PDA

View Full Version : Guy gets Arrested for refusing to show ID, receipt


blackberg
09-02-2007, 6:06 PM
did we no have a discussion recently about this?
I personally hate the receipt checkers as they are a waste of time, and accomplish nothing, a thief wont wait around to have their receipt checked

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/01/papers-please-arrest.html

Today I was arrested by the Brooklyn, Ohio police department. It all started when I refused to show my receipt to the loss prevention employee at Circuit City, and it ended when a police officer arrested me for refusing to provide my driver's license.
There are two interesting stories in one which I thought would be of interest to Boing Boing readers. The first involves the loss prevention employee physically preventing my egress from the property. The second story involves my right as a U.S. citizen to not have to show my papers when asked. (Despite having verbally identified myself, the officer arrested me for failing to provide a driver's license while standing on a sidewalk.)

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

Bizcuits
09-02-2007, 6:40 PM
Sounds like a moron who didn't want to cooperate. I'd of given sympathy on the whole "no id" case, but after reading his comments, it sounds like this guy goes looking for trouble.

He enters private property, makes a purchase, then refuses to confirm his purchase before leaving. Nothing more then being stupid and rude for no reason. Yes Loss Prevention can detain you and will if you act stupid refusing to provide proof of your purchase while on their property.

This guy sounds like someone who just wants to bash LEO and Security.

slick_711
09-02-2007, 6:48 PM
Sounds like a moron who didn't want to cooperate. I'd of given sympathy on the whole "no id" case, but after reading his comments, it sounds like this guy goes looking for trouble.

He enters private property, makes a purchase, then refuses to confirm his purchase before leaving. Nothing more then being stupid and rude for no reason. Yes Loss Prevention can detain you and will if you act stupid refusing to provide proof of your purchase while on their property.

This guy sounds like someone who just wants to bash LEO and Security.

K, I didn't read the blog or whatever because it does sound like the guy was looking for trouble, and on top of that, I just don't care. However, your post leads me to just one response:

Umm, wtf? Loss prevention has no legal right to detain anyone unless they have caught them 100% in the act of stealing. Failing to show your receipt is not grounds for kidnapping.

Bizcuits
09-02-2007, 6:53 PM
If you have items marked from their store... you have no reciept... your attempting to leave... being uncooperative... and no teller recongizes those items as having been purchased... the Loss prevention will NOT get into any trouble for detaining you. Unlike private security, Loss Prevention is in house and has the right to detain.

If you do not believe me, feel free to google information on Loss Prevention. Merchants have a RIGHT to protect their sales. If they have good reason to believe you are unlawfully taking merchandise they have the ability to detain you.

Bizcuits
09-02-2007, 6:56 PM
If your under the impression I'm saying Merchants can detain and search people you are wrong. They need reasonable suspicion of retail theft. In this case, the moron gave them much more then reasonable suspicion.

blkA4alb
09-02-2007, 6:57 PM
If your under the impression I'm saying Merchants can detain and search people you are wrong. They need reasonable suspicion of retail theft. In this case, the moron gave them much more then reasonable suspicion.

Refusing a search does not grant reasonable suspicion. Just as refusing a police search does not give them consent to search.

slick_711
09-02-2007, 6:58 PM
If you have items marked from their store... you have no reciept... your attempting to leave... being uncooperative... and no teller recongizes those items as having been purchased... the Loss prevention will NOT get into any trouble for detaining you. Unlike private security, Loss Prevention is in house and has the right to detain.

If you do not believe me, feel free to google information on Loss Prevention. Merchants have a RIGHT to protect their sales. If they have good reason to believe you are unlawfully taking merchandise they have the ability and right to detain you.

And if I know I have not stolen anything or broken any laws I have the ability and right to not be detained... If you do not believe me, feel free to google information on Kidnapping and/or Illegal Detainment.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 6:58 PM
This has been hashed over at length on this board in the last two weeks.

In California the "shopkeepers privilege" to detain people that they actually see stealing is codified in the code. Absent actual observation of theft (stuffing store goods in pockets, etc.) simply refusing to show your receipt after legitimately checking out is at best for the store grounds to question you and immediately leave you be if you decline and at most could lead to false arrest charges if the store does anything but let you go on about your business.

Please read this thread in its entirety before you make blanket statements about what is or is not legal. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65545&highlight=shopkeepers

-Gene

toolman9000
09-02-2007, 7:00 PM
If any receipt checker at any store except Costco impeded my exit in anyway - I would turn around and return all the items I just bought and leave empty handed. F-them

AJAX22
09-02-2007, 7:03 PM
Does CA have any requirement to show photographic ID if you are not currently operating a motor vehicle?

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 7:05 PM
The ID issue is up in the air. I know that NV has a state statute that says you have to show ID upon request to LE. SCOTUS ruled that constitutional (sadly.) I'm not 100% sure about CA.

-Gene

Hoop
09-02-2007, 7:06 PM
If you do not believe me, feel free to google information on Loss Prevention. Merchants have a RIGHT to protect their sales. If they have good reason to believe you are unlawfully taking merchandise they have the ability to detain you.

Yeap. I think they can also detain you in the parking lot as well, as I recall a thief getting stuck under half a dozen rent-a-cops at a Wal-Mark parking lot.

This guy sounds like an idiot, also not showing a Driver's License to a cop is a good way to set off his alarm bells.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 7:13 PM
Well, that makes me an idiot because I don't think private individuals have the right to force me to show them any of my papers or property.

Unless a store actually sees you commit larceny of their property, they - as private citizens - can do no more than ask to see your receipt. If you refuse and go on and they try to stop you they have broken the CA Penal Code and exposed themselves to Tort liability.

A different set of rules applies at Costco as it is a membership organization.

-Gene

Roo
09-02-2007, 7:19 PM
Yea I never wait for the LP guys. I just waited in line to purchase those goods I am not going to now wait in line to leave with said goods. I do wait at Costco/Sams though just because they can take away your membership.

slick_711
09-02-2007, 7:23 PM
Well, that makes me an idiot because I don't think private individuals have the right to force me to show them any of my papers or property.

Unless a store actually sees you commit larceny of their property, they - as private citizens - can do no more than ask to see your receipt. If you refuse and go on and they try to stop you they have broken the CA Penal Code and exposed themselves to Tort liability.

-Gene

While I agree with you completely, and am traditionally much more level headed and peaceful than this is going to make me sound:

I am young, and cannot necessarily afford a lawyer to pursue such a case. Depending on the circumstances of my being detained, and whether or not I felt threatened, they would be exposing themselves not to Tort liability, but to physical harm, only to the extent that it relieved me of my detainment; which I would deem as an action of self preservation.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 7:24 PM
While I agree with you completely, and am traditionally much more level headed and peaceful than this is going to make me sound:

I am young, and cannot necessarily afford a lawyer to pursue such a case. Depending on the circumstances of my being detained, and whether or not I felt threatened, they would be exposing themselves not to Tort liability, but to physical harm, only to the extent that it relieved me of my detainment; which I would deem as an action of self preservation.

Calling 911 on your own cellphone the moment they detain you and reporting a false arrest while requesting an officer will put you in charge of the situation.

-Gene

slick_711
09-02-2007, 7:29 PM
Calling 911 on your own cellphone the moment they detain you and reporting a false arrest while requesting an officer will but you in charge of the situation.

-Gene

*sigh* Now if I ever get detained I'll have to be smart and do that. And I was so intent on smacking people. :p

tankerman
09-02-2007, 7:51 PM
If your under the impression I'm saying Merchants can detain and search people you are wrong. They need reasonable suspicion of retail theft. In this case, the moron gave them much more then reasonable suspicion.
Because you refuse to show a receipt makes you a suspect in theft. Get a clue. Let me guess you are some kind of mall security guard. Well I guaranty I would not cooperate with you. I would not allow myself to be detained or otherwise harrassed by some control freak. I would consider going the citizen arrest route if anyone attempted to ILLEGALLY detain me in the way you suggest.
4762

Patriot
09-02-2007, 7:58 PM
Interesting reading (note that they advocate extralegal care in most instances):

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting3.htm
http://www.crimedoctor.com/retail-loss-prevention.htm
http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting.htm

kilword
09-02-2007, 8:14 PM
You purchase something its yours. Your receipt is your binding document that its your property you don't have to show anything to anyone its yours.
I don't need another "checkpoint" to go through and prove myself that I just purchased something like 10 feet away when they have on camera me buying whatever. Wish more people would do this.

How about they frisk you when you enter the store?
or hell just make it like airport security when you goto the mall.

Guy know his rights and stuck to them he doesn't have to show anything.

The ID thing where he's located theirs a law says you only have to state your name address and DOB and he said what the officer asked him.
He wasn't driving and he got arrested for not showing a drivers license.
officer charged him with like obstruction or something. Also didn't read him his rights.

tyrist
09-02-2007, 8:31 PM
Officers only have to read you miranda rights if they question you. Perfectly legal to place you under arrest and not read you miranda rights. Once somebody steps on private property the owner of the property has addtional rights in reguard to you. Also be aware the constitution protects you from the government not from private citizens.

WokMaster1
09-02-2007, 8:32 PM
If any receipt checker at any store except Costco impeded my exit in anyway - I would turn around and return all the items I just bought and leave empty handed. F-them

Didn't Circuit City just imposed a restocking fee? That's another thing for you to chew on. I personally would not lose a tear if that company & the "good guys" go under.

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 8:39 PM
Officers only have to read you miranda rights if they question you. Perfectly legal to place you under arrest and not read you miranda rights. Once somebody steps on private property the owner of the property has addtional rights in reguard to you. Also be aware the constitution protects you from the government not from private citizens.

But common law has its own restraints about publicly accessible private property. Also note that you are on equal footing with a store from a rights point of view.

Ask the security guard for his employment contract.

-Gene

Dont Tread on Me
09-02-2007, 10:33 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only person who refuses to wave his right not to have his private property searched. Thin end of the wedge gents.

gazzavc
09-02-2007, 10:40 PM
I just dont shop at circuit city period.

Shane916
09-02-2007, 10:42 PM
I personally would not lose a tear if that company & the "good guys" go under.

Your wish already came true in 2005 :)

Dont Tread on Me
09-02-2007, 10:44 PM
I just dont shop at circuit city period.

Not bad advice. Their returns policy sucks. Best Buy sucks too. Fry's is cool and a "no thank you" gets you past the receipt check at the end.

rkt88edmo
09-02-2007, 11:33 PM
Ah, but in this case, that is what our happy shopper did, and he still ended up arrested in jail - it will be interesting to see how far he takes his case.

Calling 911 on your own cellphone the moment they detain you and reporting a false arrest while requesting an officer will put you in charge of the situation.

-Gene

hoffmang
09-02-2007, 11:36 PM
Ah, but in this case, that is what our happy shopper did, and he still ended up arrested in jail - it will be interesting to see how far he takes his case.

Correct. The ID issue is not nearly as clear cut. The good news is that it looks like OH is not one of the must show ID states and as such the original guy has a most excellent malicious prosecution case.

-Gene

blackberg
09-02-2007, 11:37 PM
well obviously the guy knew waht he was gettingn himself into, and the guys at the store where morons for blocking him in,

I believe dude is going to get paid either way

DedEye
09-03-2007, 12:15 AM
Good for him for standing up for OUR rights.

hoffmang
09-03-2007, 12:30 AM
Good for him for standing up for OUR rights.

Exactly.

-Gene

Inoxmark
09-03-2007, 1:33 AM
The ID issue is up in the air. I know that NV has a state statute that says you have to show ID upon request to LE. SCOTUS ruled that constitutional (sadly.) I'm not 100% sure about CA.

-Gene
I thought that SCOTUS decision was that an individual was indeed required to identify him/herself upon request from LEO while said LEO was in the process of investigating something. Carrying (and presenting) ID is still not mandatory.

Jicko
09-03-2007, 3:16 AM
Yea I never wait for the LP guys. I just waited in line to purchase those goods I am not going to now wait in line to leave with said goods. I do wait at Costco/Sams though just because they can take away your membership.

Just follow my thread on how to go to costco WITHOUT membership... now... u can give the finger to the LP guys.... since... you are NOT a member!!

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=63841&highlight=costco+membership

Stormfeather
09-03-2007, 5:45 AM
Correct. The ID issue is not nearly as clear cut. The good news is that it looks like OH is not one of the must show ID states and as such the original guy has a most excellent malicious prosecution case.

-Gene

As a former LEO with the good state of Ohio, I can tell you with complete confidence that OH is a non "must show" state.
hated it, but nothing i can do about it now

hitnrun
09-03-2007, 6:31 AM
The ID thing where he's located theirs a law says you only have to state your name address and DOB and he said what the officer asked him.
He wasn't driving and he got arrested for not showing a drivers license.
officer charged him with like obstruction or something. Also didn't read him his rights.

I am guessing that you don't know the requirements for Miranda or when the apply.

You're in luck because I am going to tell you in this post. (this is a HUGE pet peeve so bear with me) Everybody, pay attention because it seems that I have to repost this about every four days on here.:rolleyes:

Miranda only applies when the following two conditions are met: 1) Custody and 2) Interrogation. If both conditions are not present, then Miranda does not need to be given.


Custody can be defined as being handcuffed in the back of a patrol car, or being placed under formal arrest. Being detained is NOT considered custody. You can also be detained in handcuffs.

Interrogation is when you are asked incriminating questions while IN CUSTODY. Name, address and DOB are not considered incriminating questions and you have no protections under the 5th Amend. for them. You can be interrogated while being detained and you still do not have to have be mirandized.


Is it clear yet?


If he was charged with obstruction/delaying/resisting, then he was NOT arrested for refusing to show his ID. He was charged for obstruction/delaying/resisting a peace officer or his investigation (or whatever similar law his state has).

In CA, if you are being detained, a peace officer has the right to search your wallet for identification if you refuse to provide it. For example, if you refuse to ID yourself or the LEO thinks that you're lying, he can seize your wallet and look in it for your ID.

sloguy
09-03-2007, 6:53 AM
unless i am missing something( which does happen), the guy was totally reasonable in his refusal to waive his rights.

i feel its important for all of us to follow his example. remember back to being a child at school. what happens when you let a bully pick on you? he learns that it is acceptable behavior to bully others. what happened to that bully when someone stands up to them? not only does the first bully think twice about picking on people but other bullies think twice as well. not to mention that the other kids who got picked on will now feel free to go about their own lives with less worry and harassment. the other kids gain confidence and learn that its ok to stand up against a bully.

that is my reasoning behind supporting this guy. he is standing up against bullies and he is making OUR WORLD a better place. he deserves our respect and thanks.

on a side note, wouldnt it have been better public relations for the officer to be truthful and admit the guy didnt need to show his lic. but ask for it as a show of good faith, and to help speed up the situation? seriously, why not? i get the feeling that the guy would have granted the request if asked as a favor to speed up the event and not as a demand.

hitnrun
09-03-2007, 6:58 AM
he is standing up against bullies and he is making OUR WORLD a better place. he deserves our respect and thanks.


Are you saying that LEOs are bullies? Are you advocating breaking the law to avoid dealing with LEOs/bullies?

sloguy
09-03-2007, 7:15 AM
Are you saying that LEOs are bullies? Are you advocating breaking the law to avoid dealing with LEOs/bullies?


he clearly did not break the law. i am saying that this particular leo arrested him out of spite, so i am saying that this particulat leo is a bully. the leo arested him for obstruction on the grounds that he would not waive his rights. that a fat load of bull.

dont twist what i say. it is not polite.

i will say this, i believe in the moral duty of putting foot to ***** tward anyone who picks on you. that can be a verbal foot, a lawyer can be that foot, a leo can be that foot, whatever form that foot takes i believe in standing up for ones self. the guy whom we are talking about is doing just that. there are many ways to put foot to ***** and this guy is doing right, hes putting that "legal" foot to em and i say bravo.

hitnrun
09-03-2007, 7:29 AM
he clearly did not break the law. i am saying that this particular leo arrested him out of spite, so i am saying that this particulat leo is a bully. the leo arested him for obstruction on the grounds that he would not waive his rights. that a fat load of bull.

Whoa whoa. I must have missed the part where you were there and have first hand knowledge of the LEOs actions as well as the actions of the guy arrested. I don't think he was charged with spiting a LEO either. I'm pretty sure that's not a crime...anywhere.:rolleyes: LEOs get spited all of the time, why should that be a legal basis for arrest...oh wait, IT'S NOT!

The LEO did not arrest him on grounds that he would not waive his rights. That would be illegal for the LEO to do. Your assumption of the situation is a "fat load of bull" and a good example of negative bias effecting your ability to reason. Either way you weren't there and are likely unqualified to comment on the probable cause for the arrest. I wasn't there either, but I can assure you that LEOs don't arrest for spiting. A law still has to be broken. Although, if you push the right buttons and are truly in violation of a law, you can pretty much say goodbye to any discretion that may have been extended to you initially.;) But, that's not illegal last time I checked.


dont twist what i say. it is not polite.

It seemed pretty clear to me. I didn't have to twist it, it was already wrong.

i will say this, i believe in the moral duty of putting foot to ***** tward anyone who picks on you. that can be a verbal foot, a lawyer can be that foot, a leo can be that foot, whatever form that foot takes i believe in standing up for ones self. the guy whom we are talking about is doing just that. there are many ways to put foot to ***** and this guy is doing right, hes putting that "legal" foot to em and i say bravo.

The guy broke the law and was arrested for it. I don't know if you are aware, but LEOs cannot make an arrest for no reason, or because you spited them, or because they want to. There are different elements/legal requirements and stipulations that have to be met before an arrest can be made. It isn't willy nilly. We don't live in 1939 Germany...yet (for those of you who like to think we do;)).


If you disagree with the laws or disagree with what he was arrested for, don't blame the LEO. Go to congress and get the laws changed or repealed.


Let me ask you this: Is your argument factually based or emotionally driven?

sloguy
09-03-2007, 7:56 AM
Whoa whoa. I must have missed the part where you were there and have first hand knowledge of the LEOs actions as well as the actions of the guy arrested. I don't think he was charged with spiting a LEO either. I'm pretty sure that's not a crime...anywhere.:rolleyes: LEOs get spited all of the time, why should that be a legal basis for arrest...oh wait, IT'S NOT!

The LEO did not arrest him on grounds that he would not waive his rights. That would be illegal for the LEO to do. Your assumption of the situation is a "fat load of bull" and a good example of negative bias effecting your ability to reason. Either way you weren't there and are likely unqualified to comment on the probable cause for the arrest. I wasn't there either, but I can assure you that LEOs don't arrest for spiting. A law still has to be broken. Although, if you push the right buttons and are truly in violation of a law, you can pretty much say goodbye to any discretion that may have been extended to you initially.;) But, that's not illegal last time I checked.




It seemed pretty clear to me. I didn't have to twist it, it was already wrong.



The guy broke the law and was arrested for it. I don't know if you are aware, but LEOs cannot make an arrest for no reason, or because you spited them, or because they want to. There are different elements/legal requirements and stipulations that have to be met before an arrest can be made. It isn't willy nilly. We don't live in 1939 Germany...yet (for those of you who like to think we do;)).


If you disagree with the laws or disagree with what he was arrested for, don't blame the LEO. Go to congress and get the laws changed or repealed.


Let me ask you this: Is your argument factually based or emotionally driven?



what law did he violate? he was within his rights to decline giving the officer his drivers lic. he was not a thief!. how do you figure his lawful refusal to show his id is any cause for arrest for obstructing?

hitnrun
09-03-2007, 8:21 AM
what law did he violate?

For the fifth time, he resisted/obstructed/delayed the officer and his investigation.

Here, I'll even paste it for you: (aka, the law he was arrested for violating)

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 offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.


he was within his rights to decline giving the officer his drivers lic. he was not a thief!.

Nobody ever said that he was arrested for being a thief. I don't think he was ever accused of being a thief! Pay attention to the details.:rolleyes:


how do you figure his lawful refusal to show his id is any cause for arrest for obstructing?


Again for the fifth time...If his actions caused a delay in the investigation then he was in violation. Read the section he was charged with above....HAMPER or IMPEDES pretty much spells it out.


In CA, case law holds that while you are detained, if you have your ID on you or you refuse to show it or if a LEO thinks that you might be lying, he can legally seize your wallet if you refuse to give it to him....therefore....if you insist on delaying things or are intentionally obstructing the investigation, then you could be arrested pursuant to 148(a)(1) PC (see below). It seems like OH Ord. 525.07 is pretty similar to CA's law.

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other
punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Just because you don't like it or it does not seem fair, does not mean that it isn't a crime.:rolleyes: Like I said before...is your argument factually based or emotionally driven??


For those interested in learning more about this...read up on these...Berkemer 1984 and Hiibel v. Nevada.

In CA, there is no stop and identify law in place, 148 PC may be used as a substitute depending on the circumstances.

sloguy
09-03-2007, 8:41 AM
For the fifth time, he resisted/obstructed/delayed the officer and his investigation.

Here, I'll even paste it for you: (aka, the law he was arrested for violating)






Nobody ever said that he was arrested for being a thief. I don't think he was ever accused of being a thief! Pay attention to the details.:rolleyes:





Again for the fifth time...If his actions caused a delay in the investigation then he was in violation. Read the section he was charged with above....HAMPER or IMPEDES pretty much spells it out.


In CA, case law holds that while you are detained, if you have your ID on you or you refuse to show it or if a LEO thinks that you might be lying, he can legally seize your wallet if you refuse to give it to him....therefore....if you insist on delaying things or are intentionally obstructing the investigation, then you could be arrested pursuant to 148(a)(1) PC (see below). It seems like OH Ord. 525.07 is pretty similar to CA's law.



Just because you don't like it or it does not seem fair, does not mean that it isn't a crime.:rolleyes:


For those interested in learning more about this...read up on these...Berkemer 1984 and Hiibel v. Nevada.

In CA, there is no stop and identify law in place, 148 PC may be used as a substitute depending on the circumstances.

this didnt happen in california. please refer to the update on sept 1st in this link. http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

hitnrun
09-03-2007, 9:06 AM
this didnt happen in california. please refer to the update on sept 1st in this link. http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

I know where it happened and I also read the update. Thank you though.

Two things:

1) You are ONLY hearing his side of the story. There are three sides to every story. Your's, mine, and the truth. We don't REALLY know what the circumstances of his arrest/case are. We only know what he chooses to tell us. Keep that in mind.

2) I may be going out on a limb here, but in CA, generally LEOs don't arrest for something that might not fly in court. The arrest needs to be solid. No cop wants to help create new case law.;) If he arrested him, chances are, it is because it is accepted by the DA/courts in his area and has been done before. However, at the end of the day, we still don't know all of the circumstances and therefore, we can't accurately judge or comment. We can only speculate.


If he arrested him for hampering and impeding, then there is likely more to the story than is being told.

I am not endorsing the LEOs actions, I am merely trying to explain why and how someone in this situation COULD be arrested. I am only giving this explanation based on the authors side of the story. I am simply interjecting pieces of my training and experience from LE that would justify the arrest. I don't like it nor do I think it is appropriate when people jump the gun and accuse cops of unsubstantiated BS. Similarly, I can't stand it when people yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I take every opportunity that I can to show a different perspective...the LE perspective.

sloguy
09-03-2007, 9:32 AM
generally LEOs don't arrest for something that might not fly in court.

i agree. but cops arent always right.

my line of thought is that if the guy was wrong about not showing his id, then he would have been arrested for that. i feel that because he was arested for obstruction, the officer knew that the guy couldnt be arrested for refusal to show his id.
in the text of ORD:525.07 it says "(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay............" the guy had already shown his recipt to the officerand proved that he wasnt a thief. at that point the suspected crime being investigated was already cleared up. the guys refusal to volunteer his id was not obstructing, or delaying anything. also, the guys purpose was not to delay or obstruct. his purpose was to maintain his privacy.

Bad Voodoo
09-03-2007, 9:44 AM
Deleted

RepwithCCW
09-03-2007, 10:18 AM
A similar thing happened to me at a store in a not so good area of Calif. I had purchased a CD for a sick friend that lived locally. When I was leaving after paying for this one item, an alarm went off. I showed the "rent-a-cop" that I had paid for the item, the receipt and CD were in my hand. For some strange reason he asked if he could search me. He did not understand my HUGE smile as I agreed until he got to my right hip. He recoiled when he felt my XD daily carry. I looked at him still smiling " Are we done here " He did not say anything so I walked on.

I know he needed to call an LEO but I wanted to see what he would do..

Liberty1
09-03-2007, 11:07 AM
This one only applies if you are in violation of a Vehicle Code section. I use (a) on occasion, (b) very infrequently (only once in 5 years).

VC 40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this
code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken
without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in
which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who
has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible
with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the
following cases:
(a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license
or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
(b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise
to appear in court.
(c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance
before a magistrate.
(d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section
23152.

This one is of dubious constitutionality and we have been warned to use it in only extraordinary circumstances:

PC 647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
himself or herself and to account for his or her presence when
requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
safety demands this identification.

I'd be very surprised that any CA DA would prosecute a 148 PC (resisting, delaying an officer) charge for merely refusing ID. That would clearly be a violation of 4th and 5th amendment protections absent a legitimate use of the above codes which would then negate the attempt to make 148 PC stick.

Although this is a "broad" law a peace officer better have articulable facts and evidence to prove they were actually willfully delayed and arresting for not providing ID under this statute doesn't measure up to 4th and 5th Amend. constitutional muster IMO.

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other
punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Oh, and loss prevention personel better have all the elements for a private persons arrest before detaining or false imprisonment charges and expensive civil suits could follow. I've refused to take several PP arrests when they didn't have all the elements. Refusing to show a receipt alone is not proof that a crime was committed.

pnkssbtz
09-03-2007, 11:29 AM
Correct. The ID issue is not nearly as clear cut. The good news is that it looks like OH is not one of the must show ID states and as such the original guy has a most excellent malicious prosecution case.

-Gene

Gene, here is some reading for you.

First is Kolender vs. Lawson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=461&invol=352) (1983), which I believe is the original SCOTUS ruling on the Must Show ID issue.

Second is Hibel vs. Humboldt County (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554) which went up to the sixth judicial court of nevada (2004).


Here are some interesting highlights from Kolender vs. Lawson:

Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . . ." Id., at 91. In addition, 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964). 8 [461 U.S. 352, 359]

We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4

Unless an officer has probable cause to believe I committed a crime, they cannot compel an answer, and they must allow me to leave after a reasonably brief period.

Refusal to communicate, refusal to submit to a search and refusal to show Identification, are NOT grounds for probable cause.

sunborder
09-03-2007, 1:29 PM
I am not endorsing the LEOs actions, I am merely trying to explain why and how someone in this situation COULD be arrested. I am only giving this explanation based on the authors side of the story. I am simply interjecting pieces of my training and experience from LE that would justify the arrest. I don't like it nor do I think it is appropriate when people jump the gun and accuse cops of unsubstantiated BS. Similarly, I can't stand it when people yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I take every opportunity that I can to show a different perspective...the LE perspective.

Look, we all know that sometimes even cops act like jerks. Probably not as often as the regular joe on the street, or the average perp, but there was no crime here, unless there is some info we haven't heard. Cops can be wrong, cops can have a bad day and screw with someone for kicks, hell cops can commit murder, just like anyone else. You seem to freely admit that you "take every opportunity" to "show...the LE perspective". Well, maybe that perspective SHOULDN'T be shown at every opportunity. Like, maybe when that perspective doesn't match up with the law. Refusal to show ID when there has clearly been no other crime committed, and no motor vehicle is involved, nor travel on an ID-necessary conveyance (commercial jet), is NOT in and of itself a crime. Also notice the bit about:

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 offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Without privilege to do so. That's a loaded clause in that sentence. Ohio law seems to require people to identify themselves, without compeling them to provide actual ID papers. Thus, anyone who doesn't fit one of the above categories (motor vehicle, etc), has privilege to refuse to show ID.

Just because some LE WANT the power to compel ID while "investigating", doesn't mean they HAVE the power to compel ID. In fact, in a literal sense, real LAW ENFORCEMENT would enforce the 4th amendment as rigorously as other laws, but RARELY do. Even you should admit that.

metalhead357
09-03-2007, 1:39 PM
And if I know I have not stolen anything or broken any laws I have the ability and right to not be detained... If you do not believe me, feel free to google information on Kidnapping and/or Illegal Detainment.


A-friggin men..... at least for the security guy's

Though I thought it WAS mandatory to provide positive identification to LEO when asked...............:confused:

berto
09-03-2007, 1:44 PM
Miranda only applies when the following two conditions are met: 1) Custody and 2) Interrogation. If both conditions are not present, then Miranda does not need to be given.


Custody can be defined as being handcuffed in the back of a patrol car, or being placed under formal arrest. Being detained is NOT considered custody. You can also be detained in handcuffs.

Interrogation is when you are asked incriminating questions while IN CUSTODY. Name, address and DOB are not considered incriminating questions and you have no protections under the 5th Amend. for them. You can be interrogated while being detained and you still do not have to have be mirandized.



Informative but how do I tell the difference between being in custody and being detained? Is the officer required to tell me the truth if I ask?

metalhead357
09-03-2007, 1:49 PM
Informative but how do I tell the difference between being in custody and being detained? Is the officer required to tell me the truth if I ask?


Yes...he IS supposed to tell you......

"am I free to leave?" will usually do it...tell you which is which

Boomer1961
09-03-2007, 2:28 PM
Does CA have any requirement to show photographic ID if you are not currently operating a motor vehicle?

The federal supreme court has ruled many a time that a duly authorized agent of the law has the right to ask you your name and to show any ID you have on your person to prove who you are saying you are irregardless of the matter at hand and you must respond truthfully and comply, and he could do so because you gave him an evil look.

These two items are gimme's to LE and you should never fall into the trap of not providing as that leads to the slippery road of PC for non compliance of lawful LE commands.

Also when in Rome do as the Romans do, show your receipt if that is the rules. If not then don't go back there if you know that this is their rules when you enter their store.

Soundman
09-03-2007, 2:36 PM
Personally I hate having to show my reciept. 1/2 the time the clerk puts it in the bag and then I have to dig for it to find it. The people checking the reciepts don't even look in the bag to see if it is actually the merchandise listed on the reciept (most of the time). I frequently walk right by them and ignore them. My wife flat out refuses to stop and show the reciept and always just ignores them on her way out.

Dont Tread on Me
09-03-2007, 3:07 PM
never fall into the trap of not providing as that leads to the slippery road of PC for non compliance of lawful LE commands.

The question is if a LEO demanding to see my ID as I walk down the street is a lawful command.

Also when in Rome do as the Romans do, show your receipt if that is the rules.

Exactly. This is the United States of America and not a banana republic or the Third Riche. If an "official" asks to search my personal belongings I can tell them to go swing. I'm a free man.

edwardm
09-03-2007, 3:31 PM
A merchant needs only probable cause to detain a suspected shoplifter. Personally witnessing the unlawful taking and asportation of the merchant's goods is not required. Granted, a determination of "probable cause" will be required if you decide to civilly sue the merchant, and will turn more on the facts than on the law.

California Penal Code Sec. 490.5:

(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.

Also, stores like Costco enter into a license agreement with cardholders, and as such contractually may inspect your purchases and reconcile them with your receipt. This does not apply to a store open to the general public without license or right of entry, i.e. Fry's.


This has been hashed over at length on this board in the last two weeks.

In California the "shopkeepers privilege" to detain people that they actually see stealing is codified in the code. Absent actual observation of theft (stuffing store goods in pockets, etc.) simply refusing to show your receipt after legitimately checking out is at best for the store grounds to question you and immediately leave you be if you decline and at most could lead to false arrest charges if the store does anything but let you go on about your business.

Please read this thread in its entirety before you make blanket statements about what is or is not legal. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65545&highlight=shopkeepers

-Gene

ravenbkp
09-03-2007, 4:00 PM
Detention to identify is not ucommon I am guessing no charges resulted. Why would anyone buy at a store with a double check out and then pick a fight with the poor schmuck at the door are ya blind? bleeping shop somewhere else!!!!

xrMike
09-03-2007, 4:11 PM
This guy sounds like an idiot, also not showing a Driver's License to a cop is a good way to set off his alarm bells.I don't think I should have to produce indentification either, just because some cop wants me to (unless I'm driving a vehicle).

Giovani X
09-03-2007, 4:34 PM
When I go to Costco, I make the door man do his job. If he does a quick look over and the just checks it off, i stand there and wait untill they notice that i have not continued on to the poarking lot. "Oh you're all done here sir you can go now." My response is usualy, " I understand that I'm done here, but you my friend are not, your job requires you to check all the items in my cart and from the five seconds you took to examine my items , I don't feel that you are doing a benifit to me or any of the other customers here. They are paying you over ten dollars an hour for that service:So that my coast as a consumer does not go up due to loss of items." At that point I ask them to check every item in my basket. It usually doesn't take long for the managewr to come over and tell me," We offer this service as a deterant from shoplifting, if we stoped to check all the items in your basket it waould take too long and the lines would back up." This is the point where I point out the grey area. "If it is not a real security check then why am I paying a premiun to be a member and shop here when you are not providing any service more then that of a public non member supermarket. I'm shure that this is not the policy of Costco and something you are implementing yourself to speed up the customers which I appreciate, but not at the cost of having my prices go up due to the fact that your idea of security is not stoping any loss prevention." This is uasauly about the time they tell me sir just take your items and go you are all done here. Funny thing is that with the time it took for the manager to come over explain policy and get me one my way , they could have checked my basket three times and the next five people behind me. Sometimes it's just fun to point out the shortcommings of others. Sometimes you need just accecpet the fact that you have no right to privacy and you need to just get in line and show your receipt to some lackadaisical kid who is more concerd with sending a text on his new iphone then giving me good service. But sometimes you just feel like being an *****hole to prove a point. (mostley to my self).

hitnrun
09-03-2007, 4:40 PM
Yes...he IS supposed to tell you......

"am I free to leave?" will usually do it...tell you which is which

That will just tell you whether or not you are being detained or if you are in a consensual encounter contact. It will not tell you whether or not you are in custdoy.

Just ask, am I in custody? LEOs don't have a problem with mirandizing people, so it's not like they will lie to you about that to coerce a confession or something crazy.



But of course, someone will come along shortly to tell me that is not true and that the glass is really half empty.:rolleyes:

metalhead357
09-03-2007, 5:04 PM
That will just tell you whether or not you are being detained or if you are in a consensual encounter contact. It will not tell you whether or not you are in custdoy.

Ah yes the miraculous and endless shades of gray...........

I suppose ya' could be in custody and detained, detained only, or in full custody.....................what a world we've evolved to; Orson Wells would be <cough> proud.:cool:

xrMike
09-03-2007, 5:15 PM
That will just tell you whether or not you are being detained or if you are in a consensual encounter contact. It will not tell you whether or not you are in custdoy.I suppose when I turn around and start walking away, I'll know pretty darn quick what's really going on, right? :D

metalhead357
09-03-2007, 5:18 PM
I suppose when I turn around and start walking away, I'll know pretty darn quick what's really going on, right? :D


well if you have the smell of rubber on the back of your head and the taste of concrete, asphalt or linoleum in your mouth...you know you made the wrong choice!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Ed
09-03-2007, 9:37 PM
My good friend is LEO and I've met many of his LEO friends. None of them of are the jerks so many of you seem to come in contact with. I dont get it....why do so many of you hate cops? You bash them and their job, yet I'm sure when you're a victim, you'd be the first to call 911.

Just remember...during riots, big natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc....LEOs are the guys on the front line protecting you and your family.

Dont Tread on Me
09-03-2007, 10:07 PM
Mr Ed - ironically I think we are a community that naturally respects law enforcement and the job they do. We have politicians in this state who seam hell bent on banning the private ownership of firearms and have appointed police chiefs who are charged with carrying out that agenda. This leads to many cases being reported here were law abiding citizens have bad experiences with law enforcement.

I really do wish I could tell a LEO where I'm going and let him search my car. I've got nothing to hide. However, in CA I might get my guns taken just so they can be "checked".

Just remember...during riots, big natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc....LEOs are the guys on the front line protecting you and your family

I've got to disagree with you on this one. I'll give you some examples:

During the LA riots, where was the police line around the Korean stores?
During Katrina, where were the police during the looting?
While someone is breaking into my home where are the police? Only mins away when seconds count!

We have great professional law enforcement agencies in this country doing a really important job. I just cannot expect them to be everywhere every-time I need them. That is why I want the personal right to keep and bear arms.

berto
09-03-2007, 10:45 PM
My good friend is LEO and I've met many of his LEO friends. None of them of are the jerks so many of you seem to come in contact with. I dont get it....why do so many of you hate cops? You bash them and their job, yet I'm sure when you're a victim, you'd be the first to call 911.

Just remember...during riots, big natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc....LEOs are the guys on the front line protecting you and your family.

I generally support and appreciate law enforcement and i bet most people here feel the same, but as in other aspects of life one bad LEO experience sticks with people. And there is a tendency for LEOs to regard the rest of us as ignorant civilians at best and dirtbags until proven otherwise at worst. Add the adversarial relationship that exists between LEOs and the population where one wrong assumption can lead to game over and you get two camps divided by mistrust fueled by rumor anecdote and bad experience.

I'll thank or condemn the boys in blue where appropriate. I'll call 911 and expect them to do their job regardless as they work for me.

They're on the front line by choice. I thank them for making that choice but I won't depend on them and them alone to protect me. We'll all be better off working together.

pnkssbtz
09-04-2007, 3:36 AM
A merchant needs only probable cause to detain a suspected shoplifter. Personally witnessing the unlawful taking and asportation of the merchant's goods is not required. Granted, a determination of "probable cause" will be required if you decide to civilly sue the merchant, and will turn more on the facts than on the law.

Ok, please read the thread that Hoffmang posted because you are wrong.

Probable cause for a MISDEMEANOR requires first hand direct knowledge of the act being committed. I.E. seeing the suspect take the item, or see it via CCTV.

The burden of proof for a FELONY only requires "Reasonable Suspicion."

Since PC 490.5 (f) is part of the penal code, it uses the PC definition of Probable Cause.



*Edit* Here is what a private security consulting firm for mechants has to say (Crime Doctors (http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm))

To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should be follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

Notice a trend?

Fate
09-04-2007, 10:17 AM
You bash them [cops] and their job, yet I'm sure when you're a victim, you'd be the first to call 911.
Respect is earned. Unfortunately, so is disdain. Calling 911 in Los Angeles is a joke (even worse if you use a cel phone) and ultimately only good for "cleanup at Aisle 7."

Just remember...during riots, big natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc....LEOs are the guys on the front line protecting you and your family.Hahaha. Do we really need to Google all the articles pointing to the complete breakdown of law enforcement during Katrina, Rodney King Riots and VT?

Sorry, but in the end, each of us is responsible for being on the "front line, protecting ourselves and our families."

Bad Voodoo
09-04-2007, 10:48 AM
Respect is earned. Unfortunately, so is disdain. Calling 911 in Los Angeles is a joke (even worse if you use a cel phone) and ultimately only good for "cleanup at Aisle 7."

"Cleanup at Aisle 7" is all 911 is good for anywhere. By the time services arrive the crime has already been committed. The sheep would have you believe 911 is a magic wand. Only after you find yourself victimized do you realize just how wrong the sheep are.

-voodoo

Liberty1
09-04-2007, 6:41 PM
Here is a link where the OP's arrestee is keeping a "blog" of his case:

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

slocum
09-04-2007, 8:13 PM
If they have good reason to believe you are unlawfully taking merchandise they have the ability to detain you.
And if they're wrong you have a false imprisonment charge you can make.

Personally, I think I'd make a stink if they stopped me and I knew they were wrong.

pnkssbtz
09-04-2007, 8:33 PM
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 offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.
This is what the guy was arrested under, right?

Unfortunately (For the Cop) there is this other tidbit to the Stop and Identify laws in ohio...


2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(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.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

Effective Date: 04-14-2006

hoffmang
09-04-2007, 9:17 PM
I still want to understand how someone can be guilty of interfering with his own investigation...

-Gene

metalhead357
09-04-2007, 10:50 PM
I still want to understand how someone can be guilty of interfering with his own investigation...

-Gene

Amen bro...especially in light of the 5th amendments right to NOT incriminate yourself and even moreso through the 14th inclusinness off <cough> most of the others.

I KNOW that the 5th is relevant for "Courts only" but then again....think about how allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the other arguments have been determined to be rather liberally applied save for the 5th ...and the 2nd:rolleyes:

Mark in Eureka
09-05-2007, 12:42 AM
The "shopkeepers privilage" also contains a section removing all liability from the shopkeeper if the officer makes the arrest. Since the suspect was arrested by the officer (not the store owner/security) the suspect may not bring a claim against the store owner or his employee's. Even if they are wrong or mistaken. Of course the shopkeeper must act "reasonable" at all times.

Scarecrow Repair
09-05-2007, 7:25 AM
The "shopkeepers privilage" also contains a section removing all liability from the shopkeeper if the officer makes the arrest. Since the suspect was arrested by the officer (not the store owner/security) the suspect may not bring a claim against the store owner or his employee's. Even if they are wrong or mistaken. Of course the shopkeeper must act "reasonable" at all times.

I can't see how that applies when the arrest had nothing to do with the shopkeeper's original illegal restraint. If the arrest had been for shoplifting, that would be different.

sloguy
09-05-2007, 7:34 AM
The "shopkeepers privilage" also contains a section removing all liability from the shopkeeper if the officer makes the arrest. Since the suspect was arrested by the officer (not the store owner/security) the suspect may not bring a claim against the store owner or his employee's. Even if they are wrong or mistaken. Of course the shopkeeper must act "reasonable" at all times.

the shopkeeper detained the guy unlawfully. the shop employees did not observe all 6 points needed to verify shoplifting as quoted earlier, otherwise the guy would not have been suspected as a shoplifter. the store employees screwed up big and the officer screwed up as well.

Prc329
09-05-2007, 7:34 AM
I commend the guy for trying to stand up for his civil rights but you need to pick the proper battles. This was not one of them. You guys are correct refusal to show a receipt should not cause suspicion but in the real world it does.

artherd
09-05-2007, 10:28 AM
LEOs love to make up an "investigation" that is being "obstructed" so they can engage in some role playing, circa 1939.

The fact that you want a donut is NOT an "ongoing investigation in progress", and you'd better be able to articulate something pretty damn good before a judge.

Fate
09-05-2007, 11:09 AM
I'm betting some of you provide stores your zip code when asked at checkout too.

Non-manditory compliance is non-manditory!

hoffmang
09-05-2007, 11:12 AM
The "shopkeepers privilage" also contains a section removing all liability from the shopkeeper if the officer makes the arrest. Since the suspect was arrested by the officer (not the store owner/security) the suspect may not bring a claim against the store owner or his employee's. Even if they are wrong or mistaken. Of course the shopkeeper must act "reasonable" at all times.

Mark,

In the last three weeks there was a case here in the Bay Area that went to the CA Court of Appeals that allowed a guy arrested for counterfeit currency (that wasn't counterfit) to sue and recover from both Oakland PD and Safeway.

-Gene

McMadCow
09-05-2007, 12:52 PM
So this brings up something that has been irking me lately. When the local CompUSA security ask to search my backpack when I leave the store, is that legal in CA? I'm assuming not...

FortCourageArmory
09-05-2007, 1:04 PM
It looks like you assume correctly.

ke6guj
09-05-2007, 1:10 PM
I'm betting some of you provide stores your zip code when asked at checkout too.


This one I never understood why people get upset about. Your zipcode doesn't identify you. It can be used by the store to more accurately determine where their clientele is coming from, so that they can spot advertise better, or maybe open a store closer to you. What's the harm in that.

Its not like Radio Shack used to do, wanting all your personal info, just to buy a battery. When they asked, my phone number was 867-5309, and I lived at 1600 Pennsylania Ave.

pnkssbtz
09-05-2007, 1:13 PM
So this brings up something that has been irking me lately. When the local CompUSA security ask to search my backpack when I leave the store, is that legal in CA? I'm assuming not...

It is perfectly legal for them to ask. They can ask you to do anything. And if you GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS AND SUCCEED TO HIS DEMANDS YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION.

If they wish to search your possession, they must declare why they are doing so as they are detaining you under Penal Code statutes.

McMadCow
09-05-2007, 1:22 PM
Cool, thanks guys. I've always hated that they do that there. I won't have to worry about listening to them anymore.

Fate
09-05-2007, 2:49 PM
This one I never understood why people get upset about. Your zipcode doesn't identify you. It can be used by the store to more accurately determine where their clientele is coming from, so that they can spot advertise better, or maybe open a store closer to you. What's the harm in that.

Its not like Radio Shack used to do, wanting all your personal info, just to buy a battery. When they asked, my phone number was 867-5309, and I lived at 1600 Pennsylania Ave.
I remember the RadioShack bs as the start of it all. Didn't cooperate then either. What's the big deal about giving away your zip code? Well, I suppose I don't like giving them FREE market research. I'd probably give them my zip code for a discount off the bill.

xrMike
09-05-2007, 2:52 PM
Not wanting to give away your digits is the same kind of rugged individualism that made this country great.

Fate
09-05-2007, 3:13 PM
Not wanting to give away your digits is the same kind of rugged individualism that made this country great.

Hahahaha...now that is hilarious! That sounds like a beer commercial. ;)

Bruce
09-05-2007, 5:09 PM
I'm betting some of you provide stores your zip code when asked at checkout too.

Non-manditory compliance is non-manditory!


Yes, I give them the zip code of the store.:p

metalhead357
09-05-2007, 6:02 PM
I POLITELY tell peeps when they want the zip to put thier own store's zipcode on there- after all I'm standing right there and with cash in hand and THAT is ALL they need to know.

But again +1000000000 on standing up to the shopkeep for this guy; unfortunately a -10000000 on refusing to show ID to the cop......


And I'll even be the generaous guy and give artherd a +10000 on his statement as they better be able to articulate it or they'll have twice as much 'splaining to do to others later on...........

SgtBulldog
09-05-2007, 6:56 PM
I commend the guy for trying to stand up for his civil rights but you need to pick the proper battles. This was not one of them. You guys are correct refusal to show a receipt should not cause suspicion but in the real world it does.

Shouldn't we be trying to change the "real world" then if it isn't as it should be?

Change usually occurs a little bit at a time after all.

artherd
09-05-2007, 10:35 PM
And I'll even be the generaous guy and give artherd a +10000 on his statement as they better be able to articulate it or they'll have twice as much 'splaining to do to others later on...........

Danke! ;)

I copied down one of the anonymous comments to Mr. Righi's own web log;
To the people here who only care about status quo, about don’t rock the boat and d-d-d-do right, about a few tears in a moment of stress - you are cows. Myers-Briggs normal junkies; play along law-fodder, don’t stand out, homogenised, be sensible, inch deep, cattle.

You deserve nothing you have lost, or will lose, as you cling to the illusory prairie you only wish you inhabited. There are mountains to be climbed in this existence, and eluding the grasp of people, who presume to own your individuality, counts as one of them. “Being Adult” must not include domestication. Adult cattle are still herded and fed to their masters. “Adult” must mean something more, a self-possessed state of independence and freedom of movement.

Pragmatic passivity has become the modern life drug of choice; the one no wars will be fought against, if we leave it to you - because you love being hooked on indulgent expediency, because the authorities need your addiction and will never jail you for being a compliance junkie, and because you have an appointment somewhere more comfortably familiar, and apparently self-seving, than the realm of individuals.

You see it as virtue, as maturity, but you dream. Michael Righi has stirred you from your dream and you resent it as you would if every day were Saturday and, inexplicably, your alarm just went off.



I think I may hang this on my wall.

artherd
09-05-2007, 10:49 PM
Ah, but in this case, that is what our happy shopper did, and he still ended up arrested in jail - it will be interesting to see how far he takes his case.

If the arrest was indeed unlawful, he could have resisted with up to and including lethal force. This should indeed be interesting. Reading up on the man, they picked on the wrong guy!

Mark in Eureka
09-05-2007, 11:48 PM
Arthred, the shopkeepers privalage will not let you use violance to keep the person until the police arrive. Only if they arrive and the suspect is still there AND if the police arrest him, the shopkeeper get immunity.

If you hold something that belongs to the suspect (his 100 dollar bill) then you are not reasonable. Since the "suspect" paid for his purchases with another hundred, the store owner was witholding (stealing) the purchesers money.

What is important, if it happend in California, is that no violence or unreasonable act was made by the shopkeeper and the police arrested the suspect. This made it a offical act

As quoted from a CALSAGA training manual

"The licensed security officer must be aware of what constitutes probable cause and be able to identify and articulate in the incident report or daily log the specific facts
which led the officer to believe probable cause existed. For example, standards to establish probable cause in a shoplifting/theft case:
1. See Person Take Property.
2. See Person Conceal Property.
3. Constant Observation.
4. Observe Person Pass Checkouts.
5. Observe Person Exit Store.

Immunity for Illegal Detention/False Imprisonment/ False Arrest

Fortunately, the legislature enacted Civil Code section 47 and the California Supreme Court has interpreted the section to provide for a complete immunity (i.e., an “absolute privilege”) from civil lawsuits where the person detained is reported to the police, even if the report was erroneous and the criminal conduct did not occur! Even if the mistake leads to a false arrest, there is immunity from a lawsuit.In one case, Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 39, plaintiff, Lydia Ortiz Hagberg, a Latina, visited a California Federal Bank to cash a check Notes from Smith Barney. She presented her California driver’s license, Cal Fed ATM card, the Smith Barney check, and her Smith Barney account summary to the teller, who was also a Latina. The teller suspected that the check was counterfeit and reported it to her supervisor who immediately telephoned
both Smith Barney and the Cal Fed Security manager. She was instructed to contact the police. The supervisor then contacted the police and when asked about the identity of the plaintiff, the supervisor responded that she appeared “white – maybe Hispanic.”
The police immediately arrived, took the plaintiff away from the teller window, had the plaintiff spread her legs for a pat down search, handcuffed her, and placed her under arrest. It was only then learned from Smith Barney that the check was not counterfeit. Plaintiff was released after being detained 20 minutes. Plaintiff sued Cal Fed for false imprisonment, false arrest, slander, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, negligence, and race discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code section 51). Cal Fed filed a summary judgment motion arguing that Civil Code section 47(b) provides persons who report suspected criminal activity to law enforcement with absolute immunity from tort liability. (Cal Fed also argued a Federal Statute provided it with immunity, but the court did not address this issue.) The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cal Fed, holding that the statutory
privilege applied. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the
reporting of criminal conduct to the police constitutes an official proceeding and Section 47(b) serves the important public policy of assuring free access to the courts. It is
intended to “assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing.” The absolute
privilege protects individuals from liability for reporting criminal conduct. Otherwise, there would a “chilling effect” Notes on such communication, which would not be in the public’s best interest. The Court of Appeal reasoned Civil Code section 47(b) provides an absolute privilege to a communication “concerning possible wrongdoing, made to an official governmental agency, such as a local police department, … if the communication is designed to prompt action by that entity." With regard to the cause of action for false
imprisonment, the court held that plaintiff's claim was based on defendants' privileged communications with the police rather than any noncommunicative conduct on defendants' part (i.e., defendants did not physically detain or falsely imprison plaintiff).
[See, also, Mulder vs. Pilot Air Freight (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 34. Here, plaintiff was a commercial dealer in salvage material, who claimed that he was arrested by the LAPD after defendant, an employee of an air freight company, mistakenly reported to the LAPD that plaintiff was in possession of a flight recorder that had been stolen from the air freight company. Plaintiff was arrested and had to appear in criminal court numerous times until the case was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the reporting of
the case to the police entitled defendants absolute immunity from the civil lawsuit.]
IN ORDER FOR YOU TO OBTAIN IMMUNITY USING THIS PRIVILEGE, THE POLICE MUST ACTUALLY BE CALLED! In both cases, the police were called and the suspect was arrested, albeit on mistaken beliefs. Note also that you are not entitled to immunity from illegal detention and arrest if the police are not called or if the report to the police is knowingly made with malice, knowing it to be a false accusation."

xrMike
09-06-2007, 11:21 AM
I copied down one of the anonymous comments to Mr. Righi's own web log;
To the people here who only care about status quo, about don’t rock the boat and d-d-d-do right, about a few tears in a moment of stress - you are cows. Myers-Briggs normal junkies; play along law-fodder, don’t stand out, homogenised, be sensible, inch deep, cattle.

You deserve nothing you have lost, or will lose, as you cling to the illusory prairie you only wish you inhabited. There are mountains to be climbed in this existence, and eluding the grasp of people, who presume to own your individuality, counts as one of them. “Being Adult” must not include domestication. Adult cattle are still herded and fed to their masters. “Adult” must mean something more, a self-possessed state of independence and freedom of movement.

Pragmatic passivity has become the modern life drug of choice; the one no wars will be fought against, if we leave it to you - because you love being hooked on indulgent expediency, because the authorities need your addiction and will never jail you for being a compliance junkie, and because you have an appointment somewhere more comfortably familiar, and apparently self-seving, than the realm of individuals.

You see it as virtue, as maturity, but you dream. Michael Righi has stirred you from your dream and you resent it as you would if every day were Saturday and, inexplicably, your alarm just went off.
Damn, that guy is one very talented writer.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-06-2007, 11:47 AM
Damn, that guy is one very talented writer.

Not that I'm an expert, but there's a difference between being a good writer and stuffing as many words featuring long syllables as you can in a sentence. Reading stuff like that gives me a headache - get to the point already.

artherd
09-06-2007, 5:11 PM
Not that I'm an expert, but there's a difference between being a good writer and stuffing as many words featuring long syllables as you can in a sentence. Reading stuff like that gives me a headache - get to the point already.

In part I agree; what he said was wonderful, but a skilled orator could have said it in half the word count.

Some of the best court decisions or attorney pleadings are single-page.

xrMike
09-06-2007, 8:01 PM
There's a time and place for brevity (and that's usually most of the time), but it's still good to read someone every once in awhile with a real flair for the language. Kinda like the difference between Hemingway and James Joyce, or Steinbeck maybe.

-hanko
09-06-2007, 8:40 PM
There's a time and place for brevity (and that's usually most of the time), but it's still good to read someone every once in awhile with a real flair for the language. Kinda like the difference between Hemingway and James Joyce, or Steinbeck maybe.
You're confusing pedantic narcissistic verbosity with "flair for the language":D

-hanko

artherd
09-06-2007, 10:42 PM
You're confusing pedantic narcissistic verbosity with "flair for the language":D

-hanko

..... your mom confuses pedantic narcissistic verbosity with "flair for the language" :D :D :D



just kidding with you. ;)

LAHeat
12-22-2007, 9:51 PM
Does CA have any requirement to show photographic ID if you are not currently operating a motor vehicle?

Not any more! Many years ago there way a PC section - 647(e) PC that mandated that you were required to show ID upon demand of a peace officer. You were required to show ID to a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio. Hence, you were required to carry ID in order to show it. Then, a "test" case was put forth. Better said - a "set-up" in which a male subject was dressed in a manner to raise suspicion and provoke police response in a nice "middle class" neighborhood. Police responded, requested ID. Subject refused, subject arrested and convicted. Conviction appealed. Case went through the courts and 647 (e) was declared unconstitutional.

See: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=352

uscbigdawg
12-23-2007, 12:53 AM
Didn't want to sift through the whole thread, but I'll say this. I was at Wal-Mart years ago. Paid for my stuff on the debit card, including entering my PIN. After the transaction was complete the checker asked to see my ID before she would hand me the receipt. I asked why and she said for security reasons. I said no, 'cause frankly I didn't want to.

She said it was store policy and I said, well, either I get what I paid for using my card AND PIN number (the inference being a higher level of security than just a swipe of a credit card) or you can keep everything and refund my money. After a few moments, she realized that it wasn't a big deal and I went on my way.

I am not the criminal and if they want to confirm ID then don't have the card swiping machine for me to use. Force me to give you my card and then all I have is a key pad. Voila. Too simple. In instances like this, or where I've used my card, on the signature portion it states to see my ID, so it's not like I'm afraid to show it. I've worked retail, although years and years ago, and learned that the less you bother a customer, the more likely they are to return.

Just my $0.02.

Rich

uscbigdawg
12-23-2007, 12:55 AM
Oh...and unless I'm carrying or transporting my firearms, I don't carry an ID on purpose. So...maybe I can be difficult.

Rich

socalguns
12-23-2007, 1:22 AM
Case dismissed (in exchange for a promise not to sue the city)

http://www.michaelrighi.com/?s=circuit
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/

hoffmang
12-23-2007, 1:59 AM
Being forced to show ID to use a credit card is a violation of the merchants agreement with the card processors as I posted much earlier in this Zombie thread...

-Gene

Bruce
12-23-2007, 9:52 AM
Wasn't this same story hashed out here several months ago? :eek:

Rhys898
12-23-2007, 10:05 AM
this thread IS from several months ago. We have a necroposter among us.

Jer

PS I looked for a zombie smilie but couldn't find one!

E Pluribus Unum
12-23-2007, 2:08 PM
Ok, please read the thread that Hoffmang posted because you are wrong.

Probable cause for a MISDEMEANOR requires first hand direct knowledge of the act being committed. I.E. seeing the suspect take the item, or see it via CCTV.

The burden of proof for a FELONY only requires "Reasonable Suspicion."

Since PC 490.5 (f) is part of the penal code, it uses the PC definition of Probable Cause.


As posted before... this is the case with normal Misdemeanors. The penal code gives shopkeepers the right to detain only with PC. So, only for a misdemeanor shoplifting crime does a shop owner have the right to detain with PC; all other misdemeanors must be witnessed.

artherd
12-24-2007, 7:54 AM
I'd keep everything, make you put it back and then refund your money. If you want to pay with plastic, you better be willing to show some ID. There's way too much credit fraud out there, if you want to pay without ID, that's cool, but do it right, use cash.

Actually, asking a customer to show ID is a violation of the merchant agreement terms. So is a "minimum charge" on credit cards, and so is any extra 'fees' to use a credit card.

I have fun with sometimes with very snotty clerks who tell me there's a min charge or ask for ID. I just call a contact pretty high up in VISA, pass them the phone, and he asks if they want their merchant status revoked over this?

artherd
12-24-2007, 7:55 AM
When the city/state/etc. screws up this badly, you don't let them get off so easily. I really hope the city tries to throw me up on bogus charges some day, and then when they realize how badly they've screwed up (most likely because it will be ther result of their unwitting participation in one of my video-taped setups) that's when the fun will begin. I think my offer to them will be that they can dismiss all charges, reimburse me for 10x my legal expenses (punitive damages), and last but not least, the arresting officer will have to kiss my ***, literally. I'm not kidding either, those will be my official demands. Whether they accept my terms or not, I win.

"The court hereby orders that Officer Putz place Mr. Blackrazor's buttox upon his lips and draw upon it succulently for a period of no less than thirty seconds"

dixieD
12-24-2007, 9:11 AM
Unlike private security, Loss Prevention is in house and has the right to detain.

To what level of force?

Sounds like they have more rights that joe homeowner.

762cavalier
12-24-2007, 10:18 AM
"The court hereby orders that Officer Putz place Mr. Blackrazor's buttox upon his lips and draw upon it succulently for a period of no less than thirty seconds"

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

Very eloquent! couldn't have said it better myself;)

sloguy
12-24-2007, 10:22 AM
:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

Very eloquent! couldn't have said it better myself;)

i believe its a "imaginationland " reference.

Sgt Raven
12-24-2007, 11:53 AM
imaginaaaaation, imaginaaaaaaation, iiiimmmmaaaginaaaaaaatioonnnnn.


Hmmm, I will gladly kiss my own *** when I'm wrong, and perhaps this one of those times, so consider it kissed :)

That being said, I can't understand why a credit card company would put something like that in their agreement, they are responsible for all credit card theft, why wouldn't they ask you to show ID when using your card, especially since you basically forfeit all of your privacy during a purchase when you use a credit card anyway. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to be a ghost shopper, the only way to do it is to walk around with no ID and pay for everything in cash.



Huh, I though this was some dumbass law passed by the feds a while ago, consumer protection act or some other nonsense. You can't charge a fee to use that credit card, but it's OK to offer a cash discount! .gov at their best.
No, that's a Ca state law, not a Fed law.

rue
12-24-2007, 1:41 PM
If any receipt checker at any store except Costco impeded my exit in anyway - I would turn around and return all the items I just bought and leave empty handed. F-them


I had just that happen to me. I didn't want to wait in the line to have my reciept checked as I was in a hurry and I legally purchased my goods and went around everyone. I was asked for my reciept and I told them I didn't have time to be waiting around for them and went around the guy. About 2-3 followed me to the car and at one point one of them stepped in front of my cart and stopped it so I grabbed my stuff out of the cart and continued to my car. I also mentioned if anyone touched me there was going to be a problem. They threatened to call the Sheriff or whatever I said be my guest and I left. I never had a sheriff contact me or anything. Reciept checking shouldn't interfere with my time IMO. I'm no criminal and if they didn't see me take anything I don't have to show them anything.

kermit315
12-24-2007, 3:01 PM
the difference between walmart and fry's, costco, etc. is that walmart has no posted policy that the reciept must be shown. costco and fry's have a sign when you walk in that says you must show your reciept upon exiting. i am sure in the costco application that gets signed it is the same thing. they are making it a condition of shopping at their store. walmart doesnt, they just expect compliance.

I dont stop for them either, but my wife does. she doesnt want to make waves over something seemingly so petty, however I see it the same as others here, it is a waste of my time and an invasion of my privacy.

hoffmang
12-24-2007, 3:09 PM
imaginaaaaation, imaginaaaaaaation, iiiimmmmaaaginaaaaaaatioonnnnn.


Hmmm, I will gladly kiss my own *** when I'm wrong, and perhaps this one of those times, so consider it kissed :)
Bend over and pucker up!


That being said, I can't understand why a credit card company would put something like that in their agreement, they are responsible for all credit card theft, why wouldn't they ask you to show ID when using your card, especially since you basically forfeit all of your privacy during a purchase when you use a credit card anyway. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to be a ghost shopper, the only way to do it is to walk around with no ID and pay for everything in cash.

http://www.telechargeit.com/MerchantAccountAgreement.html#103

The card associations want a card to be as easy to use as cash and know that many of us are already a bit uneasy that they have a central DB of our purchases.



Huh, I though this was some dumbass law passed by the feds a while ago, consumer protection act or some other nonsense. You can't charge a fee to use that credit card, but it's OK to offer a cash discount! .gov at their best.

http://www.telechargeit.com/MerchantAccountAgreement.html#101

Again - the goal is to keep card use very easy for the end user. I know something (http://www.vindicia.com/) about the biz...

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
12-26-2007, 4:38 PM
I have fun with sometimes with very snotty clerks who tell me there's a min charge or ask for ID. I just call a contact pretty high up in VISA, pass them the phone, and he asks if they want their merchant status revoked over this?

I call BS on this.... how does one get "a contact pretty high up in VISA" and then pass them the phone as if the clerk is supposed to know the person on the other end is with Visa?


Oh... and there is a way around the "no fees" rule.


Post a sign: "All prices reflect a 5% cash discount".

Anyone who pays with Visa doesn't get the "discount".

hoffmang
12-26-2007, 5:38 PM
The card associations have stated publicly that they have no issues with discounts offered for the use of cash.

Also, Visa is headquartered in Foster City so be careful assuming Ben doesn't know a Visa guy.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
12-26-2007, 5:49 PM
Also, Visa is headquartered in Foster City so be careful assuming Ben doesn't know a Visa guy.

Re-read the BS declaration; knowing a "high up" Visa guy was only PART of the BS statement. He then has to convince the checker who is making minimum wage and could care less that the person on the other end of the phone is really from Visa. After that, the checker must give a darn whether Visa gets mad or not.

After all this... he is going to do it to get around a "$5.00 minimum purchase" rule.

As I said, I don't buy it; it is below the $5.00 minumum on my clout-o-meter.

sloguy
12-26-2007, 5:54 PM
Re-read the BS declaration; knowing a "high up" Visa guy was only PART of the BS statement. He then has to convince the checker who is making minimum wage and could care less that the person on the other end of the phone is really from Visa. After that, the checker must give a darn whether Visa gets mad or not.

After all this... he is going to do it to get around a "$5.00 minimum purchase" rule.

As I said, I don't buy it; it is below the $5.00 minumum on my clout-o-meter.

many times people will go to great lengths to prove their point. look at the guy who this thread is about.

hoffmang
12-26-2007, 6:02 PM
Well EPU, I can tell you that I've not done it that way but have done the "get me your manager" maneuver at quite a few stores in the past based on me refusing to show ID.

Oddly enough I had a Target mall ninja ask for my receipt for my daughter's booster seat at lunch today. Both of my daughters were in the cart and my wife was pushing it. I just said "no thanks" and kept walking.

-Gene

artherd
12-26-2007, 6:03 PM
I call BS on this.... how does one get "a contact pretty high up in VISA" and then pass them the phone as if the clerk is supposed to know the person on the other end is with Visa?
Careful, you may find yourself going to meetings with with Alison as part of the very small "I underestimated Ben Cannon" support group :)

Oh... and there is a way around the "no fees" rule.
Post a sign: "All prices reflect a 5% cash discount".
Anyone who pays with Visa doesn't get the "discount".

Yes, this works on technicality.

artherd
12-26-2007, 6:08 PM
imaginaaaaation, imaginaaaaaaation, iiiimmmmaaaginaaaaaaatioonnnnn.


Hmmm, I will gladly kiss my own *** when I'm wrong, and perhaps this one of those times, so consider it kissed :)

LOL! :)

That being said, I can't understand why a credit card company would put something like that in their agreement, they are responsible for all credit card theft, why wouldn't they ask you to show ID when using your card, especially since you basically forfeit all of your privacy during a purchase when you use a credit card anyway. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to be a ghost shopper, the only way to do it is to walk around with no ID and pay for everything in cash.

I have been told that the intent behind this (I believe implemented by American Express, the original CC company, decades ago) was such that a cardholder could carry and use ONLY their credit card, and not have to carry, bother with, be asked for, their DMV ID.

The goal was to compare the signature on the back of the card (which presumably was genuine) with the signature on the sales slip.

Rest assured it still is Visa/MC policy, and I believe AMEX too.

artherd
12-26-2007, 6:11 PM
I know something about the biz...
-Gene

Understatement of the fing century!

artherd
12-26-2007, 6:16 PM
I don't bother with the checker, first lesson of any institutional dispute; go as high up as you can.

Look, I have three merchant accounts, I have to abide by these terms myself, and I don't like it when some **** tries to lay down 'the rules' on me. Am I going to do this every time? No. Have I done it once when the manager of the facility was being rude to my family member? You bet.

Re-read the BS declaration; knowing a "high up" Visa guy was only PART of the BS statement. He then has to convince the checker who is making minimum wage and could care less that the person on the other end of the phone is really from Visa. After that, the checker must give a darn whether Visa gets mad or not.

After all this... he is going to do it to get around a "$5.00 minimum purchase" rule.

As I said, I don't buy it; it is below the $5.00 minumum on my clout-o-meter.

E Pluribus Unum
12-26-2007, 6:33 PM
Well EPU, I can tell you that I've not done it that way but have done the "get me your manager" maneuver at quite a few stores in the past based on me refusing to show ID.

I am not sure what this would accomplish; no store is required to sell you anything. If the manager were stubborn he would simply thank you for your patronage and kindly ask you to do business elsewhere.


Oddly enough I had a Target mall ninja ask for my receipt for my daughter's booster seat at lunch today. Both of my daughters were in the cart and my wife was pushing it. I just said "no thanks" and kept walking.

What?? No citizen's arrest? No Circuit City 2.0 thread? :)

Those people crack me up. "Sir, I need to see your receipt".

hoffmang
12-26-2007, 7:05 PM
I am not sure what this would accomplish; no store is required to sell you anything. If the manager were stubborn he would simply thank you for your patronage and kindly ask you to do business elsewhere.


And no store is required to keep their ability to take credit cards. I'm quite happy to get their merchant account yanked and have gone as far as receiving a gift certificate and a "thank you" for reminding a major chain of their responsibilities under their merchant agreement.

-Gene

Paratus et Vigilans
12-26-2007, 8:20 PM
I'd keep everything, make you put it back and then refund your money. If you want to pay with plastic, you better be willing to show some ID. There's way too much credit fraud out there, if you want to pay without ID, that's cool, but do it right, use cash.

As long as it's a FTF transaction with the person using the card and not one over the telephone or internet, the card issuer bears the risk of fraud loss, not the merchant. As Gene said, it's all in the merchant/card issuer agreement.

I've handled a couple of cases on this issue, so I know whereof I speak.

Ech0Sierra
12-26-2007, 8:34 PM
Even if it's my rights, I do not want to piss off an LEO by refusing to show my ID, which I think is state property anyway.

Sgt Raven
12-26-2007, 9:24 PM
Even if it's my rights, I do not want to piss off an LEO by refusing to show my ID, which I think is state property anyway.

Rights are like muscles, if you don’t exercise them, you’ll lose them. :rolleyes:

Ech0Sierra
12-26-2007, 9:28 PM
If you overwork them you cramp (arrest) or pull a muscle (jail).

Smokeybehr
12-26-2007, 9:45 PM
http://www.telechargeit.com/MerchantAccountAgreement.html#101

Again - the goal is to keep card use very easy for the end user. I know something (http://www.vindicia.com/) about the biz...

-Gene

I'll have to pull a little bit of that 1.01 stuff when I hit those mini-marts that insist on charging me a fee for charging under $10 or under $5... :43:

socalguns
12-27-2007, 12:00 AM
but then you get a massage (lawsuit) and painkillers (settlement)

Ech0Sierra
12-27-2007, 12:03 AM
Or I win (happy ending).

FortCourageArmory
12-27-2007, 2:58 PM
In instances like this, or where I've used my card, on the signature portion it states to see my ID

This invalidates your credit card. Turn any of your cards over and read the verbage around the signature box. Pretty much all of them will say, "Not Vaild Unless Signed". You have basically cut off your nose to spite your face. Hoffmang has already stated (quite correctly as I have just checked my Merchant Agreement) that the merchant cannot demand the customer show ID to make a purchase. This fact makes the whole "ASK FOR ID" nonsense moot.

E Pluribus Unum
12-27-2007, 3:14 PM
I just downloaded the entire merchant agreement from the visa website and found the following:


While checking card security features, you should also make sure that the
card is signed. An unsigned card is considered invalid and should not be accepted.
If a customer gives you an unsigned card, the following steps must be taken:
• Check the cardholder’s ID. Ask the cardholder for some form of official
government identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Where
permissible by law, the ID serial number and expiration date should be
written on the sales receipt before you complete the transaction.
• Ask the customer to sign the card. The card should be signed within your
full view, and the signature checked against the customer’s signature on the
ID. A refusal to sign means the card is still invalid and cannot be accepted.
Ask the customer for another signed Visa card.
• Compare the signature on the card to the signature on the ID.
If the cardholder refuses to sign the card, and you accept it, you may end
up with financial liability for the transaction should the cardholder later dispute
the charge.

“See ID”
Some customers write “See ID” or “Ask for ID” in the signature panel, thinking
that this is a deterrent against fraud or forgery; that is, if their signature is not
on the card, a fraudster will not be able to forge it. In reality, criminals don’t take
the time to practice signatures: they use cards as quickly as possible after a theft
and prior to the accounts being blocked. They are actually counting on you not to
look at the back of the card and compare signatures—they may even have access
to counterfeit identification with a signature in their own handwriting.
“See ID” or “Ask for ID” is not a valid substitute for a signature. The customer
must sign the card in your presence, as stated above.


Requesting
Cardholder ID

When should you ask a cardholder for an official government ID? Although Visa
rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants
cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot
refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to
provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their
regular card acceptance procedures. Laws in several states also make it illegal
for merchants to write a cardholder’s personal information, such as an address
or phone number, on a sales receipt.



The entire agreement may be downloaded directly from Visa Here: http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf

artherd
12-27-2007, 8:00 PM
If you overwork them you cramp (arrest) or pull a muscle (jail).

You need to stretch (lawyer up) properly next time!

Fjold
12-27-2007, 8:13 PM
I sign the back of my card and write "see ID" in the signature block with it. I also thank the clerk if they actually ask for my ID.

Two Shots
12-27-2007, 11:29 PM
Because you refuse to show a receipt makes you a suspect in theft. Get a clue. Let me guess you are some kind of mall security guard. Well I guaranty I would not cooperate with you. I would not allow myself to be detained or otherwise harrassed by some control freak. I would consider going the citizen arrest route if anyone attempted to ILLEGALLY detain me in the way you suggest.
4762
Mall security will NOT arrest a shoplifter unless it was done in there presence the store clerk will have to make a citizens arrest on the suspect with the guards present. Fights, car break in they can detain by force if needed. Emergency they can lock the mall down.A lot of people think that these guards ard a bunch of wanna be's. I worked with the Sec dept daily and they were well trianed in how to defuse the situation, WELL VERSE ON THE LAW, hAND TO HAND and how to handle it 98% HAVE COLLEDGE BACKGROUND these so called Guards where Security Officer if you would like take, a drive along with the PD in your town then you can learn what happens when your home sleeping and how they deal with the crap. It will open your eyes to what its like out there. I believe ACSO and COCO county might still do ride alongs citie dept also has a similar progrm.

ohsmily
12-28-2007, 12:04 AM
98% HAVE COLLEDGE BACKGROUND these so called Guards where Security Officer if you would like take, a drive along with the PD in your town then you can learn what happens when your home sleeping and how they deal with the crap.

Are you one of these with 'colledge' background? Where did this 98% figure come from?

MHO:
Like most professions, the experience and qualifications of security guards range from highly trained to downright incompetent. Some have LE experience (POST) and others are fat slobs earning close to minimum wage for just keeping an eye on something.

Fjold
12-28-2007, 7:06 AM
Are you one of these with 'colledge' background? Where did this 98% figure come from?

MHO:
Like most professions, the experience and qualifications of security guards range from highly trained to downright incompetent. Some have LE experience (POST) and others are fat slobs earning close to minimum wage for just keeping an eye on something.

And some of them are sargeants in elite tactical fire teams, that are trained in Nin Jitsu and carry bullet proof briefcases!

FortCourageArmory
12-28-2007, 1:17 PM
And some of them are sargeants in elite tactical fire teams, that are trained in Nin Jitsu and carry bullet proof briefcases!

Please, not again. I can only clean up so many soda spills!!!! :):):D

kermit315
12-28-2007, 1:52 PM
dont mock the Rapid Tactical Force....they are a force to be reckoned with. lol