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 ...
I await the outcome of his probable suit against CC for unlawful detainment and against the police department for false arrest. It might end up paying quite handsomely.
There are ID laws in many states which have been found to be legal. You must identify yourself (name, address, DOB) but you do not have to provide a photo ID. Check out http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#07 for some gouge on when you have to provide ID. Note that it does not say to a merchant who wants to search your bags or detain you.
In this case...Circuit City might find itself a bit overwhelmed with negative coverage. I might pay this character off and avoid further news on the whole thing.
This guy acted enough like a bozo with the cops (even though they should not have arrested him) that there will be very little fallout IMO. However, CC may have others trying it now. That could end up being amusing, depending on how ones sense of humor.
AR,
Were I on the jury I would not award him too much money even *if* everything turns out as true. Just enough to cover the legal expenses for the suit itself.
The guy is in this position because pretty much everyone involved was a jerk (including himself)
I hope this gets cleared up without suits. The arrest should be expunged, the cop warned not to be than dumb/macho but nothing on his permanent record.
The CC bubbas fired for cause and CC needs to educate their staff as to what they can or cannot do to customers. CC shuold pay any of the vics out of pocket costs, but that should be about it.
At the very least I'd want it on his record and force the police department to educate its officers about the law. The reason is that the implications go far beyond this case.
READ THE LAST LINE TO SEE WHY THIS STORY IS OUT!!!
New Ohio Law Allows Cops to Request ID
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft on Wednesday signed a bill into law passed by the state legislature with barely a word of dissent. Supporters of the state’s security measure, which takes effect in 90 days, say it’s a tool the state can use in fighting terrorism.
“Like everyone else, after Sept. 11, I became a lot more concerned about our safety and security,” said state Sen. Jeff Jacobson, sponsor of the bill, which also instructs local law enforcement to lend assistance when able to federal authorities carrying out provisions of the Patriot Act.
“We felt very strongly that we needed to have laws in Ohio to out our state on the frontline of fighting terrorism,” Jacobson said.
But dissent is building over authority given to police officers, who can now ask, “What’s your name?” as a tool to fight terrorism. Failure to identify oneself could land an individual in jail.
Critics call the measure the Ohio Patriot Act. The law also requires those applying for state driver’s licenses to sign a form that they haven’t supported terrorist organizations.
The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure because of the new powers it gives to police.
(Story continues below)
What relevance is this? The guy identified himself.
I would tend to look at his record and reputatoin. If its clean, the lesson will have been learned by his dept and others. If its not, then more punative action is called for
IMHO this story is exactly the planted story the ACLU waants to get out. Based on the number of posts and the disagrement in them, I say we have been complicet (sp).
Just like the planets, the interests of conservatives and the ACLU do sometimes align. It happens rarely, but it happens.
This may very well be the “test case” the ACLU plans to use get these issues into the court system. Let’s just watch and see.
Agreed.
“Call it another example of our declining society...”
Exactly. I still grumble about Richard “the shoe bomber” Reid whenever I have to take my shoes off at the airport.
He ruined it for the rest of us.
However, he put the security guard in a position where the guard had to do his job, and then he did not allow the guard to do his job. If you want to disagree with a policy, go talk to the manager BEFORE you buy something and walk out! Write a letter to the store!
THEN, while he is embroiled in this dispute he calls the cops. And when the cop arrives, HE DOESN"T COOPERATE WITH THE COP HE CHOSE TO CALL! Was the cop simply supposed to tell the security guard to back off and let this guy go on his merry way?
The cop's suspicion is already raised because the guy won't let the guard do his job. Then when the cop gets there, the shopper won't comply with a simple identification confirmation tool. Give the cop something and he'll be more apt to help you out with your problem.
What did he expect the cop to do? Take his word for it? "OK sir, you won't allow the security guard to do his job and then you called me but won't even verify your ID so I can talk to you about the situation, but I'm going to just let you go..."
This isn't about an ambiguous law on the books that is open to interpretation. This is about real-world problem solving and just being a normal human being. If you call the cops, cooperate with them. If not, then don't call and be prepared to get into a fist fight with the security guard. In effect, be a man.
In a small way you are correct. Signs cannot serve as a total disclaimation of all rights. For example, signs that say “Ride at your own risk” at a go cart track are virtually meaningless.
In addition, they are totally meaningless regarding the rights of minors, because, in reality, not even a parent can completely sign away a minor’s rights without due compensation to the minor.
I think I know where your mistakes are coming from however.
You are confusing criminal law with civil law
Signs rarely serve as necessary notice under criminal law except where the law provides for certain specific posting requirements, such as the statutory requirements for the size and location of No Trespassing signs or the required construction site signs in Florida that announce that theft from a construction site is a Felony, regardless of the value of the proceeds of the theft.
A sign that says “If you open a sealed box, you have bought it” does not subject such a box opener to criminal prosecution for failure to pay unless the box opener removes the item from the store. Recklessly opening a group of sealed boxes with no real expectation of making payment could be criminally prosecuted under statues relating to vandalism, etc.
Opening just one such box however subject the box opener to civil litigation for the value/diminished value of the opened item in civil court, in a civil suit.
To make a statement that "signs cannot be part of a contract" is totally wrong. PS, re: merchant law. Suggest you try to find a copy of Mortensen v. Shoppers’ Haven. I wrote the brief while in law school.
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.