[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Most stores have a policy - most often posted near cash registers, if you bother to look - that says in big letters “we reserve the right to (inspect packages, etc.)”. When you go into their store, on their private property, you are consenting to their rules, which often includes the reservation to inspect packages, etc.
[/quote]
I don’t know if there was a sign or not in this particular case, but if there was one, the employee would probably referred to it. We only have the guy’s blog to go by at this point. Start there.
I don’t know if there was a sign or not in this particular case, but if there was one, the employee would probably referred to it. We only have the guy’s blog to go by at this point. Start there.[/quote]
Well, the blogger is probably unreliable - largely because he acts exactly like you. He likely will not give an honest recitation of important facts, especially ones that hurt his position.
As such, the blog is last place to get a fair assessment of what the store policy was - much like your posts are the last place anyone should look for a balanced, fair understanding of facts.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I work in retail, and I’ve had to check people’s receipts as they leave. Most don’t care, but there’s always a couple of cocksuckers that pull the, “What, do I look like a thief?”
That’s when I pull the, “Well, why don’t you tell me what a thief looks like?” People will steal anything they can, especially if it’s easy.
However, arresting this guy for not showing his ID is garbage. The cop sounds like a douche. Yea, the writer sounds like he was trying to pick a fight with The Man, which is kind of tool-ish, but he still shouldn’t be arrested for that.[/quote]
I think being arrested was the proper call. Remember, he was the douche bag that called 911 in the first place. Then HE cops an attitude with the responding officer?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, first - you are correct, it is your property, and the store is asking you to prove it is your property and not the store’s. Perfectly within their rights to make you prove that the goods are yours as a matter of protecting against theft.
Second, you don’t need “probable cause”, so stop abusing the term - this is not a 4th Amendment search, so “probable cause” isn’t the standard. Stop pretending it is.
If a government entity demands to search your property, “probable cause” applies (and maybe even less, depending on the situation, like “reasonable suspicion”). If a store is making you prove you paid for the goods you are walking out with - not a violation of “privacy rights” by a government entity.
[/quote]
Um…yes you do. I posted a link earlier of the law in Kansas (my state) which says exactly this. Rainjack also posted a link stating the same thing. Here they are again, this time READ: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/21-3424.html
Citation? I’ve never seen anything like this in Walmart, Best Buy, or Circuit City. And I’m accused of making things up…
I am really starting to question your reading abilities at this point. I said I don’t know how a lawsuit would play out because I don’t know whether or not standing between the car and the door would constitute detainment. This is not what is being argued here. The argument here is whether or not a merchant can legally detain a customer for refusing to show a receipt.
As I stated earlier, there are laws pertaining to shoplifting, merchants rights, and citizens rights, which have all been posted already, in interpreting these one of minimal intelligence can come to the conclusion that a merchant can not detain someone without PC, and not showing a receipt is not PC.
You are asking me to show you a law which says “A merchant cannot search a customer as a condition for leaving the store, should the customer refuse the merchant has the right to detain them.”
This would be kind of repetitive given the laws that are already in place.
I will ask again, show me a law that says a merchant can detain someone without PC. Rainjack tried and all he did was prove my point.
Again, all of the relevant information has been posted and linked to. The most ironic thing is that this is not an isolated case, and the legal issues have been discussed many times before, all with the same conclusions I have stated. Even with all this, you still refuse to believe anything and accuse others of making things up while it is clear you and a few others are the ones that don’t know what you are talking about as you have already been proved wrong numerous times.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I work in retail, and I’ve had to check people’s receipts as they leave. Most don’t care, but there’s always a couple of cocksuckers that pull the, “What, do I look like a thief?”
That’s when I pull the, “Well, why don’t you tell me what a thief looks like?” People will steal anything they can, especially if it’s easy.
However, arresting this guy for not showing his ID is garbage. The cop sounds like a douche. Yea, the writer sounds like he was trying to pick a fight with The Man, which is kind of tool-ish, but he still shouldn’t be arrested for that.
I think being arrested was the proper call. Remember, he was the douche bag that called 911 in the first place. Then HE cops an attitude with the responding officer?
Well, I agree he was asking for it. I’m betting the cop just thought this guy was being a douchebag and threw him in jail more for that than for not showing his license.
[/quote]
Why, exactly, is enforcing one’s own rights acting like a douchebag?
When the customer leaves the store with merchandise that the shopkeeper believes was not paid for the shopkeeper then has probable cause to do something.
“Probable cause” is a legal threshold used in criminal law, one used to secure warrants from judges. Merchants aren’t government entities, so the standard process of “search and seizure” doesn’t apply, so all this talk of “probable cause” makes little sense - if a “victim” thought he was harmed by this “violation of rights”, then he would sue civilly, and be up against things like “reasonable person” standards.
[/quote]
“Probable cause” is the term used in the law and this is a form of citizens arrest.
If you look at the requirements for a citizens arrest, witnessing or knowing that there has been a crime the terms of the emerchants statute may be a bit relaxed but they hardly down to “oh my, he does not show me his receipts”.
We heard stories of Europe’s TV Gestapo earlier, and we know that no matter how ridiculous America’s tax rate is, most of Europe’s will be significantly higher. We also know that most of Europe has already removed their citizens’ right to bear arms.
Right, and exactly my point. Kansas enshrined such a thing is its state law - but the “probable cause” detention is not a uniform-across-all-states rule per the 4th Amendment.
On the flip side, research “merchant’s privilege” laws - states are all over the map as to how they handle the problem, so what Kansas does doesn’t help us, especially with all the “this is the way it is everywhere” nonsense you have peddled.
Point again: there is no basic uniform rule, so stop suggesting there is.
As to your links, they suggest a “best practices” approach to avoid lawsuit - absolutely a great idea, but don’t pretend it is the “law of the land”. It is store policy, designed to prevent losses, the same as a receipt search.
Citation of what? Use your common experience - are you saying stores don’t post such signs? Incredible.
Have you ever seen a sign that says a business has a right to refuse business to people without shirts and shoes? How about the right to refuse service to anyone they want?
You really should consider venturing into the real world.
Exactly my point - you don’t know, so why assert it as “law” when it is, in fact, more of a hope on your part?
Actually, start at the beginning - the main point I was addressing was whether a receipt search was ok or not, regardless of detainment afterwards. Some around here claimed that receipt searches are “illegal” outrightly.
Then, of course, whether detainment is allowed or not depends entirely in the individual jurisdiction - and the rules vary in their pro-consumer approach. So, as such, there can be no blanket statement that “stores can’t detain without ‘probable cause’” because different states require different things for probable cause and do not uniformly use the legal rule of Probable Cause in the 4th Amendment.
Wrong - it depends on which state the merchant is in. “Merchant privilege” states allow more than other states, and there is no prevailing federal law. There are laws covering this to be sure - why make a foolish claim that there is a big uniform approach when the answer could vary drastically?
[quote]You are asking me to show you a law which says “A merchant cannot search a customer as a condition for leaving the store, should the customer refuse the merchant has the right to detain them.”
This would be kind of repetitive given the laws that are already in place.
I will ask again, show me a law that says a merchant can detain someone without PC. Rainjack tried and all he did was prove my point.[/quote]
No problem, glad to be part of your education:
[i]Some states have enacted laws called �??Merchant or Shopkeeper�??s Privilege�?? to allow merchants to make reasonable investigative detentions of a customer suspected of shoplifting. Though such laws remain vague as to what exactly constitutes �??reasonable�?? and �??detainment�??, usually, the Shopkeeper�??s privilege allows for reasonable force and a detainment in a reasonable manner and amount of time if there is a reasonable belief that theft has occurred.
Some guidelines a merchant can go by to minimize the potential for a false arrest claim by establishing a high degree of probable cause for the detention and arrest of a person suspected of shoplifting:
Witness the shoplifter select, and conceal or carry away the merchandise
Maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter
Witness the shoplifter�??s failure to pay for the merchandise
Apprehend the shoplifter outside the store[/i]
Hmm. So let’s review - some states require their version of “probable cause”, and some states have a “reasonableness” standard, which is definitionally less than the higher “probable cause”.
The rules vary - and loaded phrases like “probable cause” mean something - you can’t just throw it around when the slight differences equate to possible liability. Most importantly, the right to detain is not based uniformly on the same “probable cause” standard as applied to government entities via the 4th Amendment, so stop swinging wildly and asserting this.
The point remains - depending on which state you are in, you may not have the “rights” you think you do in a detention scenario, and most importantly, it is certainly not the same as the 4th Amendment approach.
I believe what makes sense - not some second-rate attempt to explain.
Probable cause is not a question of fact for the jury but a question of law for the court to decide, to be determined by the circumstances at the time of detention. Collyer v. Kress, 5 Cal. 2d 181 (1936). The issue is whether there is probable cause to believe the suspect was attempting to shoplift. Probable cause was found in the following circumstances: (a) when store employees see suspect take merchandise and put it into an overcoat. Id. at 176; (b) observing suspect on camera for 10-15 minutes follow other customers, disappear into a back room reserved for employees only, and realization suspect committed purse theft hours earlier. In re Leslie H., 169 Cal. App. 3d 659; (c) store security guard observed suspects walk from department to department picking up items then looking behind and side to side, suspects took tools into display shed and closed door, suspect exited shed with additional bag. Cervantez v. J.C. Penney, 24 Cal. 3d 579, 586 (1979); (d) store LPS agent observed plaintiff enter store, untuck his shirt, handle various items, and exit the store walking in front of checkout counters without passing cashiers. Jones v. K-Mart, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1898, 1901-02 (1996).
“Mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish probable cause. There must be some corroborating facts that the person detaining or arresting can articulate to illustrate that he/she had probable cause.”
“Probable cause” is the term used in the law and this is a form of citizens arrest. [/quote]
And determined by each state as they see fit.
It is fine to say “I think that not showing a receipt shouldn’t trigger reasonable suspicion”, but don’t assert as a fact that not showing a receipt triggers reasonable suspicion unless you know that to be true according to the law of the state.
You don’t know, and that continues to be the problem for the “Rage Against the Machiners” around here - they state their personal preferences as concrete examples of law when, of course, that is nonsense.
Speaking of “probable cause” I just made a thread in Get A Life about an police officer arresting a McDonald’s employee who unknowingly put too much salt on his “official duty” burger…crazy.
“Probable cause” is the term used in the law and this is a form of citizens arrest.
And determined by each state as they see fit.
If you look at the requirements for a citizens arrest, witnessing or knowing that there has been a crime the terms of the emerchants statute may be a bit relaxed but they hardly down to “oh my, he does not show me his receipts”.
It is fine to say “I think that not showing a receipt shouldn’t trigger reasonable suspicion”, but don’t assert as a fact that not showing a receipt triggers reasonable suspicion unless you know that to be true according to the law of the state.
You don’t know, and that continues to be the problem for the “Rage Against the Machiners” around here - they state their personal preferences as concrete examples of law when, of course, that is nonsense.[/quote]
Your post came a tad to late, I showed what probable cause is.
Your post came a tad to late, I showed what probable cause is.[/quote]
Orion, you always have a way of underwhelming on legal topics - you do know the case you cited is from California, right?
May or may not be - but what does that have to do with Ohio?
It’s ok - we have run into your limits on American law before. It has become routine.
Here is the key - Ohio may or may not be a “merchant privilege” state. Maybe Ohio has a higher standard than California, maybe it has a lower one. The point is: you don’t know, yet you continue to assert the point and then try to “prove it backwards” by scavenging across the internet citing legal authority that agrees with you but has no particular relevance to the issue in question.
Two separate questions here, and I was focused on the first one: whether a merchant can demand to see a receipt to show proof of ownership as a matter of voluntary, contractual private property rights.
Whether refusing to show said receipt warrants detainment is a separate question and completely dependent on the particulars of state law - so blanket statements that refusal “definitely” is not “probable cause” are patently false and uninformed.
“Probable cause” is the term used in the law and this is a form of citizens arrest.
And determined by each state as they see fit.
If you look at the requirements for a citizens arrest, witnessing or knowing that there has been a crime the terms of the emerchants statute may be a bit relaxed but they hardly down to “oh my, he does not show me his receipts”.
It is fine to say “I think that not showing a receipt shouldn’t trigger reasonable suspicion”, but don’t assert as a fact that not showing a receipt triggers reasonable suspicion unless you know that to be true according to the law of the state.
You don’t know, and that continues to be the problem for the “Rage Against the Machiners” around here - they state their personal preferences as concrete examples of law when, of course, that is nonsense.
Your post came a tad to late, I showed what probable cause is.
Not showing a receipt is miles away.
[/quote]
Did you even read what you posted? Probable cause is established by the court. It then gave some examples of case history, not a complete list of the only acceptable probable causes.
Your post came a tad to late, I showed what probable cause is.
Orion, you always have a way of underwhelming on legal topics - you do know the case you cited is from California, right?
Not showing a receipt is miles away.
May or may not be - but what does that have to do with Ohio?
It’s ok - we have run into your limits on American law before. It has become routine.
Here is the key - Ohio may or may not be a “merchant privilege” state. Maybe Ohio has a higher standard than California, maybe it has a lower one. The point is: you don’t know, yet you continue to assert the point and then try to “prove it backwards” by scavenging across the internet citing legal authority that agrees with you but has no particular relevance to the issue in question.
Two separate questions here, and I was focused on the first one: whether a merchant can demand to see a receipt to show proof of ownership as a matter of voluntary, contractual private property rights.
Whether refusing to show said receipt warrants detainment is a separate question and completely dependent on the particulars of state law - so blanket statements that refusal “definitely” is not “probable cause” are patently false and uninformed.
But what is new for you?[/quote]
For your enjoyment, Ohio’s merchant privilege:
§ 2935.041 Detention, arrest of shoplifters; protection of library, museum and archival institution property.
(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
…
(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.
You do at least agree that demanding to see a receipt does indeed constitute a search, right?
“Probable cause” is the term used in the law and this is a form of citizens arrest.
And determined by each state as they see fit.
If you look at the requirements for a citizens arrest, witnessing or knowing that there has been a crime the terms of the emerchants statute may be a bit relaxed but they hardly down to “oh my, he does not show me his receipts”.
It is fine to say “I think that not showing a receipt shouldn’t trigger reasonable suspicion”, but don’t assert as a fact that not showing a receipt triggers reasonable suspicion unless you know that to be true according to the law of the state.
You don’t know, and that continues to be the problem for the “Rage Against the Machiners” around here - they state their personal preferences as concrete examples of law when, of course, that is nonsense.
Your post came a tad to late, I showed what probable cause is.
Not showing a receipt is miles away.
Did you even read what you posted? Probable cause is established by the court. It then gave some examples of case history, not a complete list of the only acceptable probable causes.[/quote]
I know.
But what has no been enough once, not in Ohio, not in California, in fact not anywhere in the US is that not showing a receipt is enough.
What is clearly needed in ALL cases is a chain of events that culminate in the suspect leaving the store WITHOUT PAYING AND THE STORE PERSON WITNESSING IT.
Your post came a tad to late, I showed what probable cause is.
Orion, you always have a way of underwhelming on legal topics - you do know the case you cited is from California, right?
Not showing a receipt is miles away.
May or may not be - but what does that have to do with Ohio?
It’s ok - we have run into your limits on American law before. It has become routine.
Here is the key - Ohio may or may not be a “merchant privilege” state. Maybe Ohio has a higher standard than California, maybe it has a lower one. The point is: you don’t know, yet you continue to assert the point and then try to “prove it backwards” by scavenging across the internet citing legal authority that agrees with you but has no particular relevance to the issue in question.
Two separate questions here, and I was focused on the first one: whether a merchant can demand to see a receipt to show proof of ownership as a matter of voluntary, contractual private property rights.
Whether refusing to show said receipt warrants detainment is a separate question and completely dependent on the particulars of state law - so blanket statements that refusal “definitely” is not “probable cause” are patently false and uninformed.
But what is new for you?[/quote]
I did not find any legal authority NOT agreeing with me.
That should tell you something because all I googled was shoplifting laws with no bias whatsoever.
If you had read my links you`d know that Ohio has a merchant clause, otherwise this would have been a citizens arrest and then it would have been unlawful without any doubt, because the store person did not witness any crime nor could he be sure that a crime had been committed.
Had you read them, you would also be aware of the reaccuring theme of establishing probable cause, like witnessing the stealing or the witnessing of a very likely stealing and the target leaving without paying.
You find me a case or a legal source where it says that not showing a receipt constitutes probable cause, otherwise consider your self owned, and a good day to you Sir.