Arrested For Not Showing License

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/shoplifting/laws.html

Under most state shoplifting laws, a business owner or employee has the legal right to detain a suspect if they have probable cause . Probable cause is defined under shoplifting laws as: having direct knowledge of an offender’'s approach, selection, concealment, movement, and/or modification of an item, and his/her failure to pay before attempting to exit the store. When a person is caught shoplifting, they will be required to return the items, will be prohibited from returning to the store for a period of time, and may be prosecuted through shoplifting laws.

Seems to me the store owner or his employee did not have probable cause.

edit:

http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm

No probable cause, therefore the shop employe fucked up, case closed.

Merchandise concealed in a shopping bag fits your description of shoplifting.[/quote]

Only if he has probable cause.

I showed what sufficient probable cause was, with a link to the Ohio merchants whatever-link on shoplifting.

I think I have done my homework and everyone reading the links I supplied will come to the same conclusion.

202

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/shoplifting/laws.html

Under most state shoplifting laws, a business owner or employee has the legal right to detain a suspect if they have probable cause . Probable cause is defined under shoplifting laws as: having direct knowledge of an offender’'s approach, selection, concealment, movement, and/or modification of an item, and his/her failure to pay before attempting to exit the store. When a person is caught shoplifting, they will be required to return the items, will be prohibited from returning to the store for a period of time, and may be prosecuted through shoplifting laws.

Seems to me the store owner or his employee did not have probable cause.

edit:

http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm

No probable cause, therefore the shop employe fucked up, case closed.

Merchandise concealed in a shopping bag fits your description of shoplifting.

Only if he has probable cause.

I showed what sufficient probable cause was, with a link to the Ohio merchants whatever-link on shoplifting.

I think I have done my homework and everyone reading the links I supplied will come to the same conclusion.
[/quote]

I read the link. You are quoting a self described conservative interpretation of the law.

It is just as easy to interpret that walking out the door with merchandise and not displaying proof of payment gives probable cause.

203

[quote]kelleyb wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:

will he win in court?

See, this is a phrase I don’t care for. What exactly is he going to win? Win makes it sound like he’s competing for a prize.

He can’t win actual damages because there were none. Could he win punitive damages? Well, anything is possible, but I wouldn’t count on it.
[/quote]

He will “win” by being found not guilty of the charge of obstructing an investigation, i.e. failure to produce an ID. Something to keep in mind for the non-US posters, the laws of the various states differ. What may be required in one state may not be required in another.

For instance, in New Hampshire citizens are not required to produce an identification. For instance, recently in downtown Manchester (the largest city in NH) a man was openly carrying a holstered handgun (which is allowed). He was stopped and questioned by police who requested he produce an ID, He refused, The ensuing dialog was caught on video tape. The guy open carrying is a FreeStater.

204

Lixy,you’ve managed to breed insanity with this thread…lol. this thread is hopeless!

205

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/shoplifting/laws.html

Under most state shoplifting laws, a business owner or employee has the legal right to detain a suspect if they have probable cause .

Probable cause is defined under shoplifting laws as: having direct knowledge of an offender’'s approach, selection, concealment, movement, and/or modification of an item, and his/her failure to pay before attempting to exit the store. When a person is caught shoplifting, they will be required to return the items, will be prohibited from returning to the store for a period of time, and may be prosecuted through shoplifting laws.

Seems to me the store owner or his employee did not have probable cause.

edit:

http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm

No probable cause, therefore the shop employe fucked up, case closed.

Merchandise concealed in a shopping bag fits your description of shoplifting.

Only if he has probable cause.

I showed what sufficient probable cause was, with a link to the Ohio merchants whatever-link on shoplifting.

I think I have done my homework and everyone reading the links I supplied will come to the same conclusion.

I read the link. You are quoting a self described conservative interpretation of the law.

It is just as easy to interpret that walking out the door with merchandise and not displaying proof of payment gives probable cause.
[/quote]

Ohio merchants see it differently.

Since this case involves merchants in Ohio?

Plus, when you are about to commit a crime like false imprisonment a conservative interpretation of the law is in order unless you enjoy jailtime.

In Austria I could kill you if you tried to do that.

No kidding.

206

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
kelleyb wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:

will he win in court?

See, this is a phrase I don’t care for. What exactly is he going to win? Win makes it sound like he’s competing for a prize.

He can’t win actual damages because there were none. Could he win punitive damages? Well, anything is possible, but I wouldn’t count on it.

He will “win” by being found not guilty of the charge of obstructing an investigation, i.e. failure to produce an ID. Something to keep in mind for the non-US posters, the laws of the various states differ. What may be required in one state may not be required in another.

For instance, in New Hampshire citizens are not required to produce an identification. For instance, recently in downtown Manchester (the largest city in NH) a man was openly carrying a holstered handgun (which is allowed). He was stopped and questioned by police who requested he produce an ID, He refused, The ensuing dialog was caught on video tape. The guy open carrying is a FreeStater.

[/quote]

very interesting…considering people give us Texans a hard time about our gun laws. Now wouldn’t the bearded guy’s actions be considered obstruction of official duty? He was fucking crazy. Considering the situation of dealing with a firearm(legally or not),he was more harm than help.

Th officers were respectful and didnt make anyone uncomfortable except for his bearded buddy…lol. But I have to ask, You see someone with a holstered gun…are supposed to assume they have a license? What are the checks and balances?

207

[quote]orion wrote:
…

Ohio merchants see it differently.

Since this case involves merchants in Ohio?

Plus, when you are about to commit a crime like false imprisonment a conservative interpretation of the law is in order unless you enjoy jailtime.

In Austria I could kill you if you tried to do that.

No kidding.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter how the merchants see it. It matters how the judge and jury see it. Those recommendations are based on a conservative approach to make sure there is minimum opportunity for backlash. Those recommendations are not the law.

I don’t think you could kill me in Austria. Better men than you have tried.

208

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
kelleyb wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:

will he win in court?

See, this is a phrase I don’t care for. What exactly is he going to win? Win makes it sound like he’s competing for a prize.

He can’t win actual damages because there were none. Could he win punitive damages? Well, anything is possible, but I wouldn’t count on it.

He will “win” by being found not guilty of the charge of obstructing an investigation, i.e. failure to produce an ID. Something to keep in mind for the non-US posters, the laws of the various states differ. What may be required in one state may not be required in another.

For instance, in New Hampshire citizens are not required to produce an identification. For instance, recently in downtown Manchester (the largest city in NH) a man was openly carrying a holstered handgun (which is allowed). He was stopped and questioned by police who requested he produce an ID, He refused, The ensuing dialog was caught on video tape. The guy open carrying is a FreeStater.

very interesting…considering people give us Texans a hard time about our gun laws. Now wouldn’t the bearded guy’s actions be considered obstruction of official duty? He was fucking crazy. Considering the situation of dealing with a firearm(legally or not),he was more harm than help.

Th officers were respectful and didnt make anyone uncomfortable except for his bearded buddy…lol. But I have to ask, You see someone with a holstered gun…are supposed to assume they have a license? What are the checks and balances? [/quote]

Bearded guy was an idiot.

I don’t think any license is required, I am not sure why that guy was stopped. No probable cause here at all as far as I can tell.

209

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…

Ohio merchants see it differently.

Since this case involves merchants in Ohio?

Plus, when you are about to commit a crime like false imprisonment a conservative interpretation of the law is in order unless you enjoy jailtime.

In Austria I could kill you if you tried to do that.

No kidding.

It doesn’t matter how the merchants see it. It matters how the judge and jury see it. Those recommendations are based on a conservative approach to make sure there is minimum opportunity for backlash. Those recommendations are not the law.

I don’t think you could kill me in Austria. Better men than you have tried.[/quote]

This may be true true, but since I would act in self defense, you´d go to jail anyway.

Freedom of movement, quite an important right.

Plus, I think Ohio merchants base their recommendations on how judges and juries allready have seen it, the US having a case law and all.

210

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
But I have to ask, You see someone with a holstered gun…are supposed to assume they have a license? What are the checks and balances? [/quote]

In NH, open carry without a license is allowed as long as the individual is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. Concealed carry is a different story. NH is serious about protecting constitutional rights. With regard to the federal Real ID Act of 2005, on June 27, 2007 the NH governor signed a law PROHIBITING the state from participating in the program. The law reads in part:

[i]STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seven

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

243:1 Prohibition Against Participation in National Identification System.

I. The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver’s license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom…[/i]

211

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/shoplifting/laws.html

Under most state shoplifting laws, a business owner or employee has the legal right to detain a suspect if they have probable cause . Probable cause is defined under shoplifting laws as: having direct knowledge of an offender’'s approach, selection, concealment, movement, and/or modification of an item, and his/her failure to pay before attempting to exit the store. When a person is caught shoplifting, they will be required to return the items, will be prohibited from returning to the store for a period of time, and may be prosecuted through shoplifting laws.

Seems to me the store owner or his employee did not have probable cause.

edit:

http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm

No probable cause, therefore the shop employe fucked up, case closed.

Merchandise concealed in a shopping bag fits your description of shoplifting.

Only if he has probable cause.

I showed what sufficient probable cause was, with a link to the Ohio merchants whatever-link on shoplifting.

I think I have done my homework and everyone reading the links I supplied will come to the same conclusion.
[/quote]

You are making the same assumption that pookie is making.

Sore owners can detain - not arrest, DETAIN - if they have reasonable suspicion.

Walking out of the store with merchandise in a bag and a refusal to show the security guy a receipt should be construed as reasonable suspicion by anyone that has ever owned a business, or been responsible for the inventory control in a business.

212

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
But I have to ask, You see someone with a holstered gun…are supposed to assume they have a license? What are the checks and balances?

In NH, open carry without a license is allowed as long as the individual is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. Concealed carry is a different story. NH is serious about protecting constitutional rights. With regard to the federal Real ID Act of 2005, on June 27, 2007 the NH governor signed a law PROHIBITING the state from participating in the program. The law reads in part:

[i]STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seven

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

243:1 Prohibition Against Participation in National Identification System.

I. The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver’s license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom…[/i]

[/quote]

damn,I should spent more time in N.H. when I was in Maine for a year.

213

[quote]lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Lixy: French law is not United States law. French jurisprudence is not United States’ jurisprudence. The French constitution is not the US Constitution. I just don’t understand why you keep appealing to European understanding of rights and law.

Wait a sec. Are you arguing that the store has every right to demand receipt checking and do a citizens arrest without probable cause and in a discriminate manner?[/quote]

You and I both know that is not what I was arguing.

214

[quote]kelleyb wrote:
So what you are saying is if I’m in Austrailia and I have a bag and I go into a store as long I’m not seen by anyone I can steal as much shit as I can carry, because once the items are in my bag nobody has the right to detain me or search my person or bag?

If that’s the case when I’m Sydney this Tuesday I’m going to rob you all blind.
Thanks for the tip!
[/quote]

Go for your life, I don’t have a problem with it. lol!

Here is the Australian law in writing:
[i]
Power to Search People

No one except a police officer has the right to search your bags, even if a prominent sign states that this is a condition of entry.

Because shops and supermarkets are private property, they may put up a sign saying you must comply with certain conditions if you choose to enter the store. A sign showing the conditions of entry must be easy to see before entering the shop. One condition can be that the owner can search your bags before you leave the store. If you do not allow your bags to be checked, you may be refused service and asked to leave the store.

No shopkeeper, security guard or store detective can forcibly search your shopping bags against your will. [/i]

Basically, powers of search are reserved for Police and nobody else. The only exception to this rule is in airports, where security officers DO have the right to search.

The receipt checking thing does not happen over here, either, fortunately enough!

It doesn’t mean you’ll get away with it, but give it a try and get back to us! I’m interested to see how it pans out.

215

[quote]kelleyb wrote:
Hyperbole is not your friend. [/quote]

I didn’t detect it.

Anyway, your argument was legitimate. Unless someone in the store notices your bag getting bigger or heavier, there’s nothing they can do about it. That’s precisely the reason many stores have lockers at the entrance and would often force you to check-in your bag before letting you in. At that point, if you got a problem with their policy, you could walk away to a different store.

216

[quote]nephorm wrote:
You and I both know that is not what I was arguing.[/quote]

Just checking.

217

The key point, the crux, of this whole argument is what I said about 20 posts ago! and it is this:

Is refusal to show a receipt enough “probable cause”, “reasonable belief” (however you wish to phrase it), that a person has shoplifted goods from a store?

218

Here’s why I don’t think it’s probable cause or reasonable belief:

In some cases, a person may refuse to show a receipt, when in fact they have paid for the goods. In some cases, a person may willingly show a receipt and have it checked against the contents of their bag, and yet the shopkeeper will fail to notice the stolen goods shoved down their pants or concealed elsewhere besides the bag!

So refusal to show a receipt is neither an admission of suspicion, nor a measure of honesty. It is not a reliable probability.

Refusal to show a receipt is motivated by a few of the following reasons:

  1. Desire for privacy.

[i][For example, if rainjack had made the following shopping purchases of:
1 plus-sized pregnancy blouse, Ten pairs of extra large women’s panties, 2 G-strings, A pair of large spandex tights, 1 tube of Anusol ointment, A box of constipation suppositories, 1 tube of personal lubricant and condoms, 1 paddle, 1 ‘personal massager’

Do you think he’d want a shop employee reading the receipt, opening the bag and pawing through these personal purchases of his, or do you think he would rather exercise his desire for privacy and keep his cross-dressing fetish in the closet? Especially if the employee happened to be someone who knows someone he knows…you get the picture, lol][/i]

  1. Customer feels insulted about being asked and does not feel the need to prove their honesty.
  2. Customer does not feel they have enough time to waste on the procedure.
  3. They have something stolen to hide.

Therefore, theft is only ONE of the possible causes for refusing to show a receipt, and is not the ONLY probable cause.

To jump to the conclusion of theft in every such case is unreasonable and brands one as a fool.

219

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are making the same assumption that pookie is making. [/quote]

Which is?

220

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
The key point, the crux, of this whole argument is what I said about 20 posts ago! and it is this:

Is refusal to show a receipt enough “probable cause”, “reasonable belief” (however you wish to phrase it), that a person has shoplifted goods from a store?
[/quote]

Reasonable Suspicion and probable cause? 2 different things, junior.