[quote]tedro wrote:
You do at least agree that demanding to see a receipt does indeed constitute a search, right?
[/quote]
No.
[quote]tedro wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
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?
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?
[/quote]
No it does not. Why do you think it does?
[quote]tedro wrote:
Why, exactly, is enforcing one’s own rights acting like a douchebag?[/quote]
Maybe you could read the last 10 pages of this thread if you really need an answer.
He had no rights to enforce, other than his right to be a douche bag.
[quote]orion wrote:
Nonsense.
http://www.kettner-shop.de/cgi-bin/kettner.storefront/46e439f800244efa274050f336070623/Catalog/1050
[/quote]
I did have a chuckle when the first item I saw from your link was a crossbow.
Anywho, it is common knowledge that much of Europe either has or is in the process of removing or limiting their citizens rights to possess guns at a greater clip than America’s government is.
It is also common knowledge that I haven’t been following this thread closely, and my posts have detracted from the discussion, so I will refrain from posting further.
You’re all welcome. 
[quote]tedro wrote:
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?[/quote]
Finally - but first, a point is made: it is only now that we find out what exactly has to occur under Ohio law, this despite ignorant assurances of what the law was. Short answer - you never knew in the first place: you were making it up as you went along.
Now, let’s take a look - the store can detain as long as it is reasonable.
So, let’s see - this test would be put to a jury for “reasonableness”: a merchant in a high-theft business asks a person with a bag obscuring goods for proof he paid for the goods in an effort to protect the store against theft. This is important because there would be no other reason for the store to want to inspect the bag, i.e., there is no bad-faith alternative to explain why the store wants to “violate rights”.
The employee asks and the bagholder refuses to show him the receipt/goods/bag, even though the entire transaction would take only a few seconds. Reasonable to suspect the bagholder has done something wrong? Again, the test is “reasonable”, which doesn’t even mean the facfinder agree with the decision, only come to the conclusion that it was “reasonable”.
Someone won’t produce a receipt in a store that has a high theft problem? It is reasonable to think he may be stealing - but no one knows for sure. Better question - you think there is a chance a jury would agree with me? If so, stop the nonsense that there is no way a merchant can detain over a refusal to produce a receipt/goods check, etc. - you don’t know that.
So, step one: can the store ask to see a receipt? Yup. Can the store detain someone? Yep, as long as it is reasonable (and ask a jury if they think the above hypo is reasonable).
Step two: can the store search the guy? Looks like no, but I wasn’t arguing otherwise. Not usual that the detainer have to wait on the police once they detain a guy - the problem has been the moronic claims that:
a) Asking to see a receipt is illegal
b) No one could think that detainment over a refusal to produce a receipt in a high-theft store is reasonable
[quote]orion wrote:
I did not find any legal authority NOT agreeing with me.[/quote]
Hilarious - and useless in an Ohio court. You really aren’t that smart, are you? You need legal authority in the proper jurisdiction to assure us that you are infallibly correct on it - instead we get California law!
Interesting - but definitive? No.
Yes, in your genius research, you came across several jurisdictions that required a “reasonableness” standard, which actually hurts your claims - because detainment only need to be based on reasonableness, and a jury could easily find that refusal to produce a receipt when asked in a high-theft environment justifies a reasonable belief the bagholder is a thief.
Point is: a jury could go either way, so you can’t say “it is categorically unreasonable”.
Heh.
You haven’t “owned” a single poster in your tenure here, tough guy - and you haven’t done so in a thread where you randomly cite cases not even on point.
This pathetic display ranks right up there with your (mis)understanding of the US Constitution. It is as though you and Lixy take turns sharing the same limited brain.
[quote]tedro wrote:
You do at least agree that demanding to see a receipt does indeed constitute a search, right?[/quote]
Oh, and one other thing. This was asked based on this text:
i 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 [u]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.[/u] [/i]
Now, if Tedro could read, he would notice that Section E prohibits a search after the person is detained. Highlighted above for your convenience.
This does not apply to a “search” prior to detainment.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Finally - but first, a point is made: it is only now that we find out what exactly has to occur under Ohio law, this despite ignorant assurances of what the law was. Short answer - you never knew in the first place: you were making it up as you went along.
Now, let’s take a look - the store can detain as long as it is reasonable.
[/quote]
Actually, if you read my posts, this is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Is it not reasonable that maybe I knew what I was talking about. Funny that the law says the same thing I have posted.
The only mention of “reasonable” is in the time and method used to detain. In order to detain, one must have probable cause, as stated. Big difference between reasonableness and PC, as you stated earlier
[quote]
So, step one: can the store ask to see a receipt? Yup. Can the store detain someone? Yep, as long as it is reasonable (and ask a jury if they think the above hypo is reasonable).
Step two: can the store search the guy? Looks like no, but I wasn’t arguing otherwise. Not usual that the detainer have to wait on the police once they detain a guy - the problem has been the moronic claims that:
a) Asking to see a receipt is illegal
b) No one could think that detainment over a refusal to produce a receipt in a high-theft store is reasonable[/quote]
Nobody has claimed that asking to see a receipt is illegal.
Yes, refusing to show a receipt could give reason to suspect something may have been stolen, but it is not PC. It is also reasonable to think the customer bought something personal, is in a hurry, doesn’t want to be hassled, or simply knows their own rights.
Demanding to see a receipt and looking over it is indeed a search, in every definition of the word.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and one other thing. This was asked based on this text:
i 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 [u]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.[/u] [/i]
Now, if Tedro could read, he would notice that Section E prohibits a search after the person is detained. Highlighted above for your convenience.
This does not apply to a “search” prior to detainment.
[/quote]
Wow, so we agree that the store cannot search the customer after detaining them, but you honestly believe a search is permissible before the customer is detained?
So I don’t get accused of making things up as I go along…
search
v. 1) to examine another’s premises (including a vehicle) to look for evidence of criminal activity.
A receipt is obviously one’s premises, and it is agreed that the employees are looking at it for evidence of criminal activity, along with the contents of a bag.
The store can ask to see the receipt, another customer could ask to see the receipt. Anyone and his Aunt Minnie can ask to see the receipt.
The store can use the powers of a Citizen’s Arrest here in California. The trouble with that is the liability issue. That is how a store detains shoplifters. They don’t have special powers beyond what a private citizen has.
And actually Circuit City would be in more trouble than the officer as they did detain a person who had not committed a crime.
But the guy was a tool. Seriously what did he prove? Does he think the store will change? No, he just enforced the attitude of the store that they will not put up with assholes.
As for the identification the crux of the matter may have rested on whether he had ID with him and failed to present the requested ID to the officer. If he didn’t have it with him it would have been a fix it ticket/citation to present it at a later date. But probably what earned him the Obstruction charge was being an asshole and not presenting what he had in his possession.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
As for the identification the cruz of the matter may have rested on whether he had ID with him and failed to present the requested ID to the officer. If he didn’t have it with him it would have been a fix it ticket/citation to present it at a later date. But probably what earned him the Obstruction charge was being an asshole and not presenting what he had in his possession.[/quote]
He wasn’t driving, so why would he have to prove that he possesses a license? There are laws against this too.
[quote]tedro wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
As for the identification the cruz of the matter may have rested on whether he had ID with him and failed to present the requested ID to the officer. If he didn’t have it with him it would have been a fix it ticket/citation to present it at a later date. But probably what earned him the Obstruction charge was being an asshole and not presenting what he had in his possession.
He wasn’t driving, so why would he have to prove that he possesses a license? There are laws against this too.
[/quote]
laws against what? Asking for ID? There is no law against asking for ID.
Fella, I think you may be confusing the right to not answer with any person’s right to ask. I can ask you for ID, does this mean you have to show it to me? No, it doesn’t.
And what I typed was the man may have had the ID in his possession and then refused to present it to the officer. That would be where the officer would find for obstruction.
Also, the guy being detained was the one who called the cops right? Do you think maybe the cop was pissed that he was called away from protecting the public from real crimes for this stupid tool who could have diffused the entire situation by showing the receipt?
I do see the side of the guy being up on a soapbox about his personal liberties but he could have done the same thing by showing the receipt and then writing a letter to his congressman or his representative or contacted a newspaper or news channel, written on his blog, whatever, without calling the cops for his little hissy fit.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
tedro wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
As for the identification the cruz of the matter may have rested on whether he had ID with him and failed to present the requested ID to the officer. If he didn’t have it with him it would have been a fix it ticket/citation to present it at a later date. But probably what earned him the Obstruction charge was being an asshole and not presenting what he had in his possession.
He wasn’t driving, so why would he have to prove that he possesses a license? There are laws against this too.
laws against what? Asking for ID? There is no law against asking for ID.
Fella, I think you may be confusing the right to not answer with any person’s right to ask. I can ask you for ID, does this mean you have to show it to me? No, it doesn’t.
And what I typed was the man may have had the ID in his possession and then refused to present it to the officer. That would be where the officer would find for obstruction.
Also, the guy being detained was the one who called the cops right? Do you think maybe the cop was pissed that he was called away from protecting the public from real crimes for this stupid tool who could have diffused the entire situation by showing the receipt?
I do see the side of the guy being up on a soapbox about his personal liberties but he could have done the same thing by showing the receipt and then writing a letter to his congressman or his representative or contacted a newspaper or news channel, written on his blog, whatever, without calling the cops for his little hissy fit.
[/quote]
In your first post you said he would have gotten a ticket if he didn’t produce a license. Where did I say it was illegal to ask? Here’s Ohio’s take on the matter: Section 2921.29 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Shame the man for knowing his rights.
[quote]tedro wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
tedro wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
As for the identification the cruz of the matter may have rested on whether he had ID with him and failed to present the requested ID to the officer. If he didn’t have it with him it would have been a fix it ticket/citation to present it at a later date. But probably what earned him the Obstruction charge was being an asshole and not presenting what he had in his possession.
He wasn’t driving, so why would he have to prove that he possesses a license? There are laws against this too.
laws against what? Asking for ID? There is no law against asking for ID.
Fella, I think you may be confusing the right to not answer with any person’s right to ask. I can ask you for ID, does this mean you have to show it to me? No, it doesn’t.
And what I typed was the man may have had the ID in his possession and then refused to present it to the officer. That would be where the officer would find for obstruction.
Also, the guy being detained was the one who called the cops right? Do you think maybe the cop was pissed that he was called away from protecting the public from real crimes for this stupid tool who could have diffused the entire situation by showing the receipt?
I do see the side of the guy being up on a soapbox about his personal liberties but he could have done the same thing by showing the receipt and then writing a letter to his congressman or his representative or contacted a newspaper or news channel, written on his blog, whatever, without calling the cops for his little hissy fit.
In your first post you said he would have gotten a ticket if he didn’t produce a license. Where did I say it was illegal to ask? Here’s Ohio’s take on the matter: Section 2921.29 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Shame the man for knowing his rights.
[/quote]
I think you are misreading what I wrote. I said the offense was where he refused to give his license to the officer conducting an investigation if he had said license in his possession.
This is where I thought you were saying it was illegal to ask for ID. Was that not what you were saying?
Also, remember this is the guy who called the cops to lodge a complaint, to report a crime. If for nothing other than his paperwork the cop would have asked the guy for ID.
And another thing, sure you may not have to produce ID, but if you are arrested than can keep you until you prove who you are. Cut off your nose to spite your face if you want.
His rights weren’t violated. He called the cops to complain and then didn’t want to play by the rules. He acted like a spoiled baby. HE CALLED THE COPS
And again, he could have gone ahead and shown the receipt, shown the ID and then he could have raised holy heck on the internet or in the paper about the injustice he suffered. He would have come off much better.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I think you are misreading what I wrote. I said the offense was where he refused to give his license to the officer conducting an investigation if he had said license in his possession.
[/quote]
Nope, I understood that. Law of Ohio says all he is required to disclose is his name, age, and address. He does not have to show his license in this case.
No, it’s perfectly legal to ask to see id, a receipt or even ask to search. It’s also legal to refuse.
If he chooses, he could still refuse to show it.
Yep, you’re right here. His decision, not mine.
His rights were indeed violated when he was demanded to show a receipt and when he demanded to show his license. He does have privacy rights.
[sarcasm]
We should all go ahead and waive our rights when someone asks us too. That way, there would be no confrontation and we wouldn’t have to be worried about being called an asshole on an internet fourum.
Damn that Rosa Parks, all she had to do was get off her butt and she never would’ve gotten arrested or caused such a stir.
[/sarcasm]
[quote]tedro wrote:
His rights were indeed violated when he was demanded to show a receipt and when he demanded to show his license. He does have privacy rights.
[sarcasm]
We should all go ahead and waive our rights when someone asks us too. That way, there would be no confrontation and we wouldn’t have to be worried about being called an asshole on an internet fourum.
Damn that Rosa Parks, all she had to do was get off her butt and she never would’ve gotten arrested or caused such a stir.
[/sarcasm][/quote]
Sarcasm is a really weak tool, too bad you thought it was necessary. I thought we were discussing things just fine until you got pissy.
His rights weren’t violated. I can ask you anything and it isn’t a violation of your rights. The store can ask you anything and it isn’t a violation of your rights.
I have the right to ask you anything, you have the right not to answer. If I tied you up and beat you until you answered me then I would have violated your rights.
and did you know that a right to privacy isn’t really what this is about as it happened in public?
and again, he called the cops, he refused to present requested ID. He wanted the cops to take action on his behalf, why wouldn’t he comply then with a police officer doing his duty?
Do you really see this as a Rosa Parks issue? I don’t see it that way. It probably does have a lot to do with perspective.
If nothing else it is a good topic for discussion. What are our responsiblities in the society and what are our rights.
good for you for being so passionate about the subject
[quote]tedro wrote:
…
A receipt is obviously one’s premises, …[/quote]
Pretty small place to live.
[quote]tedro wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
As for the identification the cruz of the matter may have rested on whether he had ID with him and failed to present the requested ID to the officer. If he didn’t have it with him it would have been a fix it ticket/citation to present it at a later date. But probably what earned him the Obstruction charge was being an asshole and not presenting what he had in his possession.
He wasn’t driving, so why would he have to prove that he possesses a license? There are laws against this too.
[/quote]
Because he called 911. He called 911. I’ll say it again. He called 911. What ever happened with the cops after they showed up is entirely his fault.
Your position has been soundly thumped by numerous people on here, and yet you still continue to sing the same song. Not only that you attempt to act as if you are validated by saying I agree with you.
I don’t Thunder doesn’t. Zap doesn’t. Your position would last a 3 minutes in front of a judge, and that is if he is dyslexic.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
…
A receipt is obviously one’s premises, …
Pretty small place to live.[/quote]
Have you seen the size of some of those receipts? Especially if you by a couple of things that come with a mail-in rebate?