BJ's, Sams and Costco all have a guy to check receipts and I always just show them. My local WalMart has started doing that and I just walk right by them, holding the receipt in my hand so it is visible.
This guy was looking for trouble, and found it. But that is besides the point. The fact of the matter is that he was detained from driving away by a CC manager, which almost qualifies at kidnapping. The store had no reason to think he stole anything until he encountered the guy at the door and refused to show his receipt. I have been in MANY CC stores and have NEVER had to show anything unless I was picking up a large item with is being loaded into my vehicle. CC idiots should be taken through the ringer here and the police should be sued for false arrest, especially since the Miranda Rights were never read to him. If anything, the CC of Brooklyn, Ohio is going to suffer because people don't want to shop where they might be harrassed.

This country has always said you are innocent until proved guilty. Let's see how this guy does fighting the system. Best of luck to him....

We really should get him to sign up here at FW so we can get periodic updates...lol

Did anyone even read his account of events? He wasn't arrested for failing to show his receipt at Circuit City. He was arrested because he acted like a smart ass because he refused to give the police officer his license when he requested it for identification.

In both instances he was clearly just setting up a scene to test the limits in which he would be arrested. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say if any of his rights were violated, but I can say he was clearly looking for trouble.

sloan4356 said:He was arrested because he acted like a smart ass because he refused to give the police officer his license when he requested it for identification.

What if he didn't have one? Or didn't have it with him? Besides, exactly what would the officer have gained by seeing his license? What operation or procedure was he prevented from doing by not being given this person's license?

I love all the comments in this thread about how people don't mind giving up some freedom for lower prices. Granted, showing a receipt as you walk by someone is pretty harmless, but searching people's personal property because you don't like how they looked at you (and I seriously doubt it's random thanks to profiling), or preventing someone from leaving a parking lot? by the way, laws and procedures regarding what store employees may and may not do with respect to possible shoplifting are very clear and what these people did was waaaaaaaaaaaay out of line.

snarler said:sloan4356 said:He was arrested because he acted like a smart ass because he refused to give the police officer his license when he requested it for identification.

What if he didn't have one? Or didn't have it with him? Besides, exactly what would the officer have gained by seeing his license? What operation or procedure was he prevented from doing by not being given this person's license?

I love all the comments in this thread about how people don't mind giving up some freedom for lower prices. Granted, showing a receipt as you walk by someone is pretty harmless, but searching people's personal property because you don't like how they looked at you (and I seriously doubt it's random thanks to profiling), or preventing someone from leaving a parking lot? by the way, laws and procedures regarding what store employees may and may not do with respect to possible shoplifting are very clear and what these people did was waaaaaaaaaaaay out of line.

I didn't say whether or not he had the legal responsibility to present an drivers license to the police officer. I merely stated that was the reason for his arrest. The thread title suggests that Michael was arrested for not showing a receipt which is simply not the case. Michael was acting like a smart ass in my opinion because he did have a drivers license and chose to be difficult about it. If he didn't have a drivers license then that would have been a different story. If you call the police to help you, presenting proper identification seems like a reasonable request. Its not like the Gestapo were randomly asking him for his papers like his blog implied.

Frankly he should have picked and chose his battles better rather than try and go up against Cicuit City and the police officer at the same time. I do agree that the mere refusal to show a receipt is not sufficient cause to detain someone for shoplifting.

nailman said:sloan4356 said:

I didn't say whether or not he had the legal responsibility to present an drivers license to the police officer. I merely stated that was the reason for his arrest. The thread title suggests that Michael was arrested for not showing a receipt which is simply not the case. Michael was acting like a smart ass in my opinion because he did have a drivers license and chose to be difficult about it. If he didn't have a drivers license then that would have been a different story. If you call the police to help you, presenting proper identification seems like a reasonable request. Its not like the Gestapo were randomly asking him for his papers like his blog implied.

Frankly he should have picked and chose his battles better rather than try and go up against Cicuit City and the police officer at the same time. I do agree that the mere refusal to show a receipt is not sufficient cause to detain someone for shoplifting.

Under the law is he required to show a receipt? No

Under the law is he required to show identification in this situation? No

Just because you are prepared to waive your civil liberties does not make someone else a smart ass.

Under the law is an employee permitted to chase you to your car and block you from leaving? No

Under the law in this situation are the police permitted to arrest you for not showing ID? No

CC and police are 0-2 here, there will be reprecussions. Its time that people with authority understand they cannot do what they want.

Try reading a post before you respond to it. I made none of those claims you mentioned in any of my posts. And yes I still insist that he is a smart ass for not showing a drivers license to a police officer that he called. And again I will state that I'm not positive whether he has a legal responsibility to show identification to the officer or not.

sloan4356 said:nailman said:

Try reading a post before you respond to it. I made none of those claims you mentioned in any of my posts. And yes I still insist that he is a smart ass for not showing a drivers license to a police officer that he called. And again I will state that I'm not positive whether he has a legal responsibility to show identification to the officer or not.

Yeah I know what you said, you said that you know nothing about the law and instead of researching you came to the conclusion that the guy is a smart ass.

sgtdave4321 said:He was arrested because everyone is required, at any given moment, regardless of where they are or what they're doing, to show ID to an officer if asked.

The manager will most likely do some time for unlawfully detaining him too. What the manager should've done, if he really was concerned about theft, is called the cops with the tag number of the car.

If he would have written his name, address and DOB on a piece of paper, that would have been good enough too. He was definitely pushing anybody and everybody's buttons.

sgtdave4321 said:He was arrested because everyone is required, at any given moment, regardless of where they are or what they're doing, to show ID to an officer if asked.

Dave this was in Ohio, here's the staute, please bold your authority

 

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

Lets boycott CC now!! I cant remember the last time I bought from CC. The customer is always right.

Damn! Cops are as unreasonable and authoritative as professors and managers, at least in my mind. They always have it their way