Arrested For Not Showing License

[quote]orion wrote:

maybe, who cares.

I am arguing against the “guilty until proven innocent” mentality that the refusal to show a receipt is enough to constitute probable cause.

I have also tried in vain to put legal decisions and recommendations against gut feelings and proved several posters wrong in the process.

They still want to go along with their vigilante gut feeling which would cost them if push came to shove.

For the total lack of legal reasoning they can orally satisfy me for their dicks may be long enough to make a whooshing sound but their minds and reasoning skills are suspiciously silent.

[/quote]

LOL

Hmmm, it looks you’re starting to see how things work on this forum… :wink:

Just so we are all clear, this is what Orion swore to as the “definitive” rule as to probable cause, regardless of which state you are in:

[i]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.[/i]

Oops.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just so we are all clear, this is what Orion swore to as the “definitive” rule as to probable cause, regardless of which state you are in:

[i]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.[/i]

Oops.[/quote]

BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL,

my schlong is longer than yours.

Therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Whatelse is there to argue?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

A store alarm instantaniously shows the likelyhood of stealing and the not paying part, i.e probable cause.

Anything else?

Poor Orion - he gets shown Ohio law and this is all he has?

An alarm shows that a tag is still on merchandise - maybe the clerk forgot to take it off. But we see it constitutes “probable cause” that justifies detainment. A patron refusing to show a receipt looks even more nefarious than does an alarm - a refusal to cooperate and an inference they have something they don’t want the clerk to find versus setting off an alarm that could easily be forgetting to remove the tag.

Sorry, Orion - and Ohio court isn’t seeing it your way. I know it stings.

Of course, the bigger point is that all you continued to assure us that was needed for “probable cause” - you know, the “you have to witness a crime taking place”, etc. - is not the standard in Ohio. This, despite all your bluster.

You blathered until you ran out of steam, and we see you had no idea what you were talking about.

“Probable cause” has a lower threshold in Ohio - and all your noise was just that: noise.[/quote]

I already mentioned my gigantonourmus testicular measurements?

There can be no doubt that I am like totally right by testicular fortitude alone.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

A store alarm instantaniously shows the likelyhood of stealing and the not paying part, i.e probable cause.

Anything else?

Poor Orion - he gets shown Ohio law and this is all he has?

An alarm shows that a tag is still on merchandise - maybe the clerk forgot to take it off. But we see it constitutes “probable cause” that justifies detainment. A patron refusing to show a receipt looks even more nefarious than does an alarm - a refusal to cooperate and an inference they have something they don’t want the clerk to find versus setting off an alarm that could easily be forgetting to remove the tag.

Sorry, Orion - and Ohio court isn’t seeing it your way. I know it stings.

Of course, the bigger point is that all you continued to assure us that was needed for “probable cause” - you know, the “you have to witness a crime taking place”, etc. - is not the standard in Ohio. This, despite all your bluster.

You blathered until you ran out of steam, and we see you had no idea what you were talking about.

“Probable cause” has a lower threshold in Ohio - and all your noise was just that: noise.[/quote]

And the OHIO attourney general says otherwise in the exact case that we are arguing.

Not that that matters compared to my schlongmagnifigency…

His schlong may be lomgers than yours though, I do not have a legal opinion until the measurements are in.

Since I am the Schlonglord, I rule supreme either way.

Totally testicular, dude!

I declare this thread officially dead, with victory going to the White Knights.

[quote]orion wrote:
BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL,

my schlong is longer than yours.

Therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Whatelse is there to argue? [/quote]

JeffR, is that you?

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
pookie wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
This thread still going strong I see…lol.

It’s a T-Nation forum statute that a thread has to go in at least six complete circles before it’s considered dead. The same points-counterpoints have to be made by at least three different participants each. Oh, and Nazis need to be mentioned at least once.

or gestapo as was used in this case

[/quote]

It’s been referenced more than that: Rainjack had the “Soup Nazi” on page 6, which doesn’t really count, then we had JD430 (brother of WD-40?) on page 7 referencing nazism itself… there are probably more, but that criteria has already been met quite a few times.

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL,

my schlong is longer than yours.

Therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Whatelse is there to argue?

JeffR, is that you?[/quote]

No, JeffR uses ChuckyT when he needs “popular” support.

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

He would likely lose if it went to court unless the jury was full of crazies. These suits are usually settled long vefore they go to court to save legal fees.

As long as we know now that the guy was oh so right and the storekeeper oh so wrong from a legal point of view…

[/quote]

Since the store keeper did not search, detain, assault or do any of the other Nazi like behaviors for which he has been accused it is apparent he acted in a reasonable manner.

Righi, on the other hand, probably has a swastika tattoed on his forehead and was clearly in the wrong when he was goose-stepping out the door.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Amazingly the store has this right when they see a guy stuff merchandise down his pants.

[/quote]

Wait…Sandy Berger did this at the National Archives and it all was legal and legit. Hillary and Bill NEVER told him to steal any documents and it was all legal.

By the same reasoning, the punk should get to walk out of the store.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Amazingly the store has this right when they see a guy stuff merchandise down his pants.

Wait…Sandy Berger did this at the National Archives and it all was legal and legit. Hillary and Bill NEVER told him to steal any documents and it was all legal.

By the same reasoning, the punk should get to walk out of the store.

[/quote]

It was in his sock. Since he seems the type to wear pants about 3" too short technically he didn’t stuff it in his pants, hence he is free to go.

Success

[i]I am proud to announce that the baseless charges brought against me by the Brooklyn, Ohio Police Department were dropped this morning and the process of expunging my record has begun. Although I knew that this was a possible outcome for the last ten days, I didn�??t acquire the certainty until late yesterday afternoon. I was not at liberty to make this announcement yesterday since the process had not formally been completed.

This brings to a formal conclusion my criminal defense which began when I was arrested on September 1st, 2007 at a Circuit City for refusing to provide a police officer with my driver�??s license. The fact that my charges were dropped reaffirms the assertion which I�??ve made since the beginning: US citizens are not and should not be required to provide paper identification when asked by law enforcement, in most circumstances.

In Ohio this right is specifically protected by Ohio Revised Code 2921.29 which states that a person may not be arrested for refusing to provide a law enforcement officer with anything other than a verbal representation of their name, address and date of birth. In other words, if you are walking along a sidewalk and a police officer has reason to question you, you must verbally state your name, address and date of birth, but you can�??t be arrested for refusing to show your driver�??s license. (Or for that matter your fishing license, marriage license, liquor license, etc.)

Ten days ago I had a decision to make. I was presented with an offer to have my charges dropped in exchange for signing a document which asked the following of me:

* I would not file a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on my civil rights.
* I would not make any disparaging remarks about the police department, with financial repercussions for doing so.
* I would not discuss the details of this agreement.

These conditions were completely unacceptable to me. I wanted to fight the charges in court and I wanted to win based on the merits of my case. I felt that it was important to set a legal precedent that would help others in the future. Although I was never interested in suing the police department, signing such a document went against my principles and against the very reasons I decided to take a stand in the first place. I was mad to say the least.

In the days that followed a few things changed. First, I learned that the prosecutor was more interested in protecting the city against a civil law suit than she was in silencing my speech. Prosecutor Hillary Goldberg was willing to drop my charges and expunge my record if I promised not to sue. Although this was welcome news I still wanted to fight the charges in court in order to set a legal precedent for others.

Then, I learned that Ohio already had two legal precedents that dealt with the very issue of whether or not refusing to provide a driver�??s license is grounds for obstructing official business. (Google �??State v. McCrone�?? and �??Middletown v. Hollon�?? for more details.) The legal precedent created by a court victory would not have filled a needed legal gap.

At this point I was stuck between two choices. Behind Door #1 was an eight to twelve month legal battle, three or more separate hearings including a jury trial, potential legal fees in the dozens of thousands of dollars and a lot of duress for my best witnesses: my family. Behind Door #2 was the immediate drop of the matter in exchange for giving up the right to seek civil damages against the police department.

At 2:00am one night I received a phone call from a family member which sealed the deal. For personal matters I can�??t divulge who called or what was said, but I�??ll simply state that a loved one told me something on the phone which left me with no choice. My family had become too entangled in my mess and I couldn�??t put them through a lengthy and stressful legal process. My principles are important to me, but so is my family. Based on what I was told over the phone I immediately knew that I couldn�??t put my family through a drawn out legal ordeal.

On top of the emotional strain it was putting on my family, it would have forced my Sister to fly out from California on one or two occasions, and it would have forced my Father to cancel scheduled business trips to Europe. My family was caught in the crossfire.

I took a stand against Circuit City when I refused to show my receipt. I took a stand against Officer Arroyo when I refused to show my driver�??s license. I wanted to take a stand against Prosecutor Goldberg in court, but it just wasn�??t meant to be.

In the end I forfeited my right to sue the police department in exchange for the matter being dropped. Considering that I never intended to sue the police department in the first place, this was a concession that I felt comfortable with.

Although he won�??t publicly admit it, I�??m sure that Officer Arroyo knows he made a mistake. For the record, I do not believe that Officer Arroyo is a bad person, and other than my arrest I have no reason to believe that he is a bad police officer. I think that Officer Arroyo was embarrassed and insulted when I refused to obey his unlawful command, and I think that he was not familiar enough with Ohio State law.

Hopefully this incident will make him more knowledgeable about the law and more understanding of others in the future who choose to assert their rights. I think the same is true for Prosecutor Goldberg. She�??s a smart woman who knows the law, and she clearly realizes that she had no case against me. However, her back was put against the wall by all of the media attention which the case received and I suspect that she felt that she had no choice but to either push forward with the charges or seek protection against a civil suit.

I wanted a verbal apology from the police department but quickly learned that this would never happen. Fortunately actions speak louder than words. Dropping my charges and expunging my record is perhaps the best form of an apology that I could receive, and it�??s the apology that I�??ve chosen to accept.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on my agreement with the prosecutor in today�??s issue. When I read their take on what happened I was outraged. Michael Sangiacomo of the Plain Dealer claimed that I �??agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting [me] after [I] refused to show [my] driver�??s license.�?? This is an outright lie. I never said such a thing and would never say such a thing.

In fact, I�??ve never even spoken with Michael Sangiacomo. He emailed me looking for a quote and I referred him to my attorney. As far as I know Michael Sangiacomo hasn�??t even seen the release that I signed with the prosecutor. I consider the outcome of my legal battle to be a victory, yet today�??s paper portrays it as defeat.

Understandably I received a lot of hate mail today from people who read the Cleveland Plain Dealer article and were horrified to see that I �??caved�?? under pressure. If I was a third party to the situation I think I would have given Michael Righi a piece of my mind as well.

The article is wholly unfair, and a complete misrepresentation of the release that I signed with the prosecutor. I uploaded a PDF version of the release and I encourage you to read it and decide for yourself. Although the police department did not admit guilt in the release, nowhere in it did I claim that they were justified in their actions.

Finally, I would like to address the donations which I accepted over the past few weeks. I received a total of $5,197.23 USD after PayPal expenses. I�??m still a little unsure of what my total legal fees will be, but I expect that they will be in the $7,500-$10,000 range. (I�??ve already paid $7,500 to one attorney, and I�??m waiting for a bill from a second attorney for related legal assistance.)

I am extremely grateful to the people that donated money. The donations represented more than just money to me. They represented emotional support in a time when it was much needed, and I�??d like to thank everybody again who donated. The smallest single donation was 1 penny (a symbolic gesture), and the largest single donation was $200. Every contribution made was a pat on the back and it really helped me get through a tough couple of weeks.

That said, I have received a lot of flak over the money. Some people have accused me, an �??upper middle class 26 year old�??, of asking for money in the first place. Some people have gone as far as to accuse me outright of running a scam. I agreed to accept donations via PayPal because a number of people emailed me wanting to know how they could help, and I wanted to give them an easy way in which they could make themselves involved. I said from the beginning that I would donate any excess money to the ACLU. As it turned out my legal expenses were at least $2,000 more than the money donated.

In the end, I have decided to donate the entire $5,197.23 to the ACLU of Ohio.

I am doing this for a few reasons. First, I would like to end the question of my intentions once and for all. This has never been about money or attention. I stood up for my rights because they are important to me and for no other reason. Second, even if my legal fees rise to $10,000 I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I can afford this.

Although it�??s unjust that anybody should have to pay a dime to exert their constitutional rights, $10,000 is still a small price to pay compared to what others have sacrificed in the past and are sacrificing today. Finally, I want to do something to help prevent injustices from happening against others in the future. Although I don�??t support the ACLU in all of its endeavors, I do believe that they are the best organization fighting for civil rights in the United States today. Even though the ACLU wasn�??t able to help me with my ordeal, I hope that the money I send them will allow them to help others in the future.

I�??ve learned more in the last three weeks than I have in the last three years. This post has only just begun to scratch the surface of what unfolded since September 1st, 2007. I have funny stories, sad stories and outright infuriating stories from the last few weeks which I hope to eventually tell you more about. Until then, thanks for your support.[/i]

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/

Excellent. I would never have thought on my own about the receipt thing. With the exception of costco where it’s been a standard for a very long time to check receipts, I don’t plan on producing a receipt for things I’ve purchased.

I don’t understand why everyone simply obeys frivolous rules, and undue authority. I think blind obedience ends with sheeple. I think we as a society are losing our rights at an alarming rate and as more people make it a standard to obey, we will become less free. We should exercise our rights before they become vestigial.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Success

Stuff

[/quote]

He’s a tool and he’s probably misrepresenting all kinds of things to make himself look better and everyone else look like the evil machine.

I am betting there is more to the story than just what the irritating never-was posted on his site.

I know, crazy to think that, but I think I am going to go with that thought.

A little late to the ballgame, but just learned that my computer crime professor was representing this guy in his case against the city.

The problem here is that everybody thinks they know about the law and talk like they do, but don’t know anything about it.

Some one said the store security can detain a customer if they have probable cause? Probable cause is a requirement of the police in order to arrest. One can do a citizen’s arrest but not on customers leaving a store who refuse to show a receipt. Probable cause is based on what is called ‘totality of circumstances’, a constitutional requirement which must be met before one can be detained.

Totality of circumstances must total more than reasonable suspicion- and reasonable suspicion is what security could use in order to hold one until the police arrive. And no they can’t hold them for too long otherwise it turns into unlawful detention and a civil rights violation.

If store security puts their hands on you, they are subject to civil liability under unlawful detention unless they can show that you indeed did steal something.You have every right to leave the premises with your bag and security cannot go through your bags as this violates the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure since at this point a person walking out the door with a store bag does not rise to even the level of reasonable suspicion. They can ASK to see a receipt, but you do not have to show it to them.

Police use discretion on the job, and a lot of them are just assholes and punks who got into it so they can bust balls. A lot of cops are stupid, and figure since they were called out to a location someone has to be arrested or charged with something because it interrupted their sitting around.

[quote]USNS physique wrote:
The problem here is that everybody thinks they know about the law and talk like they do, but don’t know anything about it.

Some one said the store security can detain a customer if they have probable cause? Probable cause is a requirement of the police in order to arrest. One can do a citizen’s arrest but not on customers leaving a store who refuse to show a receipt. Probable cause is based on what is called ‘totality of circumstances’, a constitutional requirement which must be met before one can be detained.

Totality of circumstances must total more than reasonable suspicion- and reasonable suspicion is what security could use in order to hold one until the police arrive. And no they can’t hold them for too long otherwise it turns into unlawful detention and a civil rights violation.

If store security puts their hands on you, they are subject to civil liability under unlawful detention unless they can show that you indeed did steal something.You have every right to leave the premises with your bag and security cannot go through your bags as this violates the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure since at this point a person walking out the door with a store bag does not rise to even the level of reasonable suspicion. They can ASK to see a receipt, but you do not have to show it to them.

Police use discretion on the job, and a lot of them are just assholes and punks who got into it so they can bust balls. A lot of cops are stupid, and figure since they were called out to a location someone has to be arrested or charged with something because it interrupted their sitting around.[/quote]

You cannot start with " The problem here is that everybody thinks they know about the law and talk like they do, but don’t know anything about it." and then not know that “probable cause” is part of the Ohio merchant clause, which is why it was used, and that the 4th ammendement protects you against search and seizures by the government not private persons or organizations.

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

Other than having a bag, and walking calmly out of the store… what probable cause did the shitty store clerk have? None.

Under statute/ordinance 2935.041(D)
(D) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, or the merchant or his employee or agent acting under division (A) or (B) of this section [i]shall not search the person, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent,[/i] or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

Not sure what your point was orion, but I am just focusing on the pertinent area. In my opinion, the customer did not display clues or signs to suggest he stole anything. He owned the property inside the bag. He declined waiting for the manager, and declined the search. There was no probable cause, the customer did not sprint towards the car, or freak out.

He was within his rights, the manager unduly restrained him by not allowing him to leave the area. He is able to detain someone if he suspects some theft, he didn’t say he suspected, just that he wanted to look in the bag.

The cops need PC, a private citizen has NO right to search another or detain him unless he has witnessed that citizen commit a felony at which time he can effect a citizen’s arrest. You cannot be detained by any citizen on SUSPICION of a crime. The most that citizen can do is tell the police, and then they go on hearsay.

Any search must be VOLUNTARY by the accused and not coerced through threats. Only if the alarm at the door went off indicating there may have been something in the bag that may be stolen can they detain you- NOT because you refuse to show a receipt.

My point about probable cause and illegal detention is that the police had zero cause to effect arrest and the cops, if they searched his person or effects for that receipt without PC, HAVE violated the man’s 4th amendment rights since the search was unwarranted.

Maybe it’s YOU who needs to understand what’s what fucko.