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 ...
Not at all, but showing a receipt is not being searched. It’s jerks like this guy who make a big deal out of it that will cause us to lose our rights.
Not at all, but showing a receipt is not being searched. It’s jerks like this guy who make a big deal out of it that will cause us to lose our rights.
Strange? I think not. What I do find strange,however,is why you assume i’m a guy. For the record, i’m a girl.And I don’t feel as if my liberties are threatened by such a benign request. Not at all.Furthermore,do not assume that just because I can overlook such a thing as checking my receipt as I leave a store that I don’t cherish my liberties,and I don’t keep an eye on other,more important threats to our freedoms,such as Hitlery and The Pony.
Or at least simply unenforceable. Actually detaining you without probable cause that you specifically stole something would be illegal, because detaining anyone without authority to do so is illegal and probable cause is the only thing that gives them that authority. A policy that says they can search you apparently would not be enforceable given that they're not allowed to search even if you are suspected of shoplifting (I'm learning a lot here). The policy wouldn't be illegal, just unenforceable, but an attempt to enforce the policy can be illegal.
there is no common sense in your arguments. It’s people like you who give us libertarians a bad name. Yes technically the cop and the store was wrong. On the other hand morally, it was the guy who is at fault. His position puts him on the side of shop lifters. By calling a simple request to check his bags and reciept a ‘search’ he blows a simple request out of all proportion and importance.
This is nothing at all like being pulled over and randomly search by police, yet to listen to his defenders on this thread it’s worse. all the whining is preposterous.
Buy a clue already. Geesh.
Thats the way it works. Special interests set out to solve a problem lobbying congress to pass laws. Retailers have lots of money and lobbyists and if they think shoplifting or lawsuits by idiots like this guy become annoying enough, they are not above lobbying for new laws.
This is how every law that has ever limited our freedoms has gotten passed.
Actually its quite correct. Its been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Signs do not a contract make.
As for stores forcing searches, that is black letter law. I also have some direct experience with this including an incident in the last 60 days. I learned the law and the limits some time ago and have kept up with it over the years. Its an interesting read. You might also want to look at some of the loss prevention sites, they say pretty much what I am, though from a merchants perspective.
Probable cause is required for involuntary searches. There are exceptions (searches associated with an arrest, Terry search for officer safety). Refusing to consent to a search requested by an LEO is not probable cause and the same goes for merchants. The law in Ohio do not allow searches (read earlier in the thread) under its version of shopkeepers priviledge.
The only option for a store if a person refuses a search and there is no other probable cause to detain them, is to declare them PNG. That is well within their rights, and its a chance you take when you refuse to allow them to search.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/ may be instructive for you
He should be arrested and booked for being an a-hole. OMG, they want to check the receipt to see if anything is stolen! Nazis! Don’t go into the store if you don’t want them to guard against shoplifting, which ends up costing all of us more money. What a joke.
lol.... You are not listening to what I am saying. I know he didn’t ‘”have” to do any such thing’ legally. I was saying he “had” to do it in order to avoid a big hassle and in order to not be one of the biggest jack@sses in history.
No, what the manager “had” to do was to restrain himself, and if he suspected that the person was shoplifting (which he even admitted that he didn’t), then he should have written down the license plate, and called police (which he also didn’t).
All Rosa Parks had to do was move to the back of the bus. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother.
OUCH! (but well said)
The comparison to Rosa Parks is a bit much, but if it gets the point across...
“No, what the manager had to do was to restrain himself...”
You are still talking legally, while I have explained repeatedly that my primary concern is moral and practical. a little slow? Whatever. Have fun being outraged.
Evidently, it’s become necessary to be “over the top” to get the point across. It doesn’t otherwise seem to be sinking in. I’m sure those very words were said at the time, as well.
this guy is a total J/O.
when you enter a store, you are agreeing with their posted policies. you don't want your bag searched, ORDER ONLINE OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
someone show me where in the bill of rights it says we have a right not to be searched on private property when it is posted that we are consenting to a search just by walking in!
this guy deserves to get screwed.
It’s amazing how all the codes tend to dovetail into one another and some conflict with one another. Many such codes have been given authority by local ordinances.
There are a litany of issues and interests at play in this type of situation. Just because some codes are not applicable in private, doesn’t mean statutory law is inapplicable.
Here’s a couple of moral questions: Do you think the manager feels guilty for unlawfully detaining someone that didn’t turn out to be a shoplifter, especially when he had no suspicion of that fact in the first place? Do you think he feels guilty that he cost his company a nice check that will be paid out to the author of this article?
Do you think the cop feels guilty that he arrested someone who fully cooperated with him, provided identity and proof he stole nothing, and in fact was the person that called him?
How long do you think it will take for the manager to find another job, now that he’s most likely been fired?
lol.... Are you seriously comparing racial discrimination to asking to see a receipt at store exits? Exactly who is being discriminated against when everyone is asked equally? sheesh..... Next you guys will be comparng yourselves to Christ on the cross. lol,,, yes you are terribly put upon.
so the signs that basically say “by entering the store you are agreeing to be searched” mean what exactly? sorry i couldn’t read 350 posts...
I think that thanks to the jerk who wrote this article that a lot of people feel bad right now. he ruined a lot of otherwise nice peoples days by being a such a jerk. He is your hero?
Exactly the problem...where's the "probable cause" to detain or arrest, as required by Ohio law????
his refusal to show his reciept. By doing so he singled himself out for “special” treatment.
no, because anyone with common sense can see he is a jerk.
There was no probably cause to produce anything to the store. Stores cannot detain customers without probable cause according to Ohio law.
The guy did not steal. The store admits they did not observe him to steal.
I’m beginning to wonder if you work for this company.
>>>>Actually its quite correct. Its been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Signs do not a contract make.
I do not know where you are getting this foolishness,
Do you not think that a sign that says “All sales are final” makes any sale final and non-refundable (absent fraud on the part of the seller)
What about a sign that says “No smoking” or “Any sealed packaged opened by a customer constitutes a sale” or “no return without a receipt” would you not expect to be binding.
Actually, signs are “great” contract. They are a clear indication on the part of the store that they took steps to explain their contractual terms to the customers.
Please, stop the bad legal advice.
Good post, thanks.
The first time you or one of your family runs into a store security bubba that has delusions of being a Jack Bauer or Rambo, you will change you attitude. Its sort of like how a liberal converts to being a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment after they get mugged. When some fool is waving pepper spray in your face for something you have not done, it tends to make one hostile, which I am to idiots on general principle anyways.
I tend to be hardcore about standing up for my rights and the rights of others, but I am pragmatic. I show the exit checker my bag when I leave the Wal Mart in my home town. I know most of the checkers personally, and you behave civilly in small towns, where everyone is your neighbor.
My issue is with the wannabes who exceed any reasonable standard of behavior. Those are the idiots I go after. Most backdown and slink away, a few dumb ones have gotten chesty and paid dearly for it. I have no problem ruining their day and then some.
Had an incident recently where a security goon came after me before I had even parked. In the end it was a case of mistaken identity. However before that was made clear, the idiot was down and disarmed. The store asked me not to sue, and I agreed to a mutual hold harmless provided they fired the bubba. I assume they did, I was just passing thru so I have not verified that.
I have no problem with LP bubbas who follow the law since I am always clean. I cooperate with things like bag searches, since its a pragmatic thing to do in most cases. I do have a problem when they step out of line, esp if they attempt to get physical. I am more than glad to forcibly point out the error of their ways, since it serves as a significant deterrent to others. I do not push for financial settlements provided the store admits fault and fires the bubbas, again because its pragmatic. I have never been PNG’d or sued over it.
Under the Ohio statutes, the store can only do so much.
Whether any of these actions/reactions hold any sway depends on how they are defined legally. For instance, does the item you just bought become your private property once payment is completed?
Here it is again, in case you missed post #160:
(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.
(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 persons consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.
That's the present law. So what's left to determine here is whether the guy was in the right by refusing to show his receipt, or whether a business can create its own set of rules contrary to state law. (Or maybe the business has been granted an exemption somewhere. Who knows.)
But if a store is going to say that they have the right to search everyone's bags or examine everyone's receipts on the way out, that means that they have by default placed everyone who enters the premises under suspicion. Is that legal?
And maybe it seems like such a small thing, but I think it shows you how ignorant people are of what the laws are - or maybe that there are so damn many of them that it's become almost impossible for the average person to keep track.
I read that post with a Hank Hill accent - perfect!
Tell ya what, dang ol' clerk rootin through muh bags heh heh dang ol' strip searched an heh heh dang ol' police show heh heh...shoot.
A little Boomhauer to add to the mix.
“I cooperate with things like bag searches, since its a pragmatic thing to do in most cases.”
and yet you are defending this guy even though it looks to be certain his only motivation was to sue the store and make some easy money. I see.
How would you explain the fact that he was arrested on a false charge only to have it replaced with another false charge?
...or maybe most people understand that shoplifting is a problem that costs us all in higher prices and are nice enough to oblige when a store asks to see a receipt and check their bags upon exit.
Yeah, but where does that argument begin and end?
One could easily argue that any design professional laying out the floor plan for a Circuit City should know to place the cash registers closer to the exit, thereby allowing customers to exit with their purchases unimpeded and unharassed.
Just because I enter somebody else private property doesn’t mean I consent to their search, interrogation and seizure of my property, person, and time, no matter who says it.
Do you not think that a sign that says All sales are final makes any sale final and non-refundable (absent fraud on the part of the seller)
What about a sign that says No smoking or Any sealed packaged opened by a customer constitutes a sale or no return without a receipt would you not expect to be binding.
Actually, signs are great contract. They are a clear indication on the part of the store that they took steps to explain their contractual terms to the customers.
Signage is not a legally enforceable contract since there are too many cases where consent is not possible, some of which I enumerated earlier. Many precedents on this, but I don't have access to WestLaw today. To address your particulars...
- Stores are not required to offer refunds by law except in sometimes in the case of latent defects or as directed by law (3 day cooling off periods in some states). Otherwise return privileges are at the discretion of the seller and Caveat Emptor applies.
- Opening a package as a forced sale is not enforceable in real time, neither is 'you break it you pay for it'. Try calling a cop to enforce it and see what happens. It may be enforceable in small claims court
The only recourse a merchant has when a person refuses to abide with their policies is to declare them PNG.
I suggest you take a class on merchant laws as they apply in your state. It will be an eye opener.
If showing your receipts bothers you, you have a responsibility to not shop in stores that require you to do so. doing so, like this guy did, shows that his primary motivation was in creating an incident and in suing the store, not in any aversion to showing receipts.
Yes, his liberal nonsense is quite hilarious, I get quite a few laughs watching the excuses he makes up for Russians who steal intellectual property from US corporations all the time on the tech threads. He's on record admitting he's made up lies in their defense, his latest thing is insisting we don't need security background checks on NASA workers, being too intrusive, of course.
Next you guys will be comparing yourselves to Christ on the cross. lol,,, yes you are terribly put upon.
Probably right, AntiRepublican is a militant atheist but I can hear him now, saying we should forgive all theives as Jesus did, since he's willing to as well LOL.
I don't see where he was trolling for easy money based on what has been presented, but more information could change that (has he done this before...). Add to that he is out of state and the costs of pursuing a lawsuit with some chance of loss being what they are, I don't see this as a money move, but one of persnickitiness. I know when I tell such bozos to pound sand and make it stick, its not because I want money, its because they have crossed my threshold of what I consider tolerable, which takes some doing.
Just because I may not have made the same decision does not mean I think he must do what I would have done, if he is within his rights to refuse. Its really a case of sovereign election, i.e.: his life, his call.
Interesting that you believe all merchants should treat their customers as shop lifters.