Basically, this guy bought some stuff at a Circuit City in Ohio and refused to show his receipt to the theft prevention guy at the door. He hadn't stolen anything and disliked the idea of being a paying customer who is effectively searched upon exit to prove that he hadn't stolen.

The manager then came out and stopped him from leaving. The customer called 911 and when the cops came, they asked him to show his receipt. He wouldn't, so they asked for his driver's license. He gave his name but wouldn't give his DL since he wasn't driving. Long story short, the cop arrested him without reading him his rights. The guy was eventually charged with Obstructing Official Business, which basically means that he is charged with interfering with a police officer enforcing the law.

1. There is no law in Ohio that gives vendors permission to search customers or check receipts upon leaving.

2. The law on identification specifically says that a citizen is ONLY required to give his or her name, address, and date of birth. It specifically says that they are not required to present anything else.

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/
Includes the full story and citation of the relevant laws.

What do you guys think of this? What is the law in North Carolina? If I were to go to CC, Wal Mart, Tiger Direct, Guitar Center, or any of the other stores that do this and refused to show my receipt, could I be arrested? There's been a couple of stories like this in the news in the past few weeks, and I've been wondering what the state of the law in NC is.

9/2/2007 2:21:32 PM

a lot of people are going to go "blah, blah, blah... why was he being a dick about it"

but fuck circuit city and fuck those people who think that this is OK

it shows a complete lack of respect for the customer

9/2/2007 2:23:41 PM

blah, blah, blah... why was he being a dick about it

9/2/2007 2:24:50 PM

This seems like a situation that I could rationalize an argument for either party

9/2/2007 2:28:01 PM

FWIW, I side with this guy 100%. I also never show my receipt or acknowlege the bag-nazi's existance.

9/2/2007 2:36:39 PM

Quote :

"FWIW, I side with this guy 100%"

9/2/2007 2:49:01 PM

pretty awesome actually. good job for him standing up for his rights.

im sure he will end up getting a nice check from CC and possibly the local PD.

Funny thing is, I havent been bag checked in quite a while now. Otherwise Id be tempted to check the NC laws and run down to CC/Best Buy myself to have some fun.

9/2/2007 2:59:17 PM

Quote :

"Otherwise Id be tempted to check the NC laws and run down to CC/Best Buy myself to have some fun."

Don't be a fucking douche.

9/2/2007 4:37:58 PM

too late

9/2/2007 4:42:11 PM

im sitting here reading a book today. it would be much more fun to bring down some bullshit policy

9/2/2007 4:42:38 PM

good to see someone standing up for the freedoms that soldiers are supposedly dying for in Iraq.....or something like that.

on a serious note. I agree with this guy. He is a paying customer and is innocent until proven guilty. Since there is no evidence of him stealing anything then there is no probably cause to search him...this isn't airport security.

BTW...didn't click on the thread but curious to know the mans race

9/2/2007 4:58:16 PM

I don't see the big deal. He made a big fuss about something that's, at the most, a minor inconvenience. Should he have been arrested? Probably not, the cashier he paid could've easily vouched for him. And from working at Sears I learned they can't detain someone unless they see them actually take the stolen item.

9/2/2007 5:41:24 PM

seriously, why even stop. keep walking and when the cops pull you over, then you can worry about the receipt.

9/2/2007 6:09:26 PM

Quote :

"1. There is no law in Ohio that gives vendors permission to search customers or check receipts upon leaving."

I don't understand this. Why does there have to be a law for this?

Businesses are private domains, and can institute whatever laws inside their stores as they wish. Many stores you can't enter without a shirt or shoes, but it is perfectly legal to be shirtless and barefoot outside in public.

I say screw the guy. If he wants to shop in the store, he has to follow store rules. When they ask you for a recipt when leaving, that doesn't mean they are searching you or accusing you of stealing, as some of you posters are making it out to be. Some things are responsibility of society as a whole, and everybody has to play a role in making those specific things work. And this is one example of that. And even if you don't believe in that, again, you gotta follow store rules once you are inside.

It is a perfect seamless system where you show your receipt and are out in 5 seconds. Why should the guy on that station have to confirm with the shopper's cashier? That breaks the system and renders it useless and redundant.

As for the DL and being arrested for not having that... I have no comments on that, as I don't know the laws as they relate to how to deal with/respond to cops if they ask for ID.

9/2/2007 6:19:29 PM

^because once the sale has taken place (money has changed hands, constituting an agreement) the consumer is under no more obligation to the seller. If there is any concern about shoplifting, it needs to be taken care of at the time of purchase or before it. It's not the concern or problem of the consumer to protect the seller's property.

And there are consumer protection laws in place to prevent abuse in the marketplace and ensure consumers are treated ethically and justly. I've personally witnessed several instances of b&m stores doing things so unethical and illegal it amazed me. The sad thing is most of the time it's been due to the ineptitude of stupidity of the employees than anything malicious.

9/2/2007 6:43:28 PM

^ Couldn't the store just as easily make showing your reciept a term of sale?

9/2/2007 7:37:15 PM

doubt it.

9/2/2007 8:16:14 PM

"doubt it"?

What law degree do you have?

9/2/2007 8:29:41 PM

What a fucking douche bag. The process takes 5 seconds and he wouldn't show it to the cops once they came...give me a break.

9/2/2007 8:51:22 PM

If the store really cares about the person checking receipts, they should have one register leading directly to the exit. Otherwise, once the sale is over, they can stfu.

9/2/2007 9:07:16 PM

Quote :

""doubt it"? What law degree do you have?"

none, but i do know there are a LOT of consumer protection limits on post-sale requirements. Having operated a retail business, I did a little reading to keep myself from getting screwed.

9/2/2007 9:15:49 PM

So post some links to back up your stated claim.

9/2/2007 9:55:44 PM

eh, you can google as fast as i can. feel free to refute me though, its entirely possible im wrong, especially outside of nc

9/2/2007 10:20:14 PM

Quote :

"If he wants to shop in the store, he has to follow store rules."

Woah, woah, woah, being a "private domain" does not entitle a business to detain me against my will in an unconstitutional fashion. If they did anything to prevent him from leaving that store without probable cause of wrongdoing, they fucked up. A business has the right to keep anyone out, not to keep them in.

Quote :

"If he wants to shop in the store, he has to follow store rules."

At that point he wasn't shopping. Anything in his bag that he paid for is his, not theirs. The store could, I suppose, ban him from re-entry. That much would be stupid, but it would be an acceptable exercise of the owners' rights.

Those receipt-checkers profile like a motherfucker, too. Watch them wave families and old people through, particularly white ones, and then meticulously check every young or black person. Every aspect of the process reeks of unconstitutionality.

They have the right to ask to see your receipt, and they have the right to say that refusal to produce it will result in a ban from the store. But on any one given trip, taken alone, they do not have the right to demand it unless they have probable cause.

Quote :

"When they ask you for a recipt when leaving, that doesn't mean they are searching you or accusing you of stealing, as some of you posters are making it out to be."

They are searching, though. That's the whole point. They are briefly comparing your receipt with how much stuff you are taking out, or in some cases they are actually looking at individual items you might have and compare that to the receipt.

9/2/2007 10:32:40 PM

According to Wikipedia:

Quote :

"False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of someone that affects the person’s freedom of movement. Both the threat of being physically confined and actually being physically confined can be considered false imprisonment if the customer is not free to leave. A store that performs receipt checks may not perform an arrest if a customer refuses to have their receipt checked."

But, I do feel for these stores sometimes... each year it costs retail stores over $31 billion dollars to deal with shoplifters. So, I can see how somes stores get very "ants in my pants" about possible shoplifters. Managers bear the brunt of the shoplifting woes.

Quote :

"blah, blah, blah... why was he being a dick about it"

I agree. It's just a receipt. I don't know about other people, but my freedom to keep my store receipt to myself isn't worth the hassle. There are more important civil liberties to be fighting for. This is just retarded.

9/2/2007 10:47:44 PM

This guy clearly has too much time on his hands. They should have taken the merchandise back gave his money back and not allow him to reenter, just for being an asshole.

9/2/2007 10:54:04 PM

People like this are only a little less annoying than the old ladies who pay with a check. If you guys want to shop somewhere that encourages shoplifting by letting anybody walk out the door with whatever then you go shop there. I'll happily sacrifice whatever amount of "privacy" it takes for some employee to check that I'm not shoplifting. Why? Because I don't want to pay for the shoplifters theft. Plain and simple.

Its not a government action, you have choices. This is not like the cops searching your car etc...

9/2/2007 10:54:49 PM

Quote :

"They should have taken the merchandise back gave his money back"

That would have been illegal. They can't force him to participate in a transaction.

Quote :

"Its not a government action, you have choices."

Exactly. You have the choice to show it to them, or not to show it to them.

[Edited on September 2, 2007 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

9/2/2007 10:59:08 PM

Quote :

"They should have taken the merchandise back gave his money back and not allow him to reenter, just for being an asshole."

i dont believe they could legally take BACK what you already bought unless you agree to it.

9/2/2007 10:59:32 PM

Quote :

"If you guys want to shop somewhere that encourages shoplifting by letting anybody walk out the door with whatever then you go shop there. I'll happily sacrifice whatever amount of "privacy" it takes for some employee to check that I'm not shoplifting. Why? Because I don't want to pay for the shoplifters theft. Plain and simple."

you are forgetting this happened AFTER he purchased his item.

they have alarm systems, marked merchandise, and camera tracking. all of which are completely legal. this is not. and it's very arguable whether it actually deters any shoplifting.

Now if he was walking out AND the alarm went off, then it gives them probably cause to ask for a reciept and look in his bag.

9/2/2007 11:05:57 PM

They should probably just require you to wear a skintight body suit so you can't hide anything on your person, either. You should do it, too, so you don't have to pay for the shoplifters.

9/2/2007 11:07:18 PM

Costco requires you submit to the check as part of your membership.

9/2/2007 11:19:57 PM

Quote :

"i dont believe they could legally take BACK what you already bought unless you agree to it. "

well you can legally RETURN it, I dont think there would be anything wrong with taking it back and giving his money back.

9/2/2007 11:31:41 PM

^^costco is also a private club. if you agreed to it beforehand, that's a different situation.

opt-in versus opt-out.

^is ridiculous. if you buy something it is YOUR PROPERTY (unless its electronic, then you can get fucked sideways to friday by teh DMCA)

9/2/2007 11:47:57 PM

Just show the damn receipt and get it over with. I hope that idiot feels like what he did was worth it.

9/2/2007 11:56:46 PM

Why didn't the dude just leave? Screw calling the cops, he was a dick by calling the cops. He walked out of the store and could have just gone home. He made it an issue. I've been asked to show my bag at Best Buy and said no and just walked out, they can't do shit.

Back when I worked in retail, we were told never to try and stop someone from shoplifting, never give chase, etc.

9/3/2007 12:03:23 AM

He couldn't go home. Dude was blocking him.

9/3/2007 12:10:45 AM

Quote :

"I closed the door and as my father was just about to pull away the manager, Joe, yelled for us to stop. Of course I knew what this was about, but I played dumb and pretended that I didn’t know what the problem was. I wanted to give Joe the chance to explain what all the fuss was for. I reopened the door to talk with Joe..."

He had a chance to leave. He didn't. He wanted to make it an issue. Not that I think the store or the cop was in the right.

9/3/2007 12:18:06 AM

I don't think the store has any legal right to stop you, however checking bags keeps shoplifters down, if shop lifting is high, paying consumers have to pay the difference. This guy was trying to be a dick, he knew what he was doing, and odds are was prolly more of an asshole than he lets on in his side of the story. Fuck him, but the only thing the store should have been able to do is just ban him from the store.

[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 12:31 AM. Reason : a]

9/3/2007 12:24:14 AM

this guy was clearly being a total douchebag here. While I don't condone the part about him being arrested, I do feel that a simple "yeah, here's my receipt" from the guy would have had him on his way in no time.

Quote :

"This guy clearly has too much time on his hands."

9/3/2007 12:59:16 AM

Quote :

"Those receipt-checkers profile like a motherfucker, too. Watch them wave families and old people through, particularly white ones, and then meticulously check every young or black person. Every aspect of the process reeks of unconstitutionality."

Any person who has any experience in loss prevention or even security in general will "profile like a motherfucker". I'm not defending them, just stating the facts. I really don't see what the big deal is with handing someone your receipt. Of course, if you refuse to do it, it's cause for them to be suspicious so they're going to react to it and take action.

9/3/2007 2:19:47 AM

the smallest, most trivial civil liberties need just as much protection as other more important ones.

in fact, they need more protection than the bigger ones,

because the bigger ones are so firmly held and recognized, they don't need any extra vigilance.

it's the small liberties that "slip through the cracks" that need the most attention,

otherwise, the gradual loss of these trivial civil liberties,

will add up to undermine efforts at protecting more the important ones.


true, the act of defending one's right to a trivial civil liberty,

tends to make one appear like a douchebag to those not respectful of the deep need to protect liberty,

but it's worth it.

who cares if some ignorant cynics are more interested in name-calling than understanding justice

this guy is a hero, albeit a small one





[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .]

9/3/2007 9:56:25 AM

I dont know

GG for the dude trying to exercise his rights, but damn

Its just a small slip of paper. I'm curious to find out if he really ever had the receipt

9/3/2007 11:46:48 AM

Quote :

"If there is any concern about shoplifting, it needs to be taken care of at the time of purchase or before it. It's not the concern or problem of the consumer to protect the seller's property."

These two really have no causal link when considering this issue. Consumers don't have a duty to protect, per se, but customers can be held liable in cases where a sellers property is damaged. It's probably the ever-dreaded "reasonable standard of care" for the seller's property, which may or may not obligate the consumer depending on the circumstances.

However, to address the first point, there is absolutely NO way that a shoplifting concern CAN be taken care of at the time of purchase or before it... for it to be shoplifting, you must do 5 things: enter the store or department, select merchandise, demonstrate an intent to steal said merchandise
(by concealment or selection and handling itself usually), pass the point of purchase, and make no intent to pay for the merchandise. To act before the person passes the point of sale and approach a shoplifting scenario to that person before shoplifting technically occured would be harassment more grievous than anything this Circuit City guy went through.

I'd call into question whether or not this is false imprisonment as well. Every state has a "Shopkeeper's privilege" that allows them to detain and question, following acts of theft or suspected theft, for a reasonable amount of time until the police show up. If indeed the LP staff of the store had all 5 required steps listed above, then the store was well within their rights to detain and question.

Basically it's a bad stop situation, if indeed the guy stole nothing. In that case the store is at fault and they'll have to pay up. That's all that really happened; you all are making a mountain out of a molehill... but the sky isn't just falling yet... at least not in this realm. If innocent of shoplifting, he was in the right.

But at the same time, Circuit City still has the right to ban this guy for life from ever entering another store... though by the circumstances, I doubt they'll need to. He probably won't be back.

9/3/2007 11:48:15 AM

Quote :

"I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver’s license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused. I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today."

9/3/2007 12:40:44 PM

well, yeah, and the people that steal fucked it up for all of us, jackass. Worry about them, not about the people who don't want to have their shit jacked.

9/3/2007 12:45:55 PM

Quote :

"Every state has a "Shopkeeper's privilege" that allows them to detain and question, following acts of theft or suspected theft, for a reasonable amount of time until the police show up."

As I understand it, they can only detain people suspected of theft. And they must have a good reason for suspecting a person. I doubt this would qualify.

9/3/2007 12:49:47 PM

Quote :

"Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today."

Yeah, he's not being dramatic at all.

9/3/2007 12:51:39 PM

I'm really not seeing your point 392, not giving up the "civil liberty" of having to show your receipt would cause more issues, if a store couldn't verify your receipt they would be tempted to do the following

1. Increase amount of security cameras in and outside of the store
2. Jack up prices
3. Install medal detectors/x-ray machines (unlikely but eh)
4. Start having a membership like Sams/Costco/BJs where in order to shop you have to agree to many rules

etc

The beaches of Normandy weren't stormed so some arrogant jack ass wouldn't have to show his receipt .

9/3/2007 12:52:12 PM

Quote :

"well, yeah, and the people that steal fucked it up for all of us, jackass. Worry about them, not about the people who don't want to have their shit jacked."

False dilemma. Good thing people of stronger mettle founded this country.

[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason : sdfl';]

9/3/2007 12:52:42 PM