens from having to hand over driver's licenses unless they are operating a motor vehicle. This is what I always believed, but it's nice to see it in writing.
Circuit City and the Officer F'd up big time (Score:5, Informative)
Security consultant Chris E. McGoey notes:
"A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who refused to comply with the voluntary search."
http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm [crimedoctor.com]
Sure, it would have been easier to submit to a search, but stores use the force of conformity as a method of social engineering to get you to comply. A voluntary search isn't voluntary unless you can say no without negative consequences, otherwise the search is **coerced**. The effectiveness of this social engineering will be seen in the comments of people who will say he should have just shown his receipt. These people show their receipts and, based on innate human behavior, think that everyone should behave as they do and that not to do so is to be unreasonable. But where should it stop? If you think the store had a right to make him show a receipt and have his bags searched--contrary to law--why not make him take his shoes off and let them inspect his wallet? They have **just as much right** do do that as search his bags, which is to say, "none."
Not showing your receipt when you don't have to may seem like a trivial gesture but clearly it is not. The OP was within his legal rights and as a result was arrested. Most of us are unwilling to face those kind of consequences to stand up to our everyday rights. He was not. I hope he brings awareness to the over zealous use of searches by private business acting like they are the government with police powers.
As to the arrest for failing to show his license. The OP was the one who called the cops and they arrested **him**, not the store personnel who were unlawfully detaining him in the parking lot! Idaho state law specifically says he just has to identify himself to the officer not show ID, and he isn't required to have an ID on him! To all of those who say he should have been arrested for not showing ID do you think that would also apply if he hadn't been carrying one? If not, why is it any different to arrest him just because he did?
Re:Open and Shut Case of Police Harrasment (Score:1, Informative)
Of course, you were modded up. Most likely by someone who doesn't even like in the US and has zero understanding of the court system here, beyond what he reads on Slashdot, bless his heart.
No, the system seems to work pretty well, overall. Things go wrong, certainly, but as it's a human endeavor, that's completely unavoidable.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Barring a specific law against requiring to show driver's license (and the person in this case has so far found an absence of a law requiring showing the ID, not a law specifying you do not have to show ID), an argument could be made that if a police officer is investigating a potential crime, they have the right to ask for identification from relevant parties.
Now, I'm not saying "an argument could be made" in the sense of "I'm a layman and I'm just talking shit" here -- I'm saying that in the sense of "an argument's already been made to the Supreme Court, and they said it was reasonable." In other words, there's already case law, determined at the highest levels, saying it's reasonable to ask for ID, and it's reasonable to convict someone of impeding the police for refusing to show ID. See HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
The traditional way?
The tort of false imprisonment consists of intentionally confining a victim without his consent, by certain means (e.g. physical boundaries, unlawful force, unlawful threats of force). But there is an exception to this, with regard to shoplifting, known as the shopkeeper's privilege. In order for a specific act of detaining someone to qualify, the shopkeeper has to have a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has shoplifted, he can only use a reasonable degree of force and restrain them in a reasonable manner, he can only detain them long enough to carry out a reasonable investigation (probably no longer than about 15 minutes), and it needs to take place on or quite close to the premises (you can't hunt someone down hours or miles later). So long as these requirements are met, the shopkeeper is protected, even if he made a mistake. The important thing is that he acted reasonably.
That's the common law rule; there are statutory forms of the privilege in some jurisdictions, but they're likely pretty similar.
The issue here is this: given that it is not reasonable to suspect every single customer merely because they are exiting the store, but given that it is lawful to ask exiting customers to voluntarily show their receipts, is it reasonable to suspect someone of shoplifting for no other reason whatsoever than that they did not comply with the voluntary showing of their receipt?
Personally, I would think not. While the damages that this guy personally suffered are relatively minor, if this is a matter of policy for the entire store or chain of stores, and if it is a common policy in other stores, then punitive damages might be called for to discourage this store (and others, by means of cautionary example) from having such policies in future.
Wowza.. (Score:4, Informative)
W
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open and Shut Case of Police Harrasment (Score:3, Informative)
The other option they have is to affect a citizen's arrest. This is very rarely done, because there are legal penalties for unlawful arrest which extend to citizens' arrests. If you affect a citizen's arrest after the crime (rather than at the time and place where it is committed), and the arrestee is acquitted, then the arrest will be deemed to be illegal.
Utter bullshit. (Score:3, Informative)
There is a long standing Supreme Court of Canada decision that determined that citizens are not required to identify themselves to police simply because it is demanded. Curiously enough, this decision is decades old and from an era before the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
It would be inane to require somebody to carry an ID at all times. If you are riding in a vehicle, they can't demand an ID, just the ID of the driver, and the refusal to show an ID is just probable cause for a search of the driver and car. Not the people riding along.
Around here one is only required to identify ones self in certain circumstances. Of course this can be suspicious and at that point there is usually sufficient cause for the officer to bring the person in.
Does Ohio really not have a statute for filing a false police report or unlawful citizens arrest? Because citizens arrest only applies in certain circumstances, and in this case it wouldn't. In order for it to be lawful the citizen needs to see the crime taking place. Not just suspect that one has occurred. Seems doubtful that they would be able to clear the standards in place on this one.
Re:I smell something... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:3, Informative)
Ron
Re:Circuit City and the Officer F'd up big time (Score:4, Informative)
No, you really can. Contracts are not inviolate or holy or anything; if either side wants to breech a contract at any time, then they are always absolutely free to do so. There might be some sort of damages to pay to the other side, but typically that's all. Indeed, the legal system encourages parties to breech if, taking into consideration the effects of it, it is sensible to do so. It's not viewed as bad or worthy of punishment or anything.
Could the store win in court on the argument that breech is reasonable grounds to invoke the shopkeeper's privilege? Personally, I would doubt it.
Certainly, your contractual relationship with them would be over, so they would treat you as any other non-member and not let you shop there. And they could likely refuse to let you set up a new contract with them. But that's not really interesting, and if you're going to breech, you ought to weigh which outcome (consenting and continuing to shop there, or not consenting and not coming back) is better for you.
Re:Open and Shut Case of Police Harrasment (Score:2, Informative)
Depends upon the local and state laws. In general, many municipalities, and some states, have passed laws which grant shopkeepers certain rights to detain and search customers, when they reasonably suspect that a theft has taken place.
You, the detained customer, do not have to cooperate with the search or detainment; however, the shopkeeper may request police assistance. The circumstances will vary from case to case, so it is generally up to a jury to decide whether a shopkeeper has been reasonable in their search and/or detention of a suspected shoplifter.
In Van Zante and Jacobson (appellants) vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, City of Coralville, Iowa, et alia [findlaw.com], the appeals court reversed the lower court's decision to throw out the plaintiffs' false imprisonment case, granting clearance for a jury trial.
In Bathe and Hedge vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc [findlaw.com], the court found that Wal-Mart had acted reasonably in detaining and searching the plaintiffs.
Store searches cannot be enforced in Texas (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, I'm basically quoting, of all things, a decision by the Texas Supreme Court. Texas is one of the states the unequivocally says you can walk right by the guy at the door with a grin and a wave.
1. Simply entering private property does not give the owner the right to forcibly search you. e.g. You show up to a friend's barbecue. Silverware goes missing. Your friend can ask you to leave. Your friend cannot forcibly search you.
2. A place of business is private property, but you actually LOSE rights as a property owner when you open to the public for business. In my own home, I am allowed to be as racist, sexist and as homophobic as I choose to be. In my own restaurant open to the public, I'd better serve all customers equally.
3. Once the store accepts payment, everything in your bag, including the bag, becomes your property. Money has changed hands, the transaction has been completed. It's your stuff, just as much as your wallet and underwear.
4. The store is well aware of the transaction and the fact that this is now your property. Most store have exits within sight of the cash register, if not in fact FUNNELED through them. We can also prove from the records that the store knows this is now your property.
5. While the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the store, there is absolutely NO law that GIVES them the right to search. See point one. The Fourth Amendment limits the Authority of Government. The store has NO authority to begin with. Saying the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply so the Store can search is like saying traffic cops can't pull over every pretty blonde they see, but since I'm a private citizen I can.
6. While stores do have the right to detain shoplifters, the store had better be ready to supply a videotape or a witness who will testify to the theft.
7. When testifying under oath, the stores admitted some wonderfully interesting points. One, the searches at the door caught virtually no shoplifters, and two, the searches at the door NEVER "helped the customer" by making sure they actually received all the items they paid for. Even if the searches did find "forgotten items" the cashier should have placed in the customer's cart, you can't force someone to accept your help. The stores were forced to admit the searches at the door were for "deterrence," in other words, security theater. Don't shoplift because we're searching you at the door.
Oddly enough, for once in its existence, the Texas Supreme Court made the right call on this one. In the State of Texas, stores cannot detain you at the door for as search. In addition, since you cannot sign away your legal rights in a contract -- you cannot sell yourself into slavery, an employment agreement where you agree you work for less than minimum wage is void -- not even Sam's and Costco can force this as part of the "membership."
The only reason door searches exist in Texas is that people voluntarily put up with them.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. Every retail store I've ever worked at has a strict no-chase policy. If someone's suspected of shoplifting they can be asked to stop or asked to have their bags searched, but employees are not to do anything else to attempt to stop the person. If you really think unpaid merchandise is walking out of the store, call the cops, try to get the license plate number and let them deal with it (it's their job.).
The store's home office would much rather see $100 in merchandise walk out the door than an employee do something stupid and bring down a major lawsuit. My bet is these employees violated company policy, will almost certainly be fired, and maybe even sued personally (tho, if they're just CC employees, they're probably not worth suing). Either way, Circuit City should be ready to cut a large check to keep this guy from suing.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Uphill battle... (Score:5, Informative)
Dudley Hiibel in Nevada [wired.com]
John Gilmore & his Supreme Court case [homelandstupidity.us]
Re:I smell something... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Open and Shut Case of Police Harrasment (Score:3, Informative)
But most theft is employees anyway.
"Impede," for the English impaired (Score:5, Informative)
Declining a request the officer doesn't have the legal right to make is not impeding. If it was, then the cop would get to make up his own little laws on the spot, and that's not correct. Note how the law goes out of its way to define that this has to be an "authorized act." The laws states you need to supply your name and address. He did. The Store had been given TWO different forms of ID for the man. His identity was never in question.
What we have is a store manager, and then a cop, getting WAY out of line, and the cop's offense is the worse one since it was committed under the color of authority. People who make stands over principle are called "patriots" here.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Most states and municipalities have passed laws granting shopkeepers limited privilege to search and detain customers, when they reasonably believe a theft has occurred. List of laws by state [about.com]. Some laws provide the shopkeeper limited immunity from torts arising from detainment.
The criteria which triggers shopkeeper privilege varies, but generally is centered on whether the store's employees witnessed a theft or other suspicious activity that indicates a theft has taken place (e.g. opening packaged goods, placing goods upon one's self, etc.)
The shopkeeper has a certain amount of leeway. In Ohio, the statute is:
2935.041 Detention, arrest of shoplifters; protection of library, museum and archival institution property [about.com], specifically:
(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
(F) Any peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person that he has probable cause to believe has committed any act described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section or that he has probable cause to believe has committed an unlawful taking in a mercantile establishment. An arrest under this division shall be made within a reasonable time after the commission of the act or unlawful taking.
As to the officer arresting the dude who wouldn't show his license, that's gonna be up to the jury to decide. Watch for the local prosecutor to drop the charges, as a public conciliatory gesture, sign that the police department is hedging against future lawsuit.
To the folks who say "forgive and forget," that the arrestee wasn't harmed or should drop the case - remember that, in most cases, today, the public entity you've just been arrested by is a municipal corporation, and carries many of the protections of a business corporation. Cities generally act as corporations do - to deny wrongdoing, and to put up a lawyer front. That leaves only one way to combat wrongful arrest: sue. The city won't apologize, that's tantamount to admission of wrongdoing. It is up to the arrestee to assert that wrong was done, and prove it in court.
That's how "The System" works. It's become a paper-based RPG - your lawyer versus their lawyer, knight vs. knight.
Re:I smell something... (Score:1, Informative)
1. If you physically witness a crime being committed.
2. If a police officer tells you to (ie. helping out when the copper is outnumbered).
Only police officers can arrest people without witnessing the crime being committed.
In this case, the shop security staff did not witness a crime being committed. They're 100% out of order here.
Re:Uphill battle... (Score:5, Informative)
Edward Lawson was "detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). 2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed"
Edward Lawsons crime was being a black male in an affluent neighborhood and jogging. During these stops he did not have his drivers license on him, or did not feel the need to present his ID upon request. The police would then arrest him for either interfering with a police investigation or PC 647(e)
In particular Edward Lawson, when refusing to show ID, was charged with PC 647(e). His lawyer's contention was that PC 647(e)'s definition of "Identify" was constitutionally vague, and successfully argued his case before the California Supreme Court.
PC 647(e)
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
himself or herself and to account for his or her presence when
requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
safety demands this identification.
In the Supreme Court of California the judges made the following statements and ruling:
Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . .
...
We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
...
In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4
"Shopkeeper's Privilege" is a whole other issue too. Which was also violated and thus the protections under it to a shopkeeper for unlawful imprisonment are no longer granted.
P.S. IANAL
Re:I smell something... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't need a cause to **ask** but they can't physically detain or force you to submit to a search you unless they witnessed a crime and are effecting a citizens arrest. They have no powers of arrest other than citizens arrest and you can only make a citizens arrest if you **witnessed** a crime, not just because they'd like to see in a bag.
As to the police search of the OP's bag, the cop is probably in the clear *for the search* because the store misrepresented the facts to the cop. However, the store is not in the clear. They had no legal right to physically detain the OP for failure to submit to a voluntary bag search. As to the tort, there is much more at stake that indignity of being falsely accused--the OP is **in the system** with an arrest record that will show up anytime a cop calls in a a check--forever. Additionally, the OP will suffer legal costs to defend his false arrest. Further, he has been defamed as exemplified by the many, many posts claiming he should have submitted to the demands of the Circuit City employee. And, there is the emotional distress of his relatives who witnessed the false arrest.
No, there is a case here and Circuit City has some damage control to do, and fast. Already, in a similar case, Tiger Direct corporate apologized. CC would do well to follow suit.
Private institutions are not police and they do not have police powers. Defending the idea that they do does a disservice to those who don't fully understand their rights. Our rights are nebulous enough without misinformation being added to the mix.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Impede," for the English impaired (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Being arrested has its own penalties (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if you're a citizen of one of these nations, and you've ever been arrested, then you're excluded from this program. It doesn't matter if you were never changed with a crime. It doesn't matter if you were acquitted. It doesn't matter if your record has been expunged. Merely being arrested, for any reason, disqualifies you.
If this guy is smart, he'll ask the judge to purge this wrongful arrest from his record. I don't know if the judge can do that, but odds are he or she can, and should.
Re:Oh my god (Score:5, Informative)
He called police because he was being unlawfully detained. If somebody is being detained against their will and they call the police to remedy the situation, I fail how to see how that is obstructing official business. That is what the police are there for.
The good old fashioned way: by observing the thief steal merchandise. If you didn't see him steal anything, you have no reason to believe that he has. Treating all your customers as thieves is not good for business -- just ask the RIAA.
No, he clearly DID identify himself, he just refused to show a drivers license because he was not driving. Ohio state law quite specifically states you do not have to provide a drivers license to a police officer if you are not driving.
Why the uproar? (Score:2, Informative)
Why does anyone care about this man's rights, whether it is regarding showing his license or showing his receipt?
Who cares!
It's all meaningless in the face of the laws the USA have enacted in the last several years which have destroyed several sections of the US constitution.
It's all meaningless considering that your judges don't have the balls to uphold your constitution and strike down such laws.
Your ancestors fought and died for that constitution, for you to have those rights, but no, instead people are concerned that a consumer might actually have to prove he purchased the goods he's trying to remove from a store?
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Shopkeeper's Privilege is what allows businesses to search you, or to detain you until the police arrive. It only applies if they have a good reason to suspect that you are shoplifting. Generally speaking, though, the rules protect consumers as much as they protect the stores. The store must maintain visual contact with you at all times, from the time of the suspected shoplifting until you leave. Otherwise, they lose a lot of their power.
You don't lose your rights just because you set foot on private property. However, the store can kick you out and demand that you never return if you don't follow their policies. If you have already purchased your goods, this won't void the purchase.
You understand but misunderstand (Score:3, Informative)
A store has the right to refuse you entry for pretty much any reason, for example if you refuse to leave a bag at the counter, they can refuse to let you in. They can also kick you out for pretty much any reason, for example if you mess up merchandise on a shelf. However they don't have any real rights past that.
Owning property gives you exclusionary powers, meaning that you can determine who is and isn't allowed to come on, and the reasons for that can be highly arbitrary if you wish (barring violating equal rights statutes and such for public businesses, but those don't apply to a home). It does not give you unlimited rights. Signs don't change that, a sign lets people know what your policies are and as such can tell them what will get them kicked off, but it doesn't give you any more rights.
They admitted no supcpician of shoplifting. (Score:4, Informative)
The suspicion must be reasonable and that reasonability varies from state to state. One thing is clear, failure to submit to a voluntary bag search is not legal reason to detain someone.
They had no legal right to detain the OP. They admitted to his face, when asked, that they were not accusing him of shoplifting--they just wanted to see in his bag. They had no right--literally.
Stores do not have police powers! They cannot detain people and force them to submit to store policy! They can only detain people who have committed a crime they have directly witnessed, or, in some states, have **reasonable** cause to believe occurred. To affect a citizen's arrest, you must have witnessed a crime, not merely suspect one may have occurred.
Not showing a receipt is not reasonable suspicion (Score:3, Informative)
So there's no way in hell they had anything near a reasonable suspicion he stole something. This was just some moron at a store who figures their job as security guard makes them really important and wanted to show it off.
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
A quick Google found this overview [crimedoctor.com]of what is allowed, not allowed and recommended in the case of shoplifting detention.
Basically, they can't simply "suspect" someone or complain if he refuses to show a receipt. They need to SEE the suspect take the property. More details about "probable cause" are here [crimedoctor.com]. Details on the issue of false arrest are here [crimedoctor.com].
Re:Uphill battle... (Score:5, Informative)
Some states, such as Washington and California have codified their Common Law and incorporated them into the UCC and PC. California in particular, we have Penal Code 490.5 (f):
Penal Code 490.5 f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.
Since (in California) PC 490.5(f) is in the Penal Code section of law, the definition of "Probable Cause" falls under that of the same Penal Code.
Under PC 490.5(f) a shopkeeper must have "Probable Cause" to believe the person being detained is attempting to, or unlawfully took merchandise from the store.
Since theft is a misdemeanor, and NOT a felony, then "Probable Cause" required to arrest requires direct first hand knowledge of the act or event taking place. i.e. An agent of the store must see personally, or via CCTV the act being committed.
If the theft was a felony (grand theft), then the "Probable Cause" necessary to arrest for a felony only requires a "reasonable doubt".
Regardless, refusal to submit to a search is not grounds for probable cause for either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Fourth Amendment Rights, confirmed numerous times by the US Supreme Court.)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but I seem to recall (from researching it when I owned a storefront):
Actually, this varies per state and per jurisdiction (ie: county, city, town) depending on the specific laws.
Some states require that you must actually walk out the door with a product before you can be accused of attempting to shoplift... inotherwords if I go into a Circuit City and stuff a bunch of CDs in my shirt, until I step through that door, it isnt a crime... other states allow that action that (seems to) constitute intent as attempted shoplifting.
As for jurisdictional borders/property... that varies as well per state. In some states, you cannot try to detain the person once they have left your building... in others you can (as long as they have not left your parking lot)... and in a few I believe you could try to detain them even after that.
Even in states that allow you to detain people suspected of shoplifting in your parking lot, the waters get kind of murky there too... If you are in a shopping center, the parking lot is quite possibly not yours. If you are renting a space that has it's own parking and no rights of egress to others, then it is different. If you own the property and the parking, that too is different...
As for Ohio, I have no clue.... but don't assume Ohio fits a particular circumstance as the laws are quite different in many places.
In New York if I remember correctly, [at least in the county I was a store manager in (not a Circuit City)], we can detain you, and even request to see your receipts or request you let us inspect your bag(s), but cannot forcibly do so... if you refuse, which is your right, then we can detain you until the police arrive who then can search your bag if we sufficiently prove to them/convince them a crime (shoplifting) has occurred.
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
Here are some actual store rules... (Score:5, Informative)
http://targetfiling.blogspot.com/2007/05/target-a
The person arrested here did NOT break the law, and should not have been arrested.
The store manager and Asset Protection person DID break the law, and the police officer seriously bent it if not actually breaking it.
I doubt a city attorney will choose to prosecute the person arrested.
--
Tomas
Re:You understand but misunderstand (Score:5, Informative)
Again the the Ohio statues you understand but don't. Yes, stores can detain someone if they've got a legal reason. Guess what? Refusing a search isn't a legal reason. Refusing a search is NEVER probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search. This one has been tested in court, the rulings are crystal clear. Refusal to search may be taken as nothing other than that: A refusal to search. It cannot give cause for a search. Otherwise such a refusal would be meaningless.
So again I'll say: Just owning property doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want. This is something you'd do well to understand, as you could get in real trouble with the attitude you have currently. In the case of purely private property you have essentially unlimited exclusionary rights, that is you can decide who is and is not allowed on the property for any reason you like, and change those reasons at any time (public businesses are more restricted, refusing access based on things like race is illegal). However that's all you get to do. You cannot force people to stay and do something they don't want. Doesn't matter if that's your "policy" doesn't matter if you have a sign, doesn't matter if you shout it from the hilltops. Your ownership of the property gives you the right to control access, not the right to force people to do as you please.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Since the store most likely shares the parking lot with a number of other merchants, the parking lot is construed as a public thoroughfare (otherwise, the police wouldn't be involved with any traffic accidents therein).
Sorry.... can't have it both ways.
---
Yes... I really do have a 4 digit UserID (and gobs of karma to go with it)... so there...
Re:RTFA (Score:1, Informative)
Stores are allowed to detain you if they have some specific reason to believe that you're shoplifting. So if they see you stealing some shit, then yes, you can be detained.
But if you just walked from the checkout counter out the door, then no, they have no right to detain you.
Christ amighty, for a bunch of nerds, you are all INCREDIBLY fucking stupid.
Re:I smell something... (Score:4, Informative)
* If the police ask your name you must give it, but you cannot be compelled to give any supporting documentation.
* The majority also stated that if someone was convicted of a crime as a consequence of giving their name that the issue could be reconsidered under a Fifth Amendment challenge but that such a challenge did not apply in this particular case.
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you are incorrect. MOST states DO allow merchants to detain shoplifters (Google it)... a sufficient degree of probably cause is supposed to be determined by the merchant - and that degree, as required by law, varies per state.
In our case, an employee had to witness the act - or suspect the act and be able to verify it on the recorded video footage...
Now, in the event a detention occurred without probable cause (as defined by local and state laws/ordinances) then you would be correct.
You can't just detain anyone...
Here's one of many references...
http://www.iapsc.org/uploaded_documents/bp1.doc
a. The merchant's privilege provides for detention of persons suspected of shoplifting only when probable cause or reasonable cause exists to believe a person has committed theft. The best practice for establishing this probable cause (as compared to any legal standard) is the security person's having met all the following six steps: (1) observe the customer approach the merchandise, (2) observe the customer select the merchandise, (3) observe the customer conceal (or otherwise carry away) the merchandise, (4) keep the customer under constant and uninterrupted observation, (5) see the customer fail to pay for the merchandise, and (6) detain the customer outside the store.
b. The merchant's privilege permits detention for limited purposes which vary by state. Common among these limited purposes are: (1) ascertaining that stolen merchandise is possessed by the suspect, (2) identifying the suspect, (3) investigating the alleged theft, (4) recovering stolen merchandise, and (5) notifying the police of the offense. Some states permit limited searches of the suspect, some states limit the extent to which identity may be established; and the use of force which can legally be used is, if mentioned, always non-deadly. Many company or store policies further restrict permissible actions in dealing with shoplifting suspects; e.g., prohibiting pursuing suspects beyond company property.
Part a.6. definitely varies per state, and in some you have to stop them before they leave whatever is defined as your last point of pay (first exit door, decently past all registers, etc).
MOST states allow a lot more than you think.... SOME even allow use of force to detain. SOME allow limited searches, AND MOST allow detainment. SOME (VERY FEW) require it to be done by a state licensed security person.
Re:Right idea, bad execution. (Score:2, Informative)
Might be an idea to read your links and TFA.
He gave his name and address, he is not required to provide ID. The cop can not arrest them for failing to provide an ID. Under Nevada law (like hibel) the officer can detain someone for up to 1 hour in order to check someones identity, however this case was not in Nevada. Even then the officer must have reasonable cause to think you have given false information.
You'll note that the hibel case is actually very narrow:
"the Court found that the officer's request for identification was a 'commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence,' and thus did not violate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment."
In this case the officer arrested him "for not showing ID", after it was proven he had not shoplifted. The officer then changed his mind once at the station to impeding a police officer. Which is commonly becaming a catchall for whenever you annoy an officer, as they rarely get any fallout from doing so.
Clearly in this instance the cop arrested the person first (likely because he was "difficult"), and came up with the charge later. Given the officer didn't even bother to read him his miranda rights, I think it's likely we simply have an officer acting in an unprofessional manner.
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
According to Ohio law, if asked by an officer, you only have to provide your name, address, or date of birth. You are in no way compelled to provide documentation when asked.
Re:I Ain't Passed The Bar, But I Know A Little Bit (Score:3, Informative)
On top of that, TFA reports they were emotionally shaken to the point of tears.
Re:I smell something... (Score:3, Informative)
The requirement for mutual consideration isn't applied on each individual item within a transaction or contract, only on the entirety of the transaction, which may include other terms and conditions.
If the purchaser and purchasee cannot reach mutually acceptable terms, either party could decline and the customer could simply depart without being included in this clause, so it would only impact those that made a purchase.