Skip to comments.Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City (Donations welcome, the ACLU will get most of it)
Posted on 09/03/2007 3:19:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my fathers 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 fathers Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (Its my little sisters 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 sisters birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disneys 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 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 Acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer
Mutuality of Obligation also known as the meeting of the minds
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.