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

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not wrong. Shopkeeper's privilege laws are standard, and every one I found uses one of the two standards. If you disagree, then produce some that have no such laws or use a materially different standard for detention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Post these laws that allow for detainment on grounds of refusal to consent to a bag check alone. I will grant you that some states allow for reasonable cause, but nowhere have I found that not consenting to a bag check constitutes such cause and I've found many, many links to the contrary that state in order to show reasonable/probable cause, store employees must actually witness the attempt to shoplift. So you are still wrong with your first post that said this guy did something wrong until you can produce a single law that allows for detainment based on refusal to consent to a bag check.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus has asserted it be so. No need for him to provide any support to his assertions, even if they are contrary to readily available sources. He's inspired by God and defined as absolute correctness.

[kevin017]

to whoever above posting about probable cause: the law does indeed use reasonable suspicion or some variant of it in a lot of cases. BUT, the fallacy of copernicous's logic is still this: engaging in legal behavior is in no way reasonable suspicion that you are engaging in illegal behavior.

i've become more interested in gun laws lately. In virginia, its legal to openly carry a gun on your hip, with no license or anything. however, sometimes people call the police on these people, and uninformed police sometimes try to use the fact that the person is carrying a gun as grounds to terry stop someone, search, detain, sometimes even draw at and disarm at gunpoint, etc, when carrying a gun is a legal activity and in no way provides reasonable suspicion about involvement in a crime.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

YOU were the one asserting such a search is legal since refusal qualifies as reasonable suspicion. I pointed the absurdity of such logic. So it is nonsensical for the onus of the legality of the search to be on me -- I never asserted anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said was that in states where reasonable suspicion is the standard I could find no court cases where inspection of packages has been challenged. It isn't my opinion of whether its legal, just what is readily available on Lexis as case law. If it were so clear that refusal to allow inspection is illegal, you would expect at least one case to pop up. This one may break new ground and thats what the courts are for.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not wrong. Shopkeeper's privilege laws are standard, and every one I found uses one of the two standards. If you disagree, then produce some that have no such laws or use a materially different standard for detention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Post these laws that allow for detainment on grounds of refusal to consent to a bag check alone. I will grant you that some states allow for reasonable cause, but nowhere have I found that not consenting to a bag check constitutes such cause and I've found many, many links to the contrary that state in order to show reasonable/probable cause, store employees must actually witness the attempt to shoplift. So you are still wrong with your first post that said this guy did something wrong until you can produce a single law that allows for detainment based on refusal to consent to a bag check.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus has asserted it be so. No need for him to provide any support to his assertions, even if they are contrary to readily available sources. He's inspired by God and defined as absolute correctness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are those readily available sources?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

YOU were the one asserting such a search is legal since refusal qualifies as reasonable suspicion. I pointed the absurdity of such logic. So it is nonsensical for the onus of the legality of the search to be on me -- I never asserted anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said was that in states where reasonable suspicion is the standard I could find no court cases where inspection of packages has been challenged. It isn't my opinion of whether its legal, just what is readily available on Lexis as case law. If it were so clear that refusal to allow inspection is illegal, you would expect at least one case to pop up. This one may break new ground and thats what the courts are for.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said exactly is already quoted above:

"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."

You fail to see the fallacy of such logic. If there's no probable cause for search, then merely not consenting to such search does not constitute probable cause.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a buisness owner:

*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


This is exactly correct.

In fact, in places like malls, you can't even approach them outside the store. You must call mall security and then hope they're able to bring him back. A friend of mine found that out the hard way when chasing down somebody in the mall in Evansville, IN.

Now as it pertains to non-legal ways to get merchandise back, there's a lot of them. You can ASK anybody at any time to show the contents of their bag. But just because they say no doesn't mean that you can do it anyway because now it's suspcious. If they refuse, the only thing that you can do is ask them to leave and not return.

In fact, last weekend I am 100% positive that somebody stole from my store. I have his name, address, and phone number (he called home to get a ride). I have called and told him that if I do not get my merchandise back, I will call the police. In fact, the police could do nothing about it unless I had visual evidence of him at all times. It's just the way that the system works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't argue with Copernicus. You're disagreeing with him so you're no doubt wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Felix_Nietzsche]

A wise general picks his fights.
This guy pick the wrong fight. Cops have a saying, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
A wise general picks his fights.
This guy pick the wrong fight. Cops have a saying, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

[/ QUOTE ]
This guy will be whistling all the way to the bank when CC (and maybe the city?) pays him to make this go away. Sounds like an excellent place to pick a fight to me.

[Hopey]

So you're arguing that a private citizen is permitted by law to detain and search another private citizen based merely on a reasonable suspicion? This isn't something that is only permitted to law enforcement officers?

The reasonable suspicion in this case being that a private citizen just purchased items in your store and is now trying to leave the premises without showing you a receipt on the way out the door.

What if this private citizen enters the building but then leaves your store without buying something? Do you have a reasonable suspicion to detain and search him in this case? What if he "looks suspicious" to you?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

YOU were the one asserting such a search is legal since refusal qualifies as reasonable suspicion. I pointed the absurdity of such logic. So it is nonsensical for the onus of the legality of the search to be on me -- I never asserted anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said was that in states where reasonable suspicion is the standard I could find no court cases where inspection of packages has been challenged. It isn't my opinion of whether its legal, just what is readily available on Lexis as case law. If it were so clear that refusal to allow inspection is illegal, you would expect at least one case to pop up. This one may break new ground and thats what the courts are for.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said exactly is already quoted above:

"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."

You fail to see the fallacy of such logic. If there's no probable cause for search, then merely not consenting to such search does not constitute probable cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you switch from reasonable suspicion to reasonable cause? You do understand there is a difference don't you? You do understand that its the %(@*I%@ LAW? I haven't once stated my OPINION on the logic of the law, just restated what the law is.