Something very similar happened a few years ago at a Wal-Mart here in Puerto Rico. Customer paid, employee at the door asked for reciept, guy said no and walked away, manager and employee had screaming match with customer, customer called police after his bag was taken away by manager, customer was arrested for "disturibing the peace" thus making him miss an important appointement, guy filed lawsuit againts Wal-Mart and the PR Police, Wal-Mart settled, PR Police made public apology and everything was settled.

The point that was made during all of this was that stores do not have the right to search your bags or ask for receipt after the customer paid. Legally, a client can walk out of the store with his items and no reciept check, as simple as that. Since then employees check but if a customer refuses, they are on their legal right to do so. I don't know if the law is the same in other places, but if it is, then the customer has the complete right to refuse, even if he acts like a jackass in the process. I have always been told that your rights end where mine begin, so in this case CC rights end where the customer rights begin.

I give this guy the benefit of the doubt based on Circuit City's track record. Remember, this is the same company that is suing DVDTalk for the most stupid reason ever.

well this cop was no better.. wasting taxpayers money by hauling this kid in..what a wasteof public resources this nitwit with a badge is

:up:

The manager had the authority to waive the policy. More importantly, the cop arrested him on a bullshit, trumped up charge instead of rising above the pettiness and saying "move along".

One, private citizens should be allowed the right to refuse unlawful searches of their personal property.

Two, the way I see it (without knowing the law, of course...just the way I see it in this instance) is that this guy was on private property. Circuit City is not, at least the last time I checked, a government funded entity or a public place. Those are not public servants working there, they are employees employed by Circuit City. If the owner of the private property wants bags/receipts examined at the door, the owner of the private property should have that right. If the owner of the private property wants to allow people to bring their dogs in there, they should have that right (and this could go on and on...and I seem to recall this is the issue playing out in many cities where smoking is being forced to be banned in many bars and clubs).

This guy KNOWS these private properties request to examine receipts and bags. I've been to places like this...they consistently do this...they don't attempt to single anybody out or do any kind of profiling. I am sure there are those they suspect more than others, but it's because of their actions in the store.

This guy has had other experiences with stores and standing up against this policy before. He knows the drill, and he chose to be an obstinate ass. I'd forgive him if this was a one time misunderstanding, but he admits in his own blog he likes to do this kind of thing. I suspect he gets off at the attention, and maybe he makes a few bucks off the "donations."

If he doesn't like the policies of these private businesses, then he should shop online, where nobody will question his purchase.

I actually did something similar to this at a Best Buy once when I was in a hurry to get back to work, but I realized I was in the wrong, and my situation did not escalate to anything of this magnatude. I would not have attempted to rally sympathy for me. This guy knows what he did was wrong...he pretty much admits it right at the beginning of the story when he realizes why they are approaching the car.

He's an attention whore.

The manager has the authority to do a lot of things, but to waive the policy when somebody is acting suspicious? I don't know. Yeah, he COULD but should he? I do know in retail jobs I've worked at we were advised that we could only stop people at the door if we actually saw them take something and could prove it, and under no circumstances were we to follow them out of the store. We could look outside to get a make of the car and license plate and call the police, but that was about it.

Then again, I never worked for Circuit City or Best Buy.

As far as the arrest...the cop was just trying to make a point and I do think it was trumped up. I was with a friend who was pulled over one time and he got arrested for unpaid tickets. The officer asked me for my license (and I wasn't driving) and I honestly didn't have it on me. I wasn't going out to buy anything, so I left my wallet at home. The officer didn't make a big deal out of it. It's not like it's a crime to not have your license if you are not driving.

What mythical Circuit City policy is this? Circuit City's door stop policy is black and white. Unless you see the person conceal merchandise and walk past the last register, you do not stop them. You can ask them to show their receipt, but if they walk past you, you do nothing. It's the same policy as Best Buy, Target, etc. Ask an employee to show you their handbook.

And to clarify an above point: just because someone is on private property does not give the owner the right to search that person. Where you came up with this I have no idea, but there is no basis in the law for this.

I never worked for them...I don't know. I think I did mention that, and I mentioned about retail experience I do have.

But ANY Best Buy I've gone to (and Wal Mart...they are bad about this as well) will enforce this and chase customers who paid for their purchase in full out of the store if they refuse to stop when they set off the alarm at the door. I've seen it quite a few times in those two stores, in fact. And, no, I do not know if the door person knows they took something or are just reacting to the alarm going off, but in all the instances I have witnessed, if they do stop, they are allowed out of the store. The cashiers need to do a better job at deactivating the security tags, IMO.

They do NOT force search anybody, but they sure do seem to like to intimidate people into giving into the search request.

There are apparently A LOT of employees out there breaking store policy then, and management and corporate offices are turning a blind eye.

Is there a basis in the law that a private business owner couldn't enforce searches? And I will be glad to point out an early line in my previous post, since you also seemed to miss that:

I do NOT claim to be a lawyer. I was giving an opinion as I saw it. No need to come down on me for my lack of knowlege of the law. Teach me, oh, wonderful law student you seem to be.

Well, in my state (and most others I would imagine) there is the so-called "shopkeeper's privilege" that allows a merchant to detain a customer IF there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the customer has committed theft against that merchant. Undoubtedly, setting off an alarm upon exiting a store would create reasonable suspicion in many cases. Simply ignoring a request to see one's receipt would not.

Check post #365 and #366


Would you say that if I asked you to come over to my house, that I have the right to demand that before you left you had to empty your pockets? Doubtful. And if I did, and forcefully kept you from leaving would you not call the police?

Having worked for Best Buy in the past, their policy is black letter: do not chase customers. Any BB employee can hop on SOP Online and print out the relevant documentation.

Don't get sore because you started creating laws in your head and got called out on it. The onus is not on anyone to prove that you can't search someone. I can't prove that a certain law doesn't exist. That would involve printing the entire penal code of every state plus the Fed. It's much easier to find a relevant statute that would compel me to be searched by a private party. Well, it would be easier if such a statute actually existed.

Shopkeeper's privilege is interesting. Since the standard for probable cause to detain is so high, most stores simply do not use it. I am only familiar in detail with Best Buy's policy, but they do not consider the door alarm to be sufficient grounds to detain a customer. LP is instructed to politely as a customer to re-enter the store so his/her merchandise can be deactivated. If the customer keeps walking, LP is not supposed to leave the store.

They didn't ask him to empty his pockets. This I would have a real problem with. They asked to see his receipt, likely to compare it to the items in the CC bag in his hand. The bag he should have just been given thirty seconds earlier.

I won't bother debating because all the points have been hashed around, but let's at least get the facts straight.

Maybe it's just me but I think this thread would be a little different if all participants commenting here had been obliged either to read the whole blog - and quote where they make specific comments in relation to it - or to admit starting out that they didn't read/skimmed it or whatever.

For the record, I read the whole thing before my original post in which I included a quote.

The guy sounds like a douche. The circuit city managers sound like douches.

I really don't give a shit what happens to either side.

= J

Read his entire blog. Guy sounds like a total jag-off. What a waste of taxpayer money this will end up becoming.

What an ass...I hope he loses his house, as he is taking lines of credit and taking other people's money to pay his bills.

I totally agree on both counts. He could have avoided the whole situation, and I don't think that checking a receipt on a purchase constitutes calling the ACLU. I have seen errors at the registers that affect the customer by making them pay more. People get charged twice for the same item and don't pay much attention to the total and such. He went looking for trouble, and well....He found it.

I think that all parties over-reacted so there is enough fault to spread around. On his website, I noticed this closing remark on his 2nd page:

"If anybody is still confused about why I choose to live my life based on principles, I recommend that you read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. If only this world had more Howard Roarks…"

Well as someone who did read The Fountainhead a long time ago when I was studying Architecture (before I changed majors), anyone who believes that book is an utter idiot. It's the most pompous, naive and unbelievable tract of Marxist swill that it's actually embarrassing that he believes this. God help him when he enters reality.

Harsh words?
 

Whether it is "swill" or not, characterising anything written by Ayn Rand as "Marxist", pretty much epitomises my extreme uneasiness at the level of attention to detail that has so oft been demonstrated in this thread.

Yup.

:brickwl2:

I totally agree!

Ya lost me there. It's not Marxist at all, as a matter of fact Atlas Shrugged has a large section about how horrible it is to spread the wealth.

Back on topic: Yes, the guy's an ass and a dick. He could have handled the situation as an adult and avoided the whole thing (something he obviously didn't want to do.) The thing is, there's no law against being a dick. The fact that he is an ass shouldn't make a differance in the eyes of the law.

In his September 6th update he claims that his legal fees have exceeeded $7,500. :eek: That seems awfully, awfully high given that his attorney couldn't have been on the case for more than a day or two, there hasn't been a hearing yet and the case will very likely be dismissed anyway. Most likely, he paid a $7,500 retainer, in which case he better hope that it is of the refundable type if not earned. I wish that I had gotten $7,500 retainers on every misdemeanor client that came through my doors when I practiced criminal law. I'd be retired by now.

My educated guess is that he (or his attorney) is intentionally loading up on fees so as to increase the damages he will claim against the police. I wonder if he will disclose that a portion of his fees were paid through PayPal donations. Hmmmm...

But it does.

It's like saying an attractive woman wearing a short red skirt and wet T-shirt in court who is accusing a man of rape, shouldn't be held accountable just because of her attire. But she is.

You and I could potentially get tickets, citations, and fines every single day of the year. I would imagine many of us could get a ticket for something wrong with our vehicle or even our person. But most cops DO NOT enforce these lesser citations or infractions, even though they see them all the time.

So now, what is the only connection between the potential infractions and fines, the law, and the police officer?

Our. Behavior. Your behavior does decide your fate.

Be nice. Be on your way.

I have the facts straight. Except in my example there would be no shopping bag, so I had to improvise. However, CC would want to look in the bag (his private property) to compare to the receipt...

Idiots all around. Enough said.