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

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

[Theo]

“Slippery slope” doesn’t apply here.

Not sure why so many are so eager to bring an end to this practice. It’s not an invasion of privacy. It’s not a “slippery slope” to strip searches and background checks. It’s an effort to stop shoplifting.

[Quick1]

What right?

How about the Fourth Amendment?

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

No, it is reason enough. The store is not allowed to search my property, and once I have completed the transaction, it is my property. Are you going to start asking me for a receipt for all the clothes I'm wearing, as well? I might have stolen one of them, too!

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.

The store is certainly within their right to ask if they can check my receipt. I am also within my right to either allow them to check it, or say "no, thanks", and keep walking.

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.No, he was trying to leave the property, and the manager unlawfully detained him.

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.

I'll agree with you that mistakes were made. The manager made a mistake by impeding the person from leaving the property. The officer made a mistake by arresting the person even after an identity was provided (photo ID is not required). If asserting your rights makes you a "jerk", then I wish that more Americans were jerks.

[Quick1]

It’s not an invasion of privacy.

Yes, it is. It's an unreasonable search of my possessions. Would you also like to see the receipt for the clothes on my back, to make sure I didn't steal them, either?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I thought Circuit City was private property and entry carried an implied consent to have one’s bags searched. I always cooperate with security personnel at stores and have never been unduly hasseled.

[Publius Valerius]

How about the Fourth Amendment?

Circuit City is run by the government? Since when does the Fourth Amendment apply to private businesses? Oh, wait. It doesn't.

No, it is reason enough.

See, just because you say something doesn't make it true. The store can set whatever rules it likes for its customers. If you don't like it, don't shop there. But if you shop there, don't piss and moan about how you hate the way the store runs the show. I don't know if anyone has ever told you this before, but here's the hard truth: the world does not revolve around you.

I am also within my right to either allow them to check it, or say "no, thanks", and keep walking.

And the store can then detain you. And then if you try and leave, you have the right to be arrested. And then, if you still try and leave, you have the right to be tazed and beaten with batons. Ain't America grand?

[Quick1]

I thought Circuit City was private property and entry carried an implied consent to have one’s bags searched.

Perhaps to enter, but not to leave. It's also why an usher to a movie theater can check your ticket stub on the way INTO the theater; it's a condition of entry.

[Quick1]

Circuit City is run by the government? Since when does the Fourth Amendment apply to private businesses?

What gives the store the right to search my belongings, then? Remember, the stuff in the bag is my property. Just because I am on Circuit City property does not mean they can do whatever they want. They can certainly ask me to leave, however.

The store can set whatever rules it likes for its customers.

I stopped reading there. No, it cannot set whatever rules it wants for it's customers. Could they make a policy that they can rape you before you can leave? Of course not.

And the store can then detain you.

Before any of that other stuff can happen, they have to have a VALID reason to detain you. Refusing to show your receipt does not count. They have to meet fairly stringent guidelines to have the ability to detain someone.

[MindBender26]

I>>>>f you refuse to show a receipt for your “purchase” upon leaving the store, that is going to raise an inference of shoplifting.

Not without some overt act of being seen secreting merchandise, etc., no it is not.

>>>>It’s just simply not a false arrest.

Step by step: Was he arrested by the manager? He was physically detained and told he was being detained, ergo he was arrested. Had he committed a crime, had he stolen? No. Ergo the arrest was false.

[MindBender26]

>>>>What gives the store the right to search my belongings, then? Remember, the stuff in the bag is my property. Just because I am on Circuit City property does not mean they can do whatever they want. They can certainly ask me to leave, however.

A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.

>>>>The store can set whatever rules it likes for its customers.

Generally yes. Rape would not fall into this category, as Black Letter Law would prohibit it. (You cannot make a contract to do something illegal)

The store’s problem is that the arrest (by the store manager) was made off their property. Failure to show a receipt is not PC.

[ShadowAce]

A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.

Are the blind obligated to agree to a sign?

[Quick1]

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.

(You cannot make a contract to do something illegal)

Like an illegal search of my possessions?

The store’s problem is that the arrest (by the store manager) was made off their property.

Many times, parking lots are part of the store's property. I can't say if that's true in this particular case, however.

[Kleon]

Stores like these have scanners with alarms at all exits, and security personnel who can watch every square inch of the store on video. Obviously they're well-equipped to deal with loss prevention. That's why I think treating every paying customer as if they're shoplifters is going too far.

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.

[Quick1]

Oops, dropped a /i.

[Starwolf]

Incorrect, it held that he must identify himself by providing name, address and DOB. Producing an ID, photo or otherwise is not requried.

[Oberon]

“Slippery slope” doesn’t apply here.

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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?

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).

[Oberon]

A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.

Regardless of what the conditions are? You're saying anything goes, as long as it's on the sign?

[monday]

“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.

[Quick1]

lol... ‘No thank you’? What a moron.

Yeah, what a jerk for politely and peacefully asserting his rights.

[monday]

“You don’t know the number of times I have been enraged at having my receipt checked. I will be watching this as well.”

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?