Problem is that most of the cases cited would and are for LEO. I think there would likely be a slightly different standard for a private citizen. One reason why it is traditionally held that the refusal to consent to a voluntary search cannot, in and of itself, constitute probable cause for arrest is the sense of compulsion generated by the fact that such "requests" from LEO carry with them the underlying power of command from the state. Where that is lacking, could the refusal to permit a limited "search" when combined with oher circumstances give rise to probable cause to detain, I think it might. I'd love to see a case on this point.

I would also love to see a case on whether the request to see a receipt evidencing proof of a private sale is a search. I do not know if there is enough of a privacy interest in the receipt itself to constitute a "search" by the vendor (to confirm purchase prior to exiting the shop). Obviously, as to a third party greater privacy rights might exist, but as the receipt is evidence of the contractual relationship authorizing the removal of the goods from the premises, I think as between the vendor and the purchaser very little "privacy" has attached at that moment.

The case law on this is clear (though again as applied mostly between LEO arrests). It does not matter what the end result was as to the particular individual detained. It does not matter what was in the subjective mind of the detaining party. What matters are the objective "facts" then in the awareness of the detaining party as gauged against a reasonable person standard. (In layman's terms) Given the apparant "facts" and "circumstances" known to the detaining party at the time of detention, would a reasonable person have believed that there was more likelihood than not that illicit activity had occured?

The Ohio statute in question uses the term "probable cause" as the test for whether or not a shopkeeper may detain. If the Ohio legislature had intended a lesser standard to apply (e.g. "reasonable suspicion") in order to account for the "civilian" nature of store security, they could have done so but they did not. Therefore, CC should be held to the same standard as the police in this situation.

Yes, that is ONE of the reasons underlying the rule, but the overarching logical principle is that without this rule, everyone would be subject to compulsory search at the whim of any police officer or, in this case, a store security guard authorized by statute to search you upon probable cause. There you are walking down the street, an officer asks to see what is in your pockets and you refuse. Bam! The officer now has probable cause to search you because you refused his search request. After all, you MUST be hiding something, right?

Good luck on finding an appellate case on this issue in a civil context. Who is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars pursuing such an appeal? Heck, maybe Righi . Anyway, under the terms of the policy manual that CC surely maintains it is clearly a search since that manual (and I have seen a few) undoubtedly directs the door checker to check the receipt against any items the customer is carrying on his person or in a bag. That same manual will also state that the door checker may only REQUEST to check a customer's receipt, not demand to it or otherwise attempt to coerce the customer into compliance.

That said, apparently a Case Western professor, the Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio Director of the ACLU all agree that CC stepped over the line in this case. Heck, the ACLU guy even agrees with Toad's "store policy trumps customer's rights" argument .

Link here: Cleveland Plain Dealer

I understand that, I was just meaning to re-introduce the fact that in the end he had done nothing wrong.

so can Regal theatres do this? I know that at the Rockville theatre the ticket taker asks to inspect my back pack, I oblige, I have nothing to hide.

Yes, a business can require your consent to a search as a condition to entry on its private property. If you don't consent, you don't get in, simple.

I'm confused. A business can require your consent as a condition of entry but not exit? Or is the problem that CC never warned people before they entered the store that they would search you on the way out?

A business can require your consent as a condition of entry but not exit. Correct.

I would think that when entering it is still vountary ; as you don't have to allow the to search, you just won't be allowed in. it's different when you are exiting because if you refuse they cannot hold you indefinetely until you consent.

So much for principles.

Charges Dropped, Righi Agrees Not To Sue Police

I wonder if he will be refunding those PayPal donations...

If it was another person caught up in it through a series of unfortunate events, I would commend this result, but after having been persuaded by Righi's "standing up for the principle of it" actions, this turns my stomach to see it result in the total opposite of his soapbox speech.

At least it seems this only resolves the criminal charges against him by the police, and CC isn't necessary out of his mind yet. I always felt he got in too deep by getting into two completely different battles within a few minutes of each other, I'm hoping he's just cutting one of them loose.

He finally came to his senses...or his family made him so do. Good.

His most recent post from his site:

Scheduled Hearing Tomorrow is Cancelled
September 19th, 2007

"I have been contacted by a number of people who indicated that they are planning on attending my hearing which was originally scheduled for tomorrow, September 20th 2007 in Brooklyn, Ohio Mayors court. I just received confirmation a few minutes ago that there will be no hearing tomorrow. I am very appreciative of the people that wanted to be there, and I’m very sorry for the last minute notice. Please do not show up at the municipal building as I will not be there. I’m sorry to be brief in my posting but I can’t say much more at the moment. I will provide more information at a later time."

-Michael

If you read the comments somebody posted an article that says the misdemeanor (sp?) charges were dropped & he had to say the police officer did nothing wrong. It doesn't say that he is not still pursuing CC, though, just it looks like any charge against the city police is not gonna happen.

His case against the police was much, much stronger than any case he might want to bring against CC. I don't see him pursuing CC at all, primarily because he appears to have little in the way of damages and, with this settlement of the criminal charge, he has shown that he is not as interested in fighting for his principles as he led us to believe.

Oh, I don't think that's necessarily the case. It costs alot of money to sue police departments. Thousands & thousands. I was watching CNN early this morning & they were talking about people bringing suit against police & why they almost never make it past the idea stage & even when they do proceed it doesn't go very far because of how much it costs. It's really prohibitive & the judicial system would nearly collapse from the backlog of all the charges that could be brought against police because of how they routinely mishandle things. So, unfortunately, even if people do have a valid case it is simply cost prohibitive & the courts also don't want a backlog of these cases, of which there could be many, so they really discourage it. Ideally he would stick to his guns, but it just doesn't make sense to do so for many people when all things are considered.

"I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver’s license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused." (from his blog)

I guess time to take back some of these words. I think his overzealous behavior has also hurt his case against CC. It sounds like he pressed charges against the CC manager for preventing him from leaving. However, since the police officer at the scene didn't acknowledge that CC did anything wrong, and he is saying the police officer handled the situation correctly, is he in a roundabout way, saying that his claim against CC is not very valid?

I was speaking to the merits of each case, not to their relative cost-effectiveness. The case against the police was a virtual slam dunk IF the facts were as Righi described them. CC has deep pockets to defend against lawsuits as well, so theoretically it would be just as expensive to sue them. However, my experience has been that cities and police departments put up a much fiercer fight that do wealthy, private companies. Maybe that is a factor that entered into Righi's decision to drop any possible action against the police.

Yes, I am a bit bemused by his seemingly rapid retreat from those treasured principles, although I think he probably made the right decision. I don't think his "endorsement" of the police officer would have any effect on a case against CC since CC didn't call the police in the first place, nor did CC effect a citizen's arrest. His case against CC would be based solely on the conduct of the receipt checker and his manager in detaining Righi and his family.

The most disappointing thing is that a bad cop that doesn't know the law was protected by his own (as usual) and allowed to keep his job.

The police are given a lot of latitude, for better or worse, in their attempt to uphold and apply the law. It seems to me that the great majority of police brutality cases that reach a jury of our "peers", including examples that would appear to be a perfect slam dunk conviction, end up with the jury finding the officer(s) innocent.
So I think this guy finally came to his senses: he wasn't physically abused and he seems to accept some of the blame by his willingness to "settle" the charges.

He updated & said the article was wrong, that he did not admit that the police officer did nothing wrong. Here's his post :


Success
September 20th, 2007
I am proud to announce that the baseless charges brought against me by the Brooklyn, Ohio Police Department were dropped this morning and the process of expunging my record has begun. Although I knew that this was a possible outcome for the last ten days, I didn’t acquire the certainty until late yesterday afternoon. I was not at liberty to make this announcement yesterday since the process had not formally been completed.

This brings to a formal conclusion my criminal defense which began when I was arrested on September 1st, 2007 at a Circuit City for refusing to provide a police officer with my driver’s license. The fact that my charges were dropped reaffirms the assertion which I’ve made since the beginning: US citizens are not and should not be required to provide paper identification when asked by law enforcement, in most circumstances. In Ohio this right is specifically protected by Ohio Revised Code 2921.29 which states that a person may not be arrested for refusing to provide a law enforcement officer with anything other than a verbal representation of their name, address and date of birth. In other words, if you are walking along a sidewalk and a police officer has reason to question you, you must verbally state your name, address and date of birth, but you can’t be arrested for refusing to show your driver’s license. (Or for that matter your fishing license, marriage license, liquor license, etc.)

Ten days ago I had a decision to make. I was presented with an offer to have my charges dropped in exchange for signing a document which asked the following of me:

I would not file a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on my civil rights.
I would not make any disparaging remarks about the police department, with financial repercussions for doing so.
I would not discuss the details of this agreement.
These conditions were completely unacceptable to me. I wanted to fight the charges in court and I wanted to win based on the merits of my case. I felt that it was important to set a legal precedent that would help others in the future. Although I was never interested in suing the police department, signing such a document went against my principles and against the very reasons I decided to take a stand in the first place. I was mad to say the least.

In the days that followed a few things changed. First, I learned that the prosecutor was more interested in protecting the city against a civil law suit than she was in silencing my speech. Prosecutor Hillary Goldberg was willing to drop my charges and expunge my record if I promised not to sue. Although this was welcome news I still wanted to fight the charges in court in order to set a legal precedent for others.

Then, I learned that Ohio already had two legal precedents that dealt with the very issue of whether or not refusing to provide a driver’s license is grounds for obstructing official business. (Google “State v. McCrone” and “Middletown v. Hollon” for more details.) The legal precedent created by a court victory would not have filled a needed legal gap.

At this point I was stuck between two choices. Behind Door #1 was an eight to twelve month legal battle, three or more separate hearings including a jury trial, potential legal fees in the dozens of thousands of dollars and a lot of duress for my best witnesses: my family. Behind Door #2 was the immediate drop of the matter in exchange for giving up the right to seek civil damages against the police department.

At 2:00am one night I received a phone call from a family member which sealed the deal. For personal matters I can’t divulge who called or what was said, but I’ll simply state that a loved one told me something on the phone which left me with no choice. My family had become too entangled in my mess and I couldn’t put them through a lengthy and stressful legal process. My principles are important to me, but so is my family. Based on what I was told over the phone I immediately knew that I couldn’t put my family through a drawn out legal ordeal. On top of the emotional strain it was putting on my family, it would have forced my Sister to fly out from California on one or two occasions, and it would have forced my Father to cancel scheduled business trips to Europe. My family was caught in the crossfire.

I took a stand against Circuit City when I refused to show my receipt. I took a stand against Officer Arroyo when I refused to show my driver’s license. I wanted to take a stand against Prosecutor Goldberg in court, but it just wasn’t meant to be. In the end I forfeited my right to sue the police department in exchange for the matter being dropped. Considering that I never intended to sue the police department in the first place, this was a concession that I felt comfortable with.

Although he won’t publicly admit it, I’m sure that Officer Arroyo knows he made a mistake. For the record, I do not believe that Officer Arroyo is a bad person, and other than my arrest I have no reason to believe that he is a bad police officer. I think that Officer Arroyo was embarrassed and insulted when I refused to obey his unlawful command, and I think that he was not familiar enough with Ohio State law. Hopefully this incident will make him more knowledgeable about the law and more understanding of others in the future who choose to assert their rights. I think the same is true for Prosecutor Goldberg. She’s a smart woman who knows the law, and she clearly realizes that she had no case against me. However, her back was put against the wall by all of the media attention which the case received and I suspect that she felt that she had no choice but to either push forward with the charges or seek protection against a civil suit.

I wanted a verbal apology from the police department but quickly learned that this would never happen. Fortunately actions speak louder than words. Dropping my charges and expunging my record is perhaps the best form of an apology that I could receive, and it’s the apology that I’ve chosen to accept.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on my agreement with the prosecutor in today’s issue. When I read their take on what happened I was outraged. Michael Sangiacomo of the Plain Dealer claimed that I “agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting [me] after [I] refused to show [my] driver’s license.” This is an outright lie. I never said such a thing and would never say such a thing. In fact, I’ve never even spoken with Michael Sangiacomo. He emailed me looking for a quote and I referred him to my attorney. As far as I know Michael Sangiacomo hasn’t even seen the release that I signed with the prosecutor. I consider the outcome of my legal battle to be a victory, yet today’s paper portrays it as defeat.

Understandably I received a lot of hate mail today from people who read the Cleveland Plain Dealer article and were horrified to see that I “caved” under pressure. If I was a third party to the situation I think I would have given Michael Righi a piece of my mind as well.

The article is wholly unfair, and a complete misrepresentation of the release that I signed with the prosecutor. I uploaded a PDF version of the release and I encourage you to read it and decide for yourself. Although the police department did not admit guilt in the release, nowhere in it did I claim that they were justified in their actions.

Finally, I would like to address the donations which I accepted over the past few weeks. I received a total of $5,197.23 USD after PayPal expenses. I’m still a little unsure of what my total legal fees will be, but I expect that they will be in the $7,500-$10,000 range. (I’ve already paid $7,500 to one attorney, and I’m waiting for a bill from a second attorney for related legal assistance.)

I am extremely grateful to the people that donated money. The donations represented more than just money to me. They represented emotional support in a time when it was much needed, and I’d like to thank everybody again who donated. The smallest single donation was 1 penny (a symbolic gesture), and the largest single donation was $200. Every contribution made was a pat on the back and it really helped me get through a tough couple of weeks.

That said, I have received a lot of flak over the money. Some people have accused me, an “upper middle class 26 year old”, of asking for money in the first place. Some people have gone as far as to accuse me outright of running a scam. I agreed to accept donations via PayPal because a number of people emailed me wanting to know how they could help, and I wanted to give them an easy way in which they could make themselves involved. I said from the beginning that I would donate any excess money to the ACLU. As it turned out my legal expenses were at least $2,000 more than the money donated.

In the end, I have decided to donate the entire $5,197.23 to the ACLU of Ohio.

I am doing this for a few reasons. First, I would like to end the question of my intentions once and for all. This has never been about money or attention. I stood up for my rights because they are important to me and for no other reason. Second, even if my legal fees rise to $10,000 I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I can afford this. Although it’s unjust that anybody should have to pay a dime to exert their constitutional rights, $10,000 is still a small price to pay compared to what others have sacrificed in the past and are sacrificing today. Finally, I want to do something to help prevent injustices from happening against others in the future. Although I don’t support the ACLU in all of its endeavors, I do believe that they are the best organization fighting for civil rights in the United States today. Even though the ACLU wasn’t able to help me with my ordeal, I hope that the money I send them will allow them to help others in the future.

I’ve learned more in the last three weeks than I have in the last three years. This post has only just begun to scratch the surface of what unfolded since September 1st, 2007. I have funny stories, sad stories and outright infuriating stories from the last few weeks which I hope to eventually tell you more about. Until then, thanks for your support.

-Michael

I dunno, I'm still scratching my head over the $10k in fees he claims to have incurred for a completely defensible misdemeanor charge that never saw a court hearing. That just doesn't ring true to me.

"My principles are important to me, but so is my family."

Apparently, they weren't that important when he decided to make the big scene at Circuit City and with the police officer who subsequently arrived.

Then, I learned that Ohio already had two legal precedents that dealt with the very issue of whether or not refusing to provide a driver’s license is grounds for obstructing official business. (Google “State v. McCrone” and “Middletown v. Hollon” for more details.) The legal precedent created by a court victory would not have filled a needed legal gap.

I think it's interesting he now decides he doesn't need to fight because there are already two previous precedents. A simple search on the net would've told him that before he even went on his legal martyrdom.

It's certainly in the best interest of the city to offer such a deal because it costs a lot of money to keep cases like this moving on. However, it seems like Michael sincerely thought there was a legal wrong, at least at first, but why he didn't proceed further, is quite interesting.

I mean, seriously. He's given an order to:

1) Not file a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on my civil rights.

2) Not make any disparaging remarks about the police department, with financial repercussions for doing so.

3) Not discuss the details of this agreement.

So, it appears Michael has changed quite a bit. Seems to me being told to do those three things would make me even more angry. For a kid who hates authority he sure is bending over now. This just shows he was faced with legal problems for his actions, and he decided to take the route virtually everyone takes.

It seems to me Michael is not concerned so much about a Citizen's Rights, but more about saving his own skin.