I don't know, I'm not them.

Nice answer :)

I'm sure someone will borrow it.

As much as people want it to be, this isn't a civil rights issue. That's incredibly absurd. It is NOT a big deal for you to take ten seconds out of your precious time for this. It astounds me how much people are blowing this out of proportion. It's NOT a big deal, it's not an invasion of privacy...it's a matter of common sense. But you have some people who want to turn it into a personal crusade.

Asking for a receipt is NOT an illegal search.

I agree. It's not a big deal to show your receipt at the door. Nor is it a big deal to say "No thanks" and keep walking. That's where the whole thing should have ended - as no big deal.

It becomes a big deal when the employees prevent you from leaving.

Having a receipt and a shopping bag is reasonable cause to believe somebody has commited a crime? Seems like having a receipt is reason enough to believe they DIDN'T commit a crime - they obviously made a purchase.

They just asked to see his receipt. That isn't illegal at all. Righy wasn't concerned about privacy or anything like that. Everything on that receipt is also stored in Circuit City's computers. Righy either just wanted some publicity or he was having a bad day and wanted to take it out on some minimum wage security guard. CC and the officer aren't blameless in this mess, but you said Righy was blameless, and he clearly isn't. Maybe he didn't break any laws, but he clearly acted with absolutely no common sense or decency.

Actually, I don't see where it says anyone stood in front of his car with their arms stretched out either. Your exaggerations and hyperbole are ludicrous and just hurt whatever point you are trying to make. This isn't the Gestapo. This isn't some slippery slope issue that is going to lead to home searches or cavity searches.

I was under the impression that the guy refused to show his bag or receipt, which thus raised suspicions.

Under the shopkeeper's privilege, if someone you reasonable suspect has stolen is leaving your store, you can attempt to stop them even outside the store (i.e., curb, parking lot).

I wasn't trying to be a dick. I just honestly don't know why they did or did not do things.


Have the police or Circuit City issued any statements about the incident?

I gotta say, it seems REAL odd that this kid is blogging about the incident, yet at his attorney's advice, will not provide interviews.

I agree with your reasoning 100%, and I would agree that checking people who are clearly holding receipts probably doesn't turn up a whole lot of thieves. However, I don't necessarily agree that the system is broken. The very presence of a loss prevention person can be enough to deter would-be thieves.

For example, at my local Target, there is always a uniformed guard hanging around the front of the store. At first glance, it doesn't appear that he's doing anything. And who knows... maybe in the course of a day he really doesn't do anything. But I bet the simple fact that he's present makes some people think twice about stealing.

The example you gave is very logical, but let's face it... most thieves aren't rocket scientists. Their thought process probably doesn't go much farther than "Uh oh, there's a security guy watching the door. I better try a different store instead."

Don't forget he had a car waiting right outside the door for him too. Entirely innocent, but from the POV of the guy at the door it would add to the suspicion.

Nor is it illegal to refuse.

I see people do this all the time at Fry's - just walk on past when asked to stop at das inspection point.

I've just never seen an employee stupid enough to chase him through the parking lot and form a human barricade in front of his car.

How do you figure he was trying to cause trouble or trying get attention? He said "no thanks" and walked out of the store. it's not his fault that the douchebag manager decided to play make-believe cop and arrest the bad guy.



"I reopened the door to talk with Joe and at this point Joe positioned his body between the open car door and myself. (I was still seated in the Buick.) Joe placed his left hand on the roof of the car and his right hand on the open car door."

...


"I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands."

...


"I was speaking to my father this morning about what unfolded yesterday, and he told me something that I was not aware of until this point. While I was speaking to Joe Atha from the back seat of the car, Santura stood in front of my father’s vehicle with his hands out to the side as a way of preventing him from driving forward. My father would not have been able to drive forward because Santura stood in the way, and he would not have been able to drive backwards because the open door would have hit Joe who was leaning into the car."



Reading is FUNdamental!

One side of the story.

Ah, that was on one of the last updates, which I didn't read; it wasn't in the main story. The point still stands though... 1) Righi isn't blameless at all and 2) This isn't a slippery slope issue.

If the story is indeed accurate, if they 'asked' to see the receipt, 'no' would have been an acceptable answer. But this was more of a "show me your reciept or else" scenario.

Like I said, CC isn't blameless in this, however their request to see the receipt was not illegal, nor was it an invasion of privacy or a slippery slope issue. Thus common sense and decency says the thing to do would be to take five seconds to show them the receipt, and then everyone could have moved on with their lives. But Righi chose to not do this, and thus he is not blameless either.

Righy is not legally bound to stop and show a store employee his receipt and let them search his property. He is well within his right to say "No" and walk out of the store. Asking to see the receipt and refusing to show his receipt is not the problem here. That's not the issue.

The issue is when the employees decided to chase him down and hold him hostage until he gave in to their demands. THAT is illegal. THAT is an invasion of privacy. THAT is a slippery slope.

When the police officer shows up and arrests you for not providing a drivers license. THAT is illegal. THAT is an invasion of privacy. THAT is a slippery slope.

Don't focus on the receipt - that is irrelevant.

Righy may not be "blameless" in the sense that he was mean and inconsiderate to poor little Santura, but that's it.

I never said that it was illegal for him to say no. I said that common sense and decency dictate that he should have showed it to them.

Also, at first they did not ask to search his property. Here is what they said, according to Righi: “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” That is it. No Gestapo, no cavity searches, no home searches; nothing but wanting to look at the receipt.

This guy will win $$ from CC.

For what?

Without a doubt wrongful imprisonment for being held in the parking lot. (he will could win damages for that against the Police Dept as well) If he can prove that the security guard acted in a way, which would cause a reasonable person to have an aprehension of imminent offensive contact, then he could make a case for assault as well. I am sure there are other civil statutes he can file a claim under, but am currently unaware of such.

I don't see him getting anything on false imprisonment or assault. Should be interesting to follow (if he ever actually sues; something tells me there's a lot more to this story).

What charges were brought against him by the police department?

This is an important factor in the consideration in my mind of whether the LP guy had any reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Guy is asked to show receipt for purchase, refuses and immediately moves past the LP guy to a vehicle waiting for him at the curb. In these circumstances, a belief that a shoplifting offense has occurred is not "unreasonable" in my mind.

Overall, I think CC and the police over-reacted to the whole situation. However, I think the customer was a real poser....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2089459,00.html
 

Not who. What.

Billions of pounds sterling are to be poured into the ill-conceived ID card project.

The projected costs have already rocketed and you can be certain that they will continue to rise. A coherent case has yet to be made for the system i.e. how is security improved, what other benefits are provided, who should pay etc etc.I am not against the idea of having to prove one's ID. I am very much against expensive, poorly-planned/researched schemes that won't do what they are supposed to do and are very likely to be "broken" before they even start.

I certainly believe that there is a problem with blind, unswaying obedience to authority. Where one decides to draw the line is a personal matter. If one has the law on one's side it seems peculiar that some will argue against the person for "being a smart-arse", or whatever. My understanding was that there was something of a tradition in what is now the USA when it came to what the people were willing to put up with when it came to perceived despotic behaviour, however benevolent ....

.... moving on, in place of a procedure that appears to be fairly pointless, maybe those stores apparently unable to secure their stock instead should implement a system whereby customers are given a ticket at the point of purchase and pick up their goods in a sealed bag at the exit. I won't comment upon the actions of the law enforcement official in this case. Doubtless lessons will be learned in some quarters and blithely ignored in others.Doubtless there is more to the story. Quite a lot of it is there in the blog.<i><blockquote>Shortly after being booked, fingerprints and all, Officer Arroyo presented me with my charges:

ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Not being able to find the law in the books that states that a citizen must provide a driver’s license while walking through a parking lot, Officer Arroyo had to settle for “obstructing official business.” Keep in mind that the official business that I was supposedly obstructing was business that I initiated by calling the police. I called for help and I got arrested.</blockquote></i>

He was intentionally restrained without legal authority through force or the threat of force (against his will) in a bounded area (parking lot by CC, then "custody" by police). Those are the basic universal (in regard to legal jurisdictions in the US) elements of the claim. I am pretty sure the facts if accepted as such presented by the person in his recounting of the events meet those elements.

Agreed, that the facts will have to be far more fleshed out to find an as strong basis for Assault, though.

I still don't see the false imprisonment thing. He wasn't restrained by force (or even the threat of force) in a bounded area. He was in a car that could've driven away.

I once again rely on the shopkeeper's privilege. Maybe I'm missing something.

He had one guy standing in front of his car, arms stretched out creating a barricade. He had another guy forcibly holding his door open. When he tried to close the door to his own car, the CC manager pushed back to keep the door open.

He would have had to drive through or over the employees creating a human barricade around his car. He did the right thing by calling the police. It's just a shame that the officer that showed up was a complete moron.

Aside from the fact that the car could back up and drive away, they weren't restaining him to his car. He could have gotten out of his car and walked away. There was no "bounded area" here.

I'll agree that if they touched him in any manner, then he has arguments there. If they got in his way while he was walking away so that he couldn't walk anywhere, he'd MAYBE have an argument there (it was outside, lots of places to go).

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if I did that to you.

Did what to me? Stood outside my car? Or stood in front of me while I try to walk outside a store in a public parking lot?

If someone stands in front of me while I try to walk, and won't let me go where I'm trying to go, I'll happily be on the receiving end of a civil suit for battery. But I won't be victorious with a false imprisonment suit.

If you got in your car and I came up and held the door open so you couldn't shut it (without touching you), you think thats perfectly legal and acceptable? Oh, yeah. I forgot. You'd just get out and walk. :lol:

Why in the world wouyld the guy get out of his car and leave it abandonded in a parking lot? Circuit City employees have the right to impound cars now as well?

It's his car - the employees had no right blocking him in or forcing his doors open.

Try a little experiment.

Go down to your local shopping mall. Find some random woman in the parking lot getting into her car. Stand behind her car with your arms stretched out, refusing to let her back out of the spot.

If she doesn't run you over, and asks what the problem is - open her car door and don't allow her to close it.

Then let her know you would like to see the contents of her purse.


Let me know how well that works out once the cops arrive. Certainly they will search the lady's purse, question her, demand identification from her and possibly arrest her if she doesn't cooperate fully.

Perfectly legal and acceptable? I don't know, haven't researched it. Maybe harassment; maybe negligent infliction of emotional distress (very doubtful). But it's not going to be false imprisonment. The door is open; I can walk out. You're not forcing me to stay in my car; you're not keeping me from leaving it.

Surely you aren't comparing a total stranger blocking in a random woman to security blocking someone who they thought stole something? Come on now.

ToddSm66 - your example is flawed for numerous reasons, including:

(1) In the instant situation, the kid's family was waiting outside the store. It wasn't a parking lot;

(2) The kid is not random;

(3) Keeping a door open is not restraining someone (i.e., keeping them from leaving); and

(4) The kid was asked to reveal the contents in the store, which he (rightfully or wrongfully) refused to do. He wasn't followed to his car and then asked.

Somehow I don't think the experiment would work.

Do Circuit City employees hold some kind of official authoritative position in society? Santura has the right to retstrain random strangers from leaving the parking lot, but a complete stranger doesn't have that right?

It's unacceptable regardless of whether it's a complete stranger or a Circuit City employee.

Does the half retarded guy working the front of the store have some special police training that gives them more rights than me? I dont think so.

The car was waiting outside of the store, but it wasn't in a parking lot? Where was it? Floating in mid air?

Sure he is - just a random person that happened to walk into the store, and made the mistake of purchasing an item.

It most certainly is. Creating a human barricade around a car and not allowing them to move is absolutely restraining somebody - but only if you go by the exact definition.

Yes, he was followed to his car and asked to show his receipt.

I can't keep these threads straight. Time to run.

Hopefully it all gets worked out in court (if the kid sues, in which case it'll likely settle anyway).

It'd be nice to see a judicial ruling elsewhere in the country regarding this very situation.

Santura didn't restrain a random stranger. Like I said, I think CC and Righi both screwed up, but your example is beyond ridiculous.

Beside being a radaculous example, your comparison misses on at least one key point (see bolded text). Mr. Poser was in his car and could have exited but HE opened his car door. Why? Either (A) the car window was broken and could not be rolled down to permit discussion with the person outside the car (:D) ; or (B) Mr. Poser was trying to provoke the situation and wanted to set the stage for claiming that his egress from the lot was obstructed!