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

[DcifrThs]

[ 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

[Copernicus]

[ 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?

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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 ]

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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".

[Copernicus]

[ 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".

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[Hopey]

[ 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?