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 ...
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.