Arrested For Not Showing License

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
324

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Just curious: who owns the bag? If the bag is technically still property of the store, they would certainly have every legal right to look in the bag.

Until someone has left the property, it may be that the bag still belongs to the store.

Carry on, gents. GREAT thread![/quote]

This thread is insane, it’s gone to the dogs! lol

I belive that as soon as the money exchanges hands, the bag and its contents become property of the customer. The only thing still belonging to the store would possibly be a basket or shopping trolley, if the customer is using one to carry the purchase out.

325

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Bull shit. They would shoot your ass dead, and search you after the fact had you gone on their property and gave the impression you were stealing.

If they knew you openly supported the cowardice that is isalmo-fascism - they’d shoot you in the face as you walked in.

God Bless America.

Struck a chord there, did I?

A person of your moral fiber attempting to speak for my founding fathers should be met with swift and deadly force.

In short - you are not worthy to lick the ball sweat from Jefferson’s jock strap.
[/quote]

Now I have to teach a class with THAT image in my mind! ;D

326

[quote]orion wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
tedro wrote:

This basically sums up this entire discussion. We have posted numerous links supporting these claims, yet are still met with arguments with no facts to back them.

Yea, I think it’s been said before in this thread…winning an argument has more to do with who can yell the loudest and come up with the most condescending remarks, and less to do with the facts.

I agree.

Since we allready won the actual debate let us warm up for the name calling and condescension round.

Could a Mod let us know if I can use swearwords in German?

***mod reply: Quite a few english swear words get through in the politics forum. Let’s keep 'em english, so I know you’re not calling for jihad or an attack on nuns in Germany. j/k[/quote]

LOL

Sorry I just found and posted something that could make us lose, but oh well…

327

[quote]orion wrote:
Especially that “probable cause” will be determined by a jury, which it would not be, it would decided by a court as a question of using the precedences I posted.
[/quote]

Uh…

It would have to go to a jury - that’s how we do things here in our legal system.

Then, if the dipshit’s lawyers wanted to appeal, it would have to go to a court of appeals before a legal interpretation could be made.

Fact is - you can’t find where failure to show a receipt does not constitute probable cause.

I would agree that it should be a matter for legal interpretation - if it really made that much fucking difference.

In reality - if the customer doesn’t have stolen merchandise in his bag, the whole thing is dropped. Unless you detain an asshole like the Ohio guy. Now he may file a civil suit, but unless it gets to court, and there is a legal determination made, this will continue to be nothing more than fodder for discussion.

328

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Just curious: who owns the bag? If the bag is technically still property of the store, they would certainly have every legal right to look in the bag.

Until someone has left the property, it may be that the bag still belongs to the store. [/quote]

Technically, as soon as you hand in the money, the goods become your property.

329

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
I think I found something here, in another blog site, from somebody in the know. They commented:

"Most states require “reason to believe” a person is stealing in order to physically detain until a policeman arrives, and some require the stronger “probably cause” to believe.

Stepping around rather than thru an electronic tag detector is specifically listed as reason to believe or probable cause in many of those laws. Trying to be clear on the difference between what I know and what I think - I think (seemm to recall) recent amendments to state shoplifting laws giving a human bag checker the same legal status as an electronic tag detector. It’s a Catch 22, refusing to show your receipt becomes reason to believe or probable cause to detain you.

And every state law that I know of exempts retailers from criminal or civil prosecution by a detained person (even if innocent) if the retailer properly follows the legal procedure. Obviously if they violate/abuse the procedure thru intent or negligence or ignorance, they are civilly liable and possible criminally liable. (I am not a lawyer. I’m a retired journalist who edits legistive digests on a broad variety of topics.)"

So if that is the case, and the bag checker has same legal status as tag detector, then yes, they could detain him.

I’m still standing up for the guy though.

I don’t want to see the population of a nation end up on a slippery slope, because it is a long way down.[/quote]

Which brings up an interesting point: Are electronic tag checkers violating one’s right to privacy? They conduct a search without your knowledge, or consent every time you pass through them.

Has anyone ever brought suit against the unconstitutionality of such gross invasions of privacy?

How is consenting to that type of search okay, but a store employee doing what is effectively the same job a violation of your rights?

In all honesty, I never considered this until your post JB.

330

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Just curious: who owns the bag? If the bag is technically still property of the store, they would certainly have every legal right to look in the bag.

Until someone has left the property, it may be that the bag still belongs to the store.

Technically, as soon as you hand in the money, the goods become your property.[/quote]

But only the goods you pay for. No one is questioning that. It’s the goods that are not paid for that is still the property of the store.

Honestly - whether money has changed hands or not is not even the issue. By entering the property, you have agreed to play by the rules of the property owner even if yo are there to just look around, and maybe play the display model of the Wii. When you leave, and until you have left private property, you are still subject to the contract you agreed to by entering the store.

331

I can’t believe this thread has gotten this long. Honestly I skipped most of it so clarify if I’m missing something, but it seems like the law is pretty clear.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.
[/quote]

But there’s this:

So clearly probable cause does apply here. Ohio law states that there must be probable cause to detain. It also explicitly state the merchant is NOT permitted to search the suspect or seize any property.

All of the links provided set the standard for probable cause very high in this situation; high enough that I don’t see any reasonable person interpreting failure to produce a receipt (which at the time of the request was the property of the customer) as probable cause.

The issue of the police officer arresting the guy for failure to produce a license seems pretty clear:

Was the guy looking for trouble? Absolutely. After initially reading the thread a week ago I thought that the police officer was clearly out of bounds but the the merchant acted properly, however a couple of people here have posted Ohio state law that indicated I was very likely wrong. The merchant was in the wrong as well. I don’t see what people are still arguing.

Are we arguing that failure to produce a receipt constitutes probable cause that a theft has occurred?

332

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Which brings up an interesting point: Are electronic tag checkers violating one’s right to privacy? They conduct a search without your knowledge, or consent every time you pass through them.

How is consenting to that type of search okay, but a store employee doing what is effectively the same job a violation of your rights?
[/quote]

Good point. Looks like failure to submit to a search upon exiting the store may indeed constitute probable cause. Wow.

333

[quote]rainjack wrote:
By entering the property, you have agreed to play by the rules of the property owner even if yo are there to just look around, and maybe play the display model of the Wii. When you leave, and until you have left private property, you are still subject to the contract you agreed to by entering the store. [/quote]

And just to clarify what you’re saying, the post above about the electronic tag scanner seems to indicate that having the customer prove he/she is not carry stolen goods out of the store is a legitimate part of that contract.

334

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Are we arguing that failure to produce a receipt constitutes probable cause that a theft has occurred?[/quote]

Yes.

There is no definition of what probable cause is on the part of the owner. There are plenty of ground rules after detention - but nothing anyone has cited addresses what can trigger probable cause.

I hate the term probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is all that should be required on the part of the shop keeper.

335

Does anyone know if it is the policy of the store to check all bags?

But it doesn’t matter the guy is the one who got what he was asking for.

I don’t see it as a rights issue and definitely not a privacy rights issue.

It is a one-sided blog so who knows what really happened.

336

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

Look, I posted several sites explaining what constitutes reasonable doubt.

Not one description fits that case.

Why should he or I admit defeat?

You are just plain wrong and too lazy to read the links I posted.

I even posted links to about people who acted on much more than mere suspicion and got their asses kicked in court.

So, provide some legal material supporting your ideas please.

I read your links. I addressed them. And moved on.

When you say they got their asses kicked in court - they were never charged for any crime.

This is what you miss every time you post. It doesn’t matter what the courts will do. That is not the owners responsibility.

His responsibility is to ensure that people don’t steal shit from his store. After that - it’s out of his hands.

You and the others are applying LE rules to private property owners, and excluding the rule of merchant privilege.

There is no legal material to support any of these ideas because there is no law addressing this. I have asked you guys repeatedly to show me where it says it is illegal to detain for refusal to show proof of purchase, and the best anyone can do is tell me what the dipshit’s rights are AFTER he is detained.

Why do you think that is? Because it is a matter for LE. Once a dipshit is detained, it becomes an LE matter. There is absolutely no rule that I have found, anywhere, that dictates what may trigger an owner to detain.

[/quote]

What do you not get?

You simply cannot detain people, period, unless there are very specific circumstances.

Those circumstances were not met.

The LAW requires these circumstances, not me.

You cannot hope for a jury decision either, becuase that is not up for a jury to decide.

It is about the legal definition of probable cause.

There is no such law that says a store owner can simply detain peole on a whim. It is simply illegal.

337

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Especially that “probable cause” will be determined by a jury, which it would not be, it would decided by a court as a question of using the precedences I posted.

Uh…

It would have to go to a jury - that’s how we do things here in our legal system.

[/quote]

No it is not.

Probable cause, as question of law is determined by the judge.

The jury could decide if things happened the way the said they did, but if they DID happen the way they say they did, there is no probable cause.

The jury has nothing to do with it, otherwise you`d have a point.

338

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Are we arguing that failure to produce a receipt constitutes probable cause that a theft has occurred?

Yes.

There is no definition of what probable cause is on the part of the owner. There are plenty of ground rules after detention - but nothing anyone has cited addresses what can trigger probable cause.

I hate the term probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is all that should be required on the part of the shop keeper. [/quote]

See yu did not read the links because there are clearly a shitload of things that must happen before you have probable cause:

I ost my post again:

PROBABLE CAUSE:

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).

AND:

“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.”

I think that question is settled.

Want me t post it again? I happily will.

Notice the first sentence of the paragraph:

"
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."

339

[quote]orion wrote:
"
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."[/quote]

Not to really jump into this pissing contest but if the store has a sign posted they will check all bags it would put a different slant on things.

I don’t think anyone saw him shoplifting but if an employee had seen him shoplift they could detain him and use the powers of Citizen’s Arrest. But I don’t think that is the case here.

Again, this is only the one side of what happened told by a guy who obviously has some issues.

Does anyone else see the guys actions and the store employees actions as an ego thing? Both of them saying “I’ll show you.”

I bet the cop was irritated as heck that a 911 call was placed over this. 911 is for life threatening emergencies.

340

That Righi guy should get a job.

See what happens when you don’t spank your child.

This is about respect. He has no respect.

341

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Which brings up an interesting point: Are electronic tag checkers violating one’s right to privacy? They conduct a search without your knowledge, or consent every time you pass through them.

Has anyone ever brought suit against the unconstitutionality of such gross invasions of privacy?

How is consenting to that type of search okay, but a store employee doing what is effectively the same job a violation of your rights?

In all honesty, I never considered this until your post JB.

[/quote]

Because an electronic sensor just looks for a magnet. It doesn’t rifle through your belongings or scan your receipt to see what you bought. It doesn’t know if you bought a cart full of g-strings, hemorhoid cream, or a cucumber and ky.

342

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Are we arguing that failure to produce a receipt constitutes probable cause that a theft has occurred?

Yes.

There is no definition of what probable cause is on the part of the owner. There are plenty of ground rules after detention - but nothing anyone has cited addresses what can trigger probable cause.

I hate the term probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is all that should be required on the part of the shop keeper.

See yu did not read the links because there are clearly a shitload of things that must happen before you have probable cause:

I ost my post again:

PROBABLE CAUSE:

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).

AND:

“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.”

I think that question is settled.

Want me t post it again? I happily will.

Notice the first sentence of the paragraph:

"
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."[/quote]

These are merely examples of probable cause. No one has yet to show a LAW that leaving the store with merchandise and failing to produce a receipt upon request is NOT probable cause (or reasonable suspicion or whatever you want to call it.)

343

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
orion wrote:
"
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."

Not to really jump into this pissing contest but if the store has a sign posted they will check all bags it would put a different slant on things.

I don’t think anyone saw him shoplifting but if an employee had seen him shoplift they could detain him and use the powers of Citizen’s Arrest. But I don’t think that is the case here.

Again, this is only the one side of what happened told by a guy who obviously has some issues.

Does anyone else see the guys actions and the store employees actions as an ego thing? Both of them saying “I’ll show you.”

I bet the cop was irritated as heck that a 911 call was placed over this. 911 is for life threatening emergencies.[/quote]

I can’t stand when people say things like this. Yes, 911 is intended for emergencies and should not be misused. In some places, however, it is nearly impossible to talk to a dispatcher without dialing it. I have actually called a non-emergency number and been transferred to a 911 dispatcher.

If the store was the one that called 911 because they suspected the guy of shoplifting, would you still be posting it? That would obviously not be a life-threatening emergency. In fact, many times under these circumstances stores have dialed 911 only to be properly informed by a police officer. Links of these stories have already been posted.