Man Arrested by Circuit City....is Chairboy still posting?

[sluggish]

Funny how you have to have a picture ID to walk down the street but you don't need one to vote...

I find it very eye opening the amount of people (probably mostly cops) who think it's perfectly fine to presume everyone guilty and force them to prove their innocence.  I'm sure their argument is that the guy's refusal to present his receipt indicated guilt...  

I have always stopped for receipt checkers in the past but I think I will stop now.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Engine
Mav, do you know if a citizen is required to show you ID, or can he just give you name, address, DOB, etc verbally?

This was in the paragraph just above what you quoted from my post.

"As far as failure to ID to a Police Officer is concerned. You are required to provide sufficient information to establish your identification. That means a picture ID with name, DOB, address etc. on it or to verbally provide that info. If this guy merely provided his name he didn't comply with the requirement. In that case the arrest will likely stand if the prosecutor doesn't drop it because they don't want to deal with it. All the Officer had at this point was a possible shoplifting, depending on what the store personnel told him. "

Once again keep in mind that there has only been one side of the story told here and there has been no confirmation that the event ever took place.

[Chairboy]

Hi guys!  Sorry about the late show, I was working.

Rights not exercised don't exist.  The store is within their rights to ask for the receipt, sure, but the customer is within his rights to not show it too.

The guards physically detained him without accusing him of shoplifting, which is illegal.  The police officer failed at his job when he disregarded the legit complaint the citizen made against the store, which is unfortunate.  Hopefully this will result in an educational effort in the police department so this doesn't happen again.

The folks on the thread who are tripping over themselves to criticize his exercise of his rights sadden me.  The "just show 'em the receipt and let them search you" sentiment is essentially the same as the "if you're not doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide?"  It's disheartening.

CostCo is different, btw.  The people shopping there signed membership agreements that said they have to let them check the bag.  Wifey and I ignore them half the time, but don't really fight 'em because we did sign the agreement, so meh.  But this guy signed no such agreement with Circuit City.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A citizen's arrest is a formal arrest by a citizen has no official government authority to make such an arrest as an agent of the government. The California Penal Code gives any citizen the right to make a citizen's arrest of another citizen in three alternative situations

I think none of situations would apply in that particular case (in California).

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A public offense was committed or attempted in the citizen's presence.

Didn't happen

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the citizen's presence.

Shoplifting = petty teft = misdemeanor (unless value of merchandise exceeds $400)

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A felony has been in fact committed and the citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested has committed it.

The felony was not committed nor there was reasonable cause.

[Chairboy]

The guy didn't shoplift, so there was no offense.  And he was not accused of shoplifting.  That's the problem here, they just wanted to strong arm him into showing his receipt.  If there's no accusation of a crime, then there's no reason to detain a person.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
I think none of situations would apply in that particular case (in California).

Didn't happen

Shoplifting = petty teft = misdemeanor (unless value of merchandise exceeds $400)

The felony was not committed nor there was reasonable cause.

Circuit city.... < 400? maybe... maybe not.  Pretty easy to exceed 400 at CC.

My basic point is that this is not a constitutional case, but stores do have the right to police their inventory, just as you have the right to catch the kid that just stole the lawn gnome from your front yard.

Shoplifting does not occur (in my state) until the shoplifter gets outside the door.  Stores routinely catch shoplifters just outside the premises.  

Looking in your shopping bag as you exit the store is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, as the clerk just put stuff in the bag a few moments ago.  The store has the right to ask you to open that big coat you are wearing.  (you also have the right to sue them if they do so improperly)  A cavity search, however, crosses the line.

[C(Sea)Bass]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Circuit city.... < 400? maybe... maybe not.  Pretty easy to exceed 400 at CC.

My basic point is that this is not a constitutional case, but stores do have the right to police their inventory, just as you have the right to catch the kid that just stole the lawn gnome from your front yard.

Shoplifting does not occur (in my state) until the shoplifter gets outside the door.  Stores routinely catch shoplifters just outside the premises.  

Looking in your shopping bag as you exit the store is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, as the clerk just put stuff in the bag a few moments ago.  The store has the right to ask you to open that big coat you are wearing.  (you also have the right to sue them if they do so improperly)  A cavity search, however, crosses the line.

"Dig deeper, I Know there is a TV in there!"

[DoctorYO]

This guy just won the lottery.....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html  or google supreme court ID law

Stevens adds, "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about a person particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases."

Clearly says provide name only....

I would really put Circuit City / Town / PD in a pickle...   settle out of court to these demands or else...

City / Govt

#1 DA must:

Place charges for Menacing / false arrest - kidnapping charges vs the CC employees (did they explain their gestapo policy when entering the store...  yes or no..  we know the answer is no...)  Unlike a airport or nightclub or sporting event there is no waiving of rights by entering a store unless clearly published. like one poster said it was part of the cotsco agreement etc.  On your sports tickets it clearly states their policies.

#2 city must pay a sum of this amount...  (any amount that is much less than the cost of litigation, civil suits combined...I would start at 10k token settlement from the city.)(the real bucks will come from the Circuit City)

#3 a full written apology from the city..  the arresting officer, mayor, chief of police etc...  including full page ad in the paper stating this...

#4 letter of reprimand for arresting officer for his lackluster understanding of the constitution of the united states to include recent rulings on that topic.  If not you condone his actions and thats gross negligence, and well sue for that on top of the false imprisonment etc..

#5  training policies that this injustice does not repeat itself.

5 to 1 the city will take your generous offer..  

Now the civil vs Circuit city...  Just sue the crap out of them...they are clearly wrong.. with egress detainment, hands on your property, menacing etc..

No mercy Cobra KI dojo, sweep the leg Johnny.....  $100,000 or more I'm thinking at least...  kidnapping / false arrest is no joke... big teeth in the civil circuit.  Freaking duress to the Family whole nine yards..

See you must maintain that you dont want some get quick rich scheme with the city offering them a out by doing the right thing and taking a small monetary penalty. (if they dont take it becomes political point for waste - gross negligence or both and they dont want that liability)  Be shure to let all of your city's people know your offer at the next town hall meeting, county etc..  then you got public record of it... and your offer included...  Follow up with Certified to all parties..  Carbon copy to the state AG / State Gov. (then they got to react..  and they will) (politics, politics)

Represent yourself Pro Se (this is clear cut case) then you keep the legal costs too...  If necessary put the little crying kiddies on the stand..  Civil juries really like that crap...  double penalty anyone?  


this guy satisfied his obligations of citizenship by stating his name..  case closed...


DoctorYo



PS good post topic......  know your rights...

[G0ALY]

All the Supreme Court did in that case was uphold Nevada law. Did all of this happen in Nevada?

[Mickey1992]

Originally posted by DoctorYO
this guy satisfied his obligations of citizenship by stating his name..  case closed...

This didn't happen in Nevada.  It happened in Ohio.  In Ohio you must provide name, address, and DOB.

[DoctorYO]

Ohio outranks the supreme court... and the Constitution of the United States..

news to me...  


Keep digging....


The Original case was 4th  protections, do they apply to officer demanding identification.

The supreme court in a 5-4 rulings said yes you must State your name.  As justice stevens clears up with statement..

[Mickey1992]

Originally posted by DoctorYO
The supreme court in a 5-4 rulings said yes you must State your name.  As justice stevens clears up with statement..

The Nevada law said you must state your name.  The Supreme Court agreed.  Do not confuse this with a law that states you must ONLY state your name.  

As far as I know the SC has not ruled on the constitutionality of the Ohio law.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
My basic point is that this is not a constitutional case, but stores do have the right to police their inventory, just as you have the right to catch the kid that just stole the lawn gnome from your front yard.

They do have the right to 'protect' their inventory, but they don't have any rights whatsoever to search me unless I agree to the search, and/or they have probable cause.

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Looking in your shopping bag as you exit the store is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, as the clerk just put stuff in the bag a few moments ago.

It is also NOT unreasonable to refuse the search if you don't like it (unless you agreed prior to shopping).

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The store has the right to ask you to open that big coat you are wearing.  (you also have the right to sue them if they do so improperly)  A cavity search, however, crosses the line.

Different people have different opinion on what crosses the line.

Point is, in all cases where they aren't specifically allowed by law to search you (probable cause), they should seek customer's agreement prior to shopping, not after...

[DoctorYO]

First an foremost the case at hand in Nevada is this...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.police.id/

"He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000. Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote."

the perp refused to even give his name, claiming his 4th rights.. (the officer was investigating an assault  btw..)

The Supremes disagreed saying you must state your name.  period.....

No 4th protections prevent you from stating your name.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-5554.html

(im not going to spoon feed it so read the whole case in its entire form if you want)


Now the case in ohio is different.  Ohio law clearly says Name, Address, DOB pretty much same as nevada

for your viewing pleasure:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

If you read the guys story on his site he clearly explains his actions..  He stated his name..  The officer wanted his drivers license.  (he was not driving)  

Officer Arroyo: “Give me your driver’s license or I will place you under arrest.”

note this section of Ohio law 2921.29

2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. 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 or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

The officer did not ask for address or dob... whose fault is that...  the defendant..?  if the officer is too stupid to follow his own states law then he is at fault. (training issue) and quite honest by the supreme ruling even if he did ask you for DOB and address you dont have to answer as per the 5-4 ruling. there are even some protections in 2921.29 on how this is applied, for starters no crime was committed in the first place. read 1  2 and the various sub headings)

this is false arrest as per ohio law(procedure).. and  as per 5-4 ruling which trumped nevada law and in essence all state identify laws to that effect regarding the 4th's protections

Constitution,federal, then state, then local  thats how it works fellas..

valiant effort though i give you that...



DoctorYo

[Mickey1992]

Originally posted by DoctorYO
this is false arrest as per ohio law(procedure).. and  as per 5-4 ruling which trumped nevada law and in essence all state identify laws to that effect regarding the 4th's protections

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on the Hiibel case UPHELD the Nevada law.