Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City (Donations welcome, the ACLU will get most of it)

MichaelRighi.com ^ | September 2nd, 2007 | Michael Righi,

[antiRepublicrat]

Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my father’s side of the family and got arrested. More on that arrested part to come.

For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh to visit my father, his wife and my little brother and sister. Shortly after arriving we packed the whole family into my father’s Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (It’s my little sister’s birthday today and that was her cute/bizare birthday request.)

Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. (The Brooklyn, Ohio Circuit City to be exact.) Having forgotten that it was my sister’s birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disney’s “Cars” game for the Nintendo Wii. I also needed to purchase a Power Squid surge protector which I paid for separately with my business credit card. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”

As I walked through the double doors I heard Santura yelling for his manager behind me. My father and the family had the Buick pulled up waiting for me outside the doors to Circuit City. I opened the door and got into the back seat while Santura and his manager, whose name I have since learned is Joe Atha, came running up to the vehicle.

[dbwz]

Wasn’t addressed to me...

Hey, it's an open forum, anyone can jump in. ;-)

The laws I've cited are directly from the Ohio statutes. I have them copied at #160 with a link.

I've stuck around on this thread only because I do wonder sometimes what the ultimate impact of "standard policy" versus law will be. If the people saying, "Show the receipt already, what's the big deal?" get their way, I guess we can have stores setting policies contrary to existing law because it's expedient for the consumer. But last time I looked, the vehicle for changing and adopting laws was the state or federal legislature, not the Circuit City manager's office.

I recall reading about a few cases where some workplaces were trying to ban firearms on their property altogether, even those that remained in workers' cars. Is that a violation of your right to self-defense, or does the private business reserve the right to violate your right?

Another firearms example - here in NJ it costs, by statute, $2 to obtain a pistol purchase permit. You are also supposed to be able to buy as many as you want at a time. There are towns, however, that have adopted a policy of charging up to $75 for a pistol purchase permit, or of limiting the number to two at a time. They've made a policy that violates the statute. Should the town's residents just pay their $75 and STFU, because maybe their town is poor and needs to raise revenue?

I know, I know, many of you are probably rolling your eyes or flailing your hands and saying "That's not the same thing!" No, maybe it's not the same, but the principle is there. If this goes to court and the store's position is upheld, suddenly we have a precedent.

[Quix]

Excellent analysis, imho.

Quite plausible.

Humility would have likely prevented a problem in this case.

Thanks.

[Golden Eagle]

Like I said, I respect the store owner’s right to protect against theft much more than I respect this yahoo’s right to make it easier for thieves to steal things, or his “right” to falsely dial 911 as if this was somehow an emergency then refuse to cooperate with police who ask for ID on the scene. If the laws in this one or a few other states are out of line with that then perhaps they do need change, I still won’t stand up for this bozo under any circumstance especially since he’s probably just a front for the ACLU.

[Quick1]

Like I said, I respect the store owner’s right to protect against theft

So you would be for strip searching customers as well? After all, it's the store owner's right to protect himself against theft. yahoo’s right to make it easier for thieves to steal things

There are many better, easier and more legal ways to prevent shoplifting besides a receipt check.

his “right” to falsely dial 911 as if this was somehow an emergency

He was being detained, when even the manager admitted that there was no suspicion of theft.If the laws in this one or a few other states are out of line with that then perhaps they do need change, I still won’t stand up for this bozo under any circumstance especially since he’s probably just a front for the ACLU.

I guess I don't share the same irrational hatred for the ACLU that you seem to, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Sometimes it takes one dickhead to stand up for his rights, and in this case, it's the right to not have your property unreasonably searched without cause.

[Golden Eagle]

in this case, it's the right to not have your property unreasonably searched without cause

The key word being "unreasonable", and since this is a legal, and common practice elsewhere, I don't see it as unreasonable. Calling the 911 emergency hotline over it, and refusing to cooperate with police after they arrive, is in my opinion much more "unreasonable". Posting a thread on FR soliciting donations to the ACLU over it, "absurd".

[Lurking in Kansas]

Almost as if a contrived situation had been developed.

Yeah, I get that feeling that too.

[Quick1]

The key word being "unreasonable", and since this is a legal, and common practice elsewhere, I don't see it as unreasonable.

I think it's fine that retailrs ask to check the receipt. But if I say no, then it should also be fine to let me go. Also, where did it say he refused to cooperate with the officer? He gave an identity, and even provided the receipt to the officer to prove he didn't steal anything! He just didn't have a photo ID, which under Ohio law, wasn't required in the first place.

[VirginiaConstitutionalist]

He was on someone else’s private property, who asked to see his bag to make sure he wasn’t stealing from them. It’s a common problem they have to deal with, and everyone knows you’ll be asked on the way out.

This guy is a whining, sniveling snot. Typical liberal who thinks anywhere he treads is sacred ground and loves to quote the Constitution...so long as it isn’t Article I, Section 8 or the Second Amendment.

[VirginiaConstitutionalist]

My only problem is the part where he was asked to produce a license. That’s wrong.

But if you’re on someone’s private property, a someone who loses millions each year to shoplifters, you have no right to whine, cry and snivel when they ask to check your bag.

[Golden Eagle]

where did it say he refused to cooperate with the officer?

The fact he was arrested and booked downtown by the officer is quite clear to me he wasn't cooperating. But maybe you have a different definition of "cooperating" as well., since you consider what many consider as a perfectly acceptable deterrent to crime to be "unreasonable".

[pierstroll]

I WAS WRONG YESTERDAY.

My daughter came by today, the one who is an asset protection manager and trains store security.

In California there is a Merchant Protection Act that governs what they can do. Her store developed a policy that is more restrictive on their employees so that they would come well within the law.

Her store does not routinely check receipts. However, she covers that scenario with her employees.

They have what they call five elements that need to be met in order to detain or make a citizen's arrest. They do so on a regular basis. Example one element can be selection. If they see someone walking around with an iPod they run the tapes to where the person entered the store to see if they came in with one.

In short they will apply probable cause.

In the example of the thread, they would not pursue a person who refused to show a receipt UNLESS they had met the other elements they need to detain someone. They may follow and take down a license plate and then review store tapes.

The law protects them if they act within the definition of probable cause. The company policy requires them to meet the five elements.

And Quick1, your comment about DU, after I left the thread, demonstrates a lot about your character, none of it good.

[antiRepublicrat]

The fact he was is quite clear to me he wasn't cooperating.

Let's say you go to San Francisco and an SF police officer stops you, demands you lower your pants and bend over for a little SF-style fun, and you refuse (we'll assume you'd refuse for the sake of argument). You are then arrested and booked downtown by the officer for refusing to cooperate.

Can we then cast aspersions on you for being arrested for failure to cooperate with the officer? Yes, it's the same thing: in both cases the officer made a demand that the law did not allow, the citizen exercised his right to refuse, and the citizen was arrested for it.

You've already shown that you think we should act like sheep when corporations attempt to trample over our rights, so extending that to government officials isn't a stretch. To you any right we have can be instantly dismissed by a corporate CEO or a government official on a whim.

Be true to yourself. Remember to vote Democrat next November.

[antiRepublicrat]

and not only trust the ACLU on such matters but begin making calls up there and creating threads here to show their full attention and support

Lying about me must be pathological for you given the several proven cases where I've caught you doing it. As you already know, I called the police department, not the ACLU, after another FReeper suggested confirming this case.

[Golden Eagle]

You’re the one who’s already outright admitted to knowingly posting lies in defense of foreign criminals for months before, now you’re spending all your time running an ACLU fundraiser of course. I’m not the only one on this site who rightfully refers to you as “antiRepublican” either, at least you’re finally starting to come out of the closet.

antiRepublican - check
antiChristian - check
ACLU operative - check
green party leftist supporter - check
foreign criminal defender - check
endless liar - check

What else are you holding back?

[Golden Eagle]

Almost forgot, you recently self proclaimed yourself as being an “enviromentalist” as well. Check.

[antiRepublicrat]

You’re the one who’s already outright admitted to knowingly posting lies

Continue with the true context, "...after attempting to point me to the truth several times, but I was too thick headed to do the simple Google search that you told me would lead to the answer."

Besides, you're the one who's already outright refused to admit to your many proven lies.

ow you’re spending all your time running an ACLU fundraiser of course

So if I were to mention a case where the ACLU defended a girl whose school prevented her from putting a Christian message in her yearbook entry, I guess you'll be obliged to take a position opposite the ACLU and agree with the school that her religious freedom should be stifled. Maybe a case where they successfully defended the free speech and religious rights of a street preacher? Nope, you'd vote to have him silenced just because he was backed by the ACLU.

Reasonable people realize that the ACLU sometimes gets it right. It's rare, and it may be an accident, but the fact is they do fight for just causes every once in a while.

What else are you holding back?

That it's proven that you don't believe in equal constitutional and other granted rights? Check. That you believe we are slaves to our corporate and government masters? Check.

I'm surprised you're not over on my recent fair use thread bashing us and those who brought the suit for wanting to steal from the NFL.

[Golden Eagle]

LOL at your new “pirate ping list”, with 2 whole members where you link to leftist sites that cry about how unfair it is that others own something you want and think you deserve for free. Nothing new, and as pathetic as ever.

[nicmarlo]

In short they will apply probable cause.

And that's how it should be, and how the law is actually written, in Ohio, as well.

[Starwolf]

My daughter came by today, the one who is an asset protection manager and trains store security.

I would be interested to know what their policy is on enforcing detainment. If the accused acknowledge that they are being detained, do they forcibly restrain (as in handcuffs or zipties) the person and do they forcibly move them back into the store. Also what is the policy on pepper spray should the person refuse to comply.

[dbwz]

So you would be for strip searching customers as well? After all, it's the store owner's right to protect himself against theft.

Well, there you go - you just hit on why the ACLU's involved. Now, I scratch my head at a lot of things the ACLU does, but every once in a while they do take a case that makes a lot more sense once you start following the ripples.

I also wonder what a complete in-store surveillance system costs versus hiring a gorilla to sit by the door.