What if he didnt have his license on him? If someone is vicimized but doesnt have a license or forgot it at home should they just not report it to the police so they dont get arrested?

If Ohio has laws like Nevada he could be arrested on that alone (this one made it to the SC and was upheld) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html

Of course the situation is different, and whether or not the person's actions created reasonable suspicion of shoplifting or not is why we need to hear the other sides of the story.

He repeatedly identified himself to the officer. As you noted, the situation is different. In Nevada, the person was driving and refused to give the officer any information. Here, the guy answered all of the police officer's questions.

No one has yet to explain why the guy was "rude" for not submitting to the receipt check. It's voluntary -- he said "no thanks". That's it. If he'd said, "Fuck you, you jackbooted Nazi," that would've been rude. Simply declining isn't, anymore than refusing to give your phone-number or zip-code to the cashier.

I disagree. Since we are not part of the jury hearing the case, we don't need to worry about all sides of the issue. We can have a debate based on what that person claims to have happened. As far as I'm concerned, I'm confortable debating what happened based on his claim, just like I'd be comfortable discussing things that happened on a TV show (which also were not based on fact).

I'm OK saying that I think it's OK to walk by a bag checker without opening your bag, independent of whether that really happened.

I'm OK saying that I don't think it's OK for a CC employee to chase down a person for skipping a bag check and preventing them from leaving the parking lot, independent of whether that really happened.

I'm OK saying that I think it's OK for a policeman to ask for ID, independent of whether that really happened.

I'm OK saying that I think it's OK to not produce ID (if not required to by law), independent of whether that really happened.

I'm OK saying that I think it's not OK to arrest somebody just for not producing ID (if not required to by law), independent of whether that really happened.

Should the facts shake out differently, I'll offer my opinions on the new findings.

As for the guy being "rude" for "ignoring" the CC goon, as others have said, I should point one thing out. He did not ignore the guy - he just refused to comply with the guy's request. That's a big difference. If a homeless guy came up to me, asked for change, and I pretended he was not there - that would be rude. If he came up to me and I said "sorry, no" and gave him no change, that wouldn't be rude. Even if I knew that he would make a big stink and tie me up for a while, I still wouldn't be being a prick.

When this Righi clown finally has his day in court, I hope to Hell he tries the court's patience by putting every single aspect of judicial procedure to the test. There's a whole lot of shit you have a legal 'right' to do that will gain you nothing but one contempt charge piled on top of another if you pull that type of shit in the court room.

He should totally stand in front of the judge's car and refuse to let him leave the parking lot.

How do you Plead!

I dont have to answer that!! My name is Mike Righi and thats all I legally have to say.

Take him away.

Nooooo!

Nothing wrong with that, apparently. I'm not even sure he's breaking the law.

If you want to jump to conclusions that's fine. Personally I like to weigh the evidence a bit more...

I didn't read this entire thread but this whole thing never would have happened if Circuit City had cash registers at the front of the store.

Did you even read what I said? I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm discussing my opinions based on what the guy claimed happened. You seem comfortable calling the guy a "prick" over and over again before you weigh this additional evidence, so obviously you've formed an opinion already.

And should you decide to take back the trash that you've already talked about this guy, at what point will you feel that ther evidence is solid enough to state you jump-to-conclusions-free opinion? When the case is decided? When the case is appealed? When the book is written? When the TV-movie is made? :)

I think it's safe to express an opinion based on what the guy has said. And it's safe to say that opinions may change as more facts come in.

But, no matter what, the guy is saying that he didn't think that CC had a legal right to stop him at the door. It may turn out that they did, but I still applaud him for standing up for a right that he thought was being violated. So, unless this additional evidence includes a reliable source saying that this guy admitted in advance that he knew he was breaking the law, I'm not sure what might turn up to change my mind. And even if he knew in advance he was breaking the law, as long as he did it as an act of civil disobediance, I can respect that.

http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm



1. There must be "probable cause" for believing that items offered for sale have been unlawfully taken.
2. Such detention must be "without search."
3. Such detention must be without using "undue restraint."
4. Detention must be in a "reasonable manner" to cause an arrest or to recover items unlawfully taken.
5. Detention must be for a "reasonable length of time."


Section 2935.041.

(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, 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.

(B) (Is not reprinted because it refers to libraries, museums, etc.)

(C) An officer/agent, or employee of a library, museum, or archival institution pursuant to division (B) of this section or a merchant or his employee or agent pursuant to division (A) of this section may detain another person for any of the following purposes:

(1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft;
(2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer;
(3) To obtain a warrant of arrest.

(D) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, or the merchant or his employee or agent acting under division (A) or (B) of this section shall not search the person, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

http://downloads.ohiobar.org/pub/bus...t_issue005.pdf


SHOPLIFTING AND LOSS-PREVENTION PROGRAMS
by Honorable Richard M. Wallar

Shoplifting can cost a storeowner a bundle considering merchandise loss, apprehension costs and litigation. There are several Ohio statutes regarding theft and shoplifting offenses.

Knowing the general elements of the laws (and their practical application) is essential to an efficient loss-prevention program. Ohio's Shoplifter Detention Law permits merchants and/or their employees to detain shoplifting suspects. If a merchant, or employee or agent, has probable cause to believe that store property has been shoplifted, he or she can detain the suspected thief in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time in the store or in its immediate vicinity for the following reasons: 1) to recover the stolen property; 2) to facilitate an arrest by a peace officer and/or; 3) to obtain an arrest warrant. The statute does not permit the merchant or its employee to search the suspect or seize any property belonging to the suspect without the suspect's consent, or to use undue restraint.

That means even if you see somebody walk into your store grab something off the shelf, stuff it in his pocket and walk out the store without paying - you still don't have the right to search that person. You can detain them and wait for the police to show up, but you can't search them without their consent.

If the merchant has no right to search a known shoplifter, then they certainly have no right to search every single person that walks out the door.

My calling him a prick is based on his actions as he described them, no other "evidence" is needed. Ok I guess to be fair it would be best to wait to see what the other people involved say about how he handled himself. One would think though that a person usually writes up a scenario to put themselves in the best light possible ;) Which is why I haven't weighed in on the legality of the situation at all because I don't think we have enough facts. Again, as I've said before, as he described them I think he'll have a good chance of winning his case(s). I don't know all the applicable laws nor the entire situation though so saying anything more than that is speculation. I don't see the point in arguing about that, but then again I usually don't debate TV shows either ;)

Anyway at this point the train wreck will have to continue w/o me. I'll try to remember to check back some time after the 20th to see how the case is going.

I was describing this whole story to a colleague of mine today, a guy in his early sixties who looks like the stereotypical kindly grandfather and he claimed that he never stops to have his bags checked, despite being asked regularly. I was actually very surprised and I doubt that anyone would consider him a rude person as he looks so harmless and respectable. Appearances and perception count for a lot and maybe the CC mouthbreather in this story just couldn't accept getting blown off by a "punk kid."

Seriously? The first time you said that it seemed like you were back in like ten minutes.

:)

I started reading this thread last night and I just want to throw my two cents in here, and show a possible outcome if this had taken place in Arizona.

I think all the folks who are defending CC or are saying that the customer was wrong for not showing his receipt keep reading more into the story to try and back their opinions. I read the blog entry and all the updates last night and I really doubt it was much different from that situation. There are many people who do not show the employees a receipt when asked. Just google this situation and you will find a lot of people who are fed up with stores trying to push around paying customers and many customers are not taking it anymore.

I can't blame this guy one bit. If he ends up with a lawsuit and settlement so much the better.

Ok, now let's pretend this scenario took place in Arizona. First I will address the issue of providing ID. The officer wanted his license, but the customer had not been driving. In fact according to the blog entry he was on the sidewalk waiting. Why should this man provide a drivers license when he was not driving the vehicle? What does Arizona law say?

First, since the manager and security did not tell the customer he was being held for shoplifting, which would have made CC even more liable when the truth came out, there was no probable cause. The fact that he refused to show the receipt can't be used as probably cause, everyone should see this clearly.

So no matter how you would look at the police incident the customer would be correct and if he was arrested for not providing his license, not only would the charge end up being dropped but he would be able to sue for false arrest.

Now onto the first issue, not showing a receipt. As has already been pointed out, unless the manager or security officer saw this man enter the store, browse for an item, pick up the item and either conceal it or pocket it they would not be able to show probable cause to detain him. They can ask for his receipt on his exit, but he can legally refuse to show it to them and walk right out the store. Unless they told him he was being held for shoplifting, which according to the known facts so far in this case, didn't happen, he had every right to walk right out of the store and get in his car.

Once in his car, he opened the door because the manager came up to it, this is not unreasonable as most people would either roll down the window or open the door to talk to the person at their door. However, the manager had no right to block the door and twice keep the car's occupant from closing his door. What COULD have happened here in Arizona?

This portion of ARS was passed last year. Basically if the manager had tried to take this man off his skateboard, let alone his car, likely CC would be looking for a new manager and security guard. I'm not justifying the use of force in this case, but there are plenty of people who would not take as kindly to being chased by two men.

Keep in mind these men did not notify the customer that he was being detained for shoplifting, they only were attempting to force and coerce this customer into yielding his receipt and personal property for them to verify the contents. Without them telling him he was suspected of shoplifting these men had no legal right to follow, harass or make this customer feel threatened. They both likely knew that since neither of them had seen the man with their own eyes stealing, that they could not notify him he was being held because then they would have wrongfully detained him when the truth about no evidence of theft came out.

Since these two men had no legal right to chase him and make him feel threatened or to block his family's vehicle and the manager standing in the doorway holding the door open, this customer could have shot these two men if this took place in Arizona. Nothing would have happened to him either, as the bill that passed made it clear that from now on in Arizona, if you feel threatened in your residence or vehicle, you no longer need to attempt to flee and if you use force, deadly even, that you are INNOCENT until the state proves you guilty.

I am sure many of you would think this is a ridiculous law, but I assure you it is not an old "Arizona is still in the dark ages" law. This law passed last year, and while it was not originally designed for this exact scenario, this one fits quite well. Originally this law was enacted to help people protect themselves from physical harm without having to prove their innocence. This is the way America is supposed to be, but somewhere along the way American laws took a U-Turn. Now I don't believe everyone in Arizona should shoot each other, but this law, when in bill form was done for a specific reason, domestic violence.

Having been a victim of DV myself, yes men are abused just as much as women even if it isn't documented as well, this law is an absolute must. Not just for someone like me, but for all the defenseless victims who are stuck in limbo. See, an Order of Protection is a court order, while it is up to the local law enforcement to enforce it, unless there is a tremendously dangerous situation at the very moment, usually a call to the local police will result in you attempting to file a police report for documentation purposes and the offending person walking away with not so much as a slap on the wrist. The problem is the police would rather be investigating real crimes not domestic issues. They tell you to go file something with the court. Which of course they can't elaborate legally on, you have to file an order to show cause for contempt of court. Now when the courts set up a hearing for the respondent to explain why they shouldn't be held in contempt of court, if they were not arrested or cited for violating the OoP the judge usually won't do anything except warn them to follow the OoP. This does no good to a person who's life is in danger. So the Legislature got fed up with the loopholes and so they fixed Arizona law to ensure that a person can protect themselves and their loved ones without fear of having to go to court and justify there actions after.

Question - I understand that a store can't legally force you to show your receipt when leaving the store. But can they refuse to accept returns if the receipt doesn't have their special highlighter mark?

Sure, as long as it's in their official return policy, posted where customers can read it before checking out. But if it's not, and the manager just arbitrarily declares you can't make the return without the mark, they're opening themselves up for legal action.

Of course a high-lighter mark isn't that hard to fake -- at worst, if the door-checker initials it, you could just go to another Circuit City.

I'm absolutely astounded that this is an issue. What a ridiculous situation. I don't think either party is really correct here, and I personally hope the case is thrown out with no harm done to either side.

I agree. Much ado about nothing.

This is ridiculous. I mean I totally find it annoying that they check bags and I also agree that as citizen's we should not obey authority at all. But, come on man, just because they check your bag doesn't mean with are living in a world created by the Wachowski Brothers.

Isnt it a little late? The guy was arrested, sent to jail, and posted bond.