Arrested at Circuit City
09-07-07 | 02:34 PM
#326
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by BambooLounge
The entire course of events was triggered by someone who knew that simply showing a receipt for something legally purchased before exiting the store would be a simple and painless experience. But, that same person also knew that not doing it would probably cause the events to unfold as they did and that he would be legally within in his rights to acts as he allegedly did. Now, if you want to remove the legal aspects of what happened to determin if the guy was a "prick" or not then one should look no further than his initial actions. Knowing that the CC guy was trained to check receipts (ie: would probably get in trouble for not doing it by those who employ him) and also was more than likely unaware of any possible illegality of such policy, one would reasonably expect to draw a reaction from the person for not showing the receipt regardless of how polite he/she may be when declining. Now, is showing a receipt before leaving a store really an encroachment upon one's legal rights? I say no emphatically, it causes absolutely no inconvienence and the same policy is enforced on all patrons removing any alienating aspects of the act. Without regard to the events that followed, the initial act of refusal to show the receipt with full knowledge that it was store policy to do so would certainly classify one as "looking for a conflict." And if such behavior makes one a "prick" as other here have suggested, then let it be.
As for people comparing this guy to Rosa Parks, you seriously need your heads examined. Comparing the civil rights equality movement against segregation to this very very limited "movement" against retail store receipt checking policies pretty much disqualifies your opinions from being viewed as intellectually based in my opinion.
As for people comparing this guy to Rosa Parks, you seriously need your heads examined. Comparing the civil rights equality movement against segregation to this very very limited "movement" against retail store receipt checking policies pretty much disqualifies your opinions from being viewed as intellectually based in my opinion.
09-07-07 | 02:37 PM
#327
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by Toad
"Crime doctor" ain't the law. What has been posted is Ohio's, and other states', laws regarding false imprisonment.
In Georgia, you don't have to see someone take the merchandise. I haven't dicked around enough with Ohio law today to see if the same protection applies there.
Everyone keeps arguing "this is the law" and "this was illegal (or legal)." So far the support for these positions has been crimedoctor.com and Wikipedia.
Store policy may be irrelevant; so is your opinion about "the law."
In Georgia, you don't have to see someone take the merchandise. I haven't dicked around enough with Ohio law today to see if the same protection applies there.
Everyone keeps arguing "this is the law" and "this was illegal (or legal)." So far the support for these positions has been crimedoctor.com and Wikipedia.
Store policy may be irrelevant; so is your opinion about "the law."
09-07-07 | 02:38 PM
#328
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by tcoursen
The cop is called to investigate the situation. I'm not a legal expert, but at that point doesn't it somewhat change the situation? If he is investigating doesn't he have the right to collect the information of the involved parties? I know when my car was stolen the cop asked for my id. I gave it to him. All he did with it was use it to copy down all my information onto his report since my license had all my info on it. I think this makes it a totally differant situation than the one where the guy kept getting stopped when jogging.
And in a situation like this wouldn't it be standard procedure to try to determine who these people are, whether they have records or not, etc. etc.
I think if I was a police officer called to a site to investigate something, and then the person who called me didn't cooperate I would be a little pissed off.
09-07-07 | 02:41 PM
#329
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Toad
Everyone keeps arguing "this is the law" and "this was illegal (or legal)." So far the support for these positions has been crimedoctor.com and Wikipedia.
That's so basic -- so commonsensical -- that I don't understand the need to cite Ohio state law. The particulars of what it may be called could differ from state to state... but I don't think you'll find a single state in the union that has a law that says "Store employees can detain customers that they think are acting like pricks".
09-07-07 | 02:44 PM
#331
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by nemein
So you do usually draw conclusions w/o hearing all sides of the story. I guess the innocent until proven guilty policy only applies to the person who talks first, or tells the best story, uh? Just because they are in positions of authority the CC guys and the cop are automatically wrong for picking on the "little guy", no matter what their account of the events is, right?
09-07-07 | 02:46 PM
#332
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Surrounded by idiots...
Originally Posted by bboisvert
I guess I'm confused as to why you'd need any "support" for the position that it's illegal for any store employee to physically prevent someone from leaving.
That's so basic -- so commonsensical -- that I don't understand the need to cite Ohio state law. The particulars of what it may be called could differ from state to state... but I don't think you'll find a single state in the union that has a law that says "Store employees can detain customers that they think are acting like pricks".
That's so basic -- so commonsensical -- that I don't understand the need to cite Ohio state law. The particulars of what it may be called could differ from state to state... but I don't think you'll find a single state in the union that has a law that says "Store employees can detain customers that they think are acting like pricks".
And please, "commonsensical"? Who ever said the law is commonsensical?
09-07-07 | 02:48 PM
#333
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Toad
And here we are, 24 hours later, going over the same thing again. I do not believe he was "detained." You disagree. We've established this.
And please, "commonsensical"? Who ever said the law is commonsensical?
And please, "commonsensical"? Who ever said the law is commonsensical?
09-07-07 | 02:48 PM
#334
Moderator
How about the 4th Amendment - or does Circuit City store policy outweigh that as well?
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/c...t-applies.html
The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment.
Last edited by nemein; 09-07-07 at 02:51 PM.
09-07-07 | 02:50 PM
#335
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Muncie, IN [Member formerly known as abrg923]
Holy shit.
The fact that someone actually believes this is on the same level as Rosa Parks is unfathomable.
I can't even be bothered to argue this anymore. That's beyond ridiculous.
The fact that someone actually believes this is on the same level as Rosa Parks is unfathomable.
I can't even be bothered to argue this anymore. That's beyond ridiculous.
09-07-07 | 02:50 PM
#336
Moderator
Originally Posted by ToddSm66
What could they possibly say that would make their actions acceptable - other than, "None of this ever happened, he made the whole thing up."
09-07-07 | 02:57 PM
#341
Moderator
Originally Posted by Toad
Did I miss something? I thought the big debate here was him getting searched by Circuit City.
This debate has bounced around back and forth on so many different and overlapping topics so much I can't keep track any more. I'm not sure where the "who arrested him" statement came from... Guess I should have stuck to my guns to stay out of it for awhile, but it's like a train wreck that you can't help but watch
09-07-07 | 02:57 PM
#342
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Atlanta, GA
He never was searched by Circuit City. He refused to be searched. The issue with Circuit City is that they detained him. They falsely imprisoned him. They kidnapped him. Whichever name fits in Ohio.
The police searched him. Found that he stole nothing, then arrested him.
The police searched him. Found that he stole nothing, then arrested him.
09-07-07 | 03:01 PM
#343
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Diego, CA
Originally Posted by cdollaz
Good point also. He wasn't just some joker walking down the street that the cop asked for his ID. At the point he called the cops, he turned it into a "police issue" and I would think the cop has every right to do anything reasonable to get the full picture of what is going on. I thinking asking for ID is reasonable.
09-07-07 | 03:02 PM
#344
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Surrounded by idiots...
nemein, I'm with you. It's like an awful additiction you can't break. Thankfully the weekend is here and I'll find something else to devote my time to.
Hope no one gets arrested...or searched.
Hope no one gets arrested...or searched.
09-07-07 | 03:02 PM
#345
Moderator
He never was searched by Circuit City. He refused to be searched. The issue with Circuit City is that they detained him. They falsely imprisoned him. They kidnapped him. Whichever name fits in Ohio.
The police searched him. Found that he stole nothing, then arrested him.
The police searched him. Found that he stole nothing, then arrested him.
So what was the statement/question about CC and the 4th Amendment about then?
BTW if you want a real privacy issue to sink your teeth into, there is a hearing on CSPAN right now talking about using spy satellites for law enforcement purposes. The implications of that VASTLY outweigh whether or not CC has the legal right to conduct a door/bag check.... but that's also a discussion for a different thread/forum
Last edited by nemein; 09-07-07 at 03:05 PM.
09-07-07 | 03:12 PM
#346
Moderator
Originally Posted by ToddSm66
Yes.
If the search was subject to the arrest though I'm pretty sure that is a valid search and not a constitutional violation. Now any contraband found (which I don't think is an issue here) would be ruled out if the arrest is ultimately determined to have been illegal, but the validity of the search is still good IIRC (it's been awhile since I've taken a law class).
09-07-07 | 03:55 PM
#347
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by nemein
If the search was subject to the arrest though I'm pretty sure that is a valid search and not a constitutional violation. Now any contraband found (which I don't think is an issue here) would be ruled out if the arrest is ultimately determined to have been illegal, but the validity of the search is still good IIRC (it's been awhile since I've taken a law class).
Why was the officer even searching him in the first place. He was the one that called in the complaint. He was the victim.
09-07-07 | 04:02 PM
#348
DVD Talk Special Edition
Well, as someone who has actually represented plaintiffs in similar types of cases, my first thought was that the kid screwed up by calling the police himself. It would have been much more lucrative for him to have waited for CC to call the police themselves.
Nonetheless, he will get paid, most assuredly by the police department on his false arrest claim, which seems quite strong if the facts as stated are true. He will also likely prevail against CC on some type of false-imprisonment claim, at least from a nuisance settlement value perspective.
I think that the actions of the CC employees did arguably rise to the level of false imprisonment, again assuming the truth of the kid's statements. We can argue all day about the false imprisonment issue and whip out selected appellate decisions from various jurisdictions but the reality is that it is a factual issue that would ultimately be decided by a jury and CC won't want to roll the dice - they will simply cough up $2,500 or whatever and be done with it.
As for the comments that CC could ban the kid from life from its stores,
, how exactly would that work? Would CC install a checker at the entry to each of its stores to make sure that the kid didn't get in? Ah, the irony...
Nonetheless, he will get paid, most assuredly by the police department on his false arrest claim, which seems quite strong if the facts as stated are true. He will also likely prevail against CC on some type of false-imprisonment claim, at least from a nuisance settlement value perspective.
I think that the actions of the CC employees did arguably rise to the level of false imprisonment, again assuming the truth of the kid's statements. We can argue all day about the false imprisonment issue and whip out selected appellate decisions from various jurisdictions but the reality is that it is a factual issue that would ultimately be decided by a jury and CC won't want to roll the dice - they will simply cough up $2,500 or whatever and be done with it.
As for the comments that CC could ban the kid from life from its stores,
, how exactly would that work? Would CC install a checker at the entry to each of its stores to make sure that the kid didn't get in? Ah, the irony...
09-07-07 | 04:06 PM
#349
Moderator
Why was the officer even searching him in the first place. He was the one that called in the complaint. He was the victim.
09-07-07 | 04:10 PM
#350
Moderator
As for the comments that CC could ban the kid from life from its stores, , how exactly would that work? Would CC install a checker at the entry to each of its stores to make sure that the kid didn't get in? Ah, the irony...