Papers Please: Arrested at Circuit City for refusing to show ID, receipt
Link.Today I was arrested by the Brooklyn, Ohio police department. It all started when I refused to show my receipt to the loss prevention employee at Circuit City, and it ended when a police officer arrested me for refusing to provide my driver's license.
There are two interesting stories in one which I thought would be of interest to Boing Boing readers. The first involves the loss prevention employee physically preventing my egress from the property. The second story involves my right as a U.S. citizen to not have to show my papers when asked. (Despite having verbally identified myself, the officer arrested me for failing to provide a driver's license while standing on a sidewalk.)
Here are two blurbs from my blog post which summarize both parts of the story:
"I've always taken the stance that retail stores shouldn't treat their loyal customers as criminals and that customers shouldn't so willingly give up their rights along with their money."
"I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today."
Update: Some very thoughtful debate about the rights and wrongs in this story in the BB comments forum, including one by a BB reader identified as an attorney: Link, and this one and this one, by Boing Boing community goddess Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Previously on Boing Boing:
Costco routinely asks to see your receipt before you leave and MARKS it with a different colored marker each day. There is a posted sign explaining that this is to prevent anyone from buying something, then coming in and sneaking out with another of the original product using the first receipt. Of course, if someone did this, they could presumably return one of the products for a refund and thus get something completely free.
As a reformed shoplifter, I understand this procedure completely--and don't mind it at all. Now, if Circuit City doesn't mark the receipt at all, I don't get it--it's just plain stupid.
Under what circumstances must I provide ID if requested by a police officer? Is there a page on the Web that definitively discusses this? I've often wondered if a driver's license is required for walking down the sidewalk.
Yesterday I witnessed a very frightened-looking gentleman of south asian or middle eastern descent being sternly informed by a member of the NYPD that he would be arrested if he couldn't produce ID. This was outside the turnstyle of a NYC subway station. I almost yelled at the cop but thought much better - I'm not sure if NY state has a statutory requirement for producing ID.
I would sign in, except that the police have taken my information before, and I've caused them trouble in the past (a false arrest case arose from their response to me once).
In a further frightening development, which I was wondering how to make public note of, a club/bar I went to tonight incorporated a sort of rough "show-ID stand here for the computer-camto take a picture of you to run through some hipster-verifiability/terrorist-watch list sort of procedure. At first this didn't bother bc i thought the use of technology sort of novel, until I got realized that these clubsters had in a sense taken my identity as a security deposit for entering the club (along with the $10 cover).
There is simply no such animal as privacy anymore, and any notion of our rights in the face of state inquiry (or shopkeeper's privilege, a term a law student friend introduced me to, if that is accurate...) has at least radically changed if not evaporated since earlier seemingly more innocuous times. You know, when we tried not to be quite as bad as the totalitarians we were railing against.
One more note: my brother receieved a $50 ticket for having his feet up on the edge of a subway seat. When I see the police enter a train car I am on, I sit quietly, practically holding my breath, my belongings held tight, hoping they don't decide I'm doing anything illegal. Oh and then there fun thoughts that run through my head when they search my messenger bag for small packets of whatever malicious gizmometers they think I'm going to let loose on empty trains...I bet I could keep going...
-NYer
According to the Ohio Patriot Act, which was passed in 2005, requires "individuals to show identification or provide personal information in specified situations". Those specific situations are detailed in Sec. 2921.29.
Sec. 2921.29. (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Jst shw th fckn' rcpt, mrn.
Hw d thy knw y r lyl cstmr nd nt sm sshl wlkng t wth mrchnds?
If I recall correctly a Terry stop in a US State that has a stop-and-identify law requires a person only to give only their name (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada). Photo ID is not required. Ohio is a stop-and-identify state. If this person failed to verbally give his name then he was on the wrong side of the law. If he only failed to show ID after verbally stating his name, then all he should need to do is cite 542 U.S. 177.
As for the stopping of a person for failing to show a receipt, stores are usually allowed to stop and hold people only if they suspect theft. Failing to show a receipt is not reason enough. This reader will have to look up the applicable laws but it is probable that the loss prevention employee violated the unlawful restraint law.
The first step in any case is to get a lawyer.
It would be nice to have him quote the law he's basing things on - the one that shows they can't ask to look in his bag. It would give anyone else doing similar things a bit more ammo to back up their actions.
(German Accent) Show us ze papers old man!
This just in: Recaltricant e-dork messes with low-paid service employees, is later arrested by other low-paid service employees. Mentions on Internet, street cred increased. Film at 11.
According to the Brooklyn Ohio ordinances, as I read them, one can be detained but not restrained.
There is also an ordinance stating that a person must disclose their name, address, and DOB to any cop that "suspects" them, though I do not see an explicit mention of physical ID.
Personally, I'm with the guy - I often refuse to show my receipts on the way out of so-called "big-box" stores, depending on how exit conditions appear (so I can be positive I can avoid exactly the kind of restraint mentioned - I've never been stopped but I have been yelled at many times!)
Circuit City and the cop are both going to lose on this one, bigtime.
First, he was illegally detained by the CC manager, and then "not showing ID" is *not* a valid reason to get arrested in Ohio.
Watching how this plays out should be very interesting. The Austin, TX CompUSA stores stopped checking receipts at the door in '99 or early 2000 after a large outcry and many complaints from the "nerd community" resulting from some overzealous rent-a-cops chasing people out into the parking lot or preventing them from driving away with their purchases.
That's absolute shit.
What could you do if you have no 'papers'?
I know that I don't normally prepare for a trip
to Wal-mart by going through a mental checklist that includes all forms of photoID....
I make sure I have $$ to make a purchase if required and beyond that and housekeys there should be no further required personal inventory to enter the real world and be in public places.
Since you've been arrested your local shopping establishment your name is now on no-fly lists and your personal finances & phone calls will now be scrutinized by teams of overpaid .gov employees.
My personal advice.....
move up here to Canada :-)
I'm kind of tired of these stories. What's the harm in showing a damned receipt?
The only reason I can see that anyone would refuse (assuming they're not stealing anything) is to try to one-up an authority figure and feel like they have some power.
Grow up. Just show the effing receipt and stop causing scenes.
What I don't like is people who choose not to play by the store's rules. You are on someone else's private property - not yours. If you don't want to show your receipt, return your merchandise and don't shop there. Order your products online if you wish.
Businesses are private property. Just because you bought a piece of merchandise there doesn't give anybody the moral right to suspend the property owners right to have guests follow their rules (even if it is "the law").
It is not as if people at large are ignorant that they may be asked and yes even required to show their receipt. Just because some person thinks their rules trump those of the business they shopped at doesn't make it so.
Next time Boing Boing posts yet another of these outraged shopper stories about a person who thinks it is an imposition or an intrusion to provide their receipt I would suggest they ask: Whose rules apply - the business whose private property someone volunteered to enter or some scofflaw who thinks they can impose their personal set of rules on someone else's private property?
If you don't like a rule or you don't want to provide your receipt at a given business, don't do business there - please, it is just common sense.
Thane Eichenauer - Tempe, AZ
I'm not sure how Circuit City's LP system works, but from my experiences in the field at (insert large American retail chain here), you can PROBABLY at least get the guy who stopped you fired (or at least in a bunch of trouble) for having a bad stop. Use your Google-fu (or some well-placed phone calls) to find out who the district manager of Loss Prevention is in your district, and tell him what happened - chances are he won't be too happy. Bad stops make the store look REALLY bad, especially if something like this gets media attention. If revenge is your cup of tea, this guy's toast.
I agree you may have them with the "no ID" aspect of your defense, but refusing to produce a receipt is just irresponsible and stupid.
Produce the reciept (papers as you refer to it), have a smug snooty smile on your face, and give them attitude if you want. But the reality of the situation is they are legally able and rightfully so to ask for your 'papers'.
This isnt the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, where 'papers' didnt mean such a menial thing as a reciept from WalMart. Your comparison of 'papers' is insulting to citizens that had to live in those countries/times.
Dont take a minor inconvenience and compare it to a life or death situation of the iron curtain.
I must agree with Thane. You've entered private property - private property filled with many interesting things of high value which quite a few people might want to steal. I don't think it's at all unreasonable that they want to see your receipt for any goods you're carrying to make sure you've paid for them before you leave. The author of this article didn't have to show ID to the store staff to get out, just the receipt for an easily-stealable item purchased from those private premises.
This is not an invasion of privacy. The receipt doesn't have your personal details on it. It doesn't have your card number on it (or at least it shouldn't - if it does, stop shopping there and make sure you burn the thing instead of throwing it away when you no longer require it). It doesn't have your sexual preferences encoded in the layout of the text. So what's the big deal? Some attempts to reduce or prevent crime to infringe on our rights, and these need to be considered carefully, but this doesn't - it's just an unfortunate sign of the times we live in.
That said, though, after the utterly pointless incident with the security guard which led to calling the police, the police officer really needs to get straight on whether there's a legal obligation to produce ID or not. Obstructing the police I can understand, but there's no justification for actually needing to know who someone is at that point. Since the author handed over the receipt to the police officer when asked, and the store manager confirmed nothing was stolen, that should have been the end of it - with a chat from the police officer about private property and the prevention of retail theft. The arrest does appear rather over the top, but the situation should never have arisen in the first place.
Some people don't read up on their rights enough.
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6767489?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
You *are not required* to show your receipt at public stores.
Thane - Unfortunately, the law appllies to private property too, rendering your entire argument null. Thanks for trying, though.
In an age where CCTV has total blanket coverage (I live in the UK so lemmetellyou, I *know* about being watched all the time,) there is no excuse for customers to be assaulted by random stop 'n' searches or requests for proof of purchase from whoever the store decides should do it.
There is no excuse for the store to not have cameras looking into every corner of their store, along with tags and gate alarms -- this is just common sense security practice and is an acceptable way to prevent shrinkage and unsuitable behaviour. In 2007, we accept that if we choose to visit one of these places, we'll be watched while we shop, and that's fair enough.
With that in mind, it's not acceptable, if the company is following sensible practice, to harangue shoppers and bully them into becoming Stepford customers -- 'come in, spend money, covet new stuff then leave with a reminder that we are the boss'. These stores aren't the boss, and no matter what the political climate says, the age old rules of business *and* good manners still apply: the customer is king, the customer is always right, the customer is a person who has the right to shop elsewhere.
Business, specifically big business is the reason we are in so much mess these days -- debt, war, famine, political corruption are all caused by greedy corporations buying power, and what happened in this story was caused by a company overstepping the line of decency and by a police officer (a police force) twisted by big business into behaving like hired security and not knowing enough about the law and it's fundamental principles. If a citizen does not comply with an order, no matter what the order, they get arrested, sprayed, tazered or shot. There is no reasoning with this.
There is, however, a course of action to beat this. Stores need customers to spend money. If a store treats us badly, don't go there, don't spend your money. Think about what it says about a person who learns that a business is treating us in this way and yet still goes and spends hard earned money with them. By shopping in these places, you condone their actions.
Boycott the store, tell people why, shop elsewhere. It's simple, it'll save you money and it'll hurt the bullying corporations where it hurts them the most.
Thane is wrong. pricvate property or not, they dio not have the right or any reasonable excuse to search your person or your belongings- the fourth amendment applies no matter where you happen to be. The store is perfectly within reason to ask, but never, ever to force.
It goes without saying I have no plans to ever set foot in another circuit city store.
Even though you're entering private property, it doesn't give the store a right to act unlawfully. If a store printed a policy and posted it on their front doors stating that it had the right to molest your children, how would you feel if they did so? Would you "just not shop there"? C'mon.
My civil rights are important to me. The past 6 years notwithstanding, I'm still not used to them being violated so casually and often.
As a privacy researcher I am always troubled by such stories.
I am a big fan of ACLU literature titles like The Rights of the Suspect, etc. I wonder whether they could be prevailed upon to provide a Right to Privacy title to clarify for us non-lawyers exactly when we are legally obliged to divulge which pieces of our identity.
A follow-up thought: does anybody here know of an existing such project, or have the resources to start such a project? I know many people who could contribute expertise, but on the cryptographic and technological side not the legal side.
Ha ha.. not in Ohio dude. Welcome to a post-9.11 world. They changed the law now under retarded terrerism concerns that says you have to give SSN, Name, Address. You could have said you don't have ID on you, but you still have to provide info.
Papers, please.
Calling 911 was a mistake. it wasn't a life and death emergency.
Step 1: Incite pointless arrest
Step 2: Whine to blogosphere
Step 3: Profit!
Is this really a violation of fourth amendment rights? When I'm asked to show my receipt while leaving a store the employee usually takes a quick glance at the receipt and then a quick glance at my cart. There is no really no "search" and if I did want to conceal something to steal I probably could. The customer should, of course, be allowed to refuse to show a receipt and circuit city obviously handled this poorly but even to call something like showing your receipt a slippery slope of any sort seems a bit silly.
Once you've paid for the item, it's your own property, and you have a right for that to be secure and not have to justify it to anybody that you actually do own it. If they can't get their act together to be able to tell that you purchased something without searching your belongings, they really need a better system.
As to what is lost in complying, well, aside from the basic right of not being treated like a criminal, in some cases, there's a time factor. If it's not just a random check because they may have suspected something, but large numbers of people are having their bags and receipts inspected, you're waiting in a line to leave with your property.
Yes, the store is private property, and the private property is free to set any ground rules they wish - and their recourse if you choose not to obey those rules, like the owner of any private property, is to ask you to leave or, in extreme cases, ask that you not return. They're not a law unto themselves.
Circuit City has no right to protect its property on its own premises. The police officer doesn't have the right to carry out the functions of his duty.
Blogger has the right to rush out the door with a bag full of unaccounted for goodies. Blogger has the right to "play dumb" and ignore calm and reasonable requests to show his receipt on CC property. Blogger has the right to waste public emergency response resources for minor quibbles he instigated.
Blogger's a douche.
what most of you are missing is that most "shrinkage " is due to employee theft. If an employee, lets say a cashier, is suspect, it is safe to assume that they might not ring some things for certain customers. this being the easiest way to get said product out of the store. highly undetectable theft, that is unless you start checking receipts.
Why is this news? If you're entering private property, you're agreeing to play by the rules of the store. One of those rules may very well be that they reserve the right to check your bags and your receipt to ensure that you aren't shoplifting. If you're concerned that this is equivalent to being treated as a criminal, then vote with your wallet rather than a polemic on how a store is infringing on your "right and freedoms".
Michael, while I agree with your actions in spirit, and actually applaud you for standing up for your rights, I think you may be in a bit of trouble here. Sadly, I've been in retail management for more than 10 years, so I've been through this a million times. Basically, there's something usually referred to as 'Shopkeepers Privilege' which allows the proprietors of a store to take reasonable action to protect their property, employees and well being. Now 'Reasonable Action', can of course be interpreted many ways, but I've never heard of a judge who didn't side with the store owner over searching someone's possessions if they suspected the person of shoplifting. It's sad, absolutely, but that's the way the laws are written. The law is set up to protect people's property at the expense of their rights. The reason places like Circuit City check your bags as you leave is so that if they discover you are taking something with you without paying, they can deal with you in their own way (usually a Polaroid in the back room and being banned for life) because it isn't actually shoplifting until you leave private property. It is much less expensive to deal with shoplifters this way than to send someone to court.
Believe me, I wish we lived in a world where this wasn't the way it is, but there are plenty of selfish folks who will take anything that isn't nailed down. Blame them, don't blame the poor dupes at Circuit City who probably make minimum wage and hate searching your bag as much as you hate having it searched.
I realize you live in Brooklyn, Ohio - I live in Brooklyn New York. Cops ID me all the time, especially since 9/11. The gestapo undertones of 'Papers Please' bother me, but I'm willing to spend a day in jail on principle, so for that I applaud you. Good luck, I really hope this works out in your favor.
I'm all (a) not showing your receipt and (b) fighting the need to show a government ID for everything, but for heaven's sake -- fight one battle at a time. You want to make a point to the retail store? Then cooperate with the police so the retail store will understand that the law won't back up their b.s. A couple of times of cops showing up and doing nothing will dissuade the store from calling the cops. Sure, the police can be heavy handed and often behave unconstitutionally, but which evil were you trying to fight right then?
Basically, there's something usually referred to as 'Shopkeepers Privilege' which allows the proprietors of a store to take reasonable action to protect their property, employees and well being. Now 'Reasonable Action', can of course be interpreted many ways, but I've never heard of a judge who didn't side with the store owner over searching someone's possessions if they suspected the person of shoplifting.
You haven't been paying attention then. These situations happen often enough that it has been shown the law is clearly on the side of the customer. A shopkeeper can stop you if they have reason to believe you've stolen. Not the case here. Google on "illegal receipt check" and educate yourself.
See Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), reaffirming the right not to provide ID if one provides an accurate pedigree instead.
Circuit City is basically a crappy place to shop anyway, so the whole issue is moot.
Showing a receipt is a privacy invasion?
An employee already touched and recorded everything on that receipt and there is a digital record of it.
What is with all of you "If you're entering private property, you're agreeing to play by the rules of the store." people?
While some membership-based stores make you sign such an agreement, there is NO SUCH contract you sign when you enter a Circuit City. If they want to tell you, a paying customer, to never return, THAT is within their rights if you refuse to "play by their rules". But barring actual reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred that's about it.
Last I checked, being the "loss prevention" flunky at the bigbox doesn't grant any supralegal rights.
BTW, one thing you do NOT want to do is so much as touch them lest you be accused of assault (and thus provide them with suspicion of a crime).
Here's an approach I've been wanting to try:
"No, I will not show you. If I, a paying customer, am treated like a criminal any longer, I will, however, turn around and walk back to the service desk and show it to return my entire purchase."
Another fun one might be to go at a really busy time (say Black Friday) buy the cheapest possible item, say a pack of gum or whatever,
put the receipt in your pocket, but walk out with a fanny pack just stuffed with random receipts and crap, then go through each one, "no this doesn't seem to be it". When the line backs up behind you, one wonders how many people will decide they don't want to show their receipts either.
About a month ago I was about to purchase a camera in a Circuit City. Although I was paying cash, they would not sell it to me unless I gave them my name and address. I refused, and will never shop at Circuit City again.
First rule. You don't need to be a dick. Second rule. In this day and age of everyone and their little kid trying to find some way to scam a store, hack it's website, get around its rules - then yes, in some instances you may get asked to show you have proof of purchase of an item while on the private property of a business.
I would also challenge that the shopper indeed did something while on the premises to raise such interest in the floor personnel. They don't want to hassle people this much - on a whim - or on a personal vendetta to GET HIM because they are just a bunch of draconian bastards.
Also, if a cop asks you to show an ID... show it to him. You purposely created a huge scene in a store... in order to get away with something? Make a personal political statement? ... the officer has every right to find out who you are and assess whether or not you should go to with him... and I wouldn't blame him one bit if he took you downtown.
Finally. Having been a manager in similar big box kinds of stores for over a decade, I can tell you with 100% conviction, that this guy is lying about something. There IS ALWAYS more to the story and its usually because a guy willing to create such a scene is up to something and is trying to get away with it, or he's literally one of those fruit bats that you have to put up with and then eventually kick out for good because they have no concept of ... uh... the real world.
There is a huge hunk of story here left out, and what story there is here has been embellished for effect. GUARANTEED.
"Freedom, privileges, options must constantly be exercised, even at the risk of inconvenience. Otherwise they fall into desuetude and become unfashionable, unorthodox -- finally irregulationary. Sometimes the person who insists upon his prerogatives seems shrill and contentious -- but actually he performs a service for all. Freedom naturally should never become license; but regulation should never become restriction."
-- from Emphyrio, by Jack Vance
This is insane - remind me of the Communit area in Eastern Europe where you had an ID on you and present it when required by police!
They do this in the Chicago area at Best Buy too. The thing that pisses me off is the guy checking receipts is about 50 ft from the checkout, and there is no merchandise displayed in this cattle chute. So between the point where you paid for your merchandise and the point you're checked for having shoplifted, you have no opportunity to shoplift, and are in the sight-line of the guy doing the checking (if he can bother to stop chatting with his female co-workers, or his friends that have stopped by for a visit while he's on the clock). Not to mention the sensor gates they have up to detect anti-theft tags.
So what's the point? If you're going to shoplift, you're going to place whatever you're stealing on your person at some point while you're in the store. And unless you're really, really dumb, you're not going to shift it to your bag at the checkout counter to your bag in plain sight of the checkers and "theft prevention" personnel.
What a peculiar practice; this showing of the reciepts at the door.
I have never heard of anything quite like it. Isn't that why God invented checkout counters?
Most european stores have electronically tagged wares, and great big magnetotrons (whatever) that check for signals at the exits.
But _goons_ in the door -- on the way out -- that check your shopping bag against recipts?
I'm sorry, but that is just too absurd :)
Anonymous, bemused Norwegian
In general, Boing Boing has taught me that these kind of BS "preventative measures" are wasteful and ineffective.
How much time do you think is collectively wasted by retailers all over the country in order to violate every American's rights? How many shoplifters does Santuru catch by asking for their receipt?
It takes much longer for a problem to be revealed, if the user base doesn't provide enough feedback (the customers need to make a fuss about their 4th amendment rights). What this guy is doing is frankly, part of the standard playbook of civil rights advocacy and is actually one of the methods that still kind of works. At least one of you naysayers wished we could live in a world where the laws are written to protect the citizenry: cases like Michael Righi's help us get there.
This guy is a "rights troll".
Just because you sometimes can act like an ass-clown and still be in the legal right doesn't mean you should.
1. People sometimes shoplift from Circuit City
2. Circuit city doesn't WANT to piss off their customers, but
3. They need to do something about shoplifting so
4. They ask you to show your receipt as you leave
It seems pretty reasonable. What is this guy's problem?
And he gets bonus clown points for putting his family (waiting in the car) through this whole ordeal.
I have read the comments in both this and the linked thread, and the one above by emilydickinson bothered me the most. I couldn't stop reading it, looking for the meaning behind how this person, who has been in retail management for more than ten years ("Sadly"), has apparently come to live in a way where he or she sees all his fellow citizens as possible thieves.
I live and do business in a small Oregon town. I own a retail shop, and I would never think of treating my customers in a way you seem to accept as the status quo. Everyone around me I see as neighbors and peers of mine, whether or not I have met them. If I was ever stupid enough to suspect someone of stealing or deceit without a damned good reason, I would probably lose a good part of my business, because word would get around that I treated so and so that way. That's the social part of things here. Now the legal: I have never dealt with "Shopkeeper's Privilege", because we just use common sense. If I ever had a shoplifter in the shop, I would call them out on it, and ask them to put the item back, asking them just what the hell they thought they were doing. I would strike up a conversation with them, trying to find out why they thought they needed what it is they wanted to steal. This is a small town, and we really do look out for each other. Around here, that would be considered a "Reasonable Action". I suppose that wouldn't go down too well in Brooklyn (lol), but that is how things work here. And no, this aint Cecily, Alaska. We do have a fair share of property and other crime. We do have a drug problem. But we don't run around looking at each other with suspicious eyes.
Look, I used to live in the city. I left because I couldn't bear living in a place that required me to bow to rent a cops and worship the police anymore. As you say, "The gestapo undertones of 'Papers Please' bother me..." but apparently not enough to get out of Brooklyn and out of the rat race. As Lily Tomlin once said, "The problem with winning the rat race is you're still a rat".
I suppose your other alternative would be to work for the entertainment industry, because that's how they seem to look at everyone now - as a potential thief.
I don't know, I think it's stupid to call the police and then refuse to cooperate when the cop arrives. I can see this dude now, yelling "Attica! Attica!" and raising his Disney/Pixar video game in a defiant revolutionary gesture as he's lead away.
Give me a break--there are plenty of people the world who are actually being persecuted, tortured, and oppressed, this guy just wants attention.
emilydickinsonridesabmx writes "[SNIP] Now 'Reasonable Action', can of course be interpreted many ways, but I've never heard of a judge who didn't side with the store owner over searching someone's possessions *if* they suspected the person of shoplifting."
"IF" is the key word here. A retailer normally has no cause to search my possessions just because I purchased something in their store. If a clerk or loss-prevention person has reason to suspect me of shoplifting, by all means stop me, we'll call the cops, examine the evidence, & go from there. Otherwise, once my transaction is complete, what I bought is mine. Shopkeepers Privilege does NOT give you the right to search my stuff just because I'm in your store.
Also note that the ordinances quoted by chemical orphan require probable cause for a retailer to detain someone. I suspect that the retailer in question will soon be facing a civil suit. Simply purchasing something in a store is nowhere near a reasonable interpretation of probable cause to suspect someone of shoplifting.
"One of those rules may very well be that they reserve the right to check your bags and your receipt to ensure that you aren't shoplifting."
Nope. Not in my country. As someone above said, *maybe* if it is a membership store and you have waived those rights, with a signature, before entering the premesis... but not Circuit City.
i just hope he enjoys the loot he gets from CC.
Because he will.
The store is not allowed to restrain him, they did. That is the job of the police.
The police should not have arrested him for the stated reason, they did.
That is the job of a good citizen.
And the ACLU, who will looooooove this one.
Get over yourself and go find a real injustice to fight for. There are plenty out there -- this isn't one of them. Grow up.
The problem with the receipt check is that is it the basic idea behind it is flawed. It assumes all customers are shoplifting, to the person above mentioning "Shopkeepers Privilege" that only applies if there is a reasonable suspicion of theft (or attempted theft), so checking everyone who has purchased something is not reasonable, it's a blanket sweep.
Second it annoys your paying customers but I would argue it has no real effect on theft. If I was of a mind to shoplift the easiest thing to do it NOT TO BUY ANYTHING! Simply declare you don't have a receipt to show and that you didn't buy anything... like magic you can walk out of the store without a search but with something hidden on your person. So while your big screen TVs don't walk out the door, just about anything else can.
In Ohio if you refuse to show a ID then you can be arrested...its Ohio's extension to the Patriot Act....I wonder if you had to show your reciept in Germany say around 1930-1940's hmmmmm?
As a business owner, you have to look at why company's check receipts. If there weren't a few bad apples who consistently ripped stores off, then company's wouldn't do this. Clearly the business community knows that this is not the ideal solution, but what else can we do? One person walking out with a several hundred dollar item could ruin the days margins, and make the entire days effort a waste. This isn't really about trampling on someones rights as many of you think. This is purely about finding the best solution to avoid getting ripped off, because unfortunately most retail outlets do get ripped off on a fairly consistent basis. Any suggestions on how to avoid getting ripped off short of using CCTV, checking receipts etc? Anyone who answers "trust your customers" is an idiot, as this is impractical. That doesn't change the fact that there are a few total morons out there who like to steal, and like ruining things for everyone. Perhaps this comment thread will result in a better solution so that people AND businesses can have their rights respected consistently.
Way to fight the good fight. Don't you have anything better to do? Here's a crazy idea: Quit wasting everyone's time any show them your receipt.
Dude. It's not like CC or the police asked for a blood sample or your first born male child. They asked you to dig into your bag or pants and show them a piece of paper. Even if you're opposed to the idea on principle, what's the big harm in complying with either of these requests?
You making a stink like this is as stupid as the woman suing McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself. Except yours is worse because you're attempting to portray it as some massive 'police state civil rights' cover up. When it just isn't.
Enjoy your stay in the Ohio court system.
@Michael, I think it's fair to say that any of us who share parts of ourselves online like receiving public attention to one degree or another. That includes you, that includes me.
Whether or not this is the case with Mr. Righi, the real issue here is the law, and how Circuit City managers and law enforcement interpreted the law in this incident.
I find these reader testimonies very interesting because IANAL, and I don't know exactly what the laws are in these cases. I suspect they vary somewhat from state to state, and I suspect also that there's some ambiguity, some degree of flexibility for interpretation. Does that change over time, as the general climate changes?
Are some of us more stubborn about privacy incursions in small-scale situations where we *can* do something (say, refuse to show receipt or ID), because we know now about other, broader violations we're powerless to do much of anything about (say, NSA wiretapping)?
Many seem to make claims of the 'rights' if the store, yet fail to make specific references to those rights. Yet several have made very specific references to the rights of the accused with evidence of supporting SCOTUS decisions, yet that seems to be ignored.
I agree that as described, the accused stayed well within his rights. I agree the stores do have a right to ask you to show a receipt, however they cannot demand a receipt. The exceptions would be where by prior agreement you gave them that authorization (notably in wholesale clubs such as Sam's Club, BJ's, and Costco where they use the measure more as a means of marking the receipt to prevent you from returning and using the same receipt to remove additional merchandise).
Refusal to show a receipt is not sufficient evidence of a crime. Unless this person was suspected of and accused of a crime, then there is no authorization or allowance to detain anyone and prevent their lawful egress.
The police employee should have been more familiar with the law and certainly 'stop and identify' statutes. It is entirely unreasonable for them to make up charges as described.
As a photographer, consumer, and general citizen I applaud your stance. People should not be forced to take unwanted and unwarranted actions merely because it saves time. While several commenters are throwing around terms of 'totalitarianism' and 'police state' without really seeming to truly understand their meaning, most seem to concur that as described in the post, this person's actions were just. Whether this will bring about proper change or just be snowballed by abuse of the system, such as upholding the weak charges as currently listed, we will see.
It is especially sad that many (in the bloggers comment section) cannot make a logical debate without resorting to name-calling and insults that seem to more prove their complete lack of substance in any arguments they may try to present.
Boing Boing, pelase keep us updated. this would fall in line with other stories such as "photographer's rights" where people are being hassled merely for taking pictures.
Hey, any lawyers out there? Sure would be interesting to hear from you in this thread, and hear you identify yourselves as such.
Although I completely agree with this guy and everyone who is for privacy rights, the Fourth Amendment is NOT applicable here.
The Fourth Amendment only applies to government officials, not private citizens. You are not protected from any store by the Fourth Amendment. If the police are called, you are protected from search by the police, but then the police also have probable cause to search you if you refuse, so there isn't much defense there anyway.
But I still agree with the point a few people have made: When you enter a store you do not sign any agreement to abide by store policies, so you are not restricted by their policies. The only thing they can do is ask you to leave and, possibly, never come back.
Michael,
I applaud what you are doing. Stores and police do need to be reminded of the limits set upon them to prevent loss or harass citizens. I am far too lazy to fight this battle so I show my receipt and tell myself it is not worth the hassle to do otherwise. Fortunately there are those like you who do believe it is worth the time, effort and possible embarrassment to preserve our rights to privacy. A few legal losses against stores containing punitive damages or criminal charges filed for false arrest may induce them to design security into the store layout rather than making shoplifting such an easy task and compensating by harassing shoppers.
@ Thane's comment (#4), and others:
The point is that once you bought it, you own it, and are therefore under no more obligation (than usual, barring actual suspicion of a crime) to produce proof that you own it, like a receipt. If it's reasonable for the security guard to force you to produce a receipt for the blank DVDs in your bag, then it's also reasonable for them to ask for receipts for the shirt you're wearing, the sneakers on your feet, and the gum you're chewing.
Once it's your property, it's yours, and you shouldn't have to justify that to just anyone.
@#17 - the point is that there are cases where a shopper and a cashier collaborate to steal stuff. the guy at the door is checking the receipt against the goods not only because you might have slipped something in the bag post-checkout, but because the cashier may have not rung something up. this could have been a mistake, or it could have been fraud.
also, didnt the supreme court recently rule that if a cop asks for your ID you have to show it? not that i agree, but i think it's now the law that you have to produce your 'papers' if asked.
The only person I would show a receipt to in that situation is the person who will give me my money back. It is entirely unreasonable to demand a receipt just twenty feet from where you purchased something, unless there is a real reason to expect that there might be shoplifting.
I'm still amazed by the number of people following the "store has rights" and the "just do what they tell you and you'll be OK" crowd. My best guess and hope is that it's just youngsters who have been taught to be submissive, especially to the interests of retailers.
I've looked into these cases over the years, and it's a rather simple set of LAWS that apply in most cases (every one I've ever looked at actually, but YMMV).
"Store rules" do NOT trump the actual laws of the community (fed,state,local,etc). A store employee must have evidence that you are stealing before accusing you of it and trying to detain you. It must be more that just a general suspicion (such as "he's black" or "he looks shady"), and from what I can tell, it must be a direct observation of behavior consistent with shoplifting. Only then may they accuse you and detain you (in public). If they detain you without suspicion, it's the store that is breaking the law, and if it's done in public, they may be opening themselves up to lawsuits (false imprisonment, libel/slander for falsely accusing you in public).
For the "you must do anything the store tells you since it's their property" types... there is a grain of truth in that. You are obligated to try to follow the store rules on their property, however, the *only* penalty for not following the rules is that the store may ask you to leave and they may also ask that you do not return. That's it.... no more, no less. They have absolutely no right to arrest you or otherwise interfere with you. If they try to, they are likely committing assault.
YOU have a right be be secure in your person and belongings no matter where you are, and that's the (real) law. They can't take that from you just by claiming that they have their own rules that they like to impose.
Is that simple enough for you kids to understand ? I think even Miss Teen America could follow that :)
Many of the comments here remind me of the results of a poll taken during the height of the cold war, which asked random people what they thought of various paragraphs taken from the Bill of Rights. The poll didn't identify the source of the quotes. The majority of respondents "declared them dangerous, un-American, even 'red'.") (source - George Seldes, The Great Quotations).
The shopkeeper's privilege allows the shopkeeper to detain someone until police arrive, ask them to leave, or bar them from returning. Anything else is voluntary on the part of the customer.
Righi cited the section of the Ohio law that covers production of ID to an officer: it says explicitly that you cannot be arrested just for not producing ID. If you don't think this is an important matter worthy of pushing for, that's fine. Other people decided it was important enough to codify and enact. Police officers are there to enforce the law that is enacted, not the one that seems good to you.
Membership stores often have policies that say they can review your receipt. The penalty for not complying is losing your membership; the policies don't give them any more right to use force than do the shopkeeper's privilege rules.
At Costco, I show my receipt. Everywhere else I say "No, thank you" and haven't had a problem yet.
In order for 'Shopkeepers Privilege' don't you need probable cause
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/security/shoplifting.html
Unless they have SEEN you conceal the merchandise, they should not be attempting to detain you.
But yea like some of the other people have said, in order for everyone to just have a nice day, we should probably not whine and continue to let large corporations slowly erode our rights. I mean who is protecting the box stores from the little guy? (sarcasm)
The charge of obstructing official business, Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.31(A) will probably be dismissed. There is an Ohio case directly on point, State v. McCrone, 63 Ohio. App. 3d 831, 834-835 (1989) that held that failing to produce a driver license is not an affirmative act to constitute a violation of 2921.31(A). However, in State v. Lester, 2004 Ohio 2909 (2004), when a person handed a license to an officer so the officer could write a ticket for an open container, and the person snatched the license back, the 'snatch' was an affirmative act.
The "Shopkeeper's privilege" is a common law defense against a tort for false imprisonment. Ohio has made it statutory in Ohio Rev. Code. 2935.041. The statute requires probable cause. Probable cause for shoplifting is usually actually seeing someone shoplift, whether in person or on camera, or having an alarm go off when exiting. Refusing to show a receipt will probably not be considered probable cause.
Costco is a slightly different case from Circuit City and the rest. Costco is a membership store for which the member has signed a contract. Among the terms of the contract is that "Costco reserves the right to inspect any container, backback, briefcase, etc. upon entering or leaving the warehouse." Also "To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be inspected as you leave the warehouse." A customer refusing to agree with the terms of the contract is in breach of the contract, but this will only result in a contractual issue. It certainly isn't criminal.
"the moral right to suspend the property owners right to have guests"
Uh, actually after he paid for the items they became *his* property and the store employee had no right to inspect his property. Also, they're not guests, they're customers - without which Circuit City wouldn't have a business. They'd do well to remember that from time to time. The funny thing is they'd have lost less money if he *did* steal a 60" Plasma HDTV than they will having to defend their idiot manager when he's brought up on charges for False Imprisonment or at least for the civil suit this gentleman deserves to win. Maybe when they realize that violating people's rights is bad business they'll learn to appreciate the people responsible for their profits.
That's why i crumple up and place the receipt in my mouth before i exit. I never had a problem doing that, its my receipt. Once i pull out the receipt and try and hand it to these goons i get waved by, go figure. Fantastic store policy; ultimately a totally and utterly flawed notion.
"Dude. It's not like CC or the police asked for a blood sample or your first born male child. They asked you to dig into your bag or pants and show them a piece of paper. Even if you're opposed to the idea on principle, what's the big harm in complying with either of these requests?"
Because principles only mean something if you stick to them when they're inconvenient. Hey anybody can love the civil rights when they come cheap. Try asking a soldier how cheap freedom is. And no, the police isn't wearing swastikas and asking for your blood sample. Freedoms don't get taken away all at once, they're eroded one Circuit City at a time.
The relevant law in this case comes from two cases: Hiibel v. Nevada, and Terry v. Ohio. The combination of the two cases means that law enforcement officials may request to see personal identification essentially at will IF the state has a law that provides that power to the officer.
Ohio has such a law. The text is as follows:
§ 12-7-1 Temporary detention of suspects. – A peace officer may detain any person abroad whom he or she has reason to suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of the person his or her name, address, business abroad, and destination; and any person who fails to identify himself or herself and explain his or her actions to the satisfaction of the peace officer may be further detained and further questioned and investigated by any peace officer; provided, in no case shall the total period of the detention exceed two (2) hours, and the detention shall not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of the detention period the person so detained shall be released unless arrested and charged with a crime.
Given this, Righi should have provided identification to the officer upon request. He should probably have also cooperated with the officer in supplying his receipt so that the officer could verify he was not committing a crime.
However, as Righi also points out on his blog, nothing in that law provides the ability for the officer to arrest someone who refuses to comply. It simply provides the ability for them to detain the person for a period of up to two hours. Also, the law stipulates that an arrest must be based on another crime being committed. Since there was no other crime being committed, this doesn't seem to me to be a legitimate arrest.
I'm a lawyer, former prosecutor, and strong advocate for individual rights. I'm chiming in not to give any specific legal advice, but just some legal education to stimulate discussion. (See? Lawyerly disclaimer.)
A couple of things seem to be missing in people's consideration of the various issues raised. First of all, rights are not absolute, but exist in a dynamic tension with other people's rights, legitimate public interests, and governmental interests. Classic example--free speech and the absence of a right to shout "fire!!" in a crowded theater.
Secondly, most of the constitutional protections are about what the government can or cannot do to you, and not about what kind of relations exist between private citizens. This is not entirely true (for example, the oft-repeated saw "your right to express yourself ends where your fist touches my nose"), but is a good guide for thinking about constitutional issues. Always ask WHO is allegedly violating rights--is it a governmental action, or a citizen?
So, given the two points above, ask yourself what kind of rights does a business have? Customers voluntarily enter their real property (the store), possibly handle the store's personal property (the merchandise), and maybe engage in a business transaction.
Does the store (legally, we treat corporations as a "person") have a reasonable expectation that they will be allowed to protect their property from theft? Might they be allowed to minimally inconvenience others in doing so?
It seems that asking a shopper to show proof that the items they are carrying off the store's property actually now belong to the shopper and no longer belong to the store is not unreasonable. The store staff are not government actors, and they are not engaging in a governmental stop, search or seizure. Are they seeking to protect their own property rights by reasonable means? Opinions will differ.
The production of ID is a wholly different set of issues, and there are a bunch of factors that play into the police demand for ID. States have widely varying law on this, and the federal constitutional law plays a role as well.
One common element regarding the demand for ID is whether the police (or other law enforcement officers) have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. "Reasonable suspicion" is a notoriously mushy construct, and often it may come down to the discretionary judgment of the officer.
I do wonder why people are getting so worked up about these kind of issues, when it seems that so few people are actively challenging what seem to be clear examples of governmental encroachment into areas of traditional personal liberty and civil rights.
Mr. Righi seems like a passionate, principled guy who could probably do more to advance his own rights (and those of his fellow citizens) if he channeled that energy into actively working for political change, better understanding his actual rights, and then acting constructively to challenge those who set and promulgate such laws and policies.
He is right to the extent that he doesn't believe in merely being complacent, which is surely too often the response to impermissible infringements on liberty and freedom. However, his choice of targets, the basis for his objections, and the change that he hopes to effect remains somewhat confusing to me.
Once again (sorry about this, but my state requires me to be clear), nothing I have posted here should be construed or taken as legal advice, and anyone who is facing similar issues to Mr. Righi should seek legal counsel immediately (this would include Mr. Righi). I am not acting as anyone's attorney in the above discussed matter, nor am I interested in doing so.
Here's how I usually go about this sort of situation. Say I've just purchased an item or items at a store [pick a store]. I have the receipt in the bag or in my hand, since I only bought it a few scant moments ago.
When I get to the exit, someone asks to see my receipt. I know ahead of time that they'll do this, so I usually just *keep the receipt in my hand as I walk towards the exit*. This is an act of common sense. The checker checks my receipt, matches it with my product[s], says the obligatory "Have a great day" and we go our separate ways. End of story.
Note how at no time was I inconvenienced, restrained or arrested at any point in this situation, which took all of twenty-five seconds from start to finish.
As for the police ID arrest, that was avoidable by simply showing his ID to the officer. It takes all of ten seconds to produce your ID if you have it with you. If you don't have it with you, that might be a different story.
This author's entire situation was avoidable from the start, so who's to blame if blame is important? The author of this tale. What exactly did he have to hide or was he just setting up this whole event so he'd have a tale of outrage to post in his daily blog?
The Fourth Amendment may or may not apply to this person's circumstances. Many people do not understand that he Fourth Amendment is a prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure by a government actor. The Fourteenth Amendment applied the Fourth Amendment to the state and local governments. However, the Amendment itself does not restrict private searches. They may violate other law, but it's not a Fourth Amendment violation if Fedex opens up your package. So it's a question of who's a state actor? The police officer certainly is, so he's subject to the Fourth Amendment. The store, empowered by Ohio statute to stop and detain, may or may not be. The store is private, but the government has given it powers. There's cases that go both ways. He'll need to prove a violation of Constitutional rights if he wishes to sue under 42 USC 1983.
bgarland, thank you for your knowledgeable comments.
it is the issue relating to the showing of ID to the police that most concerns me (some of my research has to do with next generation government issued ID).
are you aware of a good lay-readable survey of the various laws governing the showing of IDs such as drivers licenses and passports?
as you say, such things vary by state. as an international i would like to learn a bit about the spectrum of laws in the US.
i am from new york city originally, and on a recent visit home from switzerland where i n