Arrested at Circuit City
 

Totally off topic, but I felt it was a good read with rich information. *warning* very long article, but worth the read.

mods: if this is at all inappropriate, please remove thread and accept my apologies

Disclaimer: In no way am I affiliated with this guy, nor do I encourage for you to make donations on his website. I merely found this link on another forum that I visit and thought I'd share about one of our favorite retailers CC -biggrin-

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/...-circuit-city/

had no idea you could refuse to let them look at your bag and receipt when you leave.

What a prick... sounds more like someone who was just trying to make a point/get his 5 mins more than anything else. If they were asking to search private containers (a purse for example) there might be a point. Asking to see inside the bag you just got and show the receipt is no big deal and no huge infringement upon any civil liberty IMHO.

Liberty doesn't mean shit if we aren't free to exercise it. The guy is a patriot. Most of us sheep just submit because the consequences of standing up for ourselves aren't worth the hassle in the short term. But people like him who are willing to take on the hassle do us all a service by maintaining our freedom from encroachment.

And nemein, the bag is a private container - it was given to him at the checkout, its his and it's a container. What, you think shoplifters only use bags they get at the checkout to hide the stuff they are stealing?

In real life, you have to choose your battles carefully. In my opinion, this wasn't a battle worth fighting. This idiot went looking for trouble, and he found some. Congratulations, numbskull.

i use to work in loss prevention if we ever did this and it was not a shoplifter we could be sued civially and the company would be sued and the goign rate of a wrongful stop is 7500 bucks and loss of jobs for the l.p person. so i hope this guys hit c.c with a nice lawsuit and those 2 bozos lose there jobs for doing this.

Isn't the reason for checking the receipt to make sure that the cashier is honest?

Let's face it, if somebody were shoplifting something, they wouldn't put the stolen item in a bag at the cash register, they'd have it in their pants / coat / purse / wherever. Anyway, I agree with SkullOrchard in that you can't fight every battle and this wasn't a battle worth fighting.

That being said, here's how I see things turning out. The charge against him for not producing a drivers license will be dropped. His counter that the store unlawfully detained him will be ignored, and the store will "ban him for life" (probably chain wide).

Depends on how far CC wants to take this. The person is on CC property, even outside the store, so technically, CC has the right to search your belongings because you're on private property. If you made it to the sidewalk, which is a public domain, that's a different story, but we're getting into technical legal issues which a judge may or may not recognize in the overall case.

Sounds like to me the kid just wanted to escalate the situation. While I don't particularly have a fond likeness of store security, the kid played it out like he was shoplifting.

And now the kid has crossed the line into being a total dumbfuck idiot shitwad. He refuses to give a cop his ID, and is thus arrested.

I mean really. Grow up you dipshit.

What? I think this child has played way too much Wii. He needs to get a grip with reality and I hope the judge sentences him to 30 days in the local county jail.

Kids, this is exactly what NOT to do when you walk outside your parents' home and think you're the shit. You WILL get Pwned at every single instance, just like this idiot.

How is that the customer's problem?

Why do you two think that? Who are you to say what battles this guy should fight? It's his time and his money. A similar case regarding identification went all the way to the supreme court recently, was that too not a battle worth fighting? I really fail to understand how anyone could be in opposition to him unless, in those immortal words, "you hate our freedom."

Dude. It's fucking Circuit City. I think you can pick your battles at any other place. rotfl

I think the guy is a jackass, but he does have a case.

Not to give you a lesson in learning past the pre-pubescent stage of life, but when you buy something from a store? Yah, ok, well, when you buy something from that store, you don't have any civil rights associated with that receipt. If you do, please post them for us. That receipt you hold is a contract with that store. Ok? So, when you have that receipt, you acknowledge to abide by the store's rules, which include, searching the bag you just received from the store and verifying the purchases against the receipt.

Why is this such a big deal? Go protest the Iraq War or something and make a difference.

Why should someone be arrested for not showing their drivers license? What if they don't have one or forgot it at home?

As most of you should know, many factors go into what a police officer determines to do. If you're a complete ass, you will be treated as such. We have many a post on this subject in the Other Forum. If you are nice, the cop usually won't give you a problem.

Reading this guy's whining blog sounds like he's the type of guy who refuses to show his ID when he writes a check at a local retail store. He ties up the line, people end up waiting for the manager to come along, and the kid still thinks he's a POW and demands rights that he has no comprehension of.

This is the kind of kid who loves to create drama. Loves attention.

How do you figure that? Do they have the right to strip-search him? How about tie him to a pole What's the difference?

Actually, the truth is they don't have any such rights at all. Without reasonable suspicion (which in cases like this the courts have pretty much defined to mean an employee saw him pocket something and then attempt to walk out with it) they can't touch him. The most they can do is evict him.


Wow. Did you even read the same article I did?
The one where he cites Ohio state law that pretty explicitly says the police can not demand ID?

So, are you really saying that you think it is just fine and dandy for Americans to be required to show identity papers to any police officer who demands them? Especially a police officer who has just finished determining that no crime has been committed (the officer searched his bags, found nothing and then demanded a driver's license (he was a passenger not the driver). What has happened to this country where we have defeated the soviet union only to become like they were?

I think that everyone behaved poorly and let something escalate way beyond where it should have. These small towns and their police departments seem to side with the big box merchants because of all the revenue they generate that goes into the county's coffers. Lucky they didn't try to drive off because I bet the cops would have opened fire. Don't count on any help from the current Conservative judicial bias in the courts as they have been reducing our individual freedoms.

What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that once a contract has been completed - the customer has received the merchandise and the store has received consideration - that there is some other sort of contractual requirement? Like maybe forcing people to strip naked and dance in a circle? Or maybe just forcing them to wait for 30 minutes until they can leave the store? Do you really believe that anything the store wants is justified?

Here's a clue 'Polizei' - your are so far off in your understanding of this situation it's ridiculous. Here is a a list of the minimum steps necessary for a store employee to lawfully detain someone also known as "shopkeeper's privilege." The list is general enough to cover most state laws. You should be able to see that what Circuit City tried to do to this guy does not even come close to the legal requirements to detain him (and in this case the rest of his family who had not even entered the store).

You appear to be a strong authoritarian. To borrow a phrase I am almost certain you have used yourself in the past, "if you don't like it, why don't you move to china where that is the law."

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

You know, I really don't have the time to legally debate you, but I will say this. You guys are wrong, and need to do a little research before you start spewing statutes of states that you have no legal idea of.

(1) Was this kid on public or private property. Because the statute applies to a PUBLIC PLACE. If the kid was still on CC property, it is private, and the statute will not apply. From what the kid states, his father's car is parked right up against the CC front doors, so I will assume they are on private property.

(2) This statute says NOTHING about refusing to handover ID when requested by a police officer. Absolutely NOTHING.

(3) The kid only gave his NAME. He REFUSED to give his ADDRESS, and DOB by implying he was only going to give his name. So, right here as per his post, he violated the same statue he was quoting you and the rest of his viewers on his blog.

Can you reasonably think that only giving your NAME to a police officer is enough? Please.

(4) How can you verify person's name if you don't have any official document to compare it with. I saved this one for last. Just for you. So, I could say I'm Jesus Christ...and the police would have to believe me! :banana:

Don't ask that man for a receipt Mr. Circuit City! Why Mr. Policeman? Because he's Jesus Christ! How do I know? He said so! rotfl

Please don't tell me I know nothing about the law. I'm very familiar with it.

Take a clue? I have one for you:

2921.31 Obstructing official business.

(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 official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

And that's just doing a few minutes of research.

THINKING you know the law is one thing. Practicing it, is another, my friend.

Wow, indeed. Yes, we're becoming the Soviet Union. :lol:

And by the way, I just purchased my Spawn Steelbook collection today at Best Buy. I was asked to show my receipt at the door. You know what I did? I showed them a receipt and I was outta there in a few seconds. :eek: Oh my goodness. The Soviet State we're becoming! http://otto.forotech.com/runaway.gif

Are Door Bag Searches Legal?

Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details

A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who refused to comply with the voluntary search

from that site so i think this guy has a super case here

A store is a public place. Plus it was in the parking lot. Do you park against doors? :lol:

Yeah, no shit. Because you do not have to show them your ID. It says that you cannot refuse to disclose your name, address, or date of birth. The guy was perfectly willing to disclose this information.



This just isnt true.

I guess you ignored my earlier post. What if you don't have an ID or a license? What if you left it at home?

What did this guy do to obsruct justice? :confused:

Well, I just did a little more digging.

COA, Knox County, OH, Fifth Appellate District (of Ohio in case you're wondering) decided a case this year which would make this boy re-think his legal claims. I'll let you legal minds find the case since y'all know much more than I do. :)

I suspect the kid is going to be fined. Which is a shame, and I hope he gets more and is made an example of. Whether or not the CC employees acted wrong is anyone's guess and we all know darn well CC could fire them, regardless if the employees were in the right.

I didn't ignore it. I fail to see why you even bring up the subject. Why? Because this was not the kid's explanation. He argued he didn't NEED TO SHOW ID. Big difference than "Oh crap, officer, I left it at home." :)

We can debate public places all day and night, so whatever. It depends on the judge's interpretation, and I'm sorry I confused you as I shouldn't have brought it up.

If I'm jogging and a cop stops me. I say hey I'm jogging and I just don't have my ID, officer. However, I can tell you my social and driver's license number, along with my DOB and address. The officer won't give me any problems. Like I said, it all has to do with the collection of factors, and the officer makes a judgment on those factors. If you're acting like a punk throughout the entire period, you will be denied the simple pleasures that most of us law abiding people experience. :)

Why do you believe being on private property increases the information a police officer can require?
The statue does not distinguish between public and private property,
what it does is define the limits of a police officer's authority regardless of location.
What part of beyond as in "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." do you fail to understand?
From the blog: "I stated my name to the police officer, and if he had asked me for my address and date of birth I would have provided that as well." To you that means "refused?" That cop has to at least ASK for something before he can expect to get it.
So what? If he thinks the guy is lying, that's reasonable suspicion to arrest him because lying to a police officer is at least a misdemeanor.YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LAW.
Yeah, GREAT CITATION - that's what he was finally charged with. It won't stick -- I bolded the relevant parts. You see, the key here is that demanding id was not an authorized act and in fact exceeded his official capacity and thus was not a lawful duty.

And on your way to your car, did a police officer stop you and demand your identity papers? No? Too bad, since you seem to think that's perfectly fine in a free country, you missed your chance to demonstrate what a good little collaborator you are.

Feel free to join the resistance and thwart the evil forces at Circuit City. :up:

Lol! Guess what, I just found 3 SCOTUS rulings in the last decade which would make the police and circuit city re-think their legal claims. I'll let you find the cases since you are "very familiar" with the law. What a funny joke you make!

If the best you can do is little kid taunts no wonder you are so ignorant of the law.