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

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In most jurisdictions, a citizen's arrest can only be performed as a result of the witnessing of the commission of a felony, and NOT on the "probable suspicion" of a misdemeanor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously in this case, it's ridiculous that not showing the receipt would give grounds for detainment.

But I think you're overstating the general case here. Security guards regularly detain people caught shoplifting, using force if necessary (one of them tackled a child in the story above). Are you saying they're unable to do this in jurisdictions where shoplifting is just a misdemeanor? Are you saying that if I blatantly walk out of a shop with a CD, the security guards have no power to detain me?

[/ QUOTE ]
"All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are strictly liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.[6]

North Carolina General Statutes do not provide for citizen arrest, but instead provide for detention by private persons.[7] These statutes apply both to civilians and to police officers outside their jurisdiction. Citizens and police may detain any person who they have probable cause to believe committed in their presence a felony, breach of the peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. The key distinction between an arrest and a detainment is that the detainee may not be transported without their consent."
wiki

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know if such a sign means that they DO have the right to detain you (from a legal POV)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. A store cannot just put up a sign saying "US or State jurisdiction ends at our front door, and the law no longer applies within our store." and then to conduct business as such.

Granted, they CAN put up the sign.....but they cannot be free from legal ramifications for attempting to enforce their own rules outside the scope of the jurisdiction they reside.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Ron Paul did the Google interview thing, he mentioned that the state shouldn't supress the citizen's right to bear arms, but if GOOGLE wanted to, they could say "no guns on google property" because it's private property. This is (seemingly?) the opposite of what you just said, no?

Great thread by the way, as far as discussion of rights in these situations, I'm learning a bit :P

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know if such a sign means that they DO have the right to detain you (from a legal POV)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. A store cannot just put up a sign saying "US or State jurisdiction ends at our front door, and the law no longer applies within our store." and then to conduct business as such.

Granted, they CAN put up the sign.....but they cannot be free from legal ramifications for attempting to enforce their own rules outside the scope of the jurisdiction they reside.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Ron Paul did the Google interview thing, he mentioned that the state shouldn't supress the citizen's right to bear arms, but if GOOGLE wanted to, they could say "no guns on google property" because it's private property. This is (seemingly?) the opposite of what you just said, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think they get to throw you in a dungeon if you break their rules? No, of course not, they simply eject you from their property.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a store should be allwoed to have the policy that they search their customer's bags before they leave. If you don't like it, don't shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether or not this is the store's policy, what right does the store have to detain you if you don't comply? Violating a store policy does not cause you to suddenly lose all of your civil rights.

The store's remedy for those who do not obey their policies is to inform these people that they are no longer permitted on their property. If these people return to the store, they can be charged with trespassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the shoplifter move on to the next circuit city that has the same policy. Very effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with shoplifting? This is about the store checking receipts at the door.

The store can detain actual shoplifters all they want. They just need to keep their hands off those of us who haven't actually violated any laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you feel it infringes on your rights doesnt mean they are incorrect that it is an effective shoplifting different. As the poster you responded to said, dont like it, dont shop there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to continue shopping in a store whose policies you do not agree with and have no intention of following.

I don't see why the store should be permitted to violate my rights if I still decided to set foot inside their premises, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because by setting foot inside the door you voluntarily agree to relinquish that right. The conspicuous posting of the policy creates an implied contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

An implied contract that they are allowed to forcibly detain me? No, it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleted An implied contract that they can check your receipt, and if you don't comply then they can detain you on reasonable suspicion within a reasonable distance and time of your leaving the store.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep asserting this, it doesn't make it even remotely reasonable. There is no such implied contract.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You sure about that? From my understanding, anyone can forcibly detain someone who they reasonably believe is in the act of committing a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

God I hope this isn't true, or at the very least that the definition of "reasonably believe" is absurdly strict.

EDIT: Cleared up later, thanks.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think you're overstating the general case here. Security guards regularly detain people caught shoplifting, using force if necessary (one of them tackled a child in the story above). Are you saying they're unable to do this in jurisdictions where shoplifting is just a misdemeanor? Are you saying that if I blatantly walk out of a shop with a CD, the security guards have no power to detain me?

[/ QUOTE ]

there's special legislation for shopkeepers, seperate from citizen arrest, as others have said there are like 5 criteria that must be met for shopkeeper to detain, based on actually seeing a guy shoplift.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying they're unable to do this in jurisdictions where shoplifting is just a misdemeanor? Are you saying that if I blatantly walk out of a shop with a CD, the security guards have no power to detain me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not saying that. They may have some power granted under another statute that applies to merchants and the security of their stores. But, the security guard is not justified under the jurisdiction's citizen arrest statutes if it only allows for felonies.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know if such a sign means that they DO have the right to detain you (from a legal POV)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. A store cannot just put up a sign saying "US or State jurisdiction ends at our front door, and the law no longer applies within our store." and then to conduct business as such.

Granted, they CAN put up the sign.....but they cannot be free from legal ramifications for attempting to enforce their own rules outside the scope of the jurisdiction they reside.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Ron Paul did the Google interview thing, he mentioned that the state shouldn't supress the citizen's right to bear arms, but if GOOGLE wanted to, they could say "no guns on google property" because it's private property. This is (seemingly?) the opposite of what you just said, no?

Great thread by the way, as far as discussion of rights in these situations, I'm learning a bit :P

[/ QUOTE ]

As pvn mentioned, Google is well within its rights to ask you to leave their property if you were to violate their rules. If you did not leave their property, you would be charge with trespassing.

Circuit City can do the exact same thing if you violate their rules. What they cannot do (except under exceptional circumstances) is detain you for violating their rules.

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying they're unable to do this in jurisdictions where shoplifting is just a misdemeanor? Are you saying that if I blatantly walk out of a shop with a CD, the security guards have no power to detain me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not saying that. They may have some power granted under another statute that applies to merchants and the security of their stores. But, the security guard is not justified under the jurisdiction's citizen arrest statutes if it only allows for felonies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
North Carolina General Statutes do not provide for citizen arrest, but instead provide for detention by private persons.[7] These statutes apply both to civilians and to police officers outside their jurisdiction. Citizens and police may detain any person who they have probable cause to believe committed in their presence a felony, breach of the peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am betting in most all jurisdictions, not just north carolina, that you can detain/citizens arrest if you have probable cause of theft, regardless of severity.

[Emperor]

In 1755, 3 pastors were scourged to death in the middle of town for not acquiring a license to preach. These men were willing to give their lives rather than be enslaved by the state via a license.

I wonder what they would think of all the licenses we have today? and taxes!