He was perfectly willing to give the police his information, just like in your jogging scenario.

Yeah, ok. Good for you. Show your friend and start a revolution.

Wow - you appear to have unknowingly described the SCOTUS case that ruled the exact opposite of your claims. KOLENDER v. LAWSON. A black guy gets arrested like 15 times over the course of a few years because he's "black while jogging" in a white neighborhood and finally got so sick of it that would not provide id and was prosecuted for it. The court ruled in his favor - that requiring id was not constitutional regardless of if he "forgot it" or not.

But I don't recall he was. He was only willing to give his name.

Now here is where I don't understand this guy's logic. If you fish, you should give your permit to show you fish, and show your permit if you own a weapon. So, why is it such a leap to hand over ID to a cop who requests it? That's what ID is for. For identification. ID can actually help get you out of situation much quicker than refusing. But of course we have those that think ID is some form of government conspiracy to control us all.

Great citation. Wrong usage of it. Are we talking about a man who has been consistently harassed by cops because he's black? I don't think so. We're talking about a kid who refused to show a receipt to CC employees for starters, then refused to show ID to a cop? I'm pretty sure this is far different from the case you cited.

Are you so ignorant of history that you honestly have no understanding of the implications of the phrase, "Papers please!" ?

He was never asked. He says he would have given them his address and DOB if they asked.


(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

Wait a second, these CC tools followed someone into their car and harassed them physically and there are people here defending this? They are lucky it wasn't me because I wouldn't respond so nicely to such treatment. And for the record, last time I shopped at CC I refused to let the door person check my bag, as is my right.

The guy screwed up by calling 911, what a bonehead move. He should have pushed the CC tools on the ground and left.

You forget YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THE LAW. Read the opinion, the fact that he was black and had been harassed had no relevance to the opinion that the SCOTUS rendered - it was not even mentioned there - simply that arbitrary definitions of sufficient id are unconstitutional. You grasp at straws.

Usually what happens is that cops come, they inform the people doing the detaining that they are violating the law and they had better quit it.
Just his bad luck he got a cop that didn't know the law. In some of the discussion elsewhere there was a poster who claims he works at that very store. Completely unverifiable, but he claims the cop is a good buddy with the store manager which could conceivably explain why he over-reacted.

From his post that I quoted he told the officer he only needed to give his name. He tells us LATER he would have given more info if requested. I mean really, the kid was just being a punk. He was dictating the rules to the officer. Usually, it's the other way around, but I'm sure some kids would like it like this.

Some people have a problem with authority. Who knows, maybe the father is the same way and is telling his son this country is becoming a Nazi country and showing your ID to a cop is the same as being a Jew in Nazi Germany.

It's sad we have such people believing this. A cop is a Nazi one moment, and then next moment you're requesting cops to aid and protect you.

Wow, you're getting legal here. I better leave.

Btw, you come across as a person who is pro illegal immigration. Are you? Just curious. You are rather anti-ID and against any form of indentification of an individual, and those who don't have a problem with illegals in this country, share the same value system.

Can you show me where he said "only" in this sentence? “I’m required by law to state that my name is Michael Righi, but I do not have to provide you with my driver’s license since I am not operating a vehicle.”
I think this paragraph does an excellent job of revealing your mindset. You are a kowtower. The police define the rules and the people must obey. Never mind the "kid" was right and the cop was wrong.

Yeah, they are known as "the founding fathers." Don't like it? Move to North Korea where respect for authoritay is mandatory.
Authoritarians LOVE to make this claim. You know what? It's bullshit. He's the one who called the cops THIS time and look where it got him.

What? Do you always resort to nonsensicalness when you've been argued into a corner? Or is it that your arguments have been nonsensical from the start and I just gave you too much credit.

I'm pro individual freedom and pro minimization of government and any other concentrations of power, pro right to bear arms, pro separation of state and church, pro freedom of religion, pro freedom of expression, pro freedom of information. Make you own judgment, feel free to post it in some other thread, call it "Elijah's Stance on Immigration" if it is so important.

I returned an XBOX 360 at Circuit City today.

Those bastards DID NOT ask for my ID or my credit card that I purchased it on.

To make matters worse, they also didn't check the box ONCE!

So I arrested myself.
Could someone bail me out at IammanasshatregardlessifIwasright County Jail? It's on the corner of Afuck and Whogives and bail is only the price we've paid to read this endless sad debate.

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 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."

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.