Arrested For Not Showing License

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
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?[/quote]

From what he said in the blog, the store keeper pushed against the car door with his hands and hips to prevent him from leaving, thus that can be defined as using physical force to detain.

If I were in the situation, as the store keeper, I would have called security for backup, who could then have exercised their powers of arrest.

As the security officer, I could only detain or arrest him if I had reasonable belief that he had stolen something - for example if he was witnessed on CCTV cameras or by a staff member, acting suspiciously and putting something in his bag.

Does refusing to show a receipt constitute reasonable belief of stealing? That is the question. I’m not sure of the answer unless I were specifically trained as a store detective. My line of work is more as a protective officer. If it doesn’t constitute reasonable belief, then I would have to let him walk…

Just for relevance, I’ll provide the full breakdown of laws and powers of arrest, search and detainment in Australia (taken straight from the legal aid website). They should be somewhat similar in the US:

Powers of Security Guards, Bouncers and Store Detectives

In Australia, security guards (including bouncers) and store detectives have no greater powers than those of an ordinary citizen. They may place you under a ‘citizen’s’ arrest if they reasonably believe that you have committed an offence or are in the course of committing an offence.

The following is a guide as to what power security guards (including bouncers) and store detectives have to arrest, detain and to search you and what your legal obligations are in those circumstances.

What Information do you have to Provide?

You are under no obligation to answer any questions asked by a security guard or store detective. Even if you go with the store detective or security guard to the Manager’s office or elsewhere, (either voluntarily or under arrest), you are under no compulsion to answer any questions.

Remember: whatever you tell the security guard, store manager or other people may be used against you in court.

Do you have to give your Name and Address?

You are under no obligation to give your name and address to a store detective or security guard. However, you must give your name, address and date of birth to police officers when they request you to do so.

Power to Search People

No one except a police officer has the right to search your bags, even if a prominent sign states that this is a condition of entry.

Because shops and supermarkets are private property, they may put up a sign saying you must comply with certain conditions if you choose to enter the store. A sign showing the conditions of entry must be easy to see before entering the shop. One condition can be that the owner can search your bags before you leave the store. If you do not allow your bags to be checked, you may be refused service and asked to leave the store.

No shopkeeper, security guard or store detective can forcibly search your shopping bags against your will.

Power to Arrest

Like any other citizen, a shopkeeper, a security guard or a store detective has the power to arrest any person who is, or suspected to be, committing an offence punishable by imprisonment. This is called a citizen’s arrest. To do this they must use clear words and touch you. Generally they will put a hand on your arm and say, “You are under arrest.”

A store detective or security guard does not have to wait until you leave the store before arresting you. If they do wait until you leave, it may be easier to prove that you had no intention of paying for the items.

What Happens if the Security Guard or Store Detective Accuses you of Stealing?

The store detective or security guard must have had

* a "reasonable belief" that an offence was committed and
* that you were the one who committed the offence before they arrest you.

The fact that you have taken items from the store or premises without paying for them doesn’t automatically make you guilty of stealing.

To be Guilty of Stealing:

* You must have intended at the time you took the item, to permanently deprive the shop (or the owner of the particular premises) of their property. That is - you meant to keep the items and not pay for them.
* Taking the items must have been wrongful and not just accidental.

  You should seek legal advice if you have been charged with stealing.

If the store detective or security guard is not actually arresting you, you are under no obligation to accompany him/her to the Manager’s Officer or anywhere else.

Power to Remove People from the Premises

Security guards and store detectives are generally employed to secure privately owned property such as shopping centres and nightclubs. They are allowed to ask people to leave the premises on behalf of the owner. If the person doesn’t leave when asked to do so, they are trespassing and the security guard can use reasonable force to remove them from the premises.

Power to Detain People

A security guard or store detective may detain you for as long as is reasonably necessary for the police to take you into their custody if they believe on reasonable grounds that you have committed an offence.

They may use only ‘reasonable’ force to detain you. If more force is used than is reasonable then an unlawful assault is committed.

Complaints

Complaints should be made to the owner or manager of the premises or the Security Company concerned. Assaults should be reported to the police.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Considering the points above, it does appear to me that stores usually politely ask to see your receipt. [/quote]

Some stores view it as one of their rights. Had the employee received a proper training, he would have been told to let the guy go and call the cops. That’s all he can do.

About the suspicious cam-caught behavior Big_Boss is speculating about, you’d think that anyone willing to take this to court is clean as a whistle (which I presume based on what I would have done). If the store had any evidence that might be considered probable cause, they would have shown it to the guy or to the cop. At least, that’s the way it works in France or any other country with a sane legal system.

Anyway, it was interesting to see some people claim that one has no right to privacy on someone else’s property.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Anyway, it was interesting to see some people claim that one has no right to privacy on someone else’s property.[/quote]

It’s not “interesting”, it’s the law - if we are hanging out and you happen to store drugs you want to sell at my apartment, you have no privacy interest in my apartment w/r/t to the government searching and finding the drugs.

And that is as applied to government entities, which is what the 4th Amendment is about - not private businesses.

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:

Power to Detain People

A security guard or store detective may detain you for as long as is reasonably necessary for the police to take you into their custody if they believe on reasonable grounds that you have committed an offence.

They may use only ‘reasonable’ force to detain you. If more force is used than is reasonable then an unlawful assault is committed.

Complaints

Complaints should be made to the owner or manager of the premises or the Security Company concerned. Assaults should be reported to the police.[/quote]

Leaving the store with merchandise and refusing to show a receipt is reasonable grounds to believe an offense may have been committed.

It looks like the store employee used reasonable force and did not commit assault as well.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It’s not “interesting”, it’s the law - if we are hanging out and you happen to store drugs you want to sell at my apartment, you have no privacy interest in my apartment w/r/t to the government searching and finding the drugs. [/quote]

How do you know this guy was selling drugs in the store?

If you got something to back up your “law”, present it. I’m not taking your word for it. In every country I know, you can’t search people just because they’re on your property, let alone prevent them from leaving.

This is a case of abuse and you don’t see it because virtually everybody complies with store searches. There is nothing legal about it, and is something stores are sneaking past the customers…at least in Europe.

Like I said, it’s interesting to see you ramble about stores’ rights to search people. Pathetic and telling plenty about your mindset.

In other news…

New Jersey Upholds DUI for a Man in Parked Vehicle

[i]New Jersey appellate court decision upholds a DUI for a man sleeping in a parked truck under the influence.

New Jersey Superior Court New Jersey appellate court yesterday upheld the principle that convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) can be imposed on individuals who were not driving.

David Montalvo, 36, found this out as he responsibly tried to sleep off his intoxication in his GMC pickup truck while safely stopped in the parking lot of the Market Place Deli on a cold February morning last year. At around 5am he awoke to see a Hamburg Police Department patrolman standing over him.[/i]

When the hell was common sense lost?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Anyway, it was interesting to see some people claim that one has no right to privacy on someone else’s property.

It’s not “interesting”, it’s the law - if we are hanging out and you happen to store drugs you want to sell at my apartment, you have no privacy interest in my apartment w/r/t to the government searching and finding the drugs.
[/quote]

Change “drugs” to “explosives ladened vest”, and you would be more accurate wrt lixy.

[quote]lixy wrote:
In other news…

New Jersey Upholds DUI for a Man in Parked Vehicle

[i]New Jersey appellate court decision upholds a DUI for a man sleeping in a parked truck under the influence.

New Jersey Superior Court New Jersey appellate court yesterday upheld the principle that convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) can be imposed on individuals who were not driving.

David Montalvo, 36, found this out as he responsibly tried to sleep off his intoxication in his GMC pickup truck while safely stopped in the parking lot of the Market Place Deli on a cold February morning last year. At around 5am he awoke to see a Hamburg Police Department patrolman standing over him.[/i]

When the hell was common sense lost?[/quote]

So a drunk guy drove to a deli and tried to sleep it off in the parking lot and got caught. Unless he got drunk at the deli I think his getting busted is probably fair.

I am glad he didn’t kill anyone on his way to get a sandwich.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:

Power to Detain People

A security guard or store detective may detain you for as long as is reasonably necessary for the police to take you into their custody if they believe on reasonable grounds that you have committed an offence.

They may use only ‘reasonable’ force to detain you. If more force is used than is reasonable then an unlawful assault is committed.

Complaints

Complaints should be made to the owner or manager of the premises or the Security Company concerned. Assaults should be reported to the police.

Leaving the store with merchandise and refusing to show a receipt is reasonable grounds to believe an offense may have been committed.

It looks like the store employee used reasonable force and did not commit assault as well.[/quote]

That is open to interpretation. Having not actually witnessed the situation, and not receiving specific training as a store security officer, I would not be able to comment any further.

If he had left the store with merchandise, was not seen paying for the goods, and refused to show a receipt, then yes it was reasonable. However, if the customer was seen paying for the goods and refused to show a receipt, then perhaps it was not reasonable grounds.

It is an interesting issue to have looked at because I work as a private security officer. So just in case I run into a similar situation myself and have to make a judgement call, as Big_Boss said, it would be useful to have full knowledge of what kind of action can be taken without risking a lawsuit.

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:

If he had left the store with merchandise, was not seen paying for the goods, and refused to show a receipt, then yes it was reasonable. However, if the customer was seen paying for the goods and refused to show a receipt, then perhaps it was not reasonable grounds…[/quote]

If the guard saw him paying and then asked to see a receipt either the guard is an idiot or he suspected the cashier was crooked and undercharging as part of a scam or possibly the customer hid an item so the cashier didn’t ring it up.

Hard to know what the facts of the case are but you can be sure the blogger in question spun them in his favor as much as he could and he still ends up looking like an ass.

[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.

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]

No one is being a dickhead. The thing is that there is no victim. You’re the only one that thinks the store or police intitially acted unreasonably. And this is from a group of people that generally are big on individual choice and resent excessive government and other intrusion into private life. Think on that a little bit.

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:

Power to Detain People

A security guard or store detective may detain you for as long as is reasonably necessary for the police to take you into their custody if they believe on reasonable grounds that you have committed an offence.

They may use only ‘reasonable’ force to detain you. If more force is used than is reasonable then an unlawful assault is committed.

Complaints

Complaints should be made to the owner or manager of the premises or the Security Company concerned. Assaults should be reported to the police.

Leaving the store with merchandise and refusing to show a receipt is reasonable grounds to believe an offense may have been committed.

It looks like the store employee used reasonable force and did not commit assault as well.

That is open to interpretation. Having not actually witnessed the situation, and not receiving specific training as a store security officer, I would not be able to comment any further.

If he had left the store with merchandise, was not seen paying for the goods, and refused to show a receipt, then yes it was reasonable. However, if the customer was seen paying for the goods and refused to show a receipt, then perhaps it was not reasonable grounds.

It is an interesting issue to have looked at because I work as a private security officer. So just in case I run into a similar situation myself and have to make a judgement call, as Big_Boss said, it would be useful to have full knowledge of what kind of action can be taken without risking a lawsuit.[/quote]

Yeah. I worked in a store back in high school, though. Sometimes someone’s behavior and manner of moving about the store was very odd. And there were a lot of signs they taught us to look for that suggested they smuggled unpurchased goods into their bag while paying for some. There’s probably more shoplifting in this way than people who just walk into a store and pocket something without seemingly buying anything at all.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No one is being a dickhead. The thing is that there is no victim. You’re the only one that thinks the store or police intitially acted unreasonably. [/quote]

There most certainly is a victim. The guy was prevented from leaving the store.

You are a group?

If you’re referring to the Zap, RJ, T-bolt gang, I’ll remind you that they cheer Guantanamo, wiretapping, and CCTVs. They definitely don’t qualify in the group you’re descibing.

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

Yeah, how dare he defend his rights!

In case you didn’t know, the guy in the shop has no right to search a customer’s bag. Michael just happen to be one of those people who hold their privacy dear and know their constitutional rights.

That you would gladly let somebody other than the police search you (even on their own property) is no reason for calling the victim here an asshole. And if you have no issues being trapped by the staff in a store just goes to show how little you know about your rights.

He’s taking this to court, and his chances of winning are somewhere in the 90% range.

As to the cop arresting him for refusing to show an ID, that’s also a violation and there are Supreme Courts cases to support that.

I’d be curious about Nephorm’s take on this.[/quote]

How did you arrive at your 90% chance of winning his case? Just curious.

In my estimation he’s clearly guilty of obstruction of official (police) buisness, regardless of if he ‘created’ the business by calling 911 because he didn’t want a retail manager to inspect his bag.

What this guy did was call 911 (and we don’t even have to get into a discussion as whether or not his calling 911 was proper - it certainly was not an emergency) because he did not want to cooperate with retail employees attempt to view the contents of his bag. He summons the police and then will not cooperate with them. Oh, yeah. He said his name. That’s all they need, right?

I agree. This guy is an asshole who went looking for trouble and he found it. I think the nature of this guy and his shitty attitude means that he stands around a 90% chance of being convicted. That’s too harsh, though. I think he should just be punched in the nose for being a dick.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Leaving the store with merchandise and refusing to show a receipt is reasonable grounds to believe an offense may have been committed.

It looks like the store employee used reasonable force and did not commit assault as well.[/quote]

Perhaps. Unless more people simply refused to show a receipt…

Anyway, the store employee did not arrest him, so he had no right to detain him at all – according to the rules posted above you don’t have to do anything unless “arrested”, except leave if asked.

This may be why, assuming laws and other bullshit, the guy called the cops on his own.

If I go to your home, or your business, you don’t have the right to search my pockets against my will, do you?

[quote]lixy wrote:
New Jersey appellate court decision upholds a DUI for a man sleeping in a parked truck under the influence.

When the hell was common sense lost?[/quote]

In Canada, if I’m not mistaken, the concept is having “care and control” of a motor vehicle while under the influence. You can be standing outside the vehicle and putting your keys in the door…

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
I agree. This guy is an asshole who went looking for trouble and he found it. I think the nature of this guy and his shitty attitude means that he stands around a 90% chance of being convicted. That’s too harsh, though. I think he should just be punched in the nose for being a dick.[/quote]

Conform, submit to authority, you have no rights.

I’m not sure people are aware of it, but businesses are often doing things that are not “legally correct” when people are willing to assent to these practices.

For example, the old warning that the operator is not responsible for damage to your car when you go through the car wash. Depending on where you are, that sign may be perfectly meaningless… but I’m sure many will be fooled and take the loss of their antenna because the sign said so.

Often the laws do not “support” the practice, but when consumers get used to the practice and give assent when asked to do something, the business ends up making it common practice. This is so to the point that people that don’t give assent are castigated for it.

It sounds like this guy was illegally detained as he did not mention the store employee arresting him. The guy apparently should have arrested him or let him go - but did neither.

Again, it’s our right to be dicks. We don’t have to submit to common but unsupported practices. We don’t have to provide more information than required by law. If somebody chooses to stick to the rules, though it may inconvenience someone, I don’t understand why they are getting chastised for it.

Our job as citizens is not to let people bend the rules concerning our rights so that it is more convenient for other people.

Somewhere, going with the flow, or conforming, comes across as politically correct behavior. Don’t make a ruckus. Don’t swim upstream. Follow all the non-obligatory rules like a good little boy. It just doesn’t feel right.

Maybe this blogger doesn’t like corporate erosion of rights, maybe he feels the presumption of guilt is the wrong path to take, who knows. Whatever the reason this guy seems to take task with this particular issue. Just because we have different priorities doesn’t make this guy wrong. Just because I like the idea of swimming upstream doesn’t make the guy right, either.

[quote]lixy wrote:
There most certainly is a victim. The guy was prevented from leaving the store.[/quote]

He was prevented from leaving private property under the suspicion that he might have stolen goods in his bag. The dipshit kid was the one that refused to co-operate. You can’t victimize yourself.

Surely you are not this stupid, are you?

[quote]You are a group?
[/quote]

I guess you are this stupid.

[quote]vroom wrote:
If I go to your home, or your business, you don’t have the right to search my pockets against my will, do you?[/quote]

Who was searching anyone’s pockets? The asshole was asked to show his receipt. You are taking this to an absurd level. He was asked to show a receipt. He was asked to show a receipt. He was asked to show a receipt. Where in that do you divine searching pockets?

If I think you stole something from me, in my home - I would most certainly have the right to do anything necessary to keep you from leaving my property with my property. If you don’t want to prove you didn’t steal - I have the right to detain you until law enforcement arrives. You have the right to leave and never come back.

If you are in my house in the State of Texas, and I have justifiable reason to think my life, or the life of my family is in danger - I can kill you dead, and would not receive so much as a ticket.

It’s a wonderful thing when property owners actually have rights.