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 ...
>>>>Actually I can since signage does not a contract make for a number of good reasons (vision impaired, foreign language, illiterate, is the sign clearly visible at all entrances, was it visible at the time...).
>>>>The store can not legally force me to submit to a search of my person or property unless they have probable cause under shopkeepers privilege. Refusing search is not probalbe cause for a store or an LEO. The only real option they have is to declare the person refusing PNG (not allow me in there again).
WRONG. Where you are getting this legal reasoning is beyond me, but it is very wrong.
FN1. Ohio Rev.Code s 2923.01 (1953) provides in part that '(n)o person shall carry a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed on or about his person.' An exception is made for properly authorized law enforcement officers.
FN1. Ohio Rev.Code s 2923.01 (1953) provides in part that '(n)o person shall carry a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed on or about his person.' An exception is made for properly authorized law enforcement officers.
It doesn't appear that the above is related to what is involved in this matter whatsoever.
So because we make a fuss about giving up a little bit of rights, Congress is going to act and take away a LOT of our rights?
Now I know I must have taken a wrong turn at DU.
You don't check bags before a sale. They are filtered at the check out stand. The question is what can happen after that. Also, some can have a store bag and walk out without going through the check out stand.
Shoplifitng is effected by you leaving the store without paying. What does that have to do with anything that happens earlier?Are you really this naive or are you just looking to waste time?
All he had to do was show his receipt. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother. Do you believe shoplifters should be allowed to say “no thanks” and shoplift with impunity?
I’m leaving with my last comment. I suggest you go to a store where everything is free and they just don’t give a damn!
It can protect its property all it wants, as long as it follows the state law. I don’t see it did.
Ah, the good old “just submit, you have nothing to hide!” excuse. Hopefully you go back to DU after that post. You’ll find them much more accepting of that attitude.
If its about refusing a voluntary search by an LEO...I have always done it and only once did a cop force the issue. 6 months later he was not a cop in that department anymore, my complaint was far from his first, and there were lots of witnesses.
Probable cause is basic requirement for any forced search, with or without a warrant. Refusing voluntary searches is well within your rights. Most cops will push after the first ‘no” and will back off once they realize you are well informed as to your rights. Tarrying with you takes them off the streets and they know that in the long run that is not the right thing to do.
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
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.