Ya, really.
Posted on 09/03/2007 3:19:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsite.michaelrighi.com ...
I would bet there are a lot of posters on this thread that really, really, absolutely believe George Bush and Dick Cheney are somewhere in the dark recesses of the White House, earphones on, listening to their private conversations.
Hate to hit and run but I think my telephone has a funny click sound when I answer. Oh yeah, could be those black helicopters circling the house.
Duck Martha, they may have cameras.
I used to do that and then I realized that in a country where every April 15 you have to the tell government where you work, what your job title is, how much money you make, how much money you have in the bank, your marital status, how many kids you have and their ages, how much you spend on medical insurance, how much your mortgage is, is what you pay or do not pay in alimony, how much you gave to charity, etc. or they will jail you, showing some drooling moron my receipt was the least of my problems.
Sure he is one. He took it upon himself to pull a stunt while kids were in the car waiting. So he is selfish as well.
And people like that end up capping others or getting capped in road rage incidents.
Yes and no....You must identify yourself, but in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, they suggested /implied that a person was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his or her name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Figure it will keep my golden years interesting :-)
Cheers,
Lloyd
Payment is only one of the elements of a contract and all must be met before a sale is final.
Uhhhh the "shopkeepers privilege" is well established in common law and most states have a version of it. But I've never seen one that says they have a right to inspect. The right allows you to detain when there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
(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.
(There's some other stuff that has to do with museums and libraries specifically, but here's the next section that mentions merchants...)
(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.
So is the act of refusing to show the receipt enough to warrant suspicion and thereby initiate detention? Or does the receipt become your property as soon as it's handed to you and is therefore not subject to search or seizure?
Ugh.
I don't think you can be guilty of shoplifting if you pay for the merchandise.
I don't think you can be guilty of shoplifting if you pay for the merchandise.
Thanks. On the bright side, I’m probably the only FReeper with my very own stalker. Maybe I should feel special.
Interesting questions. But here it looks like the demand to search came before any actual suspicion. In that case my guess would be that it can’t be refusal to a search that causes suspicion, because the demand was already made.
Looks like random checks by stores may be in a sort of catch-22, at least in that state. I have an idea — don’t check unless you actually suspect.
Then the store should have told him to return the items for his money back.
I asked the gal at Sam’s about it, and she said “Its to make sure that you have all of your items”. (A good response - no doubt learned in training).
It would be fun to cross-reference this thread with the thread about the Home Depot policy of not chasing shoplifters!
Now the one that DOES get me mad is that I have to get my psudephed from the pharmacist! (Sure - your store is open 24 hours, but the pharmacy is open like 10:30a - 3:30p on the weekend!?)
You most definately can. As an example, some years ago I owned several convenience stores. One night a drunk walked in, grabbed a $5.00 bottle of booze, threw down a $10.00 bill and walked out. He was charged and convicted of shoplifting. There was no "meeting of the minds" required for a purchase.
A judge would probably look at the circumstance of someone refusing an exit check but the store has every right to press charges. The terms of the sale have not been consumated.
Were you required to repay the drunk?
I shop at Walmart a lot. I have never once been asked for a receipt when leaving. Not in Missouri, where I live.
I have also shopped in Walmarts while traveling. I have never been asked to show a receipt in Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma or Wisconsin either.
I agree, that would be the best solution but he walked out with the merchandise. At that point the store's options are limited, accept the sale even though the terms were not fulfilled or pursue the "customer" for not having fulfilled them.
Yes. It was never my money. I never accepted it.
FWIW The guy was a jerk, its not the Circuit City inspectors fault that he forgot to get his sister a present (and thus had to rush). While sotres bother me with their prying (I never give my phone number) I think they do have a right to check the bag on the way out...
Should he have been arrested? I dont know well wait on the facts but I do know if he had just shown the bag this would not have happened
..
“”The terms of the sale have not been consumated.””
You keep saying that but none of us, including you have seen these additional terms of sale.
When I have my receipt and my goods, the transaction is over, and I don’t stop for searches.
You may want to research “Elements of a contract”. It is basic business law and has been established for hundreds of years and courts are still litigating it every day. It may save you from peering out from the wrong side of some bars someday. It is not my idea, it is the basics of business.
“”They should have (and I suspect most do) signage indicating that all sales are subject to verification by receipt on exit. “”
You are making stuff up on the fly. There wouldn’t be much point to this thread if all the stores had legal postings instructing shoppers that they would be searched after completing purchases.
Most of the legal issues have already been covered on this thread, if you have some legal information to post do it, don’t vaguely claim it exists, and send us off to scour the law books for it.
You are allowed to call the police yourself, and should, you are allowed to request criminal charges be filed for illegal restraint, you are allowed to defend your person should they get stupid about forcing you to do things that they are not allowed to do. You are allowed to raise your voice and loudly proclaim your innocence in a manner that causes them great embarrassment. You are allowed to leave if the police to not arrive in a timely manner. You are allowed to sue the store and the people involved. You are allowed to broadcast what happened to the media and on the Internet.
The key here is your innocence. You had damn well better be before you do any or all of the above.
The real issue is the lack of professional loss protection bubbas. There are very few pros, most are ex cops or wannabe cops who think they are Jack Bauer. Tell them no and they will brandish their pepper spray. BTDT. Record their hysterics and then file charges on them. If they get really stupid, esp in front of witnesses, drop them. Its easier than they realize and they will have no idea its coming BTDT2. A real pro will never risk any of the above actions unless he is absolutely sure he has some one dead to rights. If he doesn't he lets them go. The wannabes have no clue and will play super cop. When they do, destroying their lives is the correct response. They have no business being allowed in any position of authority after that.
• An Offer
• An Acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer
• Legal Purpose/Objective
• Mutuality of Obligation – also known as the “meeting of the minds”
• Consideration
• Competent Parties
There are hundreds of thousands of cases which have been decided based on these basic requirements. This is first semester business school stuff. Accept it or ignore it as you will. The world is not based on your concept of what your 'rahts' are.
None of that has anything to do with this thread.
How does that figure in here...bag searches are post contract. The only leg the merchant has to stand on is shopper keepers privledge, which is very limited and does not include the searching of persons or possesions. My shopping in a store does not bind me to their policies or procedures.
A while back I filed on what was then my local school district. One of their defenses was that I had to go through their complaint process first since I had a child in the district. I pointed out that the complaint was from me, not the child, and local policy did not over rule the UFAS or ADA. They were most unhappy when they lost.
This case, like many, go against what is taught by the few pros in loss prevention. CC is going to lose big and their people involved will be fired, not defended. The vic’s refusual to show his license to the cop is a side show, and will not figure in the final result.
If you have read this thread about this Ohio story, you must have seen post 108 and its link to the law.
It has everything to do with this thread. A $10.00 sale is governed by the same rules as a $10,000 sale.
OK, well on that gibberish, I’m going to bed.
Ya, really.
No, they are not. The merchant has the right to set terms and conditions of the sale. You are free to accept or reject them or negotiate different terms. A bag search may well be within the four corners of the contract. Payment is only one element of the contract, you must meet all. Failure to do so means the contract is voidable.
No where I have I seen any attempt to justify loss prevention searches as being part of the purchase contract. I do give you credit for a new and novel approach. However under it, if I do not purchase anything, the merchant could not ask someone to open their purse or other containers they have with them.
Common law instead has provided “shopkeepers privilege” which is quite narrow in scope, though some would have us believe otherwise.
Yes. I saw the link. In fact, I posted it!!
Many elements of a contract are post consideration. An agreement for delivery or warranty service are post consideration but fully enforceable.
- Since it is not imposed uniformly, it may be considered outside of the contract
While some degree of consistency may be required to establish policy, the vendor is free to waive his rights if he so chooses.
- Since it is not an explicit part of negotiations (posted signs may not be considered part of the contract) there is no agreement to search in the contract.
Again the store is free to set terms and conditions of a sale and establish their method of business. I consider it advisable to clearly post those terms but if their business model requires an exit check, they are free to require it. If you object to any part of the transaction, it is up to you to raise the issue and negotiate. Posted signs are part of the contract. Joe Grocer is free to put a sign up that says "10% will be added to the bill of all ugly people" I can argue that my ugly is only worth an extra 5% but unless I bring it up, I am going to pay an extra 10%.
from the story writer’s own post and link to the law:
“2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(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.”
It seems to me that the police officer, due to the call to come to the store and his observations upon arriving, had reasonable suspicion this was a shoplifting incident and requested the ID from the alledged shoplifter. It appears he asked for the ID (in this case a driver’s license) in order to verify the man’s actual identity.
>>>>Had he not left the store, he could have sued the store for kidnapping.
No, there was no criminal intent to kidnap. Kidnapping is a crime of commission, not one of omission.
His problem now is that if he tries to bring a false arrest action, no matter his possible rights to refuse to show ID, he has ceased to look like a reasonable man caught in a situation not of his making.
>>>>>Thus, by trying to forcibly search his bag, it was a violation of his 4th amendment right.
No No No no no.
4th protects you against such searches by GMVT! If store has sign at entrance that while you are on property, they may search bags, etc, then you have entered into a contract to permit same by entering.
Having spent many years in retail and having given training and received training regarding “shoplifting” here is what I/we train to:
In order to have “cause” to stop and detain a shoplifter,
the clerk must observe the person take the items
the clerk must observe the person conceal the items (ie. you must know exactly where the items are on the shoplifter) lawsuits happen when the shoplifter ‘dumps’ the item in the store and you didn’t see them do that.
shoplifter must remain under observation and be given every opportunity to pay for the items
shoplifter can only be stopped after passing the last opportunity for payment (ie. they are leaving the store)
if you are going to make the shoplifting stop, never accuse the person of stealing. Simply state: Excuse mam/sir, but I believe you may have forgotten to purchase the (state the item) you have in your (location of item).
if the person bolts, runs, etc. to not attempt to detain. Most shoplifters when confronted with the exact information regarding their theft will simply give you back the merchandise. The professional shoplifter is entirely another matter as they often use things like booster girdles etc.
As far as the bag check thing, they are not checking you for theft. Those are done to audit cashiers. I had one employee that was seen and caught passing off merchandise at the checkout. When we questioned them, they confessed to over $10,000 in theft.
And then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND0yRRpPeyo
They certainly may.
“All sales final”
“No returns without receipt”
“No one under 18 admitted’
“No smoking”
“No firearms or weapons allowed”
“No dogs allowed other than guide dogs”
“Management reserves right to inspect all purses, briefcases and packages brought into store”
“All items left unclaimed for more than 45 days will be sold to cover cost of repairs”
"Give me my money back or I'm calling the police" makes most managers start tapping their feet furiously.
While you’re in their store they have a right to look in your bag and ask for a receipt. This guy was looking for trouble and he found it.
On the bright side, I’m probably the only FReeper with my very own stalker. Maybe I should feel special.
Don't flatter yourself My Personal Freeper stalker writes nasties about me on threads I have never even opened or read. I periodically do a search on what he is saying just to see what he has posted about me.
He gave his name.
This Comrade was arrested for failing to show his papers.
Not something that the law in this country requires ... yet
You can’t even get out of Sam’s without a cart check!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.