[quote]orion wrote:
“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.”[/quote]
Mere suspicion is not what is going on here. Mere suspicion would be an owner detaining a customer for no reason whatsoever because he thinks he might have stolen something.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out exactly what is wrong with your reasoning - I am tired of going around in circles.
And you are citing Cali law that has no place in this discussion. But that is beside the point. As anti private property as Cali is,I would concede all points to you had the offense occurred there.
BUT - there is no crime in detaining. It is a civil matter at most. Show me one case where a store owner was successfully sued over detaining a customer for refusal to display proof of purchase.
How can you settle a question? You can answer a question, but I don’t know how you settle one.
I was wrong - as it would have to actually go to trial before a jury would hear it. Unless stolen property was recovered - it would never get past the responding officer’s daily report. And at that point it is no longer the owner’s problem.
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.
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.
[/quote]
You also have to walk through the sensor to enter the store, so you know beforehand you will have to walk back through it on your way out. Most stores don’t tell you they are going to search you on the way out.
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.
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.
[quote]tedro wrote:
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.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Which brings up an interesting point: Are electronic tag checkers violating one’s right to privacy? [/quote]
There’s nothing remotely interesting about that. Electronic tag checkers neither discriminate nor violate one’s privacy. They systematically talk to the sensors at the exit and may communicate that an item has not been registered as “paid for” in the system.
In case a cashier screws up deactivating the tag, the beep will constitute more than enough probably cause for the store to demand receipt checking.
[quote]tedro wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I don’t really care if you “can’t stand when people say things like this.”
911 is for life threatening emergencies and I would have said the same thing if the store had dialed 911, but they didn’t.
anyone who calles 911 for an asshole reason is an asshole.
If you aren’t bleeding to death, stay on hold with a dispatcher.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
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.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Does anyone know if it is the policy of the store to check all bags?
[/quote]
Some forums I checked out had people from the region attesting that there’s no sign in the store about receipt-checking.
Gee…don’t you think that after all these pages we might already have realized that.
The discussion here is based on the premise that the blogger didn’t twist the story. Else, you could just call him a liar and end the thread.
With the “facts” as presented in the blog, some people (Zap, RJ, T-Bolt) still argue that the store employee had every right to act like he did, just 'cause Michael was on the store’s property. This is preposterous and can never stand in court.
Gee why would I give such an obvious fucked up tool the benefit of the doubt?
The guy is probably a liar trolling for a lawsuit.
yah… that is probably what the shoplifting wannabe was looking for.
he’s probably on welfare and already spending my tax dollars on crack and stealing electronics to feed the kitty
That’s quite the stereotype. What led you to these conclusions?
[/quote]
it is isn’t it? The same stereotype of cops being gestapo-type power abusers.
why would I only give the blogger the benefit of the good doubt? Why wouldn’t I wonder what would motivate a person to involve himself in such a tempest in a teapot, what would he benefit from going through such a stupid situation of his own making? Only money comes to mind.
If he were trying to fight an evil he should have let them do all the bad things, rack up some infractions of his rights and then go after them, he didn’t.
why do you think this guy is such a white knight fighting the good fight?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
tedro wrote:
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.
In an electronics store?
Try harder. [/quote]
Any Hugh Grant flick, a pink ipod, Princess Diaries, or as Righi bought, Disneys’s Cars for Wii.
You are creating pointless arguments instead of simply admitting you are wrong.
[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 am not saying he did not behave stupid. I am just saying he had every right to behave that way. Being stupid is not illegal.
[quote]orion wrote:
am not saying he did not behave stupid. I am just saying he had every right to behave that way. Being stupid is not illegal.
[/quote]
you are right about that.
We talk about prison over-crowding now. But I sure wish we could give out tickets for stupidity. Okay well I wish I could give out tickets for stupidity but no one else because I am sure I would have earned one or two in my lifetime.
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.)[/quote]
Surely.
There is no law that says having red hair is not probable cause either. Or being blind, or taller than 6 feet.
You cannot list what is all NOT probable cause.
You can give examples what is though. Looking at the examples I gave and the storekeepers policies, tell me that you would detain that person with the risc of being sued and all.
False imprionment, defamation, and a civil suit.
And remember that what is “probable cause” will be decided by a judge using the cases I posted.
I was wrong - as it would have to actually go to trial before a jury would hear it. Unless stolen property was recovered - it would never get past the responding officer’s daily report. And at that point it is no longer the owner’s problem.
[/quote]
And this is where you go wrong.
If stolen property was not discovered you are looking forward to charges against “false imprisonment”, defamation, and possibly a civil process on top of it.
Unless you can shop you acted withing your rights, establishing probable cause first which you cannot just by asking for a receipt.
edit: I allready have one case, it is from Texas though.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Gee why would I give such an obvious fucked up tool the benefit of the doubt?
The guy is probably a liar trolling for a lawsuit.
yah… that is probably what the shoplifting wannabe was looking for.
he’s probably on welfare and already spending my tax dollars on crack and stealing electronics to feed the kitty
[/quote]
Had Zap or RJ said that, the thread could have ended on page 1.
What they are (pathetically?) trying to show, is that the store can violate your rights while you’re on its property. That is not true, and “probable cause” isn’t left at the discretion of the shopkeeper but clearly codified as shown by the multitude of legal text quoted previously.
We ALL agree that the guy’s behavior wasn’t an example of flexibility and that his attitude flirts with paranoia. But it doesn’t change the fact that he had every right to refuse showing the receipt (under the conditions depicted in the blog of course) and the store employee had no right to detain him.