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

[BCPVP]

Anyone else notice how Copernicus's position has morphed from his initial "this guy is absolutely wrong, I'm right!" to now opening up the possibility that this guy isn't wrong? Much like the argument for WMD's being in Iraq or Clinton not having "sexual relations with that woman".

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read specific citizen's arrest laws and whether the standards are reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion. There are comparisons of shopkeepers privilege and citizens arrest on several legal sites though.

WRT entering and leaving, since most stores that require showing receipts also require you to check bags upon entering and retrieve them on leaving this shouldnt be an issue. If you dont have any place to hide something, then it would be hard to establish reasonable suspicion.

WRT to "looks suspicious", is that "reasonable suspicion"? Somehow I doubt that would stand up in court as reasonable.

Lets take a slightly different case. What if an electronic sensor goes off because the clerk didnt demagnetize it properly, you know you paid for it, so you refuse to stop and have your receipt checked. Is there reasonable suspicion to inspect or detain? Reasonable cause to inspect or detain?

[pergesu]

[ 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 ]

I love this quote

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the problems that Loss Prevention faces, but come on now. We all know "those guys" who work loss prevention who think they are God of the World and would tackle grandma if you gave them the chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

on a police officer forum

[vhawk01]

[ 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 ]

I'm willing to bet that in the long run he will consider this to be a good fight to have chosen.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can ASK this all they want. You don't HAVE to comply.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if they want to detain you, they have to wait until you're outside.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
WRT entering and leaving, since most stores that require showing receipts also require you to check bags upon entering and retrieve them on leaving this shouldnt be an issue. If you dont have any place to hide something, then it would be hard to establish reasonable suspicion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's 40 below outside and I decide to throw on my bulky winter jacket to go shopping at the local Best Buy for some new grapplegromets. I get there, look around for awhile, and realize that they're sold out of grapplegromets, so I decide to leave the building to go shop somewhere else. Should the store have the right to stop me in order to search my jacket as I'm leaving the building? I mean, I could have easily shoplifted something in my bulky jacket...

What if the receipt-checker at the door takes a break from receipt-checking long enough to ask me to open my jacket on my way out and I refuse? Is this "reasonably suspicious" enough for them to physically detain me and search me? I mean, I have nobody to blame but myself for not opening up my jacket when a complete stranger requested that I do so. The request was hardly onerous, after all.

[ QUOTE ]

WRT to "looks suspicious", is that "reasonable suspicion"? Somehow I doubt that would stand up in court as reasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

We finally agree on something...and now I'm left feeling reasonably suspicious for some reason.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
He will lose money on legal fees and I don't think he will win a dime.... I would bet you on this but unfortunately if a settlement is reached there always seems to be a stipulation that you can't reveal any monetary damages.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any clue why a lawsuit is happening in the first place? The cop asked to see his ID, he said he'd just give his name (and he also gave him the receipt). The cop then placed him under arrest. Then he inspected the bag and saw that this guy hadn't stolen anything. He still took him down to the station and charged him with a crim.

Regardless of how douchebaggy you think this guy is, the "frivolous lawsuit" will occur because a police officer severely overstepped his boundaries.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets take a slightly different case. What if an electronic sensor goes off because the clerk didnt demagnetize it properly, you know you paid for it, so you refuse to stop and have your receipt checked. Is there reasonable suspicion to inspect or detain? Reasonable cause to inspect or detain?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have read several stories that indicate that the electronic sensor going of does not constitute reasonable cause specifically because of the frequency of false alarms. I'll try and see if I can dig up where I found those, but it's been since the last thread like this that was in OOT that I looked and that must have been months ago.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WRT entering and leaving, since most stores that require showing receipts also require you to check bags upon entering and retrieve them on leaving this shouldnt be an issue. If you dont have any place to hide something, then it would be hard to establish reasonable suspicion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's 40 below outside and I decide to throw on my bulky winter jacket to go shopping at the local Best Buy for some new grapplegromets. I get there, look around for awhile, and realize that they're sold out of grapplegromets, so I decide to leave the building to go shop somewhere else. Should the store have the right to stop me in order to search my jacket as I'm leaving the building? I mean, I could have easily shoplifted something in my bulky jacket...

What if the receipt-checker at the door takes a break from receipt-checking long enough to ask me to open my jacket on my way out and I refuse? Is this "reasonably suspicious" enough for them to physically detain me and search me? I mean, I have nobody to blame but myself for not opening up my jacket when a complete stranger requested that I do so. The request was hardly onerous, after all.

[ QUOTE ]

WRT to "looks suspicious", is that "reasonable suspicion"? Somehow I doubt that would stand up in court as reasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

We finally agree on something...and now I'm left feeling reasonably suspicious for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the bulky jacket is consistent with the weather conditions I again think reasonable suspicion would be difficult to defend. However I do recall shoplifting cases where several layers of clothing being worn on a hot day caused suspcicion and detention.