"Your Papers, Please", Ohio Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Receipt at Circuit City

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Ah yes, another self-educated lawyer. Pointless to argue with those!

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P

And even nicer when the "self-educated lawyer" makes statements that are later backed up by a "real lawyer" (UCLA perhaps?, just a guess)

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Ah yes, another self-educated lawyer. Pointless to argue with those!

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P

No, what it means is that you find a website where you can look up statutes and suddenly you think you know the ins and outs of the legal system. Pointless to argue once you've crossed that line.
Hey! Why not grab a medical book and remove your own appendix!
Or maybe you just slept at a Holiday Inn Express.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

They must accept cash (legal tender for all debts, public and private), but can accept other forms of payment at their discretion,

CASH - they check those $20 bills to make sure they are real. By doing that, aren't they implying you are trying to pass funny money?

This probably shouldn't be directed at you because I don't recall you accusing the stores of implying your are a thief, but feel free to answer or anyone else.

It seems to me some people expect the store to protect the customers and are okay and grateful for that but have fit when the store tries to protect itself.

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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.

Have you ever looked in the (C)?


(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.


As you see, the law does not grant the permission to detain someone just to ensure there is no property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft.

Quote

I guess a judge will have to determine whether the kids actions, i.e. refusing to show a receipt and then getting into a car waiting for him right outside the door w/engine running and a driver, would give the CC folk probable cause to believe he had illegally taken goods from their store.

No, it will not, because the store employee told him explicitly that he does not accuse him of anything. This obviously meant he did not have a probable cause. Otherwise he would tell him plain straight that he had probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by this person.

Quote

I bet the kid didn't know about that little statute when he walked out of the store.

I bet he did, because he asked right questions. The better question, IMHO, would be to ask directly about whether they have a reasonable case to believe I stole anything, and if they do, ask them to call a police. Personally I'd have no more reasons to trust the store employee than they have reasons to trust me - what if the store employee puts something in my bag during "comparing the list of items"?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Pal, I have to say you completely misread the thread.
No one here is ever discussed whether you should be politely enough to show your receipt, and the issues discussed are not related to politeness at all.

Actually in the end, that is exactly what this thread is about.

We have established that the store has no legal right to enforce the checking of the receipt against the contents in your bag.

So, it does come down to being polite enough as a customer to allow the process to happen, to allow the retailers to keep prices low.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

He gets up in the morning and drives to work. On his way he stops at a traffic light. There's no one else coming down the cross street, but still he sits there. Wouldn't want to get a ticket!
...
At work he puts in a few hours before leaving for a business meeting in another state. He's salaried, so he gets 8 hours a day pay - but the government is going to take 25% of that, and there's nothing he can do about that.
...

I think I miss your point completely. Are you trying to say that because we stop on traffic lights and pay 25% of our income in taxes, we should have no problem letting a store employee to search our bags?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

We have established that the store has no legal right to enforce the checking of the receipt against the contents in your bag.

They have legal rights to _enforce_ it (by accusing you of shoplifting, making citizen arrest, and calling the law enforcement). They are not allowed to do it themselves, unless you let them do.

Quote

So, it does come down to being polite enough as a customer to allow the process to happen, to allow the retailers to keep prices low.

No, it does not. "Being polite" means replying "no, thank you" when they ask to search your bag instead of "go f@ck yourself". What you are talking about, is giving up your legal right, which is not an issue of politeness. It might be ok for you, and completely inappropriate for someone else - after all, we all are different. It does not matter whether it is for "allowing the retailer to keep prices low" - their prices are already not low, and some people just don't care.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No, what it means is that you find a website where you can look up statutes and suddenly you think you know the ins and outs of the legal system.

There are cases where the lawyer is needed. But not all the cases are like that. And there is a lot of people actually practicing law every day using the same websites - have you ever been in small claims court?

Quote

Hey! Why not grab a medical book and remove your own appendix!

Obviously you do not know all the ins and outs of medicine. Does this mean that you go to a hospital and demand surgery and intensive care every time you got a scratch or a splinter?

Again, it depends on case. Even in U.S. I have won my traffic ticket in a traffic court without a lawyer, and I was not the only one. Does this mean I know ins and outs of legal system? Obviously not. Does it mean that I have some knowledge of it? Yes, it does.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

Quote

They must accept cash (legal tender for all debts, public and private), but can accept other forms of payment at their discretion,

CASH - they check those $20 bills to make sure they are real. By doing that, aren't they implying you are trying to pass funny money?

And amusingly, they usually use those counterfeit detector pens to do that.. which are completely and totally worthless when it comes to detecting counterfeit money.

Tell me, which is worse: the rights you lose, or the ones you give away?

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The difference here is that stores do not have to accept credit cards or checks. They must accept cash (legal tender for all debts, public and private), but can accept other forms of payment at their discretion, under their own terms.

Stores can refuse any cash payment at their discretion. The store can refuse if you insist upon paying in all pennies, or in hundreds, or in any denomination as they see fit (or unfit, I guess). A cash transaction is not a debt.

For instance there's a deli in Chicago, iirc, that refuses coins and prices all its sandwiches in round dollars (after tax).

Per the US Treasury

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Stores can refuse any cash payment at their discretion. The store can refuse if you insist upon paying in all pennies, or in hundreds, or in any denomination as they see fit (or unfit, I guess). A cash transaction is not a debt.

For instance there's a deli in Chicago, iirc, that refuses coins and prices all its sandwiches in round dollars (after tax).

Per the US Treasury

You're right. I'd forgotten about that. My mistake.

[billvon 2,997]

>we should have no problem letting a store employee to search our bags?

No. But if you have no problem letting airport security personnel go through your bags, scan your person and check your pockets, it's odd that you would be offended by someone asking to see your receipt. In both cases you can say no. In both cases you may not be able to do something you wish as a result (not be able to fly, not be able to buy your TV there.)

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

CASH - they check those $20 bills to make sure they are real. By doing that, aren't they implying you are trying to pass funny money?

This probably shouldn't be directed at you because I don't recall you accusing the stores of implying your are a thief, but feel free to answer or anyone else.

It seems to me some people expect the store to protect the customers and are okay and grateful for that but have fit when the store tries to protect itself.

Once you've given them the cash, it's theirs, and they can test it if they want to.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

>we should have no problem letting a store employee to search our bags?

No. But if you have no problem letting airport security personnel go through your bags, scan your person and check your pockets, it's odd that you would be offended by someone asking to see your receipt. In both cases you can say no. In both cases you may not be able to do something you wish as a result (not be able to fly, not be able to buy your TV there.)

I have a big problem with airport security going through my bags. However, I recognize that the airline has a right to go through my things if I want to put my things on the plane. I don't like it, but if I want to get on the plane, I will permit the search.

If a store demands (and, like the airline, makes the condition known to me in advance) that I submit to a search, I'll get my goods elsewhere, since I have other options. If a store doesn't make its conditions known in advance, and then pushes the issue, we have a problem.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No. But if you have no problem letting airport security personnel go through your bags, scan your person and check your pockets, it's odd that you would be offended by someone asking to see your receipt.

Well, I definitely do not want the airport security going through my luggage. I also do not want any police officer to search me, no matter whether there is a probable cause or not. But all of this does not matter, because this is a law. Which not only allows, but _requires_ them to do so without your permission. When you have a law you do not like, it is usually unlawful just to act against it. There are, however, other - legitimate - actions you can try to have it struck down, like writing to your senators or bringing the case to the court.

The store story is completely different. There is no law in effect, which requires, or even allows the store to have my bags searched when I leave it. Therefore they need my permission for it, and it could only be a matter of explicit written agreement between you and store (otherwise they will have hard time proving I did give them such permission). Obviously the agreement should be in effect before you have paid for the goods, and you should not be allowed to pay for the goods, or to enter the store, if you do not explicitly agree. However if there is no agreement, the store can only do what the law allows them to do, like detain you on citizen arrest, and call the police.

Imagine the dropzone forgets to check that the tandem student signed the waiver, took him up, and he got hurt. Could he sue the dropzone? Obviously, because he did not give up his rights to sue. Could the dropzone ask him to give up his rights to sue after he got hurt? Yes. Is the student required to give up those rights? No. Would they get him up if they knew he wouldn't give up his rights? No, but it does not matter, because they already did it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Have you ever looked in the (C)?

Nope. I just blindly post stuff and hope it is in some way related to the thread.
Of course I looked.


(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.


Relevent sections in bold.

As you see, the law does not grant the permission to detain someone just to ensure there is no property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft.

That is your interpretation which, by the way, means nothing since you are not involved in the disposition of this case and even less since you are not a lawyer.

Quote

I guess a judge will have to determine whether the kids actions, i.e. refusing to show a receipt and then getting into a car waiting for him right outside the door w/engine running and a driver, would give the CC folk probable cause to believe he had illegally taken goods from their store.

No, it will not, because the store employee told him explicitly that he does not accuse him of anything. This obviously meant he did not have a probable cause. Otherwise he would tell him plain straight that he had probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by this person.

Uh, excuse me, but that is the Judges job-to determine whether or not CC had cause to detain him. It's not the kid's call.

Quote

I bet the kid didn't know about that little statute when he walked out of the store.

I bet he did, because he asked right questions. The better question, IMHO, would be to ask directly about whether they have a reasonable case to believe I stole anything, and if they do, ask them to call a police. Personally I'd have no more reasons to trust the store employee than they have reasons to trust me - what if the store employee puts something in my bag during "comparing the list of items"?

I'm betting he didn't or he would have shown them his receipt to prove he didn't take anything instead of playing Mr. Anti-Establishment and make a big stink over nothing. The biggest mistake the kid made was trying to play lawyer. Same thing you're doing. Me? I just post how I see it without claiming to know how the legal system will play out. I also tend to doubt some things in his story and suspect the versions told by CC and the officer will differ from his as to his conduct.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah yes, another self-educated lawyer. Pointless to argue with those!

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P

No, what it means is that you find a website where you can look up statutes and suddenly you think you know the ins and outs of the legal system. Pointless to argue once you've crossed that line.
Hey! Why not grab a medical book and remove your own appendix!
Or maybe you just slept at a Holiday Inn Express.

What a retarded position.

You're suggesting that unless a person is a lawyer, they don't have any ability to interpret, or understand the laws that govern them?

How short sighted. If you're a lawyer, it's a pretty snobbish attitude.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Nope. I just blindly post stuff and hope it is in some way related to the thread.

You should have looked carefully.

Quote

(1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft;

No, this one does not work - the unlawfully taken property was not recovered.

Quote

(2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer;

This one does not work either - the peace officer was not called by store management to cause an arrest.

Quote

Relevent sections in bold.

You should try something else.

Quote

That is your interpretation which, by the way, means nothing since you are not involved in the disposition of this case and even less since you are not a lawyer.

This is not interpretation. This is what is written in the law in plain English.
And if you consider it interpretation - than your own interpretation means nothing as well, so then I have no idea why you even quoted the law, and commented it like "did the kid know it?".

Quote

Uh, excuse me, but that is the Judges job-to determine whether or not CC had cause to detain him.

Sir, you seems to have no basic understanding of how the legal system works. Could you please get some knowledge?

The law only grants the store employee a permission to detain the kid for one of three purposes. The store employee detained him for the purpose which is not granted by law - to search his bag. The judge cannot grant the store employee the right to examine the bag - even if the judge believes there was a probable case. Only lawmakers could do so.

Quote

I'm betting he didn't or he would have shown them his receipt to prove he didn't take anything instead of playing Mr. Anti-Establishment and make a big stink over nothing.

I wonder why after several pages of discussion you still cannot understand the simple fact that the receipt alone cannot prove he didn't take anything?

But it doesn't really matter. He was not required by law to prove he didn't take anything. He asked the store employee to call the police to arrest him if they have probable cause, or let them go if they do not. You may not like it, or may consider it unreasonable, but what he did was completely legal, and what store employee did was not. What part of this is not clear to you?

Quote

The biggest mistake the kid made was trying to play lawyer. Same thing you're doing. Me? I just post how I see it without claiming to know how the legal system will play out.

So when you quote and apply the law, you are "just post how you see".
And when others do exactly the same, they are "trying to play lawyer".
Should I say "hypocrisy?"

Quote

I also tend to doubt some things in his story and suspect the versions told by CC and the officer will differ from his as to his conduct.

You could doubt whatever you want. But it does not matter. What I am seeing is that the people are discussing the story the way it was published, not the story how the user willard thinks it happens. I wouldn't discuss the last one either.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah yes, another self-educated lawyer. Pointless to argue with those!

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P

No, what it means is that you find a website where you can look up statutes and suddenly you think you know the ins and outs of the legal system. Pointless to argue once you've crossed that line.
Hey! Why not grab a medical book and remove your own appendix!
Or maybe you just slept at a Holiday Inn Express.

What a retarded position.

You're suggesting that unless a person is a lawyer, they don't have any ability to interpret, or understand the laws that govern them?

How short sighted. If you're a lawyer, it's a pretty snobbish attitude.

No, I am not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be. Lawyers-regardless of what you think of them-spend years studyingthe legal system, it's laws and procedures, how to use them, and how they are interpreted. For someone to read a website and think they know everything about as retarded as someone reading a med book and thinking they can perform an operation. There is a reason people must be licensed to practice law in this country.

[willard 0]

Uhh, yeah. Ok. Whatever you say. Now put down the law books and go back to whatever you were doing before you hurt someone.
I would strongly suggest you do one thing I always do-when in need of legal advice, consult an attorney. "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

. For someone to read a website and think they know everything about as retarded as someone reading a med book and thinking they can perform an operation. There is a reason people must be licensed to practice law in this country.

While you and I have a similar position of this issue, I complete disagree with the above statement. People CAN represent themselves.

I have done this on several occasions and have never attended a day of Law School. I also have never lost. I have done this in Federal Court, State Court, Family Court and Criminal Court. I will bet anything that I have written and filed more motions in federal court than many of the "Licensed" Attorneys fresh out of law school here. People can read and study the FRCP and successfully represent themselves. Judges do tend to give Pro-se`s a little more leeway in some cases. I know it has always worked for me.

My point is that you do NOT have to be a lawyer to understand the law. It has always been my experience that the Lawyer is just there to see what else they can bill you for and rarely take the time to understand the cases they are representing. You do NOT have to be a lawyer to understand the Law and/or the court system. You do not have to a Lawyer to “Practice Law”. In fact anyone that just “Lets their Lawyer Handle it” without taking the time learn as much about their case and the laws involved is an Idiot in my opinion.

[willard 0]

Quote

In fact anyone that just “Lets their Lawyer Handle it” without taking the time learn as much about their case and the laws involved is an Idiot in my opinion.

I agree with that 100% and congratulate you on having success in representing yourself. However, yours is an exception and the majority of the population, by far, is better off paying for their legal services.
To go with that, it is virtually impossible for anyone here in this forum to have studied this case sufficiently to make a call as to what statutes apply and in what way since the only information available to us is the kids story. We don't even know if it agrees with his official statement, if any, that he gave the police nor do we have statements from the CC folk, the arresting officer, or any other witnesses.
We just don't know everything that went on. Maybe the kid was messing with the receipt-checker-guy and acted like he was hiding something under his shirt when he went past, just as a joke. Maybe he said something to him that he hasn't relayed in his story made public.
For someone to say that there is no way they had probable cause to stop him, without knowing all the facts, is ignorance at best. On that I'm sure you will agree. Even in court it is not up to the defendent or plaintiff to decide what is or isn't probable cause, only to try to persuade the judge in the case to decide in their favor. That decision is up to the judge and/or jury.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"Being polite" means replying "no, thank you" when they ask to search your bag instead of "go f@ck yourself".

Now this is a great comment.

I wonder what your self-style, individual right's zealots say? I bet they are asses about it and that causes further problems.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

The difference here is that stores do not have to accept credit cards or checks. They must accept cash (legal tender for all debts, public and private), but can accept other forms of payment at their discretion, under their own terms.

Stores can refuse any cash payment at their discretion. The store can refuse if you insist upon paying in all pennies, or in hundreds, or in any denomination as they see fit (or unfit, I guess). A cash transaction is not a debt.

For instance there's a deli in Chicago, iirc, that refuses coins and prices all its sandwiches in round dollars (after tax).

Per the US Treasury

If you order, eat , and then pay, it IS a debt. If you pay, and then they bring the food, it's not.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No, it does not. "Being polite" means replying "no, thank you" when they ask to search your bag instead of "go f@ck yourself". What you are talking about, is giving up your legal right, which is not an issue of politeness.

yes it is an issue of politeness. That system is in place to partly help reduce the selling price of the electronics in the store. Since as a customer you are benefitting from that system when you make a purchase in that store, it is an issue of politeness to cooperate with that system, even if you legally don't have to.