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

[RedBean]

Guys, does everyone realize that the purpose of the reciept checking at Circuit City is not to deter shoplifting by the customer from the checkout counter to a few feet away at the door?

Next time your in-store, check out how much shit you could conveivably grab from checkout to door and you'll see there isn't much in the way of pluckable merchandise.

The purpose of the checking of the reciepts is a self imposed company policy to check their own employees...ie...make sure the checkout girl isn't stuffing tons of shit in a friends bag posing as a customer, and then ringing them up for a fraction of the total.

They are asking you to comply at their request to QA their own employees, and deter their checkout employees from the temptation to under-ring items for friends...knowing another employee is cheking on the way out.

At absolute worst, if a LP employee argues that the failure to show a reciept establishes probable suspicion (which I don't think it does in and of itself).....but either way, even if it could be established that it does constitute probable suspicion, it would be suspicion of the checkout employee, as defined by their own company explanation of why they conduct reciept checks in the first place.

Attempting to detain the customer once out of the building should have resulted in a criminal arrest of the LP employee, with charges pressed by the customer... once the customer provided sufficient evidence that he did not steal anything, and that no probable suspicion existed to detain him outside of company property.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, does everyone realize that the purpose of the reciept checking at Circuit City is not to deter shoplifting by the customer from the checkout counter to a few feet away at the door?

Next time your in-store, check out how much shit you could conveivably grab from checkout to door and you'll see there isn't much in the way of pluckable merchandise.

The purpose of the checking of the reciepts is a self imposed company policy to check their own employees...ie...make sure the checkout girl isn't stuffing tons of shit in a friends bag posing as a customer, and then ringing them up for a fraction of the total.

They are asking you to comply at their request to QA their own employees, and deter their checkout employees from the temptation to under-ring items for friends...knowing another employee is cheking on the way out.

At absolute worst, if a LP employee argues that the failure to show a reciept establishes probable suspicion (which I don't think it does in and of itself).....but either way, even if it could be established that it does constitute probable suspicion, it would be suspicion of the checkout employee, as defined by their own company explanation of why they conduct reciept checks in the first place.

Attempting to detain the customer once out of the building should have resulted in a criminal arrest of the LP employee, with charges pressed by the customer... once the customer provided sufficient evidence that he did not steal anything, and that no probable suspicion existed to detain him outside of company property.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont buy your explanation that the sole purpose of checking receipts is undercharging by cashiers. It has nothing to do with proximity to the door, because the warehouse stores check receipts far away from the cashiers.

WRT detaining him outside the store, he didnt provide that proof until he was outside the store AND the police came, at least in the versions of the incident that I read.

[PLOlover]

seriously, 2 questions.

1) what if the guy didn't have i.d. on him? does the cop still arrest him after he just verbally gives his info, which is all he can do?

2) when "the manager" runs out of the store and "detains" the guy, how does he know he is really the manager. does it matter if it's a white middle aged guy with a company uniform vs. a 20's black guy in street clothes? not to be racist but I was in a bus station once where the security guard or head security guard prided himself on wearing street clothes and I thought it was kinda weird. I was sitting there waiting for a bus so I observed for a while and he really was security by his interactions with other employees, so it seemed really weird.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, does everyone realize that the purpose of the reciept checking at Circuit City is not to deter shoplifting by the customer from the checkout counter to a few feet away at the door?

Next time your in-store, check out how much shit you could conveivably grab from checkout to door and you'll see there isn't much in the way of pluckable merchandise.

The purpose of the checking of the reciepts is a self imposed company policy to check their own employees...ie...make sure the checkout girl isn't stuffing tons of shit in a friends bag posing as a customer, and then ringing them up for a fraction of the total.

They are asking you to comply at their request to QA their own employees, and deter their checkout employees from the temptation to under-ring items for friends...knowing another employee is cheking on the way out.

At absolute worst, if a LP employee argues that the failure to show a reciept establishes probable suspicion (which I don't think it does in and of itself).....but either way, even if it could be established that it does constitute probable suspicion, it would be suspicion of the checkout employee, as defined by their own company explanation of why they conduct reciept checks in the first place.

Attempting to detain the customer once out of the building should have resulted in a criminal arrest of the LP employee, with charges pressed by the customer... once the customer provided sufficient evidence that he did not steal anything, and that no probable suspicion existed to detain him outside of company property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with everything except the last part, that the customer would have to show proof that he didn't steal anything. No proof of that required, unless the store has some pretty strong proof he DID steal, that store manager should be going to jail.

[pergesu]

[ 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 ]
It just means that the companies have to figure out a way to minimize theft without stepping on civil liberties. Yes it means they'll have to adapt their systems, but I think it's pretty worthwhile.

[pergesu]

[ 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 ]
They can check receipts all they want. You can also choose to say no. They infringe on your rights when they detain you.

I don't think the issue here is the receipt-checking. The issue is that the CC employees effectively detained this guy, and then the cop made an unlawful search and arrest.

Just because receipt-checking is a deterrant against shoplifting doesn't mean they can use that as a starting point to infringe upon your rights.

[Woolygimp]

Deleted

That said, there's one cop in that thread linked that says he never shows his receipt or merchandise when leaving the store and if someone physically detained him then he'd arrest them on the spot.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with proximity to the door, because the warehouse stores check receipts far away from the cashiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about "the warehouse stores", I was referring specifically about Circuit City.

[ QUOTE ]

WRT detaining him outside the store, he didnt provide that proof until he was outside the store AND the police came, at least in the versions of the incident that I read.

[/ QUOTE ]

The version in the OP stated that the LP employee blocked the car door with his body, preventing it from closing or the vehicle from going backwards, while another employee stood in front of the vehicle to prevent it going forward.

Now, it may be a leap of assumption on my part, but I am guessing that they didn't park their vehicle inside the store.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
seriously, 2 questions.

1) what if the guy didn't have i.d. on him? does the cop still arrest him after he just verbally gives his info, which is all he can do?


[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, probably still results in an arrest for public disturbance. In reality, the OP was arrested for "being a nit who called 911 and wasted the cops time", not for "refusal to show papers".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was justified, but we all know that is exactly what the cop was thinking.

[ QUOTE ]

2) when "the manager" runs out of the store and "detains" the guy, how does he know he is really the manager. does it matter if it's a white middle aged guy with a company uniform vs. a 20's black guy in street clothes? not to be racist but I was in a bus station once where the security guard or head security guard prided himself on wearing street clothes and I thought it was kinda weird. I was sitting there waiting for a bus so I observed for a while and he really was security by his interactions with other employees, so it seemed really weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

Loss protection employees in many retail stores do in fact wear plain clothes. I once came to the assistance of a young girl at a local mall after a white dude in plain clothes appeared to rush her and tackle her....only to realize I was pounding on an LP employee and the girl had run out of the Service Merchandise with a handful of cheap jewelry.

And he pressed charges.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Loss protection employees in many retail stores do in fact wear plain clothes. I once came to the assistance of a young girl at a local mall after a white dude in plain clothes appeared to rush her and tackle her....only to realize I was pounding on an LP employee and the girl had run out of the Service Merchandise with a handful of cheap jewelry.

And he pressed charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what happened? hard to believe you would get prosecuted, but I've seen way worse things.