Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RightF00T on September 05, 2007, 12:25:09 AM
-
I've seen Chairboy post about not letting receipt checkers stop him in stores. He's immediately who I thought of when I read this.
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/
Cliff Notes: Guy refuses baggage check, Circuity City stops him, guy protests, cops come and he is arrested
-
The fact of the matter is that this is not the Land of the Free. We as normal citizens are the lowest common denominator. The Government manages us much like a farmer manages a herd of cattle.
-
While I HATE thieves, I hate personal privacy invasion and constitutional rights being violated more. This is NOT a police state, yet. You can detain a customer on suspicion of theft, but you have to have probable cause otherwise it is unlawful detention (in Tx). They had none. No observation, no alarm, nada, zip, zilch.
I would have done the exact same thing. You better have PC when you stop me from exiting a store or be ready to face the concequences. Wal-Mart has tried this a in a couple stores I've been in, I've never slowed down exiting. They've always backed down. Store policy is not law and they know it.
-
I really don't know the legality of asking somebody to check their reciept when they exit a store. I know that on the day after Thanksgiving, the stores have their huge sale. Wal-Mart hired cops and to the best of my knowledge, there was only one incident. The woman was such a (insert colorful metaphore here) that when I explained what would happen, she said some real nice things about me and that I was going to be sued. But her reciept was checked. I did thank her and wish her a happy holiday too. :D
Well, that was just one incident. I know that the store can stop a person if the security alarm goes off. If a person refuses to comply, then its disorderly conduct.
Either way, it takes a few minutes. Whats the big deal? Just my .02 cents.
Obie
-
Originally posted by Obie303
Either way, it takes a few minutes. Whats the big deal?
Invasion of privacy and illegal search to start with. Call me crazy, but I believe in The Constitution.
-
RPM, I'm not trying to be disrespectful when I say this but I hate that BS everyone says....."It's a free country. You are violating my Constitutional Rights!" This is the greatest country on the Planet! I truely believe that and do everything in my power to protect a persons civil rights.
What I read out of that article was a young man's bruised ego. "How dare they stop me and acuse me of stealing!" First of all, I'll be the first to day I don't know anything of Ohio's criminal law. But the police officer did have the right to stop and question the man. A call for service by the business warranted a threshold inquiry.
Let me put it this way, sombody breaks into your house or car and take a baseball cap out that you had. You call the police and they show up. You point out somebody walking down the street wearing a baseball cap just like you had. The police officer then says to you, "So, its a very popular cap" and walks away without talking to the person. Wouldn't you be saying "WTF"?
What happened to Mr. Righi was he first questioned the police officers authority. The police officer had the right to ask for identification. That means name, date of birth, and address. Where is all that information conveniently found? On a driver's license. Failure to provide this information will result in a person being arrested. To a civilian that sounds pretty harsh. Put yourself in the police officer's shoes for a few minutes. He/she is conducting an investigation and wants to complete it as quickly and thouroghly as possible.
Miranda Rights. This always gets me too. People watch too much TV. Miranda is used only during an interrogation. What that means is if I'm going to question you about a crime that you may be involved in, I need to advise you of your rights. Thats where Miranda comes in. I do not have to advise anyone of their rights when they get arrested. Note that Miranda doesn't apply to booking questions though.
As far as who was right in this incident, I wasn't there. There are always two sides to a story and so far I've only heard Mr. Righi's side. I'm sure the arresting officer would have a different version.
Let me put this question out there as well. You go out to buy some beer. To buy beer, the clerk says they need to see some identification. What would you had over? A birth certificate? Driver's license? State Id card? Isn't the clerk violation your right of privacy as well?
All of those questions are hypothetical though. You want the beer, you show your identification. Same thing applied to Mr. Righi. He just chose to argue with the wrong person.
Again, I don't mean to disrespect anyone. I just think the jury is still out on this one.
Obie
-
I read a posting by the young man somewhere a few days ago, but can't remember where. He seemed an intelligent, articulate and rational sounding young man who was not being a jerk. He wasn't showboating, but the truth is that it doesn't matter if he was or not.
If you think that situation was wrong, did you hear about the trucker who had $23,000 confiscated by a state trooper and "forfeited" to the DEA? His truck was subject to a random search and the trooper asked him if he had any drugs or over $10,000 in cash in the truck.
The driver truthfully responded because he didn't use a bank and carried his cash, paying his bills with it.
No drugs were found in the search, but the cash was confiscated because it is presumed that anyone with over $10,000 is a drug dealer. The trucker has no criminal record. He will have to sue to get the money back, taking a year or more, while he can't make his truck payments or operating expenses. He will have to prove the money was his, instead of the government having to prove the money was ill-gotten.
I'll try to find the article.
-
it's costco's policy to check EVERYONE'S receipt when they leave the store, it's in the membership agreement.
-
I don't stop either it's BS. I wonder if it's illegal to refuse to show ID to a police officer in florida?
-
Next thing you know they'll feel they have a right to strip search all their customers.
You are not responsible to prove your innocents, they must prove your guilt.
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't stop either it's BS. I wonder if it's illegal to refuse to show ID to a police officer in florida?
I imagine it is illegal Storch
-
There is no way to personally moniter EVERYBODY in the the store 100% of the time. If a store had no right to protect its goods from thieves, in the way of stopping them, they'd lose their rearend.
Put yourself in their shoes for a minute and say you own a store, and you thought a guy was walking out with something you owned. Wouldnt you want it back and him punished?
Im not a fan of corporations, but Im certainly not a fan of thieves.
-
From the stores point f view it is probably a lot cheaper to pay some guy minimum wage to check recipts than to buy some hitech securty/camera system. If the store were to go with the system instead of a guy standing there the prices would most likely be raised to pay for it. I'm sure that most people would then start complaining about the prices.
-
I happen to agree with the guy on this. A store has no right to accuse you or detain you. They are not working in any official capaicity as law enforcment. I hate those reciept checkers but usually out of curtosy I will have mine out and handy just so they can run their highlighter over it. If there's a line going out the door I bypass it and waive at the guy as I leave. I refuse to wait in line just to leave a store.
-
Man, I saw this on another forum a few days ago and it turned into a 14 page mess. It could have all been summed up and shut down with the saying "Excercise your rights or have them taken away". You can think the guy is an ******* for not showing his receipt, but he legally doesn't have to, and that should be the end of it.
The interesting question that came up on the other forum is whether you can be arrested for refusing to show ID to a cop, under that silly overbroad "hindrance of duties" law. I had a quick search online but couldn't come up with an answer for NYC. According to some dude on the internet, a ruling of a Supreme Court case says you don't need to show ID, and that applies to every state in the US? Anyone know the answer to this?
-
Still no sign of Chairboy....
-
he's in a hoosgow in the people's republic somewhere.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Put yourself in their shoes for a minute and say you own a store, and you thought a guy was walking out with something you owned. Wouldnt you want it back and him punished?
I worked for a major record store for a little while right out of high school. The security guys never stopped anyone without the go-ahead from the camera room, which meant they had evidence of theft. No one's arguing that stores shouldn't protect their merchandise, but it is the store's responsibility to prove that I stole something, not my responsibility to prove I paid for it at the register 5 feet away.
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
Still no sign of Chairboy....
Actually, he just started a thread about the percentage of atheists in prison, so this very well could be him :D
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Put yourself in their shoes for a minute and say you own a store, and you thought a guy was walking out with something you owned. Wouldnt you want it back and him punished?
If the alarm goes off it's a different story... Otherwise you're just operating from... Gee... What's that word we all hate? I forget? Pr... Pro.... Profiling? Oh yeah, that's the ticket.
And John9001, stores with membership agreements have different rules, they're like clubs.
-
I suppose being a private company they can check receipts if they choose, so don't shop there, I don't set foot in a Circuit City though for other reasons.
It is common for employee lunch boxes to be checked for tools, parts etc. on the way out of a plant is this illegal?
As for what happened when the leo got there there is always a catch all statute that can be used, we have hashed this out before.
What probably happened is that this guy is miffed because he is a middle class upstanding citizen and figured that the catch all statute would always be used against "one of them or those criminals" and not him.
I see it all the time, those died in the wool law and order conservatives get real sensitive about the Bill of Rights while walking out the back door of the jail with all their personal stuff, including their shoelaces in a little plastic bag :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
A store has no right to accuse you or detain you. They are not working in any official capaicity as law enforcment.
In Ohio they do. They question is if the store had probable cause.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041
-
The funny thing is that Ohio case law has set a precedent that until you walk out the door with a stolen item, it isn't shoplifting. So even if you have a bag full of stolen stuff, and the receipt checker catches it, you are not shoplifting.
-
Refusing to show a receipt is not probable cause.
From Mickey's link:
"Any peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed ... an unlawful taking in a mercantile establishment ..."
Circuit City screwed up, IMO. No probable cause, no evidence of theft, and therefore no right to detain. But the bigger problem is that stinking catch-all law the cop used to arrest this guy for not showing his driver's license, which it appears he is not required to do if he is not driving.
-
Originally posted by Obie303
RPM, I'm not trying to be disrespectful when I say this but I hate that BS everyone says....."It's a free country. You are violating my Constitutional Rights!" This is the greatest country on the Planet! I truely believe that and do everything in my power to protect a persons civil rights.
What I read out of that article was a young man's bruised ego. "How dare they stop me and acuse me of stealing!" First of all, I'll be the first to day I don't know anything of Ohio's criminal law. But the police officer did have the right to stop and question the man. A call for service by the business warranted a threshold inquiry.
Let me put it this way, sombody breaks into your house or car and take a baseball cap out that you had. You call the police and they show up. You point out somebody walking down the street wearing a baseball cap just like you had. The police officer then says to you, "So, its a very popular cap" and walks away without talking to the person. Wouldn't you be saying "WTF"?
What happened to Mr. Righi was he first questioned the police officers authority. The police officer had the right to ask for identification. That means name, date of birth, and address. Where is all that information conveniently found? On a driver's license. Failure to provide this information will result in a person being arrested. To a civilian that sounds pretty harsh. Put yourself in the police officer's shoes for a few minutes. He/she is conducting an investigation and wants to complete it as quickly and thouroghly as possible.
Miranda Rights. This always gets me too. People watch too much TV. Miranda is used only during an interrogation. What that means is if I'm going to question you about a crime that you may be involved in, I need to advise you of your rights. Thats where Miranda comes in. I do not have to advise anyone of their rights when they get arrested. Note that Miranda doesn't apply to booking questions though.
As far as who was right in this incident, I wasn't there. There are always two sides to a story and so far I've only heard Mr. Righi's side. I'm sure the arresting officer would have a different version.
Let me put this question out there as well. You go out to buy some beer. To buy beer, the clerk says they need to see some identification. What would you had over? A birth certificate? Driver's license? State Id card? Isn't the clerk violation your right of privacy as well?
All of those questions are hypothetical though. You want the beer, you show your identification. Same thing applied to Mr. Righi. He just chose to argue with the wrong person.
Again, I don't mean to disrespect anyone. I just think the jury is still out on this one.
Obie
There's a clear difference. If you caught the man stealing from your house, and called police, then it's legal. However, if you have no proof nor probably cause to believe that the man stole something, it is illegal to detain him to check him.
-
We've only heard one side of the story. I know that's plenty in the O'club but it's still only one side and certain to be slanted towards the person providing the story.
Just a couple points here. In AZ. and some other states, "willful concealment" is sufficient for shoplifting. That means putting the package beneath your clothing, consuming the product before paying or hiding the item in a place for later retrieval. Almost all stores will wait until the suspect has bypassed the register before attempting to stop. The suspect does not have to get out of the door before being detained.
The receipt check annoys the hell out of me too in place like Best Buy and even wallyworld. I've refused to stop, particularly when the individual has just seen me go through the register and pay for all of the items in the bag. from just a few feet away.
If, and I say IF, the guys story is true in the blog then the store folks are looking at an unlawful imprisonment situation and a law suit as long as all they have is a failure to produce receipt or allow inspection of the contents and no other indication or proof of theft. There are times to pick and choose your fights, and this one shouldn't have gone that far if that was ALL they had. There would have been no reasonable suspicion of a crime in that case.
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.
If it had been me responding and all they had was a refusal to show receipt with no other indication of shoplifting I'd have stopped right there after getting the ID info from the guy. A name, address and comparison from the license plate would have been sufficient as there was no basis for an arrest or stop by store employees in the first place. It would now be a civil problem between the store and the individual.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Invasion of privacy and illegal search to start with. Call me crazy, but I believe in The Constitution.
The Constuitution does not limit a private person from searching others, it limits the government from searching citizens. Statutory law, not constitutional, limits private behavior.
Originally posted by Engine
Refusing to show a receipt is not probable cause.
Probable cause is what a government representative needs to perform a reasonable search and seisure... it does not apply to a private citizen.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
A store has no right to accuse you or detain you. They are not working in any official capaicity as law enforcment.[/B]
A private citizen can accuse anybody they want to.
At least in California,
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:
A public offense was committed or attempted in the citizen's presence.
The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the citizen's presence.
A felony has been in fact committed and the citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested has committed it.
It is common in other jurisdictions as well. So if Circuit city sees you shoplift something, they can arrest you under the first of the three situations quoted.
In Mayberry, there is a famous precedent.
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/19/Gomer_Pyle.jpg)
This guy arrested Deputy Fife and Barney had to write himself a ticket for an illegal U-turn.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Probable cause is what a government representative needs to perform a reasonable search and seisure... it does not apply to a private citizen.
Hiya Holden. I was referring to Circuit City.
The Ohio law I think applies to this situation:
"(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity."
I was saying that refusing to show the receipt can't possibly be probable cause. It looks like they had no right to detain him.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is common in other jurisdictions as well. So if Circuit city sees you shoplift something, they can arrest you under the first of the three situations quoted.
Sure, if they see you shoplift. If they don't, what right do they have to arrest you?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If it had been me responding and all they had was a refusal to show receipt with no other indication of shoplifting I'd have stopped right there after getting the ID info from the guy. A name, address and comparison from the license plate would have been sufficient as there was no basis for an arrest or stop by store employees in the first place. It would now be a civil problem between the store and the individual.
Mav, do you know if a citizen is required to show you ID, or can he just give you name, address, DOB, etc verbally?
-
if you don't like it - shop somewhere else
a store has the right to do whatever it feels is in it's best business, what right do you have to tell them otherwise?
I think it's a joke when the old lady checks off the items as I leave my local Sam's club but if Walmart wants to pay her $10 an hour to stand there and do it, more power to them. If I didn't like the hassle, I'd shop somewhere else. No big deal - but some of you aren't happy unless you are making a mountain out of an ant hill.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!"
-
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...
-
All the Supreme Court did in that case was uphold Nevada law. Did all of this happen in Nevada?
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
note this section of Ohio law 2921.29
He wasn't charged with 2921.29, he was charged with 525.07: Obstructing Official Business
-
For refusing to show ID, he gets charged with the silly bogus catch-all "Cop Feels Like Arresting You" law... that's the most disturbing part here. Not the receipt check, but the attempted Papers Please
-
http://www.brooklynohio.gov/
(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.
NOTE is says LAWFUL duties... thats where 2921.29 is paramount
(b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing official business. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (b), obstructing official business is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to any person, obstructing official business is a felony and shall be prosecuted under appropriate State law.
I see no violations here... Officer runs the name gets the information he needs... now if he gave a false name or refused to give his name then bingo this applies.
Officer is really digging here.... Show me anywhere where this law applies...
edit: after further review of their ordinances i would file a complaint with the city in regards to this, and carbon copy to the AG of Ohio.
Its rather ironic the AO should get hit with this when this gets settled.
525.13 INTERFERING WITH CIVIL RIGHTS.
(a) No public servant, under color of his office, employment or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
(b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(ORC 2921.45)
DoctorYo
-
Doctor of Law...love it.:)
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
He wasn't charged with 2921.29, he was charged with 525.07: Obstructing Official Business
Maybe so, but the arrest was in clear violation of 2921.29. The man wasn't in violation of it, the officer was.
-
You know Laser, I have yet to figure you out.:aok
-
What a mess
Just chiming in on stores and privacy...I know at Sears, women are not allowed to bring hand bags to work. They can only use a clear plastic purse provided by the company. While most hated this policy, Sears was quick to point out 80% of its shrinkage (theft) comes from inside.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
You know Laser, I have yet to figure you out.:aok
I'm not that complicated. I'm an objecto-anarchist. Basically meaning that I don't believe in government, but I believe in business. Where as I believe that government is the ultimate evil entity in the world, Business is the ultimate good.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm an objecto-anarchist. Basically meaning that I don't believe in government, but I believe in business. Where as I believe that government is the ultimate evil entity in the world...
Don't tell, or Cav may report you...
-
on exiting SAMS club. The last time I was there I went through the ritual of the receipt checker.
I asked her point blank.
"Do you people really check to make sure only the things lited on the receipt are there. Or do you just glance over, go through the motions and just wave everyone on?"
She gave me a knowing smirk and a "shhh"
To which I said.
"Thats what I figured. To be honest. I wouldnt either"
We both laughed and I went on my merry way.
Interesting thread.
Its comical how stores like CC and Bestbuy have these receipt checkers at the door when they are in clear view of the register and can plainly see the customer paying for their goods.
Ever notice how they only stop the people comming from the register and not the ones who didnt buy anything and just walk out?
Reminds me of a true story albeit a bit off topic of what an old buddy of mine did a LONG time ago.
Some of the old farts here might remember a store named "Two Guys"
And for a while they too had receipt checkers just like they have at SAMS, Best Buy. And Circuit City... Just past the register.
Well one night my buddy, I'll call him "Mark" cause thats his name.
And the last I heard he was in jail anyway so it really doesnt matter.
Now Mark always had more balls then brains and that night was no exception.
Anyway he comes along for a ride to the "Two Guys" store with my mother and myself. And suddenly he decides he needs a new set of car speakers for his car.
My mother had finished shopping and decided to wait outside in the car.
So we go over to the care stereo section and he decides to get a pair of Jensen TriAxles.
So we start heading for what I figure is the cashier.
Cept he doesnt go to the cashier but past the casheir.
Im like "Did you forget something? Where the hell are you going?"
He doesnt say a word but just keeps going.
Im about chitting my pants And I quickly seperatd myself from him when I realise what hes about to do. And sure enough he walks right past the receipt checkers and out the door.
Like it was his god given right to do so!
And Im about to start sweating bullets as I walk out also.
We get out to the car And Im chewing him out.
When my mother finds out what Im yelling at him about we are already out of the parking lot and on the way home. She almost has a heart attack.
Mark was/is nuts though. For such a short man he had the biggeest set of brass balls of anyone I ever met.
Anyway. To get back on topic
It makes me wonder who it is the stores dont trust. The customer. or the cashiers trying ot slip their friends something for nothing.
Cause the receipt checkers sure as hell dont pay any nevermind to the other people exiting the stores who havent bought anything
-
Must just be a regional thing with the recipt checkers. None of the Best Buy's, Circuit City's, etc... have them in my area. BJ's does, but the way that store is setup you dont have to go anywhere near the registers to leave.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm not that complicated. I'm an objecto-anarchist. Basically meaning that I don't believe in government, but I believe in business. Where as I believe that government is the ultimate evil entity in the world, Business is the ultimate good.
How can you believe that, "government is the ultimate evil entity in the world" and also say, "I don't believe in government."
I think you are not a objecto-anarchist, but instead you are an oxymoronic-anarchist.
-
felt i should chime in here.
as an ex loss prevention employee of best buy i can tell you that what happened in this case would have gotten both the LP associate and the manager fired from my store. under no circumstances can a employee try and physically detain you. the receipt checking is simply voluntary. even when we caught shoplifters we had no right to touch them.. they just didn't know they could run out without us stopping them. the idea behind such rules was that if in a situation like the one here, the legal costs to fight a lawsuit would far exceed the costs of the product. thats right - you could walk into your local best buy, grab an lcd tv off the shelf, and walk right out the door with it.. and you could never be stopped.
i'm sure circuit has the same policy too. those store employees are all sorts of screwed.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How can you believe that, "government is the ultimate evil entity in the world" and also say, "I don't believe in government."
I think you are not a objecto-anarchist, but instead you are an oxymoronic-anarchist.
I forgot McLiteral, that I have to be very careful what I say around you, and have no possible second meanings.
While you took it to mean that I don't believe government doesn't exist, what it actually meant is that I don't believe it should exist.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I forgot McLiteral, that I have to be very careful what I say around you, and have no possible second meanings.
While you took it to mean that I don't believe government doesn't exist, what it actually meant is that I don't believe it should exist.
don't believe government doesn't... means you do believe government does...
That's confusing, and I don't believe you didn't get what it was I didn't believe that you believed... or not...
-
I blame the double negative on a new keyboard. My old one needs to get replaced soon.
-
Originally posted by moose
felt i should chime in here.
as an ex loss prevention employee of best buy i can tell you that what happened in this case would have gotten both the LP associate and the manager fired from my store. under no circumstances can a employee try and physically detain you. the receipt checking is simply voluntary. even when we caught shoplifters we had no right to touch them.. they just didn't know they could run out without us stopping them. the idea behind such rules was that if in a situation like the one here, the legal costs to fight a lawsuit would far exceed the costs of the product. thats right - you could walk into your local best buy, grab an lcd tv off the shelf, and walk right out the door with it.. and you could never be stopped.
i'm sure circuit has the same policy too. those store employees are all sorts of screwed.
So I guess these two winners should have asked for help to load their truck eh?
link (http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2007/8/30/283969.html)
-
Those folks would be good candidates for accusing of shoplifting. Because, oh, they were.
But I shouldn't be a suspect after purchasing something. Accuse me formally, or get out of my way. I'll be polite as you allow, Mr. Door Guard (who has been put in this position at someone elses direction and I don't resent personally), but if you hold me without the formal accusation (and the rights that gives me), then it's a form of kidnapping, and not kosher in the USA.
The US Constitution: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The US Constitution: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
If I, as a private citizen were to search you without warrant and without probable cause, I would not be in violation of the US Constitution.
I would be in violation of statutory laws, but not constitutional law.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In Mayberry, there is a famous precedent.
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/19/Gomer_Pyle.jpg)
This guy arrested Deputy Fife and Barney had to write himself a ticket for an illegal U-turn.
"This guy" is Gomer Pyle, and it was a citizen's arrest, not a detaining without any reason. They didn't citizen arrest him. They held him.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
"This guy" is Gomer Pyle, and it was a citizen's arrest, not a detaining without any reason. They didn't citizen arrest him. They held him.
Wow... take issue with a joke...
My point was that CC is a private, not a governmental entity. They are not bound by constitutional rights as a governmental entity is. CC is bound by statutory law as to how they can behave... the constitution does not apply.
-
Ok, so the US Constitution doesn't apply on private or commercial property? So I can silence my employees, search them, hold them, anything I want...... because it's not the US anymore?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Wow... take issue with a joke...
My point was that CC is a private, not a governmental entity. They are not bound by constitutional rights as a governmental entity is. CC is bound by statutory law as to how they can behave... the constitution does not apply.
The detainment becomes kidnapping, friend. If you don't believe me, put your money where your mouth is and go try it out. I don't suggest it, of course, but you'd sure show me.
-
sigh...
The constitution limits the power of government. It is the agreement by which We the People of the United States af America consent to be governed.
It has nothing to do with how I as a private citizen interact with you.
Example 1:
The Dixie Chicks did not have their right to free speech infringed, as there was no governmental action against them. They were not jailed for their speech. Their audience shrank through the free action available to their audience as free citizens of the USA.
Example 2:
If I were to fire an employee because they wrote in the paper that my company was idiotic, I would be free to do so within any private employment agreement...
There may be statutory laws that limit my power as an employer, but the constitution limits the government, not my private company.
Kidnapping is a statutory law. As is murder. These are not unconstitutional unless he government is kidnapping and murdering.
-
I don't especially like having to wait in line to show my receipt but I see it as a stipulation of doing business with a retailer. It's certainly my choice to trade with them or not. I'm morally behind this guy in his attempt to buck the system.