Slashdot Log In
Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:56 AM
from the living-your-life-with-principles dept.
from the living-your-life-with-principles dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, according to the summary (TFA being dead now), no one said "sorry man", instead the cop looked for another pretext to charge and arrest him. So lawyers are already in the picture.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:5, Insightful)
S - See the suspect take goods
C - Conceal the goods
O - Continuously Observe the suspect (to ensure they don't drop or discard the goods)
P/N - Not Pay
E - Attempt to exit
Generally, if you're at an exit and someone tries to prevent you leaving, it's kidnapping (holding you against your will).
My wife is a special officer and two of my good friends are full-timers. They would kick the arse of any shop staff that tried to hold a customer without having observed scope/scone.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Funny)
I hate it when stores prevent me from foaming and rising.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Interesting)
As to blocking my car in the parking lot, that sounds pretty much like the textbook definition of unlawful detention / kidnapping. Maybe a call to the FBI is in order.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that it is their store means nothing. Think of it this way. Do you have the right to search any bags or packages that someone brings into your home? No. You can ask, and then you can ask that they leave if they refuse to show you, but beyond that, nothing.
Also, refusal to allow one's person or possessions to be search cannot be used as just cause for a search. So says the Supreme Court.
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I smell something... (Score:5, Interesting)
This case is so obvious and clear that it's a civil liberties lawyers wet dream. Unless the story is missing details such as some state law insiting on ID. It seems TFA made it clear that no such law existed although the officer assumed it did.
Can't resist urge to make puns (Score:5, Funny)
Feel free to pummel this post and/or me(or add your own!)
Somewhere... (Score:5, Funny)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to argue against this guy, do yourself a favor: Don't argue the store was within their rights to ask for the receipt. Nobody's arguing with that, and you're a moron who can't fucking read if you think they are. Instead you need to make a case for why they were right to prevent him from leaving, because that, and only that, is what is being contended here.
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.
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:Full text since site is down: (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Full text since site is down: (Score:5, Interesting)
This is about doing the occasionally hard thing, testing the system to make sure it's working the way it's supposed to.
Because if it ISN'T (and he showed that the system did NOT work correctly), this is the point where it needs to get straightened out, while it's just about searches in an electronics store being illegally enforced by the police. Yes, it's wrong, but people aren't losing lives over it at this stage.
And hey -- that's what we are supposed to do, as citizens of a representative government. We're *supposed* to be double-checking the laws, we're supposed to be scrutinizing our police and government, we're supposed to be doing what we can to stop abuses of the power we give them over us.
Of course, we can always wait until we're personally, drastically harmed, but by then it's generally too late.
"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:"Impede," for the English impaired (Score:5, Informative)
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:Circuit City and the Officer F'd up big time (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, he knew I know my rights, he saw that the guy drew blood, and he has seen me in the store before buying high-ticket items (although after that episode the most I've spent at that store is $20, and scored advertised freebies on the day-after-thanksgiving loss leader specials) and he made the guy apologise and informed him that he was fired. Calling the police was deemed unnecessary. At that point I did give him the decency of showing him the bag and receipt, only to underscore my point. I then asked why I, a paying customer was harassed and assaulted, while teenagers are walking in, stuffing their bulky jackets, and then walking out unchecked.
Depending on your state, the store does NOT have the right to search your bags without cause, EVEN if clearly posted, unless you pay a fee and sign an agreement containing those terms - such as BJs, Costco, Sam's Club, etc. - when you walk into your store you do not give up your rights as an American citizen. Of course that was the 1990s, and all of that has changed now under Bush's administration; one is presumed guilty until proven innocent since 09/11.
Also, regarding drivers' license: depending on your state you may not EVER have to hand it to a police officer. That is the case here; I was once pulled over for passing in a passing zone - LEGALLY, in my Corvette. There was PLENTY of room to pass, but I did it uphill. An officer I saw two cars behind (I saw him behind before I passed - I thought nothing of it because it was a legal passing zone) pulled me over. He was a rookie - he asked for my license and registration. I SHOWED them to him. He asked me to hand them to and I told him I will not; it is my right to refuse to hand it to him, but I DO have to show it to him upon request if I am a driver and pulled over, so I am obliging to the law and showing it to him. He then asked if I knew why I pulled him over, so I said "I presume speeding, however, while passing I did not exceed the speed limit. As you know, that woman was hindering the flow of traffic, driving more than 10 under." Well, he proceeded to inform me he pulled me over because he does not think that passing zones should be legal, and that were I driving a Ford Escort, or even the Ford Crown Vic he was driving, I would not have made it passing uphill. I then entered smartass mode and replied "Well, this car isn't a clown vic, is it? I regret to inform you that despite your preferences, passing zones are legal, so write me up, and then you can follow me to the station a half mile down the road and we'll have a nice long chat with your supervisor." Well, of course he did not write me up, and saw that I had a spotless driving record for the previous 7 years (except for a "fix it" tag because I was pulled over in an MR2 I refused to get inspected - I now get my cars inspected because it has become a moving violation, not just a fix it tag and small fine). I've seen him around town since then and he's actually been downright friendly. I think he was just having a bad day or something, or he was gung-ho since he was a rookie, but I had
Re:Circuit City and the Officer F'd up big time (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing screw up (Score:5, Interesting)
The Circuit City employee was not accusing this fellow of stealing anything. He was simply under the mistaken impression that he could force a customer to comply with a search. What the cop did was an unreasonable seizure, an illegal arrest. What the employee did was false imprisonment. It doesn't matter what the Ohio legislature says about having to show your ID when a cop asks. A legislature cannot override the Federal Constitution. Yes, both the cop, the store employee and the store could be liable.
I think the guy should sue everyone involved. It has come to be a serious annoyance that