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

[jono]

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/...-circuit-city/

[BCPVP]

Pretty sure something similar to this was discussed in OOT once. IIRC, he should be able to sue Circuit City.

[Copernicus]

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.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stores absolutely do not have a right to search you against your will upon leaving and they don't have the right to detain you unless an employee witnesses you take something and watches you actually leave the store without paying for that item. Circuit City is guilty of unlawful restraint and will be begging to settle.

The cop is clearly in the wrong, but probably won't lose his job (though I think he should). Maybe this guy can sue the city; not sure though.

link

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This should work against the cops.

[BCPVP]

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

[Copernicus]

[ 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 ]

Its not "rubbing anything in my face". 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. In the "reasonable suspicion" states there have been no challenges that I could find regarding detention for not showing a receipt. virtually all states allow shopkeepers to detain under one of those two standards.

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.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
if...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 ]
A right to inspect, sure (whatever that means), but the right to detain? Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? That's a resounding no I think.

[Misfire]

[ 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]

[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.

[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