Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City (Donations welcome, the ACLU will get most of it)

MichaelRighi.com ^ | September 2nd, 2007 | Michael Righi,

[Publius Valerius]

You could be arrested for failing to provide your drivers' license if you are in your vehicle and don't have it with you but you shouldn't have been arrested for identifying yourself which you did. The officer had no cause to ask for your drivers' license. That was just bogus.

A couple years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case similar to this in which a fellow was arrested for not producing identification despite that he was not driving. His arrest was upheld.

[Oberon]

Walmart and Best Buy check your receipt at the door; you know that going in.

If you don’t like it, don’t go in.

Hmmm. Under that line of reasoning, you could substitute anything for "...check your receipt at the door..." and it would be okay.

What if it was:

Walmart and Best Buy perform a strip search at the door; you know that going in.

If you don’t like it, don’t go in.

Or even:

Walmart and Best Buy have thugs that slap you around before you leave; you know that going in.

If you don’t like it, don’t go in.

That wouldn't be okay, would it? Of course not. It's ludicrous to even entertain the notion.

The idea being that just because you are aware of store policy going in doesn't make the policy okay.

[Publius Valerius]

#3, In most states, when the manager hindered/physically prevented you leaving and told you you could not leave, he arrested you, whether or not word arrest was ever used. You had $50,000 false arrest case going for a while.

Most, if not all, states have laws allowing shopkeepers to detain suspected shoplifters. If you refuse to show a receipt for your "purchase" upon leaving the store, that is going to raise an inference of shoplifting. It's just simply not a false arrest.

[weaponeer]

Ditto. I have been stopped at the local Wal-Mart before and checked,and it’s a two-second process.Not a big deal. I don’t mind,if it cuts down on theft and helps keep prices down.

Strange response from a guy with your screen name.

[Quick1]

If you refuse to show a receipt for your "purchase" upon leaving the store, that is going to raise an inference of shoplifting.

Sorry, refusal to show a receipt does not constitute reasonable grounds for detainment, especially when you ask everyone for the receipt, otherwise you are saying you suspect EVERYONE of shoplifting. Those laws that allow detainment all pretty much require someone to have witnessed the person putting it in their pocket, and then continual monitoring as the person skipped the checkout counter and out the door. Asking someone if they stole something, and then detaining them when they say "no", also does not constitute grounds for detainment.

[weaponeer]

“please don’t pick my foxhole to sit in. I want to know someone is going to be there when the going gets tough.” I got your back dude. If someone ever demands to see your receipt in a fox hole, I’ll go down swinging...heh.

Got a foxhole for three? I'm in.

[AppyPappy]

refusal to show a receipt does not constitute reasonable grounds for detainment

That depends on whether or not you are on private propery. They have a lot of latitude when you are on their property. The best idea is to stay off their property if they engage in this behavior. But I suspect most offended people are powerless to do that because they are sheeple.

[Quick1]

Inside the store, they had a right to detain him if they suspected him of shoplifting.

Really, even inside the store they would have had no right to detain him, unless they caught him on camera, or someone witnessed it.

[Publius Valerius]

Sorry, refusal to show a receipt does not constitute reasonable grounds for detainment, especially when you ask everyone for the receipt, otherwise you are saying you suspect EVERYONE of shoplifting.

No, you're not suspecting everyone of shoplifting. You are suspecting the people who don't show their receipt of shoplifting, which is a reasonable inference. There is simply no reason for a non-shoplifter not to show a receipt. It benefits everyone. It helps the store control shrinkage and helps keep prices down, which benefits consumers.

This guy refused to show is receipt; he was detained. He tried to leave--which is attempted escape (a crime with which he ought be charged)--and he paid a little bit of a price for it. If you want to be a jerk, be prepared for the consequences.

[Quick1]

That depends on whether or not you are on private propery.

No, it doesn't. The grounds for your detainment must happen BEFORE the inquiry of the detainee. The store retains the right to ask him to leave their property, however.

The best idea is to stay off their property if they engage in this behavior.

A good idea, but most stores don't exactly advertise the fact that they check receipts. I like the idea people have had to immediately walk to the return counter when asked to show a receipt.

[Quick1]

You are suspecting the people who don't show their receipt of shoplifting, which is a reasonable inference.

No, it's not, anymore than asserting your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent means you are guilty of a crime. Assertion of your rights cannot be used against you.

There is simply no reason for a non-shoplifter not to show a receipt.

Sure there is. "I would prefer not to be treated like a criminal in your store". Reason enough?

It benefits everyone. It helps the store control shrinkage and helps keep prices down, which benefits consumers.

There are many, MANY other ways to accomplish that. For instance, for big ticket items, you hand the person a tag to pay for the item, and then the customer turns in the tag at a loading dock. Not to mention that most theft is done by employees.

This guy refused to show is receipt; he was detained.

And he will get a nice check from his unlawful detainment suit.

He tried to leave--which is attempted escape his right

Fixed that for you.

If you want to be a jerk, be prepared for the consequences.I wasn't aware that being a jerk was illegal nowadays. We're going to have to build more prisons!

[AppyPappy]

This case is similar to what happened when I was a teen. A convenience store limited the number of teens in the store at one time. The teens argued he was discriminating. He argued it was his property and he was protecting it.

The one thing I remember is that teens would still go to the store. Even the ones making the most noise.

[pierstroll]

How then can they deal with shoplifting and screening items leaving the store if they can’t look into the bag. That’s what I meant by inspect?

[ShadowAce]

That depends on whether or not you are on private propery.

Are commercial stores private property, though? In several instances they are treated as being public property--ADA enforcement comes to mind. Right of entrance comes to mind (With certain specific exemptions). Discrimination laws also apply.

However, they are owned by private individuals or companies. I'm not sure what their status legally is--does it change from instance to instance?

[LanPB01]

He sounds like a jerk who got what he deserved.

[weaponeer]

You make an lot of statements as if they were FACTS, yet commercial law is state by state, so there are many different, likely conflicting, sets of situations and laws that you are stating as facts. How do you reconcile that?

[Quick1]

There is a bit of a difference in that the store reserves the right to refuse business with anyone, and so he was probably within his rights to limit the number of people. You can pretty much put whatever conditions of entry to your property that you want, but you can’t bar people from exiting.

[Theo]

Of course, being on Circuit City property is not “out in public.” You’re on their property.

[Publius Valerius]

No, it's not, anymore than asserting your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent means you are guilty of a crime. Assertion of your rights cannot be used against you.

What right?

Sure there is. "I would prefer not to be treated like a criminal in your store". Reason enough?

No, not reason enough. You are being unreasonable. If you act like a thief, be prepared to be treated like one.

There are many, MANY other ways to accomplish that. For instance, for big ticket items, you hand the person a tag to pay for the item, and then the customer turns in the tag at a loading dock. Not to mention that most theft is done by employees.

It doesn't matter whether there are other ways to reduce shrinkage or even whether or not most theft is done by employees, which I agree that it is. What matters is that the store has instituted an anti-theft policy, which may be one of many (seen or unseen by the general public) designed to reduce shrinkage. That benefits the store, the shareholders, and the public.

He tried to leave--which is attempted escape his right Fixed that for you.

This is escape under Ohio law. If a storekeeper has detained you and you try to leave, you have attempted escape, which is a criminal offense.

I wasn't aware that being a jerk was illegal nowadays. We're going to have to build more prisons!

It's not illegal. But when this man chose the course of his actions, he made some mistakes. Larger, more serious mistakes followed. Those actions have consequences.

[Quick1]

How then can they deal with shoplifting and screening items leaving the store if they can’t look into the bag.

There are about a billion other ways, including designing the store so that you can only exit by going through a checkout lane. Putting a minimum wage monkey at the door is merely so that the store LOOKS tough on shoplifting, it doesn't really accomplish anything.