I was almost arrested for not following a sign that stated to not swim in a pond near my house. The sign was placed there by a resident in the area that did not like people swimming near his house. There was no law that prevented people from swimming in the pond. One day several people were swimming in the pond (all local residents) and this man called the police. The police officer told us to get out and I asked what law was I breaking. The officer could not tell me which law and continued to threaten to arrest me. They way I figure is what would happen if the sign read colored cannot drink from the drinking fountain, are we required to follow such a sign or else be threatened to get arrested? I unfortunately did not handle the situation with class and I do not respect myself for not peacefully discussing it with the police officer. The problem was that I felt threatened and I reacted defensively.

I want to address some quick legal points. First, I am not a lawyer, just a law student. A person should always consult a lawyer when dealing with legal issues.

RECEIPT CHECK:
Circuit City has the right to check your receipt.

Circuit City is a private entity, not a government entity. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures made by the government.

In addition, you were on Circuit City property when asked for the receipt. Many states have shoplifting laws which grant retailers rights of limited seizure in order to verify shoplifting has not occurred. Without knowing the details of the law in the state this occurred, many of these laws allow stops on store property.

I agree with you, checking receipts is obnoxious. I refuse to do it except in limited circumstances. However, your true options are to refuse and to return.

Having said that, while Circuit City was likely within its rights to request a check of your receipt while in the store, its employees also likely overstepped their rights by falsely imprisoning you in the parking lot. Further, there may be a cause for battery.

CAR ALTERCATION:
There are many false imprisonment cases concerning loss prevention officers and alleged shoplifters. Here, your entire family was possibly falsely imprisoned. In addition, battery may be there. Some of this will depend on any statutes granting powers to retailers to stop shoplifters.

Even so, the damages are not very much. You may be able to get some emotional damages from the fact your younger siblings had to see the arrest. Most likely, nominal damages (of the $1) kind are available.

OFFICER AND ARREST:
You granted the officer consent to search your bag and receipt, so there is no Fourth Amendment issue there. You are right, in most states you do not have to show your license. I believe some states have laws requiring the showing of a license to some degree or another, such as Colorado, but that does not appear applicable here.

The officer over-reacted. He should not have arrested you. Some officers are lazy, tired, or green. These kinds of officers do stuff like this. It is wrong. It is stupid.

However, it is not grossly negligent. You suffered nominal damages. Suing the officer, his department, and the government entity that employs him may be difficult. Officers receive qualified immunity. Depending on the government entity, it may receive absolute immunity.

I applaud your principled stand. Next time, I might make a louder fuss about returning everything if they want to check your receipt. I have personally received quite satisfactory distressed looks from managers who learned I was returning, in one case, $600 worth of electronics because they wanted to check my receipt. The multiple customers who were disgusted with the receipt checking actions who left items at the counter unpaid for was also a plus.

Good luck, and remember to watch your court deadlines!

Sincerely,
John

Re: circuit city… Theft protection from a store that carries millions of dollars of merchandise in-store is understandable, but, again, it’s up to the company and its employees to understand the law. Few of the hecklers for one second consider how brash and abusive the agent and his manager were being. This is my opinion, but if you run a business, stock that much high-value stuff and invite people in freely, the onus is upon you and your employees to devise a scheme of protecting your inventory - without destroying the privacy of others…… Which kind of leads me to what I had mention to begin this all - the ‘police state’ thing and, perhaps more significant, the erosion of privacy. Now, from what I read, I believe our internet service providers very freely monitor and provide information on our activities..

I’m a bit more timid than you, but although I might be willing to hand over a receipt, I’d be a little less so to hand over my bag(s) - PARTICULARLY ones that don’t say Best Buy/Circuit City/et al - without an Very Good Reason for them to do so. Again, as for the driver’s license situation, you’re a better one than I. Thank you for doing this and getting me thinking about this, and thank you for doing this and getting others thinking about it. I’d like to think that, given the chance to really THINK about it, most people would NOT choose a world where privacy and human rights play second fiddle to the need to make money and be profitable.