The bottom line is this: If you have a posted warning/notice at the entrance of the store then you can do whatever you want in regards to demanding a receipt. If you don't post this, you have absolutely no right to search a private individual.


Where this guy fucked up was when he got the cops involved he refused to cooperate with the cop. If he had cooperated then he'd be fine and the store would have just been annoyed.

9/4/2007 10:52:40 AM

Quote :

"Where this guy fucked up was when he got the cops involved he refused to cooperate with the cop. If he had cooperated then he'd be fine and the store would have just been annoyed. "

bingo..and if he felt he had a point, he would've relayed it to the store w/o going to jail

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 11:02 AM. Reason : x]

9/4/2007 11:01:04 AM

Some things that I would like to reiterate:

* The store did not accuse him of stealing.

* The store did not call the cops.

* The cop demanded to see his driver's license even though the law in Ohio specifically states that citizens are only required to give their name, address, and date of birth unless under arrest and do not have to present a DL unless they are driving.

* The only crime he was charged with was interfering with the enforcement of the law, despite the fact that no other laws were broken.


btw, I'm really glad that both a cop and a former LP person have posted here. It's interesting to see your perspectives.

Quote :

"bingo..and if he felt he had a point, he would've relayed it to the store w/o going to jail"

Let's assume his point was "Receipt checking is a shitty business practice." Whether you agree with it or not, taking the course of action he did surely had a much greater impact, for better or worse, than just telling the LP guy that what he's doing is shitty. I mean, seriously, do you think that would change anything?

9/4/2007 11:19:53 AM

Just a wierd point I noticed:

Why does a guy with enough equity in his home to fight a legal battle with CC and the police department need his father to post a $300 bail to get him out of jail?

9/4/2007 11:49:41 AM

why is he accepting money too? To sue for what? "hello im a dumbass, and want to be rich."

9/4/2007 12:11:52 PM

Quote :

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

9/4/2007 12:42:35 PM

surprise surprise, cops don't always know the correct interpretation of the laws they are enforcing!
thats why we have laws, lawyers, judges and a court system

9/4/2007 1:33:46 PM

Quote :

"It's the only proof you can provide that you're not stealing a private establishment's property."

Guilty until proven innocent. Of course.

Quote :

"If you can't produce a bill of sale, you don't own it."

So places that don't give receipts can claim they never sold any of it?

Quote :

"That's another point. The difference between this being a legal issue or not could be as simple as a sign posted that says "We reserve the right to inspect receipts of customers before they leave the store.""

Ah yes. Anything is just as long as you supposedly agree to it by doing something only barely related.

9/4/2007 1:51:03 PM

Quote :

"Guilty until proven innocent. Of course."

Innocent until proven guilty is a theoretical concept that only applies within the courtroom (and to a degree to agents of the state). Otherwise you would never be able to arrest someone. No private citizen has any requirement to assume you innocent.

Quote :

"So places that don't give receipts can claim they never sold any of it? "

They can claim whatever they want. Thats why we have courts.

Quote :

"Anything is just as long as you supposedly agree to it by doing something only barely related."

How is entering a store a shopping there to buy products only barely related to buying products?

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/4/2007 2:14:20 PM

Quote :

"* The cop demanded to see his driver's license even though the law in Ohio specifically states that citizens are only required to give their name, address, and date of birth unless under arrest and do not have to present a DL unless they are driving. "

add: "According to the jackass.... " to the front of this statement

Quote :

"surprise surprise, cops don't always know the correct interpretation of the laws they are enforcing! thats why we have laws, lawyers, judges and a court system "

exactly.. nobody is perfect - which is why there is judicial review immediately following a physical arrest (present the suspect to the magistrate) and why there is a jury of your "peers" for a conviction (if a trial is necessary)

9/4/2007 2:41:52 PM

Quote :

"No private citizen has any requirement to assume you innocent."

Well, as you say, they can claim whatever they want. If I've bought something, I've bought it. Later. I don't need to prove it to anyone.

If they want to accuse me of stealing, then it goes to court.

Quote :

"How is entering a store a shopping there to buy products only barely related to buying products?"

The main problem it's very easy to walk into a store without reading or understanding whatever signs they've decided to post.

You might as well just yell "Gotcha!" whenever anyone enters and charge $10 to leave the establishment.

9/4/2007 4:18:49 PM

I'm still wondering how this is a constitutional issue.

9/4/2007 4:43:09 PM

It's not.


I think you're failing to read. It's a legal issue, not a constitutional issue.

9/4/2007 4:43:56 PM

Well in that case receipt checking is absolutely allowable in all 50 states.

But I'm pretty sure some people are still trying to frame it in the context of civil liberties.

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ,]

9/4/2007 4:47:21 PM

Only if the customer consents to it. Private citizens cannot force you to submit anything to them legally.


Could you imagine if I walked up to you and demanded your drivers license, and receipts for anything you were wearing? I can't and these companies can't legally enforce it.

If they think you are shoplifting they have to call the police, but if they call the police they better have a solid case and 'he won't show me his receipt' is not a valid reason when the person in question says, 'I am under no legal responsibility to show my receipt for these people after I've purchase and gained ownership of something.'

Sure, you may say, 'he's being a dick' and that may be the case. But he's also not wrong in saying, 'my shit is my shit, you don't have any right to anything i own unless I grant you that right.'

9/4/2007 4:52:16 PM

Just as that guy almost definitely no longer has the night to enter a CC ever again.

9/4/2007 4:53:54 PM

The store does have a right to refuse entry. I think I stated this several posts back.

9/4/2007 4:55:18 PM

Quote :

"The main problem it's very easy to walk into a store without reading or understanding whatever signs they've decided to post. "

As long as the signs are clearly posted and written in english, that seems pretty irellevant. It's quite easy to sign a contract without reading or understanding it too, but you're still bound by the contract you signed.

Quote :

"You might as well just yell "Gotcha!" whenever anyone enters and charge $10 to leave the establishment."

You're smarter than that. You know as well as I do that such a senario doesn't fly because you are given no chance to read, consider and decline the terms or contract presented.

Quote :

"Sure, you may say, 'he's being a dick' and that may be the case. But he's also not wrong in saying, 'my shit is my shit, you don't have any right to anything i own unless I grant you that right.'"

Like I said, I think you could argue that he was well within his rights up until the moment he decided to stop, get back out of his car and confront the manager. I think at that point, at the very least he has consented to being detained until the situation is resolved.

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 6:18 PM. Reason : sdfa]

9/4/2007 6:15:48 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "* The cop demanded to see his driver's license even though the law in Ohio specifically states that citizens are only required to give their name, address, and date of birth unless under arrest and do not have to present a DL unless they are driving. " add: "According to the jackass.... " to the front of this statement"

add: "According to the jackass.... " to the front of this statement

9/4/2007 7:49:02 PM

Quote :

"As long as the signs are clearly posted and written in english, that seems pretty irellevant."

What does 'clearly' mean? Because when I walk into a store, I don't expect to see 50ftx10ft board of information that amounts to me waiving my rights upon entering the premises.

Quote :

"You're smarter than that. You know as well as I do that such a senario doesn't fly because you are given no chance to read, consider and decline the terms or contract presented."

Way to contradict yourself.

9/4/2007 8:29:27 PM

Quote :

"What does 'clearly' mean? "

Would a reasonable person see it? There are plenty of laws which establish that a "clearly" posted sign is valid. See laws regarding tresspassing, no smoking, no firearms, no concealed weapons, etc etc etc. You walk into stores all the time that use a 10in X 5in sign which ammounts to you waiving your rights upon entering the premises.

Quote :

"Way to contradict yourself."

Not at all. If you walk into a store and they have a sign at the front that says "By entering these premises you agree to abide by the terms of sale, including display of reciept from purchases" you are given the chance to read the sign, consider the sign, and then either continue into the store, or turn around and walk out, thus declining the terms of the contract.

9/4/2007 8:52:03 PM

Quote :

"As long as the signs are clearly posted and written in english, that seems pretty irellevant. It's quite easy to sign a contract without reading or understanding it too, but you're still bound by the contract you signed."

I'm not a fan of throwing stupid shit in with the fine print either. However, entry = agreement to do x is worse. Walking into a building isn't much like signing a contract.

Quote :

"You're smarter than that. You know as well as I do that such a senario doesn't fly because you are given no chance to read, consider and decline the terms or contract presented."

I was assuming a sign would be posted about this policy. Some unlucky fellows would still wander into to the store, I imagine.

Quote :

"I think at that point, at the very least he has consented to being detained until the situation is resolved."

Uh, what? I don't know about you, but I always reserve the right to GTFO whenever I please.

Quote :

"See laws regarding tresspassing, no smoking, no firearms, no concealed weapons, etc etc etc."

Well, such signs make a little more sense.

"No guns inside."

vs.

"To leave, you must do x."

9/4/2007 10:00:50 PM

Quote :

" Well, such signs make a little more sense. "No guns inside." vs. "To leave, you must do x.""

Exactly, I don't expect to walk into any store and see a laundry list of information to read before choosing whether to go in or not. ^^ 'No Trespassing' is quite a bit different, easier and quicker to read, than what you just tried to imply might be on one of these signs.

9/4/2007 10:43:13 PM

Since when did walking into a store become a legal contract? This is made-up nonsense.

If the store doesn't like how you are behaving, they can ask you to leave or bar you from entering in the first place. They have no other legal right to control your behavior.

No matter what crazy shit they put up on a fucking sign, it does not constitute a legal obligation. That's why there is a big difference between a club and a regular store. With a club, you have signed something that can actually be a legally binding document.

If you walk into a store without having taken a shower for 3 weeks, they can tell you to leave. They cannot make you take a shower. If they put a sign up saying you have to do the hokey pokey before you leave, how many of you idiots would actually do that?

The receipt checks are extra-legal policies that rely on suasion and conformity to work.

Regarding shopkeeper's privilege: Since they weren't willing to accuse the guy of shoplifting, they have no claim to shopkeeper's privilege.

If a store improperly detains (without probable cause, for example) someone who actually hasn't shoplifted, they are then subject to litigation for false imprisonment.

That's why the CC employees didn't actually accuse the guy of shoplifting -- they didn't have the probable cause to make the accusation. That's why CC relies on informal suasion to get people to consent to searches. They want to have their cake and eat it too -- they want to perform searches without the legal liability of its moronic employees trying to interpret probable cause.

If the store doesn't like that fact that people can legally refuse the receipt check, they have several options:
- Hope that most people don't exercise their right to refuse and stfu when people do exercise their legal right
- Make people sign a legal document consenting to a receipt check
- Change their security so they don't need to hassle customers who just legally purchased something 15 feet from the fucking door

Needless to say, the cop was clearly wrong about the ID nonsense.

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 12:00 AM. Reason : To be clear about what probable cause is: http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm]

9/4/2007 11:49:02 PM

I'm pretty sure every city in the country has an ordinance for disturbing the public peace.

Its cute to take a stand on stuff like this, but be aware you can generally get legally arrested for anything.

9/5/2007 12:03:55 AM

Quote :

"but be aware you can generally get legally arrested for anything."

Which is generally upsetting in its own right, and which warrants the occasional little protest like this to expose the problem.

9/5/2007 12:20:10 AM

Quote :

"add: "According to the jackass.... " to the front of this statement"

This is the Ohio state law on the matter:
2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

The site's back online, btw, in case anybody wants to read the full story.

9/5/2007 9:50:03 AM

Quote :

"Its cute to take a stand on stuff like this, but be aware you can generally get legally arrested for anything."

That's why we're the Land of the Free.

Beautiful, ain't it?

9/5/2007 10:13:09 AM

the guy who refused to show his receipt basically must have no life at all

9/5/2007 10:25:17 AM

Quote :

"the guy who refused to show his receipt basically must have no life at all"

The guy whose argument gets deflated must resort to personally attacking the subject. What does this say about you?

9/5/2007 10:29:57 AM

wtf are you talking about? what exactly is my argument thats been deflated?

my argument is that this guy has no life since he would rather be a dick and cause hours or weeks worth of hassles instead of taking an extra 5 seconds to show his receipt and be done with the whole situation

if he had a life i'm sure he wouldnt have time to get pissed at something so completely meaningless

9/5/2007 10:31:56 AM

my b, i mistook you with some of the other people in the thread that were arguing that corporations had more rights than individuals. you usually tow the republican line right?

9/5/2007 10:34:13 AM

i lean right...i just think if you're in a store...and you didnt steal anything...and the guy at the door asks for a receipt...the easiest thing to do is show it to him...i dont see this as any kind of violation of rights...i see this as a guy being an asshole instead of taking 5 seconds to show a receipt

this guy would probably try to return something to a store without a receipt and call the cops if the store didnt take back the merchandise

9/5/2007 10:36:12 AM

Quote :

"Regarding shopkeeper's privilege: Since they weren't willing to accuse the guy of shoplifting, they have no claim to shopkeeper's privilege. If a store improperly detains (without probable cause, for example) someone who actually hasn't shoplifted, they are then subject to litigation for false imprisonment. That's why the CC employees didn't actually accuse the guy of shoplifting -- they didn't have the probable cause to make the accusation. "

to detain, the police don't have to accuse you of anything either while they are investigating - b/c they are investigating to determine if you've done something criminal, and if so what law you broke so they can accuse you of it. In this instance, good for the store for not jumping in and making accusations while they were attempting to investigate. All this idiot had to to do was cooperate for 5 sec's and he's on his way. If he truly doesn't believe the policy is "right" then cooperate and voluntarily never return to another CC - that's his "right".

Why would the store need "probable cause" to detain? The police don't need that, and the store employees are not police so they aren't held even to that standard (sworn law enforcement).

I love that you who support this guy actually just take one side of the story (his) and go with it... good thing the courts do not do that.

Spookyjon: I wrote to "add: According to the jackass..." b/c all we have is this guy's story - we do not know the truth of what happened. IF it happened as he said, then it would appear that the officer made a bad arrest - but that is a big IF b/c at least one judicial official apparently believed the officer met the PC requirement for an arrest ...... so I'ma gonna step out on a limb here and guess that "the jackass" posted the best version of events he could to solicit support and money...

just 'cause its on the intarnet don't make it true

9/5/2007 10:41:44 AM

Sure it's easier to do, and in all honesty I'll continue to show people my receipt unless they're assholes but I do understand the logic behind not showing it.

I see it along the lines of them asking for my zip code and phone number and such, they don't need it, and they don't have a right to it unless I let them have it.

I don't give my zip code/address or phone number out when they ask me at the registers and when they give me a dirty look and say they need it I often tell them they can make up a number. Companies don't need this shit.

9/5/2007 10:42:50 AM

well i understand the logic behind not giving out an address or phone number (unless you use a credit card on that purchase...in which case you're a hypocrite since they already have all your information)

but i do NOT understand the logic of not showing a receipt...its nothing private...i mean the cashier just saw it and gave it to you...whats the big deal in showing it to the guy at the door?

9/5/2007 10:47:27 AM

If I've bought something chances are I want to leave and I'm lugging the shit I bought out the store. The point is the cashier just saw it anyway so why not let you leave instead of having an extra person thrown in the process. Why not have the cashier walk you to the door if it's actually a problem? There are several things stores could do that would save MY time, which is what they should be concerned with. (Making the customers happy and all.) When I buy shit, I put the receipt in my pocket or wallet and walk out. Me having to dig it up again is annoying.

9/5/2007 10:55:36 AM

its so annoying to drive an air conditioned automobile to a store and know that you can buy pretty much whatever you want...and on top of that, to know that you dont even have to have money at the time...just put it on a credit card and worry about it later...oh my what an inconvenience it must be to show your receipt, when all they do is provide a hub for a consumer to buy whatever type of electronics or whatnot...bringing stuff manufactured thousands of miles away, shipping it into your city so you can leisurely buy whatever you want, when you want...and pay for it later...maybe if you take a shit in the store's bathroom they should wipe your ass for you to make your shopping experience easier

do you see where i'm coming from? i think this is ridiculous and that americans are spoiled as shit

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

9/5/2007 10:59:39 AM

You're acting like a business is sooooooo stressed to get products out to the consumer.

If selling things was as tiring as you just described then businesses would not exist. They provide a service because they make tons of money from it, to pretend otherwise is stupid.

9/5/2007 11:05:58 AM

Quote :

"Why would the store need "probable cause" to detain?"

I think it's rather crazy they're legally allowed to detain people at all.

But they do need a good reason to invoke shopkeeper's privilege.

9/5/2007 11:19:35 AM

Quote :

"ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2) (a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties."

This is the law cops use when they don't have anything to arrest you for but still want to arrest you.

9/5/2007 1:24:29 PM

Quote :

"This is the law cops use when they don't have anything to arrest you for but still want to arrest you. "

no, if thats the only charge it means that your actions successfully :

a. Delayed them long enough for the real suspects to escape (but you didn't quite "aid and abet after the fact")

or

B. Delayed them long enough to destroy the evidence (ie: ran away, dumped your guns/drugs/stolen property) and now all you face is the resist/delay/obstruct. (gs 14-223 in NCGS)

or

C. Delayed them just to be a dick, and turned a detention stop that would've resulted in you going about your day into an arrest that results in you going to jail/court/paying for lawyers/lost time at work (gg)

9/5/2007 5:22:07 PM

nm

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 6:26 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

9/5/2007 6:24:49 PM

Quote :

"Delayed them just to be a dick, and turned a detention stop that would've resulted in you going about your day into an arrest that results in you going to jail/court/paying for lawyers/lost time at work (gg)"

How is refusing to give things to an officer things you are specifically by law not obligated to give being a dick?

9/5/2007 6:31:18 PM

Quote :

"How is refusing to give things to an officer things you are specifically by law not obligated to give being a dick? "

if you are suspected of a crime, and there is at least reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime then you must cooperate. In this case I would argue that there was probably PC for the arrest. So hypothetically if the cop is investigating and you wont consent to a search of the bag, then the cop can arrest you to complete the investigation and search your bag incident to your arrest. Going back to this scenario, in this case the cop would then (and did) discover that you hadn't stolen anything. Unfortunately for you, you were a dick and didn't just cooperate with the investigation (whether or not it pissed you off). Had you cooperated, you would walk away right then, free in the knowledge that you could sue/complain about everyone on the planet if you wanted to but at least you avoid court/arrest/jail/costs etc.

But since you wouldn't cooperate in a lawful investigation you got arrested, and now face the only remaining charge - resist/delay/obstruct and all the happiness that goes with it (court/arrest/jail/costs etc.)

in my opinion if you get a ticket or go to jail, you've already lost. IF this moron really believed in the injustice of having to show a receipt at the door, there are much better/smarter ways to handle it. I'm impressed that in all the things in life, this guy is down to this on his list of "things to fix before I die" - wish I had all the big stuff out of the way too

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 8:56 PM. Reason : coding]

9/5/2007 8:55:43 PM

^sounds like something a dumbass cop would say

9/5/2007 9:20:48 PM

What sounds like something a "dumbass" cop would say? Because if you are referring to the entire post, well, you are a fucking moron.

9/5/2007 9:26:17 PM

^when i looked to see who the last post was made by and saw your name...i immediately knew that it would have no substance and would be calling someone a moron or an idiot. how predictable...you may as well stop posting...but then again, you've invested so much money in TWW it would be such a waste.

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM. Reason : fda]

9/5/2007 9:40:37 PM

Quote :

"immediately knew that it would have no substance and would be calling someone a moron or an idiot."

My comment was somehow radically different than this nugget you dropped

Quote :

"^sounds like something a dumbass cop would say"

Now stop replying if you don't have shit to add you fuck bag.

9/5/2007 9:43:23 PM

and once again my prediction was correct.

+1 me.

-1 chance/statefag/$5x5

9/5/2007 9:45:16 PM