Which is why I clarified it was not the absolute legal definition.

Any way to find out if Ohio has probable cause defined legally, or is it subject to a judge/jury's opinion?

No offense intended... but that is an easy out. Its got a "i dont like that site cause it doesnt say what i want it to say" feel to your comment. Got something to contradict his finding?

Well, in his defense it is fairly broad and general, and doesn't even specify which states adhere to that definition (or is it supposed to be Federal law???).

I don't think it's an easy out at all. Laws vary from state to state, yet the website makes it appear there is uniformity.

I cannot confirm this is up-to-date and/or accurate (and I am not going to spend my own money to sign into Westlaw to get the actual statutes... ), but see http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm.

Actually a pretty good read on the subject. It appears, based on this site, that Ohio has not codified the definition of probable cause as applied to the crime of larceny. Even under this sites very conservative expression of the concept ("would a cautious man believe the accused to be guility"), I cannot see how we have enough information. Perhaps the LP guy thought he saw Mr. Righi lift something. We honestly don't know. Perhaps they only ask for a voluntary bag search if they have other suspicions. Again, we don't know. But to dismiss this outright as a case of the CC LP guy and manager exceeding the scope of the Ohio codified shopkeepers privilege is, in my opinion, short sighted.

The police office, however, was simply incorrect and should be repremanded at a minimum for exceeding the scope of his LE authority.

PS: My test for probable cause is one taken out of Blacks Law Dictionaary "A reasonable ground for belief in certain alleged facts. A set of probabilities grounded in the factual and practical considerations which govern the decisions of reasonable and prudent persons and is more than mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction." I do see that the more restrictive definition has indeed been applied to a false imprisonment case based out of Oregon. Christ v McDonald (of all case names... )

So noone knows what Ohio states specifically?

It is an easy out. Cause even though that may or may not apply, a contradictory defininition hasnt popped up yet, by state or not...

I haven't looked at the link yet, but I don't believe the "what if's" should be argued in this case. We have a certain amount of information, and that's all that we really have to base an opinion on. Consider this never happened at all, and you were presented with the same information as a hypothetical situation.

That's not saying I believe his story 100%. It's obviously one-sided and biased towards his position, but until CC responds, or facts come out if/when this goes to court, it's pointless to argue all the different possibilities.

If you scroll back, you'll see that I said all along that under the facts known at this time, it appears that CC exceeded the legal rights udner the shopkeepers privilege. What I've been arguing is the false assumption that the refusal of the limited bag search (a minimal intrusion on personal privacy) cannot be combined with other evidence to form the probable cause for a non-LE actor. Many are of the opinion that CC was wrong, regardless of what other information the LP guy may have had. Or at the least, that they could not go outside the store and use reasonable force to prevent escape (though Ohio appears to allow just that if the situation warrants, i.e. probable cause).

So the request to check the receipt and the continuing requests for voluntary searches are red-herrings unless they are put into proper context. And that can only be done later.

Oh, ok. Well now that you've said it twice, I agree with you.

Jesus. You mean you haven't even bothered to actually read the law, yet you're trying to interpret it anyway?

Todd, you're nice.

I took a quick gander through the Ohio Criminal code, and it does not appear that they have codified the definition of probable cause. (See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/29).

And be nice Todd, I read the statute earlier in the thread, but did not recall at that moment as the terms have been bandied about freely.

That's fine, dont actually recognize the fact that I'm making a new point in that post, then try to make fun of it. Its still hasnt happened though.

Quite the debate we have here.

Ok.

Clever.

Clever? Shit I was going for wicked awesome.

Lighten up, chief. This thread has gone on for 17 pages. The same things are being argued, re-argued, and argued again. People are arguing for the sake of arguing. Time for some levity.

I'm personally going to shop at Circuit City tonight, and then I'm going to pull into a commuter lot around 2:00 with my new video equipment in the hopes something interesting happens.

Thanks for the update.

Wlmowery's opinion and mine are very close, but we seem to be on opposite sides on this one.

If I'm interperting this and other posts you've made correctly, we both agree that CC does not have the legal right to search someone against their will.

Let's say that you are right, and the sum total of Mr. Righi's actions DOES constitue a reasonable suspicion and let's also assume that under Ohio law that is enough to allow the store to detain him.

It doesn't end there though. Even if do detain him, they can not insist that he submit to a search. Do you agree?

They also can't detain him for as long as they like. They can only detain him until an officer of the law arrives to handle the situation. (At least that's my understanding of the law. If I'm wrong, what are the conditions of his detention?)

This is where I think CC crossed the line. They didn't call the cops. If I remember his blog correctly, the manager either stated or implied that he (Righi) could not leave until the receipt and bag were examined. If they had stood there and just called the cops and stopped him from leaving (after having a reasonable suspicion that he committed theft), I would have thought that Righi was just an ass and leave it at that. Now I think that CC mishandled the situation and may end up paying this jerk quite a lot of money.

(edited to clean up an awkwardly worded sentence.)

I'm with toad. We can put the vids together and make a new show called "To Catch a Circuit City Employee"

Let's not forget the end result of all of this........



HE DIDN'T STEAL ANYTHING. PERIOD.


All of the attempts to justify what CC (allegedly) did are irrelevant. He did nothing wrong. CC was WRONG to have suspected him of anything. He was in a fucking hurry and that's why he blew past security. That's why he had a car waiting at the front door. Regardless of what CC thought, he was innocent of any type of theft and they should be ashamed of themselves, and hopefully the employees involved have been fired.....probably to be hired by Best Buy.

Of course, we don't have all the facts and, of course, anything is possible. Heck, the kid COULD have been packing a semi-automatic weapon as he exited the store or maybe he was pulling a pallet full of unsold PS3s behind him. After all, ANYTHING is possible. But the fact is, we have been having a discussion based upon the facts as they have been posted on the kid's blog (and reasonable inferences therefrom). Sure, his account is one-sided, but until CC decides to put up its own "We Been Done Wrong" blog, what choice do we have?

It's a pretty fair inference (disclaimer: not fact) that the kid did not steal anything from CC. After all, he wasn't charged with theft, was he? Therefore, I would submit that prior to the receipt check CC had absolutely no reason to believe that he had stolen anything, for the simple reason that there had been no theft. Agreed? (And if you don't agree, based on what facts or logical inferences to the contrary?)

It is well-settled that lack of consent to a search is not, by itself, grounds for probable cause. You will just have to take my word for it, as it's the weekend and I can't be bothered to dig up the cites. Suffice it to say, that if this were not true, then each and every one of us would be subject to search at any time for any reason. Think about it.

So for CC to successfully invoke "shopkeeper's privilege," they are going to need something more than the kid's refusal to show his receipt (which is a search, however minimal and unintrusive it might be).

The only other pertinent fact of which I am aware (so far) is the so-called "getaway car." You know, the one with his father and kid sisters inside . If that is all CC has to hang its hat on, I'll take the kid and you can have CC.

Then again, CC has deeper pockets, so on second thought, I'll take CC and just learn to swallow the bitter taste of defeat . Cha ching....

That's not the point. Are you saying any detainment where the person ultimately is found to be innocent is unlawful?

No, just that a lot of people are giving CC the benefit of the doubt here as though it "could have been possible that the guy was stealing something" but the end result was that he didn't do anything wrong. It wasn't a case where the guy was able to get away and the turn around and sue, thereby never "proving" that he didn't do something wrong. We know that he didn't steal anything. And CC's attempts to detain him were wrong. That's all.

I think I agree with your post, though I would be interested in seeing the actual timeline of what happened. As I stated, given what we know I believe CC blew it by not calling the police once they detained Mr. Righi. (See my many posts above for my ongoing support of this statement). However, I would want to look at the totality of the situation (I mean, how long were they discussing this situation in the parking lot) to see whether or not, for purposes of the law, CC exceeded their ability to detain for a reasonable time (during which time they can most assurredly continue to request that Mr. Righi consent to a search - but not compel or force such a search).

If the events in the parking lot took less than 5 minutes, do I think CC exceeded the scope (probably not, though it would still be a fact determination). If it took 10 minutes, I would lean to the side of Mr. Righi.

Again, I think Mr. Righi "planned" the event to make a name for himself (read up a bit on Mr. Righi's past endeavors to make a public name for himself). To me, I think there are much more important areas in which civil liberties are in challenge. Creating a scene at the local CC or BBY is pretty low on my totem pole.