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 despise getting searched because I might be shoplifting, especially without any evidence. Even my public library now checks every bag at the exit, even though there's a security scanner. Last week, I was walking out with my own textbook I was studying off of, and the security guard asked if it was my book. I walked past him and said, "yep." Apparently answering his question wasn't enough, because at the bottom of the escalator, I was met by two other guards who grabbed my book to check to see if it was from the library.
Oops, dropped a /i.
Incorrect, it held that he must identify himself by providing name, address and DOB. Producing an ID, photo or otherwise is not requried.
It's not a slippery-slope argument; I'm pointing out the fallacy that would have us believe that as long as you know what the store plans to do, it's okay.
Our awareness of store policy has no bearing on whether that policy is ethical or not.
They have positioned themselves as essentially a public place by allowing the public in without membership. I do know this brings in various aspects of the law. For example, go out on your private farm and flip your car, getting hurt. I don't believe you have to call the police for that. But you do in a public access parking lot even though it is private property. This issue has come up in malls quite often, with the right to free speech butting up against the rights of the property owner, with free speech generally winning (varies by state though).
Regardless of what the conditions are? You're saying anything goes, as long as it's on the sign?
“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.
lol... ‘No thank you’? What a moron.
Quit shopping at stores that check your receipt if it bothers you so much. I suppose you would rather pay higher prices to make up for the merchandise that shop lifters steal?
lol, he was arrested for being an A-hole, not for not producing a drivers license. If he had just shown his receipt he wouldn’t have been arrested at all.
So if a shop lifter can run fast enough to get out the front door he can just stand there and make faces at store employees taunting them? lol
“Accusing a paying customer of shoplifting is just lousy customer service ...”
I agree. People who are outraged at being asked to show a receipt to prove you aren’t a shop lifter should not shop at stores that post bag checkers at their doors. If you see bag checkers and still shop there though, you have only yourself to blame for your outrage.
The problem with his contract theory is it breaksdown if I do not buy something (enter into a contract). It is novel and innovative...maybe its in the penumbra of the UCC
There is WAY to much incorrect legal advice going on here.
>>>>A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.
>>Pretty sure that’s false, and anyway, I’ve never seen a sign at any of the places that have asked to see my receipt.
No it is not false.
>>>>(You cannot make a contract to do something illegal)
>>Like an illegal search of my possessions?
To be illegal, it must violate a LAW. That is not the case here.
You have no ‘right’ to shop lift no matter how polite you are, and no ‘right’ to shop anywhere unless you agree to observe the rules of that particular business. He had no ‘right’ to refuse to show his receipt. The constitution wasn’t set up to protect shop lifters.
if he would have just shown his receipt no one would have bothered him any more. this whole incident just proves that when you act like an A-hole you are treated like an A-hole.
>>Regardless of what the conditions are? You’re saying anything goes, as long as it’s on the sign?
Please see my comments earlier re Black Letter Law
Conditions that some might consider onerous can easily be made contractual conditions of entry:
“Any item broken during handling must be paid for by customers.”
“Do not open sealed boxes. If you open a sealed box, it is considered a sale.”
“All packages, purses and briefcases subject to search”
“No children under 12 admitted”
“One drink per show minimum”
“$10.00 cover charge”
“All sales final - No returns - No exchanges”
“3% surcharge on all credit card sales” (Is legal but may violate Interbank rules)
“$25 charge for all dishonored checks”
All are easily enforceable if they were posted and easily seen by entrants upon entering store.
Did a reasonable blind person know that there might be signs regulating and conditioning his/her entry to the store and did she/he enquire about such signs or conditions?
How do you know? Do you work at that store?
“Also, it’s not like stores are advertising the fact that they check receipts, so how can you know to avoid them until you get to the point where they ask you for it?”
Look at the exit when you walk in. If there is someone standing there checking receipts and bags of exiting customers, turn around and walk out. Thats what shop lifters do when deciding which stores to steal from.
Under that line of reasoning, you can readily refuse receipt verification provided the bag you're walking out with was actually stolen from someone else. =]
Um this is standard with electronic retailers. They catch a lot of potential shoplifters this way. I used to work part time at one and one guy tried to walk out the door with a 32 inch plasma tv with nothing but a service agreement receipt for another product. The employee asked to see the receipt so the potential lifter put down the tv handed him the paper and then bolted. the tv was going for 1,500 at the time.
I do not need an enumerated or explicit right not to be searched by private parties or refuse one if requested. He was well within his rights to refuse to show his receipt or resist being detained since it did not properly fall under shopkeepers privilege. The store would then be well within his rights to tell him to never come back.
>>>>The problem with his contract theory is it breaksdown if I do not buy something (enter into a contract).
The contract did not involve the sale. The contract in questioned involved the potential purchaser’s conditioned prividge of entering into private property.
(Thank you, Your Honor!)
So I guess you won’t mind if they call police and file a no trespassing order on you to prevent you from shopping there in the future? If you enter a business, you must agree to their terms. By refusing to co operate you make yourself unwelcome for further transactions.
I don't think so. I have deliberately stayed away from some of the more nuanced points of law, only mentioning that they exist with tens of thousands of cases decided on each element of a contract. I have completely ignored the detainment aspect as it is separate. The store retains the right to set terms and conditions.
To fully implement the policy and be safe there should be clear and unambiguous design and policy notification. I would think a desk at the exit for immediate refunds would be advisable. The exiting customer refusing a bag check should be met with "Sir, we refuse to sell, you have not complied with our policy, here is your money back" and not an immediate arrest.
As a merchant is loathe to do so, they forfeit rights that they need not have forfeited. As you point out, their practices will affect any outcome.
Mass merchandising and the contentious legal environment have changed the retail environment. I have repeatedly pointed out here that Home Depot, with one million dollars in shrinkage per store is wise to not let employees stop shoplifters even though the law clearly gives them the right. It is far easier to reduce theft by concentrating on employees where you do not go directly into the legal system. It is simple cost/benefit. If the public cannot clearly decide moral issues it is easier to build in 2% at the register and say "a pox on you all". I am pointing out that when push comes to shove, people may not have "rights" that they presume to have.
For the sake of public perception and to avoid legal costs large retailers are not pushing back against assholes like the one in the article. The law will probably follow but it is not there yet.
You do if you enter a store knowing that it is the policy of the store to check bags and receipts upon exit. Once you know that you cannot refuse to co operate with store policy since by entering the establishment you have agreed to abide by it.
There are a seriew of cases regarding shoplifing and what can and can not be done.
Receipt checks are about stopping shop lifters and insider assitance for shoplifters when the cashier intentionally does not ring up all items. (it would not suprise me if the store has a security video on all cahiers which also show on the image exactly what is being rung up.)
Here we have a man who is ignoring an in store on premisis security check, he then acts like a thief.
I will see what I can find a bit later.
This is a private business exchange and different than the cops regulations until the cops are called in.
Which part of what I said seems wrong to you?
The scariest part of this work is that the store wants you to stop the suspected shoplifter without force and without knowing if they are armed.
I used to work in a prison and I wouldn't trade jobs with her.
It’s not illegal to be an “a-hole”. Cite the Ohio law that states any citizen must produce identification when in a parking lot after legally making a purchase and no crime was committed except for being illegally detained from leaving by the proprietors of said store.
There is no law against any such thing. That’s why the cop could only file such a flimsy charge, and I wouldn’t doubt it gets thrown out by the judge.
Perhaps you don't know, it's not shoplifiting until they hit the exit.
lol... Yep. I know. I was merely pointing out that people who act like A-holes often get treated like A-holes. It’s a human nature thing, not a law thing.
So the store should say, go ahead with our products because we haven't had time to run the tapes back for your entire visit to the store.
All that on each customer instead of you showing your receipt at the door. Let's drive the cost of security way up so we can't afford the product, but you won't be violated leaving the store. No dice.
Give us something that protects the rights of the store to not have you steal their product and we'll take a look at it.
No, I’m saying that they never have the authority to check my property, unless they have probable cause to believe I shoplifted something, and the receipt check does not count as probable cause.
I am starting to waver on my general agreement with that given all that has been posted here. Even if there is any implied consent or if the sale contract of adherence has such a clause indicating consent, it can be overridden by law and made unenforceable. For example, good luck to the ink jet manufacturer in my state who gives you a contract with your printer, or license with the software, that prohibits you from refilling or remanufacturing the toner cartridges. The law expressly renders such terms unenforceable as a matter of public policy. It’s probably the same in yours as I believe all states go off the Uniform Commercial Code. In any case it is unenforceable of a judge or jury decides it’s unconscionable.
I don’t suggest trying that with the deputy if you’re stopped. You’ll probably be Tazered, or beaten senseless, or both.
” What is NOT within your rights is to search my belongings without my consent, and then detain me when I refuse to allow the search.”
So I guess you are in favor of making it easier for shop lifters to steal? Interesting. There are only two reasons I can think of that would lead you to this conclusion. I imagine you are aware of both of them so I won’t go into them.
If I’m walking along the sidewalk, and the deputy does that for failure to produce a photo ID, I’ll also get a nice fat check from the city for my trouble.
Are you saying they have no right to have that policy or to enforce it? Are you saying that a business or private citizen is held to the same standard as governmental agents when protecting their property rights?
I will guess that you don't own a retail business.
No, I’m in favor of keeping my rights. It’s not my fault the store can’t come up with a better security policy to control shoplifting, is it?
# 1800 - OHIO: SHOPLIFTING LAWS
Summary Of Detention Provisions
Who is covered? A merchant, a merchant’s employee or his agent, or a police officer.
What can the merchant, his employee, or agent do? Detain a person within or without a mercantile establishment for the purpose of recovering the article he believes has been taken or in order to cause the arrest of such person.
What are the ground rules for such detention? The law provides that such detention can be made, but:
1. There must be “probable cause” for believing that items offered for sale have been unlawfully taken.
2. Such detention must be “without search.”
3. Such detention must be without using “undue restraint.”
4. Detention must be in a “reasonable manner” to cause an arrest or to recover items unlawfully taken.
5. Detention must be for a “reasonable length of time.”
Being a jerk is not a crime....you should know that, right?