Arrested For Not Showing License

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]nephorm wrote:
There is no expectation of privacy for items that the cashier has just rung up and put into his bag, when he has not yet left the store’s property. [/quote]

That’s the million dollar question. I believe that there is expectation of privacy since the purchased items are his.

Stores are employing people to check your bags at the exit because most people play along. Remove voluntary cooperation (some would say giving up your right to privacy) and the system crumbles. It’s a lot cheaper for a store to continue doing this than to tag the items and install a detector at the door. Paying a bunch of people to watch CCTV all day is definitely less efficient and more expensive than harassing law-abiding citizens at the exit (Ok, harassing is a little harsh a term but that’s what the blogger considers it to be).

Everyone is being a dickhead in the story, I agree. But the victim is most certainly not the store employee nor the cop here. I thought the story was interesting because I got into altercations with stores over this “open your bag for us to see” policy in the past.

Anyway, it’s definitely something to follow, and the verdict of the court would be telling plenty . If we take the blogger’s account (which is the only thing we have to go by anyway), he would have a very solid case against the store - in most countries that is.

42

[quote]lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
There is no expectation of privacy for items that the cashier has just rung up and put into his bag, when he has not yet left the store’s property.

That’s the million dollar question. I believe that there is expectation of privacy since the purchased items are his.

Stores are employing people to check your bags at the exit because most people play along. Remove voluntary cooperation (some would say giving up your right to privacy) and the system crumbles. It’s a lot cheaper for a store to continue doing this than to tag the items and install a detector at the door. Paying a bunch of people to watch CCTV all day is definitely less efficient and more expensive than harassing law-abiding citizens at the exit (Ok, harassing is a little harsh a term but that’s what the blogger considers it to be).

Everyone is being a dickhead in the story, I agree. But the victim is most certainly not the store employee nor the cop here. I thought the story was interesting because I got into altercations with stores over this “open your bag for us to see” policy in the past.

Anyway, it’s definitely something to follow, and the verdict of the court would be telling plenty . If we take the blogger’s account (which is the only thing we have to go by anyway), he would have a very solid case against the store - in most countries that is.[/quote]

Wrong. You do not have that right to privacy on someone elses property.

43

[quote]lixy wrote:

Everyone is being a dickhead in the story, I agree. But the victim is most certainly not the store employee nor the cop here. I thought the story was interesting because I got into altercations with stores over this “open your bag for us to see” policy in the past.[/quote]

When everyone is a dickhead - the ONLY victim is the taxpayer. He has no expectation to privacy on store property. He has an expectation of no unreasonable search and seizure, but showing a fucking receipt is hardly unreasonable.

[quote]
Anyway, it’s definitely something to follow, and the verdict of the court would be telling plenty . If we take the blogger’s account (which is the only thing we have to go by anyway), he would have a very solid case against the store - in most countries that is.[/quote]

But it wasn’t most countries. It was the US. We have laws. A business owner has a reasonable expectation not to have his shit stolen. He also should have the right to ensure patrons are not stealing.

The kid was the first dickhead. Without his actions, none of the others would have showed up. He should have to pay for all of the shit storm he has caused.

44

[quote]lixy wrote:
That’s the million dollar question. I believe that there is expectation of privacy since the purchased items are his.

Stores are employing people to check your bags at the exit because most people play along. Remove voluntary cooperation (some would say giving up your right to privacy) and the system crumbles.[/quote]

If there is a sign (and there probably is) that says something along the lines of “all receipts will be checked against purchased items when leaving store,” there is no reasonable expectation on the purchaser’s part that his bag won’t be checked. If he went into the store knowing that they check receipts and willfully ignored the policy, then he engaged in a bad-faith transaction with the business.

If you don’t want stores to check your bag when you leave, shop at stores that don’t check your bag when you leave. The prices will be higher.

45

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wrong. You do not have that right to privacy on someone elses property.[/quote]

Where do you go fishing for such crap?

46

[quote]nephorm wrote:
If there is a sign (and there probably is) that says something along the lines of “all receipts will be checked against purchased items when leaving store,” there is no reasonable expectation on the purchaser’s part that his bag won’t be checked. If he went into the store knowing that they check receipts and willfully ignored the policy, then he engaged in a bad-faith transaction with the business. [/quote]

I once asked the employee to show me a sign or anything of the sort. He looked at me perplexed and then said “but…but, everybody knows it”. I told him to take a hike. That was in Casablanca, Morocco. The store put up a sign a couple of weeks later. I don’t think it’s legally binding per se, but the court would probably side with the business anyway, simply because it’s warned the client.

This OP could have cooperated and avoided all the hassle. Since he was willing to sacrifice some time and energy, I am assuming he had the common sense to take a look around. You might call him stubborn, intransigent, knucklehead, but he evidently is not just a moron.

47

I have been trained in, and work, in the security industry, and under Australian law, individuals MUST give their consent before you can search their bags or look at their receipts.

That shopkeeper could have been charged with assault and unlawful detainment here, by causing the customer personal discomfort and refusing to let him leave.

I don’t know of any law that states somebody is required to produce a driver’s licence, when they are not operating a vehicle.

If the officer had asked for IDENTIFICATION, that would have been a lawful request.

The charges of Obstructing Official Business are bullshit, because the person getting charged was the one who made the 911 call and was supposed to be the one being helped! That’s like if you were getting beaten up, and the cops asked YOU for ID and arrested YOU for not showing it.

There was a clear bias in this case towards the shopkeepers…it was a violation of citizen’s rights. Once they found out he had not stolen anything, they should have let him go. Even if he was acting like a jackass and a douche in your opinion.

I don’t know what the situation is over there in the US, but this whole thing is absurd.

Maybe you guys are so used to having your rights eroded, that you now have lost sight of when you are being violated. I don’t believe in all that political correctness and ‘touch me and I’ll sue’ bullshit, but just keep your eyes open and don’t let yourselves get herded like sheep.

I think that’s basically what he was fighting against - the fear-of-authority, obedient, herd mentality.

48

[quote]lixy wrote:
If we take the blogger’s account (which is the only thing we have to go by anyway), he would have a very solid case against the store - in most countries that is.[/quote]

Yes, he would have a solid case. In the country where I reside, he could definitely charge them for unlawful detainment.

In AU, anyway, these are the laws of citizen’s arrest;

Unless you are an officer of the law (i.e. Police or Customs officer), only where a person has been caught in the act of committing a crime are you allowed to detain them.

If you are a citizen (or even a security officer), you cannot detain them upon suspicion. That right is reserved for law enforcement only.

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Valentinius wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What an asshole. He went looking for trouble and he found it.

Ihre Papiere, bitte!

How in any way possible does asking for this punks receipt equate to a National Socialist State.

Act like a Douche, get treated like a douche. Finis.

I did not equate anything to anything.

I just translated “your papers please” into German.

You have an interesting association though.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Austria probes 'army Nazi video' [/quote]

So?

50

[quote]pookie wrote:
While I can admire a “stand on principles,” I also think that some of those stands are simply not worth it.

Having worked with retailers often, they have a difficult problem to solve (shoplifting) while at the same time trying not to inconvenience too much the large majority of honest customers.

One of the toughest aspect of the whole problem is the employees, who are generally low paid and don’t want to (or simple aren’t smart enough to) employ proper judgment when dealing with those situations.

While I disagree with those practices (checking the receipts at the exit; Costco being the undisputed champion here) because they assume by default that everyone is a criminal; it’s simply a lot easier to show the damn receipt, wait 10 seconds and be on our way, instead of making a scene, delaying other customers, letting low-wage employees engage in a little power trip (probably the high point of their week). Here, the guy gets to meet an incompetent cop as a bonus.

Frankly, my time is worth more than that.
[/quote]

Well said. I also would have just bought the damn Wii game, showed the receipt and been on my way.

However, while perhaps the situation in which he was taking a stand is somewhat trivial, I do agree with his fight against the fear-of-authority mentality in general.

I feel that we are and have the right to be free-spirited human beings and not unthinking drones under subjugation to commercial/corporate/government interests.

51

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wrong. You do not have that right to privacy on someone elses property.

Where do you go fishing for such crap?[/quote]

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. Shut up and learn something.

52

[quote]lixy wrote:
…but he evidently is not just a moron.[/quote]

He is an asshole AND a moron.

53

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
However, while perhaps the situation in which he was taking a stand is somewhat trivial, I do agree with his fight against the fear-of-authority mentality in general.[/quote]

Yeah, but you have to pick you battles. A store checking your bags and receipt is generally not trying to “put the fear” of authority into you, it’s just trying in a clumsy way to curb theft.

Maybe those “My-Receipt-Is-My-Life Avengers” could better spend their time by coming up with a better system to achieve the theft deterrent effect desired by the stores. Retailing margins in electronics and software are pretty thin, and it doesn’t take much losses to wipe out any profit. Then take into account that your “security” largely depends on lowly paid, unmotivated employees and try to find a way that catches thieves while not inconveniencing the honest majority… not an easy problem.

Does showing a clerk your bag and receipt really make you feel like a subjugated drone? You just showed the cashier all your stuff before he bagged them and he handed you the receipt. You’re not being asked to give up your private life here, unless you really like to exaggerate the drama…

I think a lot of these Avengers fight the tiny, trivial battles because they don’t have the guts to fight the real ones. Then they can tell themselves that they really went and stuck it to “The Man” when all they really did was waste a lot of people’s time bickering with a store manager.

54

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
I have been trained in, and work, in the security industry, and under Australian law, individuals MUST give their consent before you can search their bags or look at their receipts.

That shopkeeper could have been charged with assault and unlawful detainment here, by causing the customer personal discomfort and refusing to let him leave.

I don’t know of any law that states somebody is required to produce a driver’s licence, when they are not operating a vehicle.

If the officer had asked for IDENTIFICATION, that would have been a lawful request.

The charges of Obstructing Official Business are bullshit, because the person getting charged was the one who made the 911 call and was supposed to be the one being helped! That’s like if you were getting beaten up, and the cops asked YOU for ID and arrested YOU for not showing it.

There was a clear bias in this case towards the shopkeepers…it was a violation of citizen’s rights. Once they found out he had not stolen anything, they should have let him go. Even if he was acting like a jackass and a douche in your opinion.

I don’t know what the situation is over there in the US, but this whole thing is absurd.

Maybe you guys are so used to having your rights eroded, that you now have lost sight of when you are being violated. I don’t believe in all that political correctness and ‘touch me and I’ll sue’ bullshit, but just keep your eyes open and don’t let yourselves get herded like sheep.

I think that’s basically what he was fighting against - the fear-of-authority, obedient, herd mentality.[/quote]

Finally, a perspective other than the “submit to authority” bullshit that seems to be so prevalent in the USA these days.

Considering the points above, it does appear to me that stores usually politely ask to see your receipt. I am not sure however, especially if you have other items in your possession, and you store them together, that you have to let them paw through your belongings to verify you didn’t shoplift.

While the store may have the right to create a presumption of guilt scenario, where the customer proves innocence by submitting to a search, I’m not sure it’s something that people should be letting pervade through society.

Anyway, some key areas, if the blog account is accurate, is the polite refusal to a request, then presenting options to the store manager, then calling the police himself to resolve the situation.

Who knows, but instantly declaring people assholes and douches because they have the nerve to zig instead of zag might not be warranted.

55

[quote]pookie wrote:
Does showing a clerk your bag and receipt really make you feel like a subjugated drone? You just showed the cashier all your stuff before he bagged them and he handed you the receipt. You’re not being asked to give up your private life here, unless you really like to exaggerate the drama…
[/quote]

No, I believe it’s a perfectly reasonable request to show a clerk a bag and/or receipt. I do it all the time when asked. It does not interfere with our life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. But there are other situations, greater battles, as you mentioned, that do matter more.

I just believe that the reasons for us complying with a request should be based on our own agreement with society in making it harmonious, and making things work. As you said.

The decision should come from a free-thinking mind.

As long as our compliance does not become an unthinking, knee-jerk, fear-based response to authority…

56

Anyway, the guy is a douche because he did all this with family present and created a big negative event for them and wasted a lot of their time.

He can do this crap on his own time…

57

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wrong. You do not have that right to privacy on someone elses property.

Where do you go fishing for such crap?

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. Shut up and learn something. [/quote]

Exactly. Search and seizure rights apply as against government entities - not private businesses. Any person who has ever been in an American store that has a sign that reads “We Reserve The Right To Inspect All Packages” would know this - one not need to be a constitutional scholar.

And, as a corollary, you don’t enjoy a right to privacy on someone else’s property.

Lixy is a laughingstock.

58

[quote]pookie wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
However, while perhaps the situation in which he was taking a stand is somewhat trivial, I do agree with his fight against the fear-of-authority mentality in general.

Yeah, but you have to pick you battles. A store checking your bags and receipt is generally not trying to “put the fear” of authority into you, it’s just trying in a clumsy way to curb theft.

Maybe those “My-Receipt-Is-My-Life Avengers” could better spend their time by coming up with a better system to achieve the theft deterrent effect desired by the stores. Retailing margins in electronics and software are pretty thin, and it doesn’t take much losses to wipe out any profit. Then take into account that your “security” largely depends on lowly paid, unmotivated employees and try to find a way that catches thieves while not inconveniencing the honest majority… not an easy problem.

I feel that we are and have the right to be free-spirited human beings and not unthinking drones under subjugation to commercial/corporate/government interests.

Does showing a clerk your bag and receipt really make you feel like a subjugated drone? You just showed the cashier all your stuff before he bagged them and he handed you the receipt. You’re not being asked to give up your private life here, unless you really like to exaggerate the drama…

I think a lot of these Avengers fight the tiny, trivial battles because they don’t have the guts to fight the real ones. Then they can tell themselves that they really went and stuck it to “The Man” when all they really did was waste a lot of people’s time bickering with a store manager.
[/quote]

Well said…that was my point in my last post.It comes down to knowing how and when to pick your battles…whether they are warranted or not,in my opinion.

People can argue this issue on forever,but laws,rights,and rules are enforced differently in each country and state(which I think would make better discussion). I don’t know about every other country or state, but here your driver’s license is your standard form of VALID IDENTIFICATION…therefore when a cop wants to see some ID 9/10 times he/she’s gonna ask for your drivers license…doesn’t matter if you’re driving or not.

You can’t evaluate this situation unless you actually KNOW OHIO STATE LAWS(CONSUMER AND MERCHANT)! So how can someone in Sweden, Australia,or where ever know whats gonna happen? In Texas, that guy would have 0% chance of winning anything because laws and rights are different here.

There’s a big difference in someone writing a blog about the events rather than actually experiencing it from all sides. All parties done what they felt was right considering the situation. Nobody’s “rights” were abused.

59

The shopkeeper broke the law when he tried to physically detain a customer who had legally purchased goods.

Anyway, I’m going by the law as a security officer in my own country, so the laws in Ohio, USA may be different in regards to that matter.

Although the customer refused to comply with his request, I’m sure there would have been more civil ways of dealing with the situation - although I don’t know what that solution would be in that particular state and country.

Over here in Australia, if someone refuses to comply with a search request, and has not been seen committing a crime, they can legally walk away without being held for questioning.

Furthermore, upon doing a bag search, you are not allowed to touch their bag or handle their property - they must open the bag and show you themselves.

I thought these basic principles would be similar across all Western countries, but apparently not…

60

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
The shopkeeper broke the law when he tried to physically detain a customer who had legally purchased goods.

Anyway, I’m going by the law as a security officer in my own country, so the laws in Ohio, USA may be different in regards to that matter.

Although the customer refused to comply with his request, I’m sure there would have been more civil ways of dealing with the situation - although I don’t know what that solution would be in that particular state and country.

Over here in Australia, if someone refuses to comply with a search request, and has not been seen committing a crime, they can legally walk away without being held for questioning.

Furthermore, upon doing a bag search, you are not allowed to touch their bag or handle their property - they must open the bag and show you themselves.

I thought these basic principles would be similar across all Western countries, but apparently not…[/quote]

Same profession here…working on criminal justice degree…Now if they truly had detained him “physically” …then yes the shopkeeper broke the law…but we don’t know how everything went down. We don’t know if he did something suspicious on camera or whatever. We only know one side. In most stores over here you give consent to search of merchandise(not search the person… unless stealing has been proven) when you shop in their stores.

As a security officer yourself, you know in certain situations you have to make a judgement call. If someone refuses to show a simple receipt, it makes me think something is up. Why would someone who has nothing to hide refuse a simple request? This also comes down to the training of employees and the proper tools needed…which is not up to par in these matters…I was offered a loss prevention job and turned it down for that reason. I would not want to be liable for incidents of lawsuits,injury,etc. for $7.50/hr. This issue seems so easy,but its not…there’s too many damn loopholes in the laws created. What would you have done in the situation?