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

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. <font color="blue"> 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.</font>

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="blue"> that is not the law in states that use a probable suspicion standard </font>

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called "common sense". You should look into it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called "common sense". You should look into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it isnt common sense that a business has a right to protect its assets by imposing non-onerous rules on its customers? It isn't common sense when a law requires someone to provide their name, address and DOB to require that the do more than make up something and leave?

If they arent common sense then you [deleted to save iron81 the trouble]

[TomVeil]

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.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
So it isnt common sense that a business has a right to protect its assets by imposing non-onerous rules on its customers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Detaining and searching completely innocent people does not seem onerous to you?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't common sense when a law requires someone to provide their name, address and DOB to require that the do more than make up something and leave?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, I'm Copernicus. When I debate, I move the goalposts and distort the argument. For example, when a law specifically requires giving name, address, and DOB, and you believe the law should be followed as stated, then I'll accuse you of supporting letting criminals make stuff up and be free to go. I never "lose" an argument because I don't rely on logic or intellectual honesty -- I have one rule: I'm always right and you're always un-American.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it isnt common sense that a business has a right to protect its assets by imposing non-onerous rules on its customers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Detaining and searching completely innocent people does not seem onerous to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Showing that receipts match the contents of your shopping bag is not onerous. If you think it is, don't shop there.

There is no detention issue until there is at least a reasonable suspicion or, in some states, reasonable cause to believe they arent innocent.

[Copernicus]

[ 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 ]

It is correct in some states (the reasonable cause states), incorrect in the reasonable suspicion states.

Even in reasonable cause states, if it is a membership store (Costco, Sams Club etc) where it is part of the agreement when you purchase a membership, then requiring everyone to show recipts is clearly legal.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.