Seven Deadly Sins (19)
If you’re in Pittsburgh and available tomorrow (August 30th, 2007) at 3:30pm I’ll be speaking at the Seven Deadly Sins discussion being hosted at the DejaVu Lounge. I’m not quite sure how I got invited, but I’m supposed to be one of the “experts” discussing entrepreneurial mistakes that I’ve made and learned from. Actually, come to think of it, I know exactly why I was invited. Being the youngest entrepreneur on the panel I suppose I’m much closer to my mistakes than the other people speaking. I’m honored to be speaking along side Don Jones and Ron Morris, two powerhouse serial entrepreneurs with years of experience and stories to share.
Here’s the advert:
Seven Deadly Sins II: Publication Launch Event
Steer clear of common business mistakes with help from TEQ Magazine’s custom publication, “Seven Deadly Sins II,” a unique resource packed with expert business insight. Get a free, hot-off-the-presses copy when you join us for this special launch event. Hear proven business advice from an expert panel, including Don Jones of Draper Triangle Ventures, led by heavenly business legend and regional entrepreneur Ron Morris. Afterwards, indulge in cocktails while enjoying conversation with your peers.
Date: Thursday, August 30
Time: 3:30 p.m. registration, 4 - 5:30 p.m. program, 5:30 p.m. cocktails and networking
Venue: DejaVu Lounge, 2106 Penn Ave., Strip District
Pittsburgh Technology Council Member Cost: $25
Non-Member Cost: $35
RSVP: Council Events or 412.918.4229
I hope to see you there.
Like we want to hear you speak. What are you going to talk about? How to waste police and courts time and be self righteous?
Re: Sara
Amazingly, Sara, Michael’s being asked to speak about BUSINESS rather than his personal life, which is what I’m guessing you’re crying about. While you may not agree with his stance on personal rights (I do), you cannot dispute the fact that he owns his own business and might actually have something of value to share. Hey, if you want to let Circuit City look in your bag, go ahead. If you don’t want to listen to someone who’s been there and done that, business-wise, don’t attend. Wish I could be there…
Sara, I understand your overwhelming urge to berate somebody you don’t know, who is sticking up for YOUR civil rights, but could you at least do it right and post in the appropriate section?
If I were in a business that might benefit from shameless self-promotion, especially free media coverage and/or how to achieve publicity, notoriety and name recognition at little or no cost, I would be more than happy to pay the $35 to obtain Mr. Righi’s expert advice on that!
On the other hand, based on this and his past media coverage, I would say that he has had more than his ‘15 minutes’ and the true philanthropist in him should step aside and let someone else have theirs.
Exactly what civil rights was he defending by the whole CC situation? Don’t answer that here…let’s go over to the other blog once it opens back up to allow more posts.
We don’t have nor will we have the full truth about what CC did or why. It’s all just speculation. What we do have is a clear Obstruction of Justice charge that landed him in jail. Now he’s trying to blame CC for that.
See you over in the other section.
# Thwippa Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Sara, I understand your overwhelming urge to berate somebody you don’t know, who is sticking up for YOUR civil rights, but could you at least do it right and post in the appropriate section?
Sara, keep your comments to yourself. You clearly have absolutely no sense of liberty, and no understanding of why our rights are important.
When one of the previous comments stated that he should simply bow to authority because it’s easier, or more convenient, I wanted to scream. It’s people like you that gives those authority figures their supposed “right” to violate ours. How would you feel if you were strip searched every time your entered and exited a grocery store? If you would feel violated, you should ask yourself why this invasion of privacy is excessive when another is allowable.
Could you please tell me where we should draw the line? Because I draw it at any violation of my rights. Clearly you draw yours elsewhere.
Will
His rights were not violated. Under law in Ohio CC has the right to request a search of his bags. They also have the right to detain him if they have probable cause that he stole an item or even if he didn’t walk out with an unpaid item but perhaps instead attempted to alter a price or product inside the store. Shoplifting isn’t limited to walking out without paying. He can be charged for tampering with the product or items in any way to alter their price. All of which could been on security tapes or witnessed by employees.
He admits he knows why they were coming out the car to question/detain him….that tells me he knowingly did something…perhaps he set off the theft alarm at the door but continued to walk on through and ignored them as they asked him to stop and verify his receipt and bag contents. It’s very likely his Wii game theft tag was not properly deactivated.
We don’t know exactly what happened, but I’ve never known CC to search every bag or even randomly search bags like he is eluding they do….and I’ve visited a number of CC in this area. Something gave them probable cause. They didn’t just run out and detain a vehicle with multiple occupants, a family no less for no reason or just because he walked out of the store without incident. Don’t take his side of the story as gospel.
Under the shoplifting statutes of Ohio, aka in the past Shopkeepers Privilege, they can detain him and in this case, ultimately waited for the police to assist at sorting things out. They are also under law protected by the same statutes that allow for reasonable mistakes, thus shielding CC against any liability as it relates to false arrests or imprisonment.
Tim
I am sure they have a right to request the search of his bag, but they have no right to demand it after his refusal, or bar his exit of the premises. They most certainly have a right to detain him if they know he stole something, but he didn’t steal anything, as proven by their subsequent illegal search of his bag. His refusal to show the contents of his bag or his receipt is not probable cause by any means.
I live in Canada, and during the Christmas season all Future Shop locations have 2 security guards at the doors checking bags and receipts. I make a point of refusing this search, because it is perfectly within my rights to do so. I have had the good fortune of not being arrested, but I am hassled every time I do it and I am forced to educate another ill-informed security guard about OUR rights. I am not a trouble maker, nor am I a thief, but when a company makes it policy to ask customers to waive their rights and take action even in lieu of this waiver, you can be sure that I am going to take every necessary action to prevent it being done to me and my family.
His rights were most assuredly violated.
On a side note, I am commenting directly on his version of the story. I don’t presume to take it as 100% fact, but I am commenting on it as though it were. I am not commenting on what could have happened or what probably happened, or any other fairy tales that may exist. I have no reason to believe his story, and no reason to doubt it, and whatever is true, it makes absolutely no difference to me. I am not a judge, I am commenting on what could be a completely fictional situation in which a persons rights were violated.
And if you don’t think this fictional character’s rights were violated, knowing that he was arrested for not producing a drivers license, then let me know what the weather is like over there in bizarro land.
Will, Actually, in Ohio, they do have the right to detain him if they have probable cause. Laws vary by state here in the US but most every state except for a few out west and in the far Northeast are very similar. If the alarm went off or if an employee or security person saw him trying to deface the pricing or change product or in any way attempt to defraud the store of a products full value, they can still pursue him. He doesn’t have to just walk out without paying for something. The shoplifting laws will still apply. Also, as I noted previously, even if he is perfectly innocent, the store is still protected and within their rights to do what they did given proper cause. Mistakes are protected.
In most every case retailers will contact the police to allow them to search the bag legally as by that point the police also have probable cause. Usually the police are called to control any such situation and to begin a full investigation.
There’s nothing wrong with saying no to a voluntary search and educating an employee. However in this Case Michael clearly states he knew why they were coming after him and again, this CC store doesn’t search every person nor do they have a security guard/employee randomly searching folks as they leave. He triggered the response in some way and I don’t believe he’s sharing every detail.
What I really get a kick out of is he’s trying to say his rights were violated by CC and they clearly were not….well since we don’t really “know” what happened, I guess I shouldn’t say clearly. There is quite a bit speculation available though. I stand by the belief that things like this don’t just happen for no reason. I’ve seen way too many cases otherwise. If you’re a betting man, the odds here are in that favor.
The other fact is he’s trying to state he was unlawfully arrested. That’s not the case either and that is perfectly clear. Read through my other posts in that section, which is now closed to further posts, for all the details. However, in brief, he consented to a personal search by handing the police his bag and receipt. By doing so, the officer then had complete right to demand his drivers license and search his person. That officer is not obligated to explain the consequences of his not handing his drivers license over. Often times they will explain what will happen next, but my guess is Michaels initial attitude and refusal to cooperate led the officer to just stay quite and let Michael walk into his own arrest. He did exactly that by then obstructing the officer. He delayed and interfered with Official Business and was charged accordingly.
The humorous part is Michaels clear lack of understanding of not just the laws but of arrest process. He was obviously unclear about Miranda Rights and how/when Charges are officially filed against him. If he was so into protecting his own rights, I would have thought he perhaps would have studied up on case law and other related dealings that are public record and readily available prior to walking around with a chip on his shoulder in attempts to be the defender of everyone else’s rights…which by the way, still are not in any jeopardy. Our 4th and 5th amendments are in safe hands. He’s not the first idiot to do exactly the same things he’s done and being charged with here. Perhaps a subscription to Lexis or Westlaw would be a good investment for him to make. It’s a lot cheaper than his legal bills will be.
# Will Says:
September 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Tim
I am sure they have a right to request the search of his bag, but they have no right to demand it after his refusal, or bar his exit of the premises. They most certainly have a right to detain him if they know he stole something, but he did’t steal anything, as proven by their subsequent illegal search of his bag. His refusal to show the contents of his bag or his receipt is not probable cause by any means.
I live in Canada, and during the Christmas season all Future Shop locations have 2 security guards at the doors checking bags and receipts. I make a point of refusing this search, because it is perfectly within my rights to do so. I have had the good fortune of not being arrested, but I am hassled every time I do it and I am forced to educate another ill-informed security guard about OUR rights. I am not a trouble maker, nor am I a thief, but when a company makes it policy to ask customers to waive their rights and take action even in lieu of this waiver, you can be sure that I am going to take every necessary action to prevent it being done to me and my family.
His rights were most assuredly violated.
Will, He was not arrested for not producing a Drivers License. To clarify those that are very literal about things…. there is no law against “not producing a drivers license.” The are charges in applicable situations, but they don’t use that phrase in their wording. He was told something along those lines in layman’s terms only, honestly the officer didn’t have to say a word to him, and he wasn’t officially charged until as he noted, when he was downtown and being processed.
The officer didn’t have to go look up anything….he knew all along what charge he was going to apply. Does anyone reading this honestly believe otherwise? Do you really think the officer didn’t know exactly how to lead Michael along by switching gears and obtaining permission to search the bag? Come on folks….not even a rookie cop is that green. This guy was sharp and professional. I’m involved in this stuff daily, I’ll be the first one to speak up if I see otherwise.
As I’ve noted above, he agreed to a personal search, which gave the officer the right to demand said drivers license and officer was likely skilled enough to get him to agree to such a search as he knew then he would have access to it. It is true that prior to said permission, without probably cause of a Michael committing a crime, the officer would not have been able to get his drivers license in any way. However, once he granted it, the door was open.
Again, if Michael actually knew the law, he could have stopped and clearly withdrawn his consent for a personal search, but he did not. Given that, by withholding something the officer now had complete permission and rights to view and have, he Obstructed Official Business. The only thing going for him is that our system is pretty bogged down and understaffed so unless he or his attorney enrages the prosecutor, they will likely make him a deal. Bizarro land….no, The US of A baby and if anyone is out to “protect their rights” they better go study “their laws” or they will be in the same position as poor Michael graduating from the School of Hard Knocks.
# Will Says:
September 7th, 2007 at 11:25 am
On a side note, I am commenting directly on his version of the story. I don’t presume to take it as 100% fact, but I am commenting on it as though it were. I am not commenting on what could have happened or what probably happened, or any other fairy tales that may exist. I have no reason to believe his story, and no reason to doubt it, and whatever is true, it makes absolutely no difference to me. I am not a judge, I am commenting on what could be a completely fictional situation in which a persons rights were violated.
And if you don’t think this fictional character’s rights were violated, knowing that he was arrested for not producing a drivers license, then let me know what the weather is like over there in bizarro land.
Funny. We had this discussion over at icodeviruses.com too. Seems the only argument Mike’s antagonists can come up with is “he’s lying” or “there’s something missing from this story” or “yeah, well just wait until CC tells their version of events.”
Sounds to me like they’ve got nothing to back their skepticism.
I won’t call myself one of Mike’s antagonists. I’m simply a passerby made aware of the situatoin.
Nothing to back the story? I think not. While it’s true that there are no facts for either side yet seen, only a one sided story, there’s plenty to back the Skepticism…..read the posts here and on the closed page under update#1.
Not sure why you would say that waiting until the full version of the events comes out is a argument based on any “inferred weakness” either? I’d say that’s about equal for both sides really. It’s obvious details are missing and that he lacks an understanding of the law(s) affecting his situation. Lucky for him, he’s not attempting to represent himself.
It doesn’t matter anyway, he was arrested for Obstruction of Official Business. I think that’s pretty clear. So far as CC, he won’t have much to after them with. Not only do they have some protections based on the shoplifting statutes in Ohio, I do think once all the details come out, he’ll be advised to back off from considering any action. Especially given his Obstruction charge could then come back to haunt him. Even if they plea it out, the whole ordeal will follow him, not just the end result.
Who knows, maybe he will be stupid twice.
# reno Says:
September 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Funny. We had this discussion over at icodeviruses.com too. Seems the only argument Mike’s antagonists can come up with is “he’s lying” or “there’s something missing from this story” or “yeah, well just wait until CC tells their version of events.”
Sounds to me like they’ve got nothing to back their skepticism.
You’re a passer-by who insists on deviating from the only thing we know: what he’s written.
Once again, I am commenting on what would be lawful or unlawful in a presumably fictional situation. Why you continue to refer to what probably or could have or would have happened, I cannot fathom.
You have misinterpreted my comments greatly. I am aware that, if probable cause is established, a person may be detained by security pending the arrival of law enforcement. His story illustrates no such thing. His refusal to provide his receipt or divulge the contents of his bag is a fundamental, inalienable right, which he refused to waive in his account of the story.
Michael Righi refused a search, was detained, was questioned by a law enforcement official, refused to waive his right to the property in his pockets, was eventually bullied into waiving his right to a search, and was found to be legitimate. He was then arrested for his refusal to waive his rights to defense of person and property by providing his drivers license.
All from what he has written. If his rights were not neglected, why did he waive those rights when it is plainly obvious that it is against his (and my own) principles?
and if you won’t call yourself Mike’s antagonist, I will
I don’t know what story you’re reading, but in the one on this blog, he was asked to “turn around and get up against the wall” before his bag was searched, and his also was forced to show his license before this as well.
I tell you what Will….I’ll post back after Sept 20. I have to get the final details on his hearing date / time. I do plan on sitting in on it. You’re welcome to come you know. I’ll likely hang around afterwards if you want to debate things further. He won’t likely be there as if he really really has racked up a bill of over $7,500 so far, I sure hope he has his lawyer get him out of a personal appearance. I will warn you though, the charges read will be for Obstruction….not for refusing to waive rights or show a drivers license.
I came to the conclusion some time ago that a bag inspection, after having just left a check-out counter, is to ensure (store’s loss/profit column) that the check-out employee didn’t slide something into a bag without entering the price onto the ticket–that you and the employee may be in collusion with one another to steal from the store. In other words, the store’s security representatives at the exits are, actually, checking up on the store’s check-out employees. The ticket inspections, an open secret known by all employees, at the exits serve as a deterrent to check-out employees from entering into an illicit practice. Stores’ $$$ losses are high from its own employees through theft! Those losses are transferred to us, the shoppers. So view this security procedure from my conclusion. Contain your indignation by helping the stores prevent theft by volunteering inspection of your bags.
No. I am not a store manager nor owner–just a citizen-shopper like yourselves. Probably a bit older than many of you.
Interesting, immediate update. My wife, having just finished her walk on our treadmill, stopped by my “office” (unused bedroom) door to chat. After explaining what I was doing she related to me of an event which took place long ago, so long ago that I had forgotten about it. An acquaintance of hers working at a check-out counter of a large department store tried to “gift her” by sliding an item through without entering the price onto the ticket. My wife refused and had to insist that this acquaintance ring up that particular item which, she did. I came to my conclusion, mentioned above, without remembering this unfortunate episode, my memory being about as long as my … well, let’s just say “he’s” not the proud “member” “he” used to be. Help the stores prevent $$$ loss.
[ I’ve always taken the stance that retail stores shouldn’t treat their loyal customers as criminals and that customers shouldn’t so willingly give up their rights along with their money. ]
So, only customers who are not loyal should be treated as criminals?
[ Theft sucks and I wish that shoplifters were treated more harshly than they are, but the fact is that I am not a shiplifter shoplifter and shouldn’t have to forfeit my civil rights when leaving a store. ]
How does one identify shoplifters?
Do they have “shoplifter” tattooed on their foreheads?
Why did you ask the store manager to accuse you of shoplifting?
[ I asked him what would happen if I never learned to drive and didn’t have a driver’s license. After all, at the time that he arrested me I was standing on a sidewalk outside a Circuit City. I wasn’t driving a car, and even when I was seated in the Buick I was a back seat passenger. The officer never gave me a satisfactory answer to this question, but promised to explain the law to me after I was booked. ]
In answer to your question, you would still be arrested. It’s a stupid question, coupled with some stupid assumptions. The investigation was not in connection to a vehicular crime.
[ 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.
Not being able to find the law in the books that states that a citizen must provide a driver’s license while walking through a parking lot, Officer Arroyo had to settle for “obstructing official business.” Keep in mind that the official business that I was supposedly obstructing was business that I initiated by calling the police. I called for help and I got arrested. ]
Though the actual arrest was legal, the subsequent charge was bogus. That’s why they dropped it, not for the reason you gave. A saving grace for you is that you did not resist arrest, then you would have recieved some tangible evidence of the fact that the officer acted in full compliance of the law in arresting you.
[ After being released I stuck around the police station for a little while to fill out the necessary paper work to press charges against the Circuit City manager who physically prevented me from leaving the parking lot. I’m most interested in seeing my charges dropped for refusing to present identification, but I view that as a completely separate issue from the store manager interfering with my egress. ]
How much damages are you looking for?
[ I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today. ]
You are required to show reasonable proof of identity if there are reasonable grounds to suspect you of a crime; not the lie you told.
[ 2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed. ]
Maybe it’s covered in another statute, dumbass!
[ I stated my name to the police officer, and if he had asked me for my address and date of birth I would have provided that as well. The officer specifically asked for my driver’s license and this is what I was unwilling to provide. If I’m reading this correctly it would appear that Ohio’s law specifically protects citizens from having to hand over driver’s licenses unless they are operating a motor vehicle. This is what I always believed, but it’s nice to see it in writing. ]
You did not read it correctly. Seeing it in writing did not help your comprehension any.
[ I wanted to fight the charges in court and I wanted to win based on the merits of my case. ]
You would have lost.
[ I felt that it was important to set a legal precedent that would help others in the future. ]
The precedent has already been set. You would have lost. James Dean is dead and you are dead wrong. The only “others” who would have been helped are the lawyers.
[ At this point I was stuck between two choices. Behind Door #1 was an eight to twelve month legal battle, three or more separate hearings including a jury trial, potential legal fees in the dozens of thousands of dollars and a lot of duress for my best witnesses: my family. Behind Door #2 was the immediate drop of the matter in exchange for giving up the right to seek civil damages against the police department. ]
That’s a change. What happened to this: [ My hearing is scheduled for September 20th, 2007. I will be contacting the ACLU and the IDP on Tuesday (the next business day), and I plan to fight these charges no matter what it takes. ]
Was it before of after your lawyer informed you that you would have lost, that you decided to backpeddle?
I also notice that you have gone from describing the event as, “unlawful arrest” to describing it as, “arrested on September 1st, 2007″ You do realise that the first statement is slander and though what you were initially charged with wouldn’t have stood up, that charge would? Is this why you are now more circumspect?
[ I hope that my story has made some people think twice about giving up their rights to businesses and law enforcement alike. ]
Yeah, I’m sure this story will motivate a large part of America to get their ass locked up for no good reason and put themselves out of pocket for thousands of dollars, just so that they can gain some notoriety.