way to fizzle out a great debate with many great points. if you don't have anything to contribute to this, then don't :)

anyway, yes, the greater issue at hand that was also discussed in the forum that I pulled this link from is that he was illegally detained at the CC and was being kept from leaving. One employee stood in front of the car with his hands out to prevent the car from going anywhere, and the manager stood right inside the open rear passenger door. When the cop came he should have instructed the CC employees to back off. twas a big no no that he did not.

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...00601hole1.asp

interesting article on our said "jackass who took it too far" He's a very bright person. 25 yrs old at the time of the CC occurence. I see we have a few law students/lawyers in this forum as well. :)

This guy sounds like a complete douchebag.

No, but I don't see where checking the bag/receipt as you're leaving that store is that big of a deal either. It's not slippery slope into communism :lol: Give me a fucking break... I don't think anyone in this situation handled it properly. The guy's a prick plain and simple, trying to pick fights and make mountains out of mole hills. The CC guys over reacted to their "authority" being questioned. The officer did too, but since the original guy was being such a prick about it IMHO that does cause some reasonable suspicion that he's up to something (aka I understand the statement where the officer said he was surprised that the receipt matched the contents -- I mean why make such a big deal out of this if nothing else is going on?).

I think the big question that remains unanswered, and will probably determine the case, is what are CC's store policy, is there a stated policy that they reserve the right to search bags upon exiting the store? It's a private company (publically traded I'm sure but private wrt the law) and is free to set their policies as they see fit (provided they don't violate other things like the civil rights act). People then have the choice to shop or not shop there based on those policy. So if it is stated somewhere that CC has the right to search bags the prick got what he deserved and has no case. Now how that all plays out in a court(s) of law (I suspect we are going to see criminal and civil cases in this instance) we'll see. Juries tend to sympathize w/ the "little guy" being hassled by the "big evil corporation".

The person's actions, while well within his civil rights were done solely for the purpose of making "a point" that quite frankly does not resonate past himself and his family. Retail chains are not going to stop checking receipts because of an isolated incident, it costs them less to pay off a guy like this every now and then via a lawsuit than to not check and lose merchandise. The id case, is a seperate incident and surprisingly a common one. I have yet to see a jurisdiction that allows for its citizens to produce a driver's license when asked while they are not operating a vehicle, therefore that "made up" charge will be dropped and he can easily sue and win for unlawful imprisonment for his time spent under custody. Overall, the plaintiff is "right," but on a personal, non-legal level, this is a waste of time. This guy is not Rosa Parks, he is just someone knowledgable enough of the law to "make a stand" aka win a law suit and get paid.

Which I suspect might indicate the motive more than anything else ;)

Freedom, privileges, options must constantly be exercised, even at the risk of inconvenience. Otherwise they fall into desuetude and become unfashionable, unorthodox — finally irregulationary. Sometimes the person who insists upon his prerogatives seems shrill and contentious — but actually he performs a service for all. Freedom naturally should never become license; but regulation should never become restriction.
--Jack Vance

So, standing up for your legal rights is cause for reasonable suspicion? Is that really the kind of police state you want to live in? Furthermore, the cop was not thinking straight, never mind his ignorance of the law, what criminal calls the police himself? The CC guys were illegally detaining him and his family, also known as kidnapping, he calls the cops, they admitting to kidnapping and now victim is the suspicious person? Ok, so the cop then searches the guy's bag and finds nothing. He's determined that no crime was committed and then he demands ID? Huh? What legitimate need is their for ID when no crime has been committed?
No, it really doesn't matter what their policy is. What matters is the legality of what they did. And what they did is completely illegal. The fact that the store is "private property" doesn't mean shit. Really. You yourself said that searching purses is over the line but searching the bag that the cashier just gave you 30 seconds ago is fine. What if their policy says they search purses? What if their policy says they perform strip searches? What it boils down to is that they can ask, but they can not require. Their sole option is eviction.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to this thread. We've already had two loss-prevention people post here and one has even linked to a general discussion of the legality of searches - they are legal only as long as they are voluntary and uncoerced. In all cases, including Circuit City, their policy is to let it go when a paying customer refuses to be searched. That what the store manager did in this case is usually grounds for termination.

Do you see the inherent contradiction in your paragraph? You start off by saying that the police break this law with surprisingly common frequency and then you say that doing something about it is a waste of time? Are we not a nation of laws? Should the police who are dedicated to upholding the law really be given a free pass to regularly break the law?

Are you trying to say that calling 911 was abuse? Have you tried to call for the police recently? In most jurisdictions, 911 is the standard and only way to have an officer dispatched. Calling 911 and ordering a pizza is abuse, calling 911 to have an officer dispatched is standard operating procedure.

You lost all credibility when you said the guy was "kidnapped."

:lol:

That was my initial thinking as well, but I'm not so convinced anymore his being a jackass wasn't well founded. Are we as citizens required to kowtow to the exercise of authority we know to be an illegal use of such police power? Should we let fear of government reprise dictate how we stand up for our rights as Americans?

If it were me, I would have probably have shown the guy the bag, or if I didn't, showed the police officer my license. None of that means that I thought either had the right to ask in the first place (or to illegally detain me, in the case of CC). I would have done it so as not to be further inconvenienced. And that's pretty pathetic when I think about it.

When the exercise of our constitutional rights becomes inconvenient to us, then democracy loses a bit more of its significance.

This isn't an area of the law I'm particularly familiar with, but I have a hard time thinking he violated any law. He identified himself truthfully to a police officer, and I doubt there's any law saying he had to produce a driver's license.

Still, I have no idea what his claim against Circuit City is. I'm guess false imprisonment? It's shaky at best. And the damages are non-existant. The arrest was after he called the police and was for a different charge altogether.

Does Circuit City have a right to inspect bags? Probably not. But a refusal to do so is probably suspicision enough to hold someone as a suspect of shoplifting. Which seemed to be the intent in this case. The manager wanted to hold the guy until he clarified the situation. Which may make the false imprisonment justified.

In the end, it's much ado about nothing. And a whole lot of headache for nothing. The whole thing seems pointless. His rights really weren't violated, and at best he may have a wrongful arrest charge. But that's against the police, not Circuit City.

So tell me what freedom/liberty is being put at risk by having a bag that should only contain items you just purchased 10 ft away casually looked at/compared to a receipt which you should also have readily available? It's not just the "principle" of the thing either since principles have to have practical application in the real world. By wasting time on this "debate" and self made issue it makes it harder to focus on the greater/more important issues (like the ID card thing w/ the officer). Now there is an issue that needs to be debated/worked out, but the shopping bag thing is just a distraction and ultimately meaningless since it's probably not going to change anyone's policies and it's not going to lead to strip-searches, nor probably even purse searches if there is no other reason for suspicion (talk about blowing things out of proportion -ohbfrank-).

I really am into privacy/liberty and understand some of the issues that are at risk (I wrote a series of papers for school a couple of years back covering some of these issues). IMHO the problem most privacy advocates have though is themselves quite frankly. They go off on these little meaningless tangents in defense of the "greater good" but all the time they are really hurting the overall cause because they make it easier to dismiss anyone who is adamant about privacy as a tinfoil hat wearing kook. There is no ultimate right of privacy in our system of law. If you walk out your door, go shopping, interact w/ people in general you are going to come across things that you may think infringe upon that "right" but in most cases it's benign and the price of living in today's society. People have to learn how to pick their battles, and the one that precipitated this event was not one worth fighting IMHO.

So back to the question though, in practical terms what privacy have I given up by showing a receipt and contents of a bag that should only contain what I just bought?

Actually as I understand it kidnapping is generally/legally defined as restricting the movement of a person by any means w/o legal authority. So technically he is correct.

Technically, he's not.

If I recall correctly this happened in Ohio. Ohio's kidnapping statute states the following:

None of the elements of subparts (A) or (B) were met. Thus, the law was not violated.

:up:

Yep, guy wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

I guess I should say for my state that's how it was explained to me ;)

Well that's always the kicker. States rarely have uniform laws, especially regarding criminal acts. Some states' kidnapping laws are probably very soft (arguably like Ohio's). I imagine Florida's and Texas' are much more stringent.

Actually though this seems to fit what happened...
(B) No person, by force, threat, or deception, or, in the case of a victim under the age of thirteen or mentally incompetent, by any means, shall knowingly do any of the following, under circumstances that create a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the victim or, in the case of a minor victim, under circumstances that either create a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the victim or cause physical harm to the victim:

(2) Restrain another of his liberty;

Now whether this guy thought he was at risk of serious harm is another story ;) Overall I think it's just a matter of the poster here using more emotionally charged terms to make his side/position more sympathetic.

It's just ironic that one would accuse the police officer of "ignorance of the law," then throw out the term "kidnapping" in this context.

This guy couldn't prove "substantial risk of serious physical harm . . ." I'd love to argue the case and put the other Circuit City shoppers on the stand to refute the claim.

Actually the policy does matter, because if the CC guys went against policy then the onus is on them to justify their actions. If the policy violates law (something for the courts to decide not anyone here) then the onus is on CC to justify their policy.

Um, what? Laws don't stop being enforcable on private property. This particular law applies to police officers (no matter where they are doing their job).

Are you serious?

Yep, sure am.

[I'll stick with the definition in Black's Law Dictionary and Ohio's statute. You can stick with your Wikipedia definition.] ;)

Whoop-de-doo.

"Kidnapping" in most states, technically "unlawful restraint" in Ohio. Either way, it still illegal and the cop should have known it.

Do you really think that such a minor detail somehow invalidates the point that the circuit city employees broke the law and the guy who was arrested did not?

This guy is an idiot. I think hes making it all up just to get some Paypal cash. What a freakin loser.

No, I don't really think it invalidates your argument. That said, I haven't read the statutes that were supposedly violated (or not violated). I didn't want to waste my time sifting through the brow-beating in your "arguments" with DVD-Polizei, so maybe it's already posted and I missed it.

Without knowing more, I support the bag-checking. If that means I'm better off in China, so be it. It's a minor inconvenience to me, and I can appreciate a business' attempts to control theft. If they wanted to frisk me or, as you theorized, strip me naked, then I'd have an issue with it.

You frame the question as if we live in an authoritarian state. It isn't what one person gives up, it is does Circuit City's lack of trust of their own employees justify searching the private property of third parties? The law is already clear on this, it does not. That's the price of living in a country founded on the principles of individual liberty.

This Michael Righi idiot is an immature attention whore, jealous because it was his little sister's birthday and she was the focus of everyone's attention that day. Remember, the primary reason for this family outing was to buy ingredients for his sister's "silly birthday wish" for Monkeybread. To pull a stunt like that when your entire family is waiting for you in the car is beyond ridiculous...regardless of the law.

Just because something is technically legal doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do. I'm 43 years old, and by law, I can legally have sex with my 16 year-old cousin...but that doesn't make it right.

This guy set out to steal this special day away from his sister, and by doing so, he became the focus of everyone's attention. Timing is everything, and I don't believe for one second that this guy's actions were motivated by any deep-seeded regard for preserving Constitutional law. If that is your belief, then we simply have to agree to disagree.

So, you can dig up statute 2905.01 but can't be bothered to look on the next page at 2905.03? Seems like your desire is not for the truth, just a silly attempt to score points.

That has to be the worst analogy I have ever read.

Lol! I mean totally roflmao.

Ok, so civil rights are the same thing as incest. I didn't think you could top your first paragraph, but you sure did!

That's right. Looking up the statute did not require me to sift through your brow-beating and "YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LAW" posts.

I have no desire here. I'm certainly not trying to "score points," whatever that means.

Incest, by definition is 'Sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees where marriage is prohibited by law.'

I can legally marry my 16 year old cousin, so legally, it isn't incest.

I'll repeat...just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

No, if we lived in an authoritarian state it wouldn't even be a question. You have made the argument we are living in a free society (which I agree w/) and that by allowing these door checks we are losing some sort of liberty (which I don't agree w/). The onus is on you to prove your case. So again in the grand scheme of things how is showing the contents of your shopping bag and a receipt an infringement of your liberty?

The funny part is, I obviously don't have any way of knowing this though, but I would suspect this person used his credit card and CC bonus card (if they have such a thing, I don't shop there myself) for this purchase, both of which have a greater privacy concerns/impact than showing your bag to the person at the door.

The sad part is, people doing bullshit stunts like this is only going to cause stores to start implementing more stringent safeguards (RFID in the packaging and maybe eventually on the receipt itself as a check - http://www.aimglobal.org/technologie...rintedTags.htm) which are going to have a much larger impact on privacy than someone looking at the contents of a shopping bag.

I could've sworn that cousins were within the prohibited lines of consanguinity re: marriage.

Either way, you're right on one account: it isn't right! ;)

I'd have to utilize my utmost restraint to keep from punching this guy in the face. Why is he taking the term DRIVER'S LICENSE so literally? Driver's licenses are used for primary identification in a number of non-driving circumstances such as applying for a job, activating a cell phone, obtaining a Blockbuster membership. So quit wasting everyone's time by acting like an smartass. :rolleyes:

...in those above 3 examples, in lieu of a DL, an official state issued picture I.D. would suffice. Both obtainable at the same DMV.

Why is this not in Other?

My statement was never intended to be a direct analogy.

Because it is about a store and this is the store forum...

It would be on it's 20th page by now in Otter...

Speaking of laws, here's something I dug up on the shoplifting law in Ohio. So how this meshes w/ CC policy on what to do at the door is the main question that needs to be answered wrt whether or not the CC guys were in the right in taking it to the point they did.

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