Posted on 09/03/2007 3:19:20 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsite.michaelrighi.com ...
Exactly the problem...where's the "probable cause" to detain or arrest, as required by Ohio law????
his refusal to show his reciept. By doing so he singled himself out for “special” treatment.
no, because anyone with common sense can see he is a jerk.
There was no probably cause to produce anything to the store. Stores cannot detain customers without probable cause according to Ohio law.
The guy did not steal. The store admits they did not observe him to steal.
I’m beginning to wonder if you work for this company.
>>>>Actually its quite correct. Its been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Signs do not a contract make.
I do not know where you are getting this foolishness,
Do you not think that a sign that says “All sales are final” makes any sale final and non-refundable (absent fraud on the part of the seller)
What about a sign that says “No smoking” or “Any sealed packaged opened by a customer constitutes a sale” or “no return without a receipt” would you not expect to be binding.
Actually, signs are “great” contract. They are a clear indication on the part of the store that they took steps to explain their contractual terms to the customers.
Please, stop the bad legal advice.
Good post, thanks.
The first time you or one of your family runs into a store security bubba that has delusions of being a Jack Bauer or Rambo, you will change you attitude. Its sort of like how a liberal converts to being a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment after they get mugged. When some fool is waving pepper spray in your face for something you have not done, it tends to make one hostile, which I am to idiots on general principle anyways.
I tend to be hardcore about standing up for my rights and the rights of others, but I am pragmatic. I show the exit checker my bag when I leave the Wal Mart in my home town. I know most of the checkers personally, and you behave civilly in small towns, where everyone is your neighbor.
My issue is with the wannabes who exceed any reasonable standard of behavior. Those are the idiots I go after. Most backdown and slink away, a few dumb ones have gotten chesty and paid dearly for it. I have no problem ruining their day and then some.
Had an incident recently where a security goon came after me before I had even parked. In the end it was a case of mistaken identity. However before that was made clear, the idiot was down and disarmed. The store asked me not to sue, and I agreed to a mutual hold harmless provided they fired the bubba. I assume they did, I was just passing thru so I have not verified that.
I have no problem with LP bubbas who follow the law since I am always clean. I cooperate with things like bag searches, since its a pragmatic thing to do in most cases. I do have a problem when they step out of line, esp if they attempt to get physical. I am more than glad to forcibly point out the error of their ways, since it serves as a significant deterrent to others. I do not push for financial settlements provided the store admits fault and fires the bubbas, again because its pragmatic. I have never been PNG’d or sued over it.
Under the Ohio statutes, the store can only do so much.
Whether any of these actions/reactions hold any sway depends on how they are defined legally. For instance, does the item you just bought become your private property once payment is completed?
Here it is again, in case you missed post #160:
(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
And...
(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.
That's the present law. So what's left to determine here is whether the guy was in the right by refusing to show his receipt, or whether a business can create its own set of rules contrary to state law. (Or maybe the business has been granted an exemption somewhere. Who knows.)
But if a store is going to say that they have the right to search everyone's bags or examine everyone's receipts on the way out, that means that they have by default placed everyone who enters the premises under suspicion. Is that legal?
And maybe it seems like such a small thing, but I think it shows you how ignorant people are of what the laws are - or maybe that there are so damn many of them that it's become almost impossible for the average person to keep track.
I read that post with a Hank Hill accent - perfect!
Tell ya what, dang ol' clerk rootin through muh bags heh heh dang ol' strip searched an heh heh dang ol' police show heh heh...shoot.
A little Boomhauer to add to the mix.
“I cooperate with things like bag searches, since its a pragmatic thing to do in most cases.”
and yet you are defending this guy even though it looks to be certain his only motivation was to sue the store and make some easy money. I see.
How would you explain the fact that he was arrested on a false charge only to have it replaced with another false charge?
...or maybe most people understand that shoplifting is a problem that costs us all in higher prices and are nice enough to oblige when a store asks to see a receipt and check their bags upon exit.
Yeah, but where does that argument begin and end?
One could easily argue that any design professional laying out the floor plan for a Circuit City should know to place the cash registers closer to the exit, thereby allowing customers to exit with their purchases unimpeded and unharassed.
Just because I enter somebody else private property doesn’t mean I consent to their search, interrogation and seizure of my property, person, and time, no matter who says it.
Do you not think that a sign that says “All sales are final” makes any sale final and non-refundable (absent fraud on the part of the seller)
What about a sign that says “No smoking” or “Any sealed packaged opened by a customer constitutes a sale” or “no return without a receipt” would you not expect to be binding.
Actually, signs are “great” contract. They are a clear indication on the part of the store that they took steps to explain their contractual terms to the customers.
Signage is not a legally enforceable contract since there are too many cases where consent is not possible, some of which I enumerated earlier. Many precedents on this, but I don't have access to WestLaw today. To address your particulars...
- Stores are not required to offer refunds by law except in sometimes in the case of latent defects or as directed by law (3 day cooling off periods in some states). Otherwise return privileges are at the discretion of the seller and Caveat Emptor applies.
- Opening a package as a forced sale is not enforceable in real time, neither is 'you break it you pay for it'. Try calling a cop to enforce it and see what happens. It may be enforceable in small claims court
The only recourse a merchant has when a person refuses to abide with their policies is to declare them PNG.
I suggest you take a class on merchant laws as they apply in your state. It will be an eye opener.
If showing your receipts bothers you, you have a responsibility to not shop in stores that require you to do so. doing so, like this guy did, shows that his primary motivation was in creating an incident and in suing the store, not in any aversion to showing receipts.
Yes, his liberal nonsense is quite hilarious, I get quite a few laughs watching the excuses he makes up for Russians who steal intellectual property from US corporations all the time on the tech threads. He's on record admitting he's made up lies in their defense, his latest thing is insisting we don't need security background checks on NASA workers, being too intrusive, of course.
Next you guys will be comparing yourselves to Christ on the cross. lol,,, yes you are terribly put upon.
Probably right, AntiRepublican is a militant atheist but I can hear him now, saying we should forgive all theives as Jesus did, since he's willing to as well LOL.
I don't see where he was trolling for easy money based on what has been presented, but more information could change that (has he done this before...). Add to that he is out of state and the costs of pursuing a lawsuit with some chance of loss being what they are, I don't see this as a money move, but one of persnickitiness. I know when I tell such bozos to pound sand and make it stick, its not because I want money, its because they have crossed my threshold of what I consider tolerable, which takes some doing.
Just because I may not have made the same decision does not mean I think he must do what I would have done, if he is within his rights to refuse. Its really a case of sovereign election, i.e.: his life, his call.
Interesting that you believe all merchants should treat their customers as shop lifters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.