Yes, he did. Standing in front of a person's car and refusing to let them drive away is restraining a random stranger. The fact that he happened to be holding a receipt as he walked out of the store is not probable cause to believe he was a thief. The fact that he made a purchase in the store doesn't give the store the ability to violate his civil liberties.

Walking up to somebody in a parking lot and doing the exact same thing that Santura did will land your ass in jail. That's exactly where Santura should have been. However the cop completely ignored him, and decided to search and focus only on the victim.

...and when he tried to close his door - what happened?


Like I said, feel free to try the exact same thing yourself. Tell the cops that she could have gotten out and walked away from her car at anytime. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that.

Righi was obviously not randomly picked out. Stop with the moronic comparison to a random woman in a parking lot. CC and Righi both screwed up, but your comparison is beyond stupid.

According to the sole source of information, the move was resisted by the CC employee. Here's the problem though. By voluntarily opening the car door (instead of rolling down the window), Mr. Righi created a situation in which the only reasonable manner to converse with him was for the CC manager to stand between the door and car frame. Do we know how clear and convincing the CC manager's actions in preventing closure of the door were? No. Mr. Righi may have pulled on the door and hit the CC manager a few times in the rear. Likewise, we only have Mr. Righi's word that he specifically asked that he be permitted to leave and was physically restrained. There is a reason you take testimony from both sides.

After reading up on Mr. Righi a bit, it sounds like he is out to make a big NAME for himself in the world. It would not surprise me that all his actions were INTENTIONAL to create this situation and create a platform for his need for public attention.

The only more ridiculous than comparing it to stopping a random woman is Righi comparing himself with Rosa Parks.

So you believe it wasn't just a random search - but the store had probable cause to believe he stole something. What was that probable cause? The fact that he had a receipt and a bag?

I don't know about this "probably cause" thing (it was Circuit City, not the police), but ToddSm66, in Georgia here's the gig:

"Shoplifting” detentions are privileged in GA. For the protection to apply, two conditions must be satisfied:
a. The accused shoplifter must have behaved in such a manner as to cause a reasonable person to believe that the accused was committing the offense; and
b. The manner of detention and the length of time must have been reasonable under the circumstances.

If Ohio has similar laws, then Circuit City will argue the kid behaved in such a manner as to cause a reasonable person to believe he committed the offense when he refused to produce the receipt and/or items he purchased. They'll look at the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that he had a car waiting just outside the doors (not parked in a parking space; waiting at the curb).

I can see both sides here, but I think Circuit City is right. What's amazing to me is that some people cannot (or simply refuse) to see both sides here.

If I go to your house, knock on the door and you open it - can I put my foot in the doorway so that you cannot close the door? You shouldn't have opened it in the first place - you caused the situation.

I don't care if it's all intentional or not. He may be the world's biggest attention whore. Maybe he only went through with it because he saw a big lawsuit and payday at the end. He was still in the right and has the law backing him up.

Circuit City escalated the situation. As soon as he walked out the door, it should have been over and done with.

What "law" is that?

Don't put words in my mouth. I already said a few dozen times that I think both CC and Righi did things wrong. I simply said Righi was not picked at random out of a parking lot. Security wasn't just walking around the parking lot looking for random people to detain and happen to pick Righi.

Your ridiculous comparisons ruin any point you are trying to make. No one will take you seriously if you keep making ludicrous statements like these.

I know, right? How dare I try to compare somebody forcing open the door to somebody's private property with somebody forcing open the door to somebody's private property.

That was just WAY out there in left field.

And searching every random person that happens to walk through the door is somehow better, why?

Why?

The part that is out there in left field is the random stranger vs Righi part. Righi was not detained at random.

What are your objections?

Maybe when Santuro asks to see my receipt, I should ask to see his employee badge, a photo ID and a major credit card in order to confirm his identity as an employee. For all I know, he's just some schmuck in a red shirt that likes to dig through people's stuff. Naturally, he doesn't have to provide all that - but common sense says it would be the decent thing to do rather than cause a big scene. It's not illegal to ask.

Sure he was. He was detained because he made a purchase at a store and then left the store. He was just a random customer that was detained illegally.

:lol:

Wow... Some people :rolleyes:

There are 2 issues here, separate from each other.
1. The Guy and the CC people. The guy(even though the whole situation could have been avoided if he just went along with it) did nothing illegal. It is the job of CC to prove the guy did steal something, not the guy's responsibility to prove he didn't. Innocent until proven guilty anyone? It might have raised suspicions by not doing so, which CC could have followed up on by reviewing their surveillance to see if the guy did anything. If so, then they can follow up with a call to the police.
Instead they decided to police the situation themselves, not only chasing the customer outside the building, but detaining them against their will. (Having one guy standing in front of a vehicle and another inside an open door prevents the driver from going either forward or backwards without hitting one of the two people blocking the car, thus detaining him.)

2. The guy's interaction with a police officer. The guy(since he was the one that made the call) should have been more willing to assist the officer with his complaint. Wether or not the officer legally had the right to arrest him cause he wouldnt show his driver's licence is still up in the air.

---
As for the dialing 911 complaints. He is from pittsburg, and was visiting cleveland. I dont know about you, but i dont have the habit of looking up the local police number before going on a trip. I dont assume that i'll need it. (The 311 is new to me and appears to be experimental? Is this available in Cleveland and Pittsburg? I wouldnt have known to use it.) If I was needing the police right now, I'm not going to go look up the number(either by phone book or 411) to make the call. I'm going to call 911.

You made a claim without any supporting evidence. Back it up -- tell me why it's common decency to stop and let a store employee search your bag.

They didn't ask to search his bag at first. According to him, they only asked to see his receipt.

Everything listed on that receipt is already stored in the Circuit City computers. They could even print off another copy of the receipt if they really wanted. There is nothing private at all about what is on the receipt. So instead of making life difficult for some poor schmuck making minimum wage and instead of wasting a lot of my time, I'll just take the five seconds to show him my receipt. Common sense and courtesy.

For non emergencies you're better off calling the operator and having them patch you through. Remember every minute you spend w/ a 911 operator is a minute taken away from someone w/ a real life threatening emergency.

You have been playing amateur lawyer here for 3 pages, so how about using a little logic? What value is there in looking at his receipt without comparing its contents with those of the bag? Have you ever actually gone through a security stop at a store? The purpose of the receipt check is to check the contents of the bag.

What Todd has been arguing here is black letter law. First, refusing a search is NEVER grounds for probable cause. Otherwise, you are stuck in an endless loop of circular logic (someone is suspicious for refusing a search, for which suspicion must be present in order for justification).

Probable cause for theft always involves seeing a person conceal merchandise and then walk past the last point of sale without paying. If you don't see that person conceal merchandise, then you do not have probable cause for detention. If you do have probable cause for detention, your responsibility as a merchant is to call the police.

There are so many red herrings in this thread that it's disgusting. People speak of Circuit City policy as if it has any legal standing whatsoever. Others argue that standing in front of a person's car is not a form of detention. These claims are so laughable on their fact that I can't believe any reasonable person is making them. I think this has to do with a form of misunderstanding of the goals of U.S. law. U.S. law is prohibitive in nature - that is, laws are written to prohibit certain actions and not grant rights.

In this case, we assume that we as U.S. citizens have the free and legal authority to move about without fear of detention by a third party. This holds true of every part of our daily lives, with some exceptions as outlined by the law. We can only be detained if certain very specific criteria are met - the biggest being probable cause of commission of a crime. Failure to allow myself to be detained (for any reason) is never grounds for probable cause. It is not possible cause. It's probable cause. The standard of proof for probable cause is having more evidence for the commission of a crime than against. Since there was no evidence here that a crime was committed (eyewitness, video tape, anything), by definition there is no probable cause.

If you dont like the rules, then dont shop there. How hard is that?