X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/...-circuit-city/

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

Pretty sure something similar to this was discussed in OOT once. IIRC, he should be able to sue Circuit City.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stores absolutely do not have a right to search you against your will upon leaving and they don't have the right to detain you unless an employee witnesses you take something and watches you actually leave the store without paying for that item. Circuit City is guilty of unlawful restraint and will be begging to settle.

The cop is clearly in the wrong, but probably won't lose his job (though I think he should). Maybe this guy can sue the city; not sure though.

link

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure.

[/ QUOTE ]
This should work against the cops.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

what if you don't have i.d. on you?

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

Just to rub it in Copernicus' face how wrong he is on this, here's a forum of police officers discussing this very issue with the consensus being that you cannot be detained for not letting someone check your receipt and that to try and detain you in any way without probable cause that you shoplifted something constitutes false imprisonment.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72907

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy cow! I read a lot of bad amateur legal analysis on here, but this has absolutely got to take the cake. No competent judge would ever interpret this law as you suggest. Moreover, NOT EVEN THE COP THAT ARRESTED HIM interpreted the law that way BECAUSE HE CHARGED HIM UNDER THE "OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS" LAW. SHEESH!!!

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

lol at this story. Once I read ACLU in the opening paragraph, somehow I knew what was coming. So instead of opening his bag and going with standard procedure, he decided to take a stand against a business (wouldn't the more effective stand be not giving them his money?), [censored] with people, and he get what he deserves. Good, well done, douche. This is what is [censored] wrong with this country, this is why there is 2 lawyers for every 1 person. Because every liberal idiot who thinks they are cleverly going to stick it to the man files a frivolous lawsuit that they were responsible for, and tie up the courts, and slow down society. gg. I hope he goes to jail and tries to pull some cute stuff there.

"but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing."

lolololol
enjoy life.

This pathetic idiot is going to spend his life getting fired and hating america and having everyone around him despise him. awesome.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

- The man is a loser
- The store clerk is an even bigger loser
- The cop is joke, and should be reprimanded.
- The law is totally on the side of the man, for good reason
- The fact that cops don't know basic law, and initiate force and detention for which they have no authority, is [censored] up.

Why does this matter?

Because not everyone has a knowledge of their rights, the law, or has family, friends, money, intelligence and social standing to protect them. Such people can and do get trampled on by douchebag cops who can't perform the most basic tasks of their job correctly. People should speak up against these abuses of power, because when they happen to a homeless guy, a mentally ill person, or a shifty looking black guy just minding his business, people are subject to unnecessary assault, and can and do lose important personal freedoms for no good reason at all.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

I don't really understand the vitriol some have towards people like this guy. Would I go this far to stand up for my rights? No, it's too much of a hassle. But he's clearly in the right, everyone who's giving him trouble is clearly in the wrong, and if enough gadflies like him make a scene, the rest of us have a better chance of not getting pushed around.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by iron81

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you get more and more ridiculous with every post? You're far further removed from reality than Nielsio and friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how those who scream love for America the loudest and condemn the rest as anti-American, are also the first in line to want to trample every great thing American supposedly stands for -- like freedom and democracy. With every post, Copernicus and company show their disdain for liberty. And they'll claim it's all part of their deep love for it, so it takes draconian measures to "protect" it. An example of this effect is Hannity's book "Let Freedom Ring" as a title for pages of trash about a stronger govt, liberal bashing, less personal freedom, defending all American foreign policy (even when opposed to freedom and self-determination), etc. These people just don't get that loving America does not mean one must love everything America or its police/military/leaders do. In fact, if you really love America and its ideals, you should vehemently speak out when your govt or its officials trample liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, etc. To do otherwise shows you don't value supposed American ideals, only American power and wealth.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. How can you possibly think that anything you wrote is actually right?

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to rub it in Copernicus' face how wrong he is on this, here's a forum of police officers discussing this very issue with the consensus being that you cannot be detained for not letting someone check your receipt and that to try and detain you in any way without probable cause that you shoplifted something constitutes false imprisonment.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72907

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not "rubbing anything in my face". If you bother to do the research you will find that it varies state by state, where some states talk about "reasonable cause" while others talk about "reasonable suspicion", two totally different standards. In the "reasonable suspicion" states there have been no challenges that I could find regarding detention for not showing a receipt. virtually all states allow shopkeepers to detain under one of those two standards.

I don't link to discussions on bulletin boards because they are extremely unreliable. If you want to use that as a standard there are several discussions on lawyer boards that render the opinion that if a sign is conspicuously posted or there is a reasonable expectation on behalf of the shopper that a receipt must be shown, then the store has the right to inspect.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
...In fact, if you really love America and its ideals, you should vehemently speak out when your govt or its officials trample liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, etc. To do otherwise shows you don't value supposed American ideals, only American power and wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I can't comprehend how people really see any of the actions taken by the CC employees or the PO in this case as anything other then onerous and downright UNAmerican.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
if...there is a reasonable expectation on behalf of the shopper that a receipt must be shown, then the store has the right to inspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
A right to inspect, sure (whatever that means), but the right to detain? Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? That's a resounding no I think.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/...-circuit-city/

[/ QUOTE ]

i gotta give the guy credit. i'd have just handed over the receipt and given the cop my liscense. at worst i'd have not handed over the receipt and given the cop my liscense to file a complaint against the store dude.

but if he's willing to fight for our rights, more power to him. my personal freedoms i guess are worth less than the cost / inconvenience of handing over a receipt, giving a cop my ID and defending myself in court

Barron

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that the obstruction charge will be dismissed. While I think he's pretty foolish, there is no legal requirement to show ID to an officer. He did nothing illegal. I'm a little less certain about showing receipt to store personnel. It's private property and I think they should have some latitude as to what rules they establish.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. How can you possibly think that anything you wrote is actually right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regrettably, the concept of basic civil liberties is almost dead in this country. Between the "War on Drugs", "War on Terror" and the illegal alien hysteria, we are rapidly approaching the point where you can become a non-person simply by losing a few documents.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol at this story. Once I read ACLU in the opening paragraph, somehow I knew what was coming. So instead of opening his bag and going with standard procedure, he decided to take a stand against a business (wouldn't the more effective stand be not giving them his money?), [censored] with people, and he get what he deserves. Good, well done, douche. This is what is [censored] wrong with this country, this is why there is 2 lawyers for every 1 person. Because every liberal idiot who thinks they are cleverly going to stick it to the man files a frivolous lawsuit that they were responsible for, and tie up the courts, and slow down society. gg. I hope he goes to jail and tries to pull some cute stuff there.

"but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing."

lolololol
enjoy life.

This pathetic idiot is going to spend his life getting fired and hating america and having everyone around him despise him. awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this guy's response.

[ QUOTE ]
Once I read ACLU in the opening paragraph, somehow I knew what was coming.

[/ QUOTE ] Usually it means someone felt their civil rights were violated. If that's what he meant, he was probably right.

[ QUOTE ]
this is why there is 2 lawyers for every 1 person.

[/ QUOTE ] Its such interesting hyperbole. I'm trying to picture how it could be possible. It would require some strange universe where there are more people with the job of lawyer then there are people.

"Because every liberal idiot who..." Ouch. Guess we know the partisan nature of this poster. Obviously anyone who felt his rights were being abused must just be a liberal idiot.

"...and slow down society" I thought I felt society slowing down a little lately. I wasn't sure the cause until this guy pointed it out.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope he goes to jail and tries to pull some cute stuff there.


[/ QUOTE ] Like raising bunnys? Its interesting that this guy has committed such a crime in your eyes that you're wishing him imprisonment and (seemingly) future harm.

"This pathetic idiot is going to spend his life getting fired" He's going to spend his life getting fired?

"and hating america" What exactly has led you to believe he hates America? (other then it being rote comments that many conservatives love to blindly toss out at anyone they perceive being liberal.) Do you honestly think you can draw this conclusion based on this incident?

"and having everyone around him despise him. awesome." based on this one incident you can conclude that everyone around him hates him?

Very odd reaction. I'm not sure I understand all the conclusions he came to though.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
what if you don't have i.d. on you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that there are Supreme Court rulings to the effect that you don't have any obligation to show police your ID unless under arrest. I'm to lazy to check, though.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little less certain about showing receipt to store personnel. It's private property and I think they should have some latitude as to what rules they establish.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy paid for the item. It was no longer their property.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't link to discussions on bulletin boards because they are extremely unreliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could help by not posting on them. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Merely walking out of the store and ignoring commands to stop with a bag full of merchandise probably constitutes reasonable suspicion. Its a very low standard. But between the cop and the receipt checker, I'm only about 80% sure the guy is completely in the right.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ] If the store posts it has the right to kick you in the nuts on your way out as well (to discourage shoplifing of course) does it have every right to do so? What about if it posts a right to racial profile minorities. Is that ok too?

--(I know the same thing I said on the other board pretty much)

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Merely walking out of the store and ignoring commands to stop with a bag full of merchandise probably constitutes reasonable suspicion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of shoplifting? I was always under the impression that reasonable suspicion required for a citizen's arrest is fairly high. I read several mentions of state laws with a requirement the security officer actually see someone shoplifting in order to physically detain. The use of restraining force is treated as a serious business by the courts.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a very low standard. But between the cop and the receipt checker, I'm only about 80% sure the guy is completely in the right.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the problems I have with this position is that anyone asserting their rights is automatically subject to "reasonable suspicion". I can't see any court accepting that the mere invoking of rights allows for a status of heightened suspicion.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Merely walking out of the store and ignoring commands to stop with a bag full of merchandise probably constitutes reasonable suspicion. Its a very low standard. But between the cop and the receipt checker, I'm only about 80% sure the guy is completely in the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a huge oversimplification.

We are not talking about a *person* having reasonable suspicion, we are talking about the *business*, on whose behalf the receipt checker acts. The *business*, through its cashier, saw you unload your wagon, ring up everything in there, pay the price the *business* told you to pay. The *business* bagged your goods for you, and gave you a receipt. You then walk towards the door with the goods *they* bagged for you, with the receipt *they* handed to you, and they have reasonable suspicion to stop you if you don't stop to show your receipt to someone standing 10 steps from the cashier? I don't think so.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

One other thing on this topic, on a personal level.

I am not offended by the idea of Best Buy asking me to show my receipt when I'm leaving. If they think it helps them avoid losses, and helps in any way keep their prices down, I'm happy to help.

What I am offended by is Best Buy treating me like I'm obligated to do this. When the receipt checker asks me nicely and treats me like a customer, he has my full cooperation. But when it's some rude punk or nasty old man who thinks he's doing me a favor by letting me leave the store with MY STUFF, I am much less likely to tolerate this very minor infringement of my rights.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if...there is a reasonable expectation on behalf of the shopper that a receipt must be shown, then the store has the right to inspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
A right to inspect, sure (whatever that means), but the right to detain? Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? That's a resounding no I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is whether the refusal to show receipts and allow inspection is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If so, then yes, detention is permitted. It is similar to provisions for "citizens arrest".

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...In fact, if you really love America and its ideals, you should vehemently speak out when your govt or its officials trample liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, etc. To do otherwise shows you don't value supposed American ideals, only American power and wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I can't comprehend how people really see any of the actions taken by the CC employees or the PO in this case as anything other then onerous and downright UNAmerican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup protecting a business' assets and requesting positive ID from someone suspected of shoplifting is soooooo un
American.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Merely walking out of the store and ignoring commands to stop with a bag full of merchandise probably constitutes reasonable suspicion. Its a very low standard. But between the cop and the receipt checker, I'm only about 80% sure the guy is completely in the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a huge oversimplification.

We are not talking about a *person* having reasonable suspicion, we are talking about the *business*, on whose behalf the receipt checker acts. The *business*, through its cashier, saw you unload your wagon, ring up everything in there, pay the price the *business* told you to pay. The *business* bagged your goods for you, and gave you a receipt. You then walk towards the door with the goods *they* bagged for you, with the receipt *they* handed to you, and they have reasonable suspicion to stop you if you don't stop to show your receipt to someone standing 10 steps from the cashier? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, to be fair, at best buy, the casheir says, "please show your receipt to the man at the door"

they do this to prevent you pocketing something and then slipping it into your bag. if you know you ahve to show the receipt there is probably a small deterrant to shoplifting going on there.

but once you LEAVE best buy and are OUT the door, i dont' think the store has the same rights to come anywhere near what the curcuit city guard did.

Barron

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. How can you possibly think that anything you wrote is actually right?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think it isn't?

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is whether the refusal to show receipts and allow inspection is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If so, then yes, detention is permitted. It is similar to provisions for "citizens arrest".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what you just wrote?

You are saying that refusing to consent to unlawful search is grounds to be searched.

You really hate freedom. It's scary.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ] If the store posts it has the right to kick you in the nuts on your way out as well (to discourage shoplifing of course) does it have every right to do so? <font color="blue">no, because there are standards in the shopkeeper's privilege laws that restrict the privilege to reasonable actions </font> What about if it posts a right to racial profile minorities. Is that ok too? <font color="blue">Yes, I would think legally that is ok. A private business has every right to protect itself in the manner it sees fit. As long as it doesn't discriminate in who it sells to, I dont see any reason to restrict who they watch more closely. They would be stupid to post the policy though (unless they think it has greater deterrent value than the potential legal costs to fight a discmination suit). </font>

--(I know the same thing I said on the other board pretty much)

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The issue is whether the refusal to show receipts and allow inspection is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If so, then yes, detention is permitted. It is similar to provisions for "citizens arrest".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what you just wrote?

You are saying that refusing to consent to unlawful search is grounds to be searched.

You really hate freedom. It's scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been no demonstration that its unlawful search. If it is then I agree. If thats your opinion say so. If you have facts, show them.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Merely walking out of the store and ignoring commands to stop with a bag full of merchandise probably constitutes reasonable suspicion. Its a very low standard. But between the cop and the receipt checker, I'm only about 80% sure the guy is completely in the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a huge oversimplification.

We are not talking about a *person* having reasonable suspicion, we are talking about the *business*, on whose behalf the receipt checker acts. The *business*, through its cashier, saw you unload your wagon, ring up everything in there, pay the price the *business* told you to pay. The *business* bagged your goods for you, and gave you a receipt. You then walk towards the door with the goods *they* bagged for you, with the receipt *they* handed to you, and they have reasonable suspicion to stop you if you don't stop to show your receipt to someone standing 10 steps from the cashier? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, to be fair, at best buy, the casheir says, "please show your receipt to the man at the door"

they do this to prevent you pocketing something and then slipping it into your bag. if you know you ahve to show the receipt there is probably a small deterrant to shoplifting going on there.

but once you LEAVE best buy and are OUT the door, i dont' think the store has the same rights to come anywhere near what the curcuit city guard did.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

The standard in the shopkeeper's privilege laws Ive read or seen referred to have a standard of detention in "near proximity" to the store, not "in the store".

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't link to discussions on bulletin boards because they are extremely unreliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could help by not posting on them. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You could help by thinking before you do post on "them".

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The issue is whether the refusal to show receipts and allow inspection is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If so, then yes, detention is permitted. It is similar to provisions for "citizens arrest".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what you just wrote?

You are saying that refusing to consent to unlawful search is grounds to be searched.

You really hate freedom. It's scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been no demonstration that its unlawful search. If it is then I agree. If thats your opinion say so. If you have facts, show them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But your entire grounds for argument that it is a lawful search is that, by refusing, he is creating suspicion of shoplifting. So under what circumstances could anyone ever refuse to be searched, and have it considered an unlawful search? Refusing = suspicion, and suspicion = legal cause, so therefore, the phrase "unlawful search" is meaningless and does not apply to reality.

This may actually be the correct interpretation, I'm not a lawyer, but it IS terrifying, and that I'm sure of, since I am a human being.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you bother to do the research you will find that it varies state by state, where some states talk about "reasonable cause" while others talk about "reasonable suspicion", two totally different standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have done a little research and have never seen any mention of "reasonable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" especially where refusal to submit to a bag check would constitute either. Your authoritarian fantasyland doesn't count. To detain someone, you must have probable cause which you do not have based solely on the refusal to show a receipt. To establish probable cause:
*You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
*You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
*You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
*You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
*You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
*You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

An exit bag checker could not possibly have done all of those things.

[ QUOTE ]
virtually all states allow shopkeepers to detain under one of those two standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. I'm sure there are some stores that would be glad to not have you advising them on LP.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't link to discussions on bulletin boards because they are extremely unreliable. If you want to use that as a standard there are several discussions on lawyer boards that render the opinion that if a sign is conspicuously posted or there is a reasonable expectation on behalf of the shopper that a receipt must be shown, then the store has the right to inspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course evidence that contradicts your viewpoint is unreliable. At best the store has the right to consider you a trespasser and ban you from the store for life, which I have no problem with. They cannot force you to show your bags and they cannot detain you legally without probable cause.

Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
 

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is whether the refusal to show receipts and allow inspection is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If so, then yes, detention is permitted. It is similar to provisions for "citizens arrest".


[/ QUOTE ]

So after making a purchase at Wal-Mart and leaving the store, an employee of the store comes running out and demands that I show him my receipt and submit to a search. I, of course, kindly tell him to go [censored] himself.

So now he has a right to physically detain me? WTF?