Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Yet another receipt story gone bad
The "right" to walk out of a store without showing your receipt has been discussed here before.
This guy tried it, and it didn't go so well for him.
I have a couple of thoughts on this story:
1) I really don't have any respect for this guy. On the one hand, he's saying how terrible Circuit City is, and on the other hand he shops there! He knew darn well that they would want to check his receipt - yet he goes in anyway. Whether or not Circuit City has a "right" to check your receipt, it's their policy. As a private business, they are entitled to bar you from their premises if you choose not to follow their policy. Circuit City was well within their right to hold him for long enough to call a police officer so his ID could be established in order to serve him with a "No Trespass" order. A guy with principle doesn't shop at a place like this. That's the only thing that's really going to hurt Circuit City. This guy wants the low prices, but doesn't want to contribute to the policies that result in low prices. I don't have any respect for that.
2) He really needs to let his lawyer handle the case and stop listening to every wacko on the internet. Let me make on thing clear people... the police do not have to read your Miranda rights when you are placed under arrest. Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation. I didn't read anything in this guy's post that suggests he was interrogated.
3) I don't see anywhere in the Ohio statute where it states that the officer has to take your word regarding your name and address. I can't imagine why it's impermissible for him to verify that information by checking your ID - but I'll leave that to somebody who knows more about Ohio law than I do. In any event, that's where this guy made his mistake. The officer was not asking for anything unreasonable. He's the one who called the police - so don't then complain when the police just want to verify who it was who called.
I'm all for invoking one's rights - but this is not government. It's a business. If you don't like the way they run their business, stay out. There is nothing "noble" to me in going after a private company that has policies that give consumers cheaper prices. It's a free world. Don't shop there if that pisses you off.
This guy tried it, and it didn't go so well for him.
I have a couple of thoughts on this story:
1) I really don't have any respect for this guy. On the one hand, he's saying how terrible Circuit City is, and on the other hand he shops there! He knew darn well that they would want to check his receipt - yet he goes in anyway. Whether or not Circuit City has a "right" to check your receipt, it's their policy. As a private business, they are entitled to bar you from their premises if you choose not to follow their policy. Circuit City was well within their right to hold him for long enough to call a police officer so his ID could be established in order to serve him with a "No Trespass" order. A guy with principle doesn't shop at a place like this. That's the only thing that's really going to hurt Circuit City. This guy wants the low prices, but doesn't want to contribute to the policies that result in low prices. I don't have any respect for that.
2) He really needs to let his lawyer handle the case and stop listening to every wacko on the internet. Let me make on thing clear people... the police do not have to read your Miranda rights when you are placed under arrest. Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation. I didn't read anything in this guy's post that suggests he was interrogated.
3) I don't see anywhere in the Ohio statute where it states that the officer has to take your word regarding your name and address. I can't imagine why it's impermissible for him to verify that information by checking your ID - but I'll leave that to somebody who knows more about Ohio law than I do. In any event, that's where this guy made his mistake. The officer was not asking for anything unreasonable. He's the one who called the police - so don't then complain when the police just want to verify who it was who called.
I'm all for invoking one's rights - but this is not government. It's a business. If you don't like the way they run their business, stay out. There is nothing "noble" to me in going after a private company that has policies that give consumers cheaper prices. It's a free world. Don't shop there if that pisses you off.
Comments
I have already made my purchase, now we are on MY time. Just because I have to continue walking through the place of business to get to the exit does not warrant your hassling me as I leave.
If someone wants to "check my bag" as I leave I tell them that they can check my bag but, if I am found not to have shoplifted anything than they owe me the exact price of the goods I have purchased as restitution for accusing me of shoplifting in the first place. Yes, payment must be in my hand before they look in my bag.
I am also 100% behind this guy on the license issue. He was clearly not driving the car so he may or may not have had a drivers license on him. I would have handed my wallet off to someone else in the car right away.
Again, do not shop at places that check receipt. However, if there were some emergency where I needed something on short notice, and they are the only store in town, I do not expect to be illegally detained because I want to leave.
I have a feeling that, had I been there in the same situation, I would have been able to leave peacefully despite not showing any ID or receipt. How you engage a person is far more important than what you say to him. ^_~
Let me ask you this:
Suppose Circuit City has a highly visible sign at the entrance that states: "All shoppers must show a receipt upon exiting the store as well as allow inspection of any bags or packages."
Would you not agree that at that point it's your own damn fault if you shop there and then object to an inspection?
If you think about it, a sign like this is basically an announcement of intent to break the law. You could easily translate such a sign as saying "If you don't do show us your receipt, we will illegally detain you." In principle, that's no different than a sign that says "Warning, if you don't do exactly what the store employees say, they will stab you." or "You agree to either lick the manager's foot before you leave or become an indentured servant of the store." Heck, you could even interpret such a sign as a threat, so the sign itself would be illegal.
So while in most cases I laugh at people who screw up because they did not pay heed to signs, e.g: ride at your own risk, this is a case where the signs don't count. Putting up a sign does not give you a free pass to break the law.
Circuit City has a program in place to prevent loss. It's an unintrusive policy. They generated the receipt, and they just want to see the receipt and purchased goods. You're not asked to show them anything that they haven't seen already. Arguably, preventing loss results in a store that can offer lower prices to consumers.
I suppose it's your "right" to ignore this policy. But what does that prove? As long as you can shop somewhere else, exercising your "right" just proves that your a dick. We are not talking about government. We're not talking about civil rights. We're just talking about a store that's asking for a little help in order to keep prices down and make some more profits so you'll be able to shop there in the future. Wow... you defied that request. What a freakin'' hero.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but at some point you realize that there are more important battles in life.
Having said that, I don't respect any Circuit City employee that prevents you from leaving.
I actually had a situation at a Best Buy back in high school. I didn't actually purchase anything, and was asked for my receipt when I left. It took more time than it should have to explain to the upstanding young gentleman accosting me that sometimes, people leave a store without having purchased product, and that I in fact had no receipt to show. He was, shall we say, incredulous. When he attempted to continue our polite conversation after I'd proceeded to walk out the door, I simply ignored him and left.
Heh.. If the Internet is any indication, I should have called 911, chained myself to the store, and started screaming about my rights. Bonus points if I could convince the yellow-shirt to punch me.
Let's assume that the cop had no statutory authority to ask for ID. Given the unobstursiveness of the request, I'd just show the ID. After all, he was the one who called the cops. For not showing his ID, his remedies are slim to none. Just try finding a jury that's going to sympathize with this punk. I can't imagine that a lawyer would touch a civil case with a 10 foot pole.
I'm still not convinced that Ohio law prohibits the request for ID. The law says that you only have to give your name, address, etc. Normally this is done via an ID. There is nothing in the law that says that the officer can only confirm this obtain verbally. But... I have no idea of this issue has been interpreted by the Ohio courts.
Here is the bottom line: Kid may have had a good point. Kid ruined it by acting like a dick when the cop showed up.
That's my concern. Now that I drive less and less, I very often don't have any form of identification on my person whatsoever.
Granted, I'm by no means a lawyer, and it does depend on the actual wording of this law.
This guy's bigger problem is that he's lost any sense of objectivity about the situation. I've seen a lot of people make very bad decisions when this happens. Let's hope that his lawyer can reign him in.
Heh... I'm reminded of a recent story on Fark, where a defendant attacked his own lawyer in the courtroom...
The guy is an ass who wanted to scream big and loud to get attention and thought he was smarter than the police. The reason stores do the receipt check thing is to stop people from buying some tiny item, then walking around the store with the bag, and walking out after placing more valuable items in the bag. I worked at Computer City (now nonexistent) and we had a similar policy. When watching the door, I actually nabbed three people trying to abscond with merchandise after buying something and then placing more items in the bag. Usually they'd hand me the receipt and bag, and sprint out of the exit. One guy got to his getaway car with about $2000 worth of video cards, but we got his license anyway.
This schmendrick strikes me as the same guy who walks into a store looking like a hobo, goes right to where the most expensive merchandise is, touches everything and moves stuff around, and then bitches when security starts following him. (This happened at Computer City also).
Sure, you can defend your rights, but when a police officer shows up because YOU CALLED THEM and then you're a smartass to them, you deserve what you get. In fact, I'm sorry they didn't mace his ass.
What this guy did goes beyond standing up for your rights, and takes a flying leap into 'making as much noise as I can to get attention for something stupid I did and I am now trying to get out of'.
Yeah, maybe an asshole, but I'll take asshole over police state any day.
The story about the hobo is not made up. It actually happened while I was working at the store. Dude walked in looking completely filthy and with a backpack, went directly over to where the most expensive parts were sold, and spent a good hour picking stuff up and moving it around on the shelves, and even at one point to another part of the store. When one of the security people started watching him from down asiles and from a distance, he suddenly took a great deal of interest in wandering around not looking at anything inparticular. Then he came storming up to the registers throwing a fit demanding to see the manager, started yelling that he didn't like security following him around, and stomped out. We never saw him again, but I doubt his intents were clandestine seeing as people who have acted has he did that I witnessed in said store were ALWAYS up to something.
Secondly, he called the police, and REFUSED TO SHOW THEM IDENTIFICATION when asked.There appears to be a state law giving him just this right. We'll have to wait for the court case to see exactly what it covers, since no one seems to have posted it yet.
That can, unless I am mistaken, fall into the realm of 'reason' for the police to be suspiscious and make an arrest.Nope. Not consenting to a search is not grounds for a search. Not showing ID is not grounds for being arrested unless you are already under suspicion of a crime.
Regarding the hobo, the store was right to watch, annoy, harrass, observe, or whatever else they did. When he complained, the store had the right to ask him to leave. If he did not, the store had the right to call the police to report a trespasser. If the store doesn't want people doing shady shit, it's their obligation to ask said shady people to leave.
(Not a lawyer ^_~)
Daylight curfews are typically in place during school hours to give so-called truant officers the muscle to drag kids back to class. In Ohio, at least, they are not on the state books, but exist only in select municipalities.
I think the idea of a curfew for anyone, regardless of age or intent, is a load of shit, but that's government for you.
Failure to disclose personal information.
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(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.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Effective Date: 04-14-2006
Brief article construing Ohio "stop and identify" law
ORC 2935.041:
Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.
(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.
(B) Any officer, employee, or agent of a library, museum, or archival institution may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section or for the purpose of conducting a reasonable investigation of a belief that the person has acted in a manner described in divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section, detain a person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within, or in the immediate vicinity of, the library, museum, or archival institution, if the officer, employee, or agent has probable cause to believe that the person has either:
(1) Without privilege to do so, knowingly moved, defaced, damaged, destroyed, or otherwise improperly tempered with property owned by or in the custody of the library, museum, or archival institution; or
(2) With purpose to deprive the library, museum, or archival institution of property owned by it or in its custody, knowingly obtained or exerted control over the property without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent, beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent, by deception, or by threat.
(C) An officer, agent, or employee of a library, museum, or archival institution pursuant to division (B) of this section or a merchant or employee or agent of a merchant pursuant to division (A) of this section may detain another person for any of the following purposes:
(1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft;
(2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer;
(3) To obtain a warrant of arrest.
(D) The owner or lessee of a facility in which a motion picture is being shown, or the owner’s or lessee’s employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a person is or has been operating an audiovisual recording function of a device in violation of section 2913.07 of the Revised Code may, for the purpose of causing an arrest to be made by a peace officer or of obtaining an arrest warrant, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the facility or its immediate vicinity.
(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.
(F) Any peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any act described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section , that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed an unlawful taking in a mercantile establishment, or that the officer has reasonable cause to believe has committed an act prohibited by section 2913.07 of the Revised Code. An arrest under this division shall be made within a reasonable time after the commission of the act or unlawful taking.
(G) As used in this section:
(1) “Archival institution†means any public or private building, structure, or shelter in which are stored historical documents, devices, records, manuscripts, or items of public interest, which historical materials are stored to preserve the materials or the information in the materials, to disseminate the information contained in the materials, or to make the materials available for public inspection or for inspection by certain persons who have a particular interest in, use for, or knowledge concerning the materials.
(2) “Museum†means any public or private nonprofit institution that is permanently organized for primarily educational or aesthetic purposes, owns or borrows objects or items of public interest, and cares for and exhibits to the public the objects or items.
(3) “Audiovisual recording function†and “facility†have the same meaning as in section 2913.07 of the Revised Code.
Effective Date: 03-09-2004
Shopkeeper's Privilege Wiki