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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

So someone comes straight from the cashier lane to the exit with their goods in the bag. What purpose is served in asking for the receipt?

This discussion is NOT about someone who bypassed the cashier.

We know that because the kid did indeed pay for the surge protector (we assume he is telling the truth) and that he went through the checkout line.
What we DON'T know (and you are assuming) is if the security person actually saw him go through the line. It is possible, nay, LIKELY, that he didn't and wanted to see the receipt to ascertain the kid did pay for what he was carrying.
This THREAD isn't about someone who bypassed the cashier, but has evolved to include those who do. Threads evolve, remember?

So you're saying that the security person was lax in that he failed to observe the customer come through the checkout, and therefore, having NO probable cause for suspicion, is entitled to detain the customer against his will until a receipt is shown.

I THINK NOT.

Nice kind of country you'd like us to become.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure that in some instances the cashier is involved, but I would guess that more often people just walk around the cashier line and out the door, something not at all difficult to do.

You are talking about the "show receipt" policy.
In that case there is no receipt, and therefore "show receipt" policy does not prevent anything at all.

It does if the merchandise is either in the open where it can be seen or in a bag, the circumstances we have been discussing all along.
If it is hidden from sight then other measures must be taken to detect and hinder theft.

[Nightingale 0]

you have so many quotes in that post that I can't tell what you actually wrote.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So someone comes straight from the cashier lane to the exit with their goods in the bag. What purpose is served in asking for the receipt?

This discussion is NOT about someone who bypassed the cashier.

We know that because the kid did indeed pay for the surge protector (we assume he is telling the truth) and that he went through the checkout line.
What we DON'T know (and you are assuming) is if the security person actually saw him go through the line. It is possible, nay, LIKELY, that he didn't and wanted to see the receipt to ascertain the kid did pay for what he was carrying.
This THREAD isn't about someone who bypassed the cashier, but has evolved to include those who do. Threads evolve, remember?

So you're saying that the security person was lax in that he failed to observe the customer come through the checkout, and therefore, having NO probable cause for suspicion, is entitled to detain the customer against his will until a receipt is shown.

I THINK NOT.

Nice kind of country you'd like us to become.

That is not what I said, Kallend, and you know it. If you had taken the time to actually read my posts in this thread you would know that I do not agree with the way he was treated for not showing a receipt.
After he called 911 he had an obligation, moraly if not legally, to cooperate with the officer sent. He did not do this and was cited. Whether that citation holds up is yet to be seen.
Why don't you answer this...what rights of his were violated by them asking to see a receipt?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

After he called 911 he had an obligation, moraly if not legally, to cooperate with the officer sent. He did not do this and was cited. Whether that citation holds up is yet to be seen.

He did cooperate within the boundaries of the law. We are not required to hand over paper to an officer. Be it a DL, passport or birth certificate. I went 12 years without a DL. Should I be arrested if not able to hand over a DL if requested to do so?
The charge against him is a trumped up general purpose charge. The cop has nothing and is only wasting the taxpayers money. Any smart prosecutor would run far away from this one.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[misskriss 0]

After spending probably an hour and a half shopping with two of my teenaged daughters and spending close to $400 in Abercrombie and Fitch the alarm went off as we walked out of the store. The sales associate asked us to come back in while he went through all of our bags and compared them to the receipt. He then apologized for the hold up and sent us on our way. I wanted to return every single item I was so furious but didn't want to have to shop again for the girls. If you've ever been school shopping with teenaged girls you will know it can be equivilent to torture. He had seen us in there and commented on what a patient mother I was. When I think back I wish I would have said something or refused to let him check the bags. It wasn't my fault that they didn't take the sensor off but I was made to look like a thief.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

After he called 911 he had an obligation, moraly if not legally, to cooperate with the officer sent. He did not do this and was cited. Whether that citation holds up is yet to be seen.

He did cooperate within the boundaries of the law. We are not required to hand over paper to an officer. Be it a DL, passport or birth certificate. I went 12 years without a DL. Should I be arrested if not able to hand over a DL if requested to do so?
The charge against him is a trumped up general purpose charge. The cop has nothing and is only wasting the taxpayers money. Any smart prosecutor would run far away from this one.

You have a law degree? Where from?
As my post stated, he also had a MORAL obligation to cooperate. He was, after all, the one who called the police, why would he NOT cooperate???

[freethefly 6]

Quote

the alarm went off as we walked out of the store.

I've had the alarm go off on me several times over the years. The clerks were always nice and checked to see which sensor wasn't deactivated and I was on my way. Of course this is far different from some bozo accussing a person by the act of demanding to search his/her bags. The alarm alert is understandable. A demand to be searched is not. And yes, demanding to see a receipt and the content of a purchase is a search. What else could it be?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[willard 0]

Quote

After spending probably an hour and a half shopping with two of my teenaged daughters and spending close to $400 in Abercrombie and Fitch the alarm went off as we walked out of the store. The sales associate asked us to come back in while he went through all of our bags and compared them to the receipt. He then apologized for the hold up and sent us on our way. I wanted to return every single item I was so furious but didn't want to have to shop again for the girls. If you've ever been school shopping with teenaged girls you will know it can be equivilent to torture. He had seen us in there and commented on what a patient mother I was. When I think back I wish I would have said something or refused to let him check the bags. It wasn't my fault that they didn't take the sensor off but I was made to look like a thief.

Sorry you felt embarrassed, but shit happens. I've been stopped more than once because the CD or DVD didn't get deactivated but I don't feel I was made to look like a thief. If I had run out of the store after the alarm went off THEN I would have looked like a thief.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

You have a law degree? Where from?
As my post stated, he also had a MORAL obligation to cooperate. He was, after all, the one who called the police, why would he NOT cooperate???

Don't need one, willy. I know my rights. I'm not morally obligated by law to do anything.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If I had run out of the store after the alarm went off THEN I would have looked like a thief.

I see this as being this guys point. He did nothing to be made to look like a thief. He paid, he was leaving. He was stopped and a demand was made to search his purchase. He was made to look as if he was stealing something.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

If I had run out of the store after the alarm went off THEN I would have looked like a thief.

I see this as being this guys point. He did nothing to be made to look like a thief. He paid, he was leaving. He was stopped and a demand was made to search his purchase. He was made to look as if he was stealing something.

All the guy wanted was to see his receipt! He didn't try to strip-search him, omly asked to see his receipt. No rights were violated until it spilled over into the parking lot.
I can see where the store would think he was stealing. He refused to show a receipt, which in itself is not unusual for people to refuse to do but we don't know what the kid said, do we? Maybe he said "Fuck off, asshole" or something similar. He claims to have just said "No thank you". Then he gets into a car that, by his own admission, was sitting in front of the door waiting for him. CC guys went beyond their rights in stopping him, no doubt about that, but they should have called the police and gave them the plate number and let them handle it from there.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

You have a law degree? Where from?
As my post stated, he also had a MORAL obligation to cooperate. He was, after all, the one who called the police, why would he NOT cooperate???

Don't need one, willy. I know my rights. I'm not morally obligated by law to do anything.

You know the law in Ohio well enough to know under what circumstances you are required to produce an ID? Knowing your rights and knowing the law are quite different.
But, since you claim to know your rights, why not answer the question nobody here has...what right of the kid's was violated when they asked to see his receipt?

Everyone defending the kid here is assuming everything he wrote in his web site is the truth. Very seldom is one person's version entirely accurate. Isn't anyone interested in hearing what the store personel ahve to say? Or the cop? Could be some eye opening details there that the kid conveniently left out. I don't feel one bit of sympathy for this kid, hope the judge finds him guilty of interferring with the cops duties, fines him the max allowed, and sends him to bed without any supper.

BTW, don't call me willy. That is not my name and I take it as an insult and a personal attack. Yu can call me Willard or you can call me George. Hell, you can even call me Georgie, but I don't think any guy ever has.

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

I am no sheep, I don't let anybody shove anything up my ass!

You were awful quick to protest that one!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You have a law degree? Where from?

There is this odd belief that one must be a lawyer to know his own rights. One lawyer here likes to perpetuate this nonsense. Seems very European to me.

The stuff is covered even in the lame high school civics classes.

Quote

Everyone defending the kid here is assuming everything he wrote in his web site is the truth. Very seldom is one person's version entirely accurate.

Quite true. However unless he's lying about the charge brought against him, the opposing story falls apart. They didn't charge him with shoplifting, nor did they for not having a license. So how do you explain that, lacking any evidence to support your fantasy counterclaim?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

You have a law degree? Where from?

There is this odd belief that one must be a lawyer to know his own rights. One lawyer here likes to perpetuate this nonsense. Seems very European to me.

The stuff is covered even in the lame high school civics classes.

Quote

Everyone defending the kid here is assuming everything he wrote in his web site is the truth. Very seldom is one person's version entirely accurate.

Quite true. However unless he's lying about the charge brought against him, the opposing story falls apart. They didn't charge him with shoplifting, nor did they for not having a license. So how do you explain that, lacking any evidence to support your fantasy counterclaim?

Lot's of people here claiming to know the law, not just their rights.
Without reading the officers statement and report, and that of the store employees, none of us here have any means to judge whether the kid broke any laws or not.
However, to satisfy you curiousity, I suspect the charge of interefering with and officer in his duties stems from making the 911 call and then not cooperating with the officer. I also suspect the kids attitude toward the officer made a difference. Smart asses seldom get a break.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

All the guy wanted was to see his receipt! He didn't try to strip-search him, omly asked to see his receipt.

Why would they need to see his receipt? They apparantly didn't witness anything otherwise he would had been arrested for shoplifting.

Quote

No rights were violated until it spilled over into the parking lot.

And only his rights were violated.

Quote

I can see where the store would think he was stealing.

Thinking a person is stealing is far different from knowing. They can think all day but, thinking is not reasonable cause.

Quote

He refused to show a receipt, which in itself is not unusual for people to refuse to do but we don't know what the kid said, do we? Maybe he said "Fuck off, asshole" or something similar. He claims to have just said "No thank you".

This kid appears to be far smarter than that. Just do a search on him. From what I have read, I would find it hard to believe that he would spout off a list of curse words. By all accounts he is an intelligent kid. He admits that his day would had gone far better had he gave in to the stores demands but, he believes he is right and that a search of his receipt and purchase was out of line.

Quote

Then he gets into a car that, by his own admission, was sitting in front of the door waiting for him.

So...? You've never got into a car that pulled up to the front of a store? If you have, are you a thief?

Quote

CC guys went beyond their rights in stopping him, no doubt about that, but they should have called the police and gave them the plate number and let them handle it from there.

They didn't call because they were grasping at straw with the hope to catch a thief. They were fishing without a hook and they knew it, otherwise the cops would had been called by the store.
What would they say to the police? "Uhmmmm... we think someone stole something. Oh, we have no proof and we didn't witness anything. We only think he is a thief."
They had nothing and their policy is not upheld by state or federal law. Go search the law libraries.
This is the states website.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

You know the law in Ohio well enough to know under what circumstances you are required to produce an ID? Knowing your rights and knowing the law are quite different.

I reserch before I speak. You should do the same.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc

Quote

But, since you claim to know your rights, why not answer the question nobody here has...what right of the kid's was violated when they asked to see his receipt?

He is not required to show his receipt. He does not have to prove that he is not a thief if he is not arrested and charged for such. Regardless of the stores policy, he does not have to abide to such a request. Were they stopping each and every person and searching their receipts and bags? I doubt it. If he does not like the policy now that he is aware of it, sure, he can go else where. Apparantly, his policy is to not to give in to being search. If the store does not like his policy, they should had not let him into their store. Oh, I know what your question to this is. "How is the store suppose to know what each customers personal policy is?". Same with a customer. How are we to know what each and every stores policy is?

Quote

BTW, don't call me willy. That is not my name and I take it as an insult and a personal attack. Yu can call me Willard or you can call me George. Hell, you can even call me Georgie, but I don't think any guy ever has.

You call that a PA. Gee so sorry. I was not aware of your policy regarding your name. Maybe you should hang a sign.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Gravitymaster 0]

Interesting case that answers the question as to whether someone is required to give their name and/or produce identification when demanded by a Police Officer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html

Video of the arrest here:

http://www.abditum.com/hiibel/no_id_arrest_SMALL.mov

[Scoop 0]

You can get arrested for that in many circumstances over here too.

One good bit of advice is never gob off about how well you know the law to a police officer. They know more obscure pieces of legislation than you can ever imagine, as that is their daily toolbox.

It's also quite funny to arrest someone who supposedly knows the law better than you and watch their detention get authorised and then see they got charged with the offence - Especially law students

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One good bit of advice is never gob off about how well you know the law to a police officer. They know more obscure pieces of legislation than you can ever imagine, as that is their daily toolbox.

Yet despite that super knowledge, many break the law often with these stops, expecting the suspect to be either too dumb, too scared (guns), or too much like posters on this thread to protest.

[willard 0]

You still haven't answered my question.
Which of his rights were violated in the store when they asked to see his receipt? It can't be too hard to figure out, right? I mean, after all, you do know your rights, correct?

It is not the obligation of the store to know his personal policies. He came onto their property. Invited there or not it is their policies he must follow, not vice-versa.

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

Which of his rights were violated in the store when they asked to see his receipt? It can't be too hard to figure out, right? I mean, after all, you do know your rights, correct?

A request which someone is free to turn down is different from a demand backed up with forcible detention.

Do you believe his rights would have been intact had they physically detained him inside the store?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

You still haven't answered my question.
Which of his rights were violated in the store when they asked to see his receipt? It can't be too hard to figure out, right? I mean, after all, you do know your rights, correct?

It is not the obligation of the store to know his personal policies. He came onto their property. Invited there or not it is their policies he must follow, not vice-versa.

Unless they have a prominent sign at the entry stating "Enter here and you may be detained until you agree to be searched", or equivalent wording, he has every right to refuse and leave.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

You still haven't answered my question.
Which of his rights were violated in the store when they asked to see his receipt? It can't be too hard to figure out, right? I mean, after all, you do know your rights, correct?

It is not the obligation of the store to know his personal policies. He came onto their property. Invited there or not it is their policies he must follow, not vice-versa.

Unless they have a prominent sign at the entry stating "Enter here and you may be detained until you agree to be searched", or equivalent wording, he has every right to refuse and leave.

Agreed 100%! And that is what he did, and that is when the CC folk crossed the line. But they still didn't violate any of his rights by asking to see his receipt.