Papers Please: Arrested at Circuit City, Followup (151)
What a crazy week this has been. After writing about my unlawful arrest at Circuit City last Saturday, I’ve been inundated with emails, phone calls and donations. I would like to thank everybody who sent me a message of support. In the last four days I’ve received over one thousand emails and blog responses. I knew this story would get some attention, but I had no idea that it would receive as large an outcry as it has. If I haven’t responded to your message yet I apologize. I read every single message that I received, and I have done my best to respond to as many as I can. I still have about 300 emails to respond to and I will try to get back to every one.
I would also like to thank everybody who contributed to my legal defense fund. As of September 5th, 2007 at 6:00PM EST, I received donations from 195 people committed to seeing civil rights maintained in this country. The total raised so far is $3,225.55. (This amount represents the total after PayPal took their cut.) I will use this money to fight the charges brought against me by the Brooklyn, Ohio Police Department. If any money remains after paying my attorney I will donate the excess money to the ACLU so that they may fight to prevent this from happening to others in the future. September 6th, 2007 @ 7:53PMEST Update: The money raised through donations is now up to $3,550.56, although my legal fees have already exceeded $7,500 and I haven’t even gone to trial yet. It’s apparently more expensive to defend your rights than I anticipated.
In the last few days I’ve received a number of media requests which I’m afraid I have to turn down. As much as I want to discuss what happened and further explain my thoughts on consumer and civil rights, I’ve been advised by my attorney to remain silent until after my September 20th hearing.September 6th, 2007 @ 7:53PMEST Update: I am now referring all media to my attorney. Please contact me for my attorney’s information at michael dot righi at field expert dot com.
I hope that my story has made some people think twice about giving up their rights to businesses and law enforcement alike. The line between civil rights and consumer rights has become blurred in this country, and I believe it’s just as important to stand up for yourself whether it’s in a courthouse or a Circuit City parking lot. You don’t have to stand in front of a tank or refuse to move to the back of the bus to make a difference in the world. If everybody just asserted themselves a little bit more and better understood the consequences of blindly giving into authority this world would be a much better place.
I wanted to leave you with a few comments that I received. The purpose of showing you the first two comments is to highlight how much work needs to be done to educate people about their civil liberties. I’m disheartened at how many Americans think that asserting your rights and questioning authority make you a bad citizen. The purpose of showing you the third comment is to hopefully inspire you the way that it inspired me.
Comment #1
David wrote:
I don’t understand why you had to make a big deal, they do this to make sure thieves don’t steal their expensive equipment. Jesus, it’s 10 seconds of your time, and you get the feeling of being a good citizen after they thank you and bid you good day afterward.
Comment #2
Chris wrote:
Hello,
I feel I have to ask - instead of being uppity about the whole thing, why not show them your receipt and be done with it? The reasons you provided on your page are based on slippery-slope fallacies and the strange praise of principles over the practical.
Basically, I’m looking for a practical, concrete reason why “making a scene, calling the police, not obeying the police officer, and getting arrested” is better than “here’s the receipt, have a nice day”, without using the term
…
[I’m] depressed that kids these days don’t learn to respect and obey authority.
Comment #3
Anonymous wrote:
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.
If anybody is still confused about why I choose to live my life based on principles, I recommend that you read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. If only this world had more Howard Roarks…
Man Arrested For Not Showing His Circuit City Reciept, Driver’s License…
First he refused to show his reciept and the Circuit City people blocked his car. Then when he called for the police and they asked for his driver’s license, he refused and was arrested.
I’m going to try and follow this case because this guy says the…
I admire your courage in standing up for your rights! I have been annoyed so many times by this type of receipt checking at sites like Circuit City and Fry’s…
(I’m nop friggin’ thief, but if you think I am, call the cops, by all means!)
If I weren’t a guest in the US whenever i purchase something there, I would take a more assertive stance as well (as I do here at home! I never stop for a ‘receipt check’ at the few stores that actually still do that over here!), but as it is, I am only visiting the US for company business, and I do have to take that in to account in such situations! It’d make my job working for a US based company very painfull if I weren’t allowed in to the country anymore!
Luckily over here, the law clearly states that searching a person (and his personal belongings) can only be done by those with a special training, *and* confirmed by the court as special investigative personnel…
I am so proud of you. I am a 40 year old mother of children between the ages of 2 and 20. I am sure it hurt you to know your siblings had to watch this, however, it will help them to stand on principles. I am having all of my school aged children read this article because I had similar instances happen to me in my lifetime and I was always told that I was just being defiant. Demanding to be respected as a human being is not being defiant, it is being strong. May God richly bless you.
I’m curious…in this update, you mention fighting the charges brought against you by the police department, but are you planning on filing charges against the Circuit City employees for their harassment? Detaining you and your family in the way they did is clearly outside their purview. I completely applaud your activities to fight against what can be seen, at best, as the ignorance of those in power or, at worst, the rising police state that this nation has become in the past 5 years.
Obviously a calculated stunt. No one would do something like this with the intention to go straight to the ACLU.
I’m really curious as to why you are being told to say nothing prior to the hearing date. If you really do want to educate people as you say, you aren’t going to do it in a court of law. The only way people are going to learn about how serious this invasion of privacy is, is to hear about it on Oprah, 60 Minutes, and “Good Morning America” because lets face it, most of the “cattle” watch TV more than they read, more than they dedicate any grey matter to thinking, more than they question facts they have just assumed are correct.
How many people accept the religion of a parent because that’s what they are supposed to do? How is that any different from accepting the model citizen idea and “not causing a fuss”.
The Germans walked lock step in militarism before both world wars while the passivists like Einstein recoiled from the brainless adherence to military drill and dogma.
Since 9/11 we’ve been told to trade our freedoms to combat terrorism, something that one of our Supreme Court Judges specifically warned against in Hiibel.
I’ve been surprised at the number of people I’ve talked about with this case that had the cattle mentality of just “get along”, truly surprised because to me it seems so obviously wrong.
Maybe you have no choice but to go on these shows and educate the people, but if the lawyer has really good reasons for why this isn’t the case, maybe you could share those with us. I’d hate to see you take this kind of stand on this issue and then join the “cattle” crowd by listening to a lawyer that would not have made the stand in the first place. So please, illuminate the issue of silence before hearing for us.
There are bigger problems in the world today then complaining about getting stopped at circuit city. People die every day from hunger, disease, and war and you complain about your consumer and civil rights while you purchase a “Cars” game. How about you grow up and learn what is really important in life. Make a difference, or at least don’t tie up the justice department with your bullshit. You got arrested, that sucks - big deal. And you had to wear a wrinkled shirt - Wow - heaven forbid. Be a man.
Some of these young people depress me with how trusting of authority they are. And yet how little they respect our founding fathers and constitution by giving up their civil rights without a thought. Rights that better Americans have fought and died to secure.
Amanda, do you really believe you live in a society where practicing your civil rights is considered a stunt? That sounds more like Russia or China than the US. Maybe you should move where you’ll fit in better.
Joe, to use your own turn of phrase - Heaven forbid he defend his civil rights in a country founded on the desire to protect them.
Maybe you’d like to share with us what more righteous cause you are actively fighting for to make a difference, since you seem so interested in tearing down Righi’s fight for one that is important to him.
I am torn, part of me wants to applaud you, however the other part is having trouble believing that this was not something you pre-planned and carried out. I just think that you could find something more important to “stand” up for that was more beneficial. There are young men your age dying for you to live in this country, while you are acting out a plan to get attention back home. Shame
Joe, this is America. We have civil rights. Just because you’re too much of a pu**y to stand up for yours, why do you feel compelled to harass other, better people for standing up for theirs?
Best of luck in your efforts to solve world hunger, disease, and war. I’m sure you have taken a stand in those efforts like Michael has for civil rights, right?
LT:
It doesn’t seem to me that this was a pre-planned event but that doesn’t really matter. He is standing up for the same things that are being fought for by US soldiers elsewhere across the world - freedom. Our freedom to move in a public sphere without fear of arrest or harassment from the police or other government agencies is being curtailed by officers like this one and a number of bills being proposed by the DHS. Freedom should not come at the price of civil liberties anywhere.
I am disappointed that you are turning down the media opportunities. I for one know that my family was disappointed to find out that your story was not featured on the local news. I live locally to where the incident took place and did notify all local news stations regarding your situation.
Trust me, if there is one thing that Brooklyn Ohio is not able to handle is pressure from the press. This would be a good tool to use on them.
Also, please do update us regarding what your plans are regarding Circuit City, City of Brooklyn and the officer who illegally arrested you. I find it disturbing that this police officer may still be on duty in this city. I imagine that is he is not punished for his illegal actions, he may feel that he can continue to act out side of the law with other citizens at will.
Do you plan to press charges against any of these people?
Do you plan to file civil suits?
even if this is a scam(not acussing) u did what you bu rights are alowwed to do
you stand up for your rights i thank you. and by law if the cops dont read you your maranda rights before arresting you your case is dismissed (ask lawyer) please take no offence but if you rare making this up who cares you point out issues that should be noticed the law is taking to much power to say. some police think that there better than citizens but they should know they are citzens to. and to people that think he wasted his time most people just go home and watch tv at least he is doing something
he believes in not many people do that these days.
ps please email me if u think this helped or hate me
twistedmetalcheater@yahoo.com
sorry bout typos keyboard messed up
to the people die stuff
thats life even if we tried to help there are many others who are suffering i think we can but by then it will be to late for many people die people suffer its a part of life people suffer because there are too many people in the world in 30 years we increased the population by 30 billion so help out
wear a condom or pull out
As a Student I don’t know that much about the law, especially, but here is my take (again it is free so its likely not good, and seeing that I am not a lawyer it is clearly not advice)
1) There is a case called “Moore v. The Queen” in which a person ran through a red light on a BIKE and failed to show his ID. Since it was not a motor vehicle I think he got off. This was latter replaced in R. v. Waterfield by the “ancillary power doctrine”. Anyway if memory serves, both are UK cases, and therefore likely can be used with persuasive power in the USA.
2) As for the manager blocking your dads car, an interesting take would be going after them for false imprisonment. Its one of those odd (although not that odd) ways of approaching this problem. It’s a slight stretch, but at least it is an f-off to employees involved.
Again take all what i say with a grain of salt, put slightly more weight into #1 as a starting point in your endeavour.
-good luck
Justin:
Please learn to type, write and think before assaulting us with your word puke again. I appreciate that you seem to have the right viewpoint on this but I think i just got dumber from reading your posts.
Amanda:
“Obviously a calculated stunt. No one would do something like this with the intention to go straight to the ACLU.”
Maybe you should go back to your history books and take a hard look at some of the most important civil rights efforts…particularly Rosa Parks and her defiance….planned. She was an ACLU Activist and had their support prior to getting on that bus.
So what if it was planned? Does that make the point any less valid?
LT:
“There are young men your age dying for you to live in this country, while you are acting out a plan to get attention back home. Shame”
People are dying for us to live in this country? Perhaps you should look a little further into the foreign policy decisions that are made regarding war spending and our current situation before you start going off about our soldiers dying for our freedom. In the past, yes, today, not so much.
Civil liberties are the cornerstone of our nation and there are few things more important than protecting those rights, and if you think that fighting a war in Afghanistan or continued involvement is a more pressing matter than protecting our citizens from the oppressive government that moves further and further every day to snuff out our hard fought civil rights.
Wow. Many important questions have been raised over the course of this. Questions about civil liberties, questions about authority, questions about law. But I think along the way we’ve lost sight of the most important question of all…did your sister like her present?
Enjoy having your precious time and money tied up in legal battles instead of living your life. Douche.
I have to admit – I am torn on this. Smacks of a staged test case. I’m all for standing up for one’s rights, but I guess the important question is this: Does the circuit city have the legal right to check the bags of outgoing customers against the receipt? I wonder what Ohio law says about that subject. Righi certainly has the right to shop elsewhere if he believes that the circuit city employees are being overbearing jerks…
Michael,
Thank you for having the courage to stand up for my rights. Regardless of what happens from here, you’ve set an important precedent that is sure to get all of America’s attention.
To those people who would say Michael’s just a trouble-maker: The Revolutionary War was started over taxes and fair representation in government. A new nation was founded over these issues, and many people died in the process. Standing up for one’s right not to be searched by another citizen of this same nation and one’s right to merely exist without requiring identification is just as important as the original causes that conceived the USA.
In the future, when you’re required to produce identification in order to do something as simple as walk down the street or buy a loaf of bread, what are you going to think of Michael Righi then? Sure, checking a shopping bag seems trivial, but where do you draw the line? What if the search of your shopping bag were extended to a search of your pockets? Your wallet? Your body? Your personal history, including (but not limited to) credit history, criminal records, and medical records?
“Sorry, ma’am, but we’re going to have to run a background check on you before we can let you leave with this Over-The-Counter medication you’ve just purchased. Oh, and we’re going to have to share this information with all of our employees to keep them informed of your purchase history. The best way to do this is to make your records accessible via our Web site, so our partners and affiliates will also have access tot his information. Of course, this is all to help us fight the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Theft. What’s that? You won’t comply? What have you got to hide? [9-1-1]”
Sure, this seems far-fetched now. I’ve read that our overlords are trying to pass legislation that could require one to show a passport in order to travel between states. How long until this changes to cities and towns? Streets? Houses? Rooms? How long until we’re branded at birth, our RFID passports are embedded in our bodies, and we don’t have any choice?
For those questioning the need to stay out of the media, keep in mind that the police department and prosecutors will follow the media as well as the rest of us. What’s to say the DA wouldn’t try to use media appearances against Michael? Not sure how they could, but why take unnecessary risks? I’m happy to wait another couple weeks to hear an update.
As for the Circuit City employee, formal charges were filed. From the original post:
“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.”
That is another issue that likely will not be discussed much to avoid unnecessary risks. You’ll notice there aren’t many “official” statements from the other side either. A search of recent news turned up only the following:
“We have the right to inspect parcels leaving our premises,” Circuit City spokeswoman Jackie Foreman said. “This is a common practice in the retail industry designed to hold down costs and prevent shoplifting. We think most consumers understand this.”
- and -
“If you don’t like their policy at a particular store, don’t shop at that store,” Deputy Chief Scott Mielke said.
(both from http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/other/118906951630511.xml&coll=2)
I will continue to check the blog here and am hoping that Michael is taking notes of everything leading up to the cases so that he can give us the back story when he is able. Until then, I will patiently wait.
And to Michael. You have inspired me. While I don’t have the guts to go to the lengths that you did in front of family, I do tend to walk past the “receipt checkers” on a regular basis. I suspect that based on your treatments, I will be even more inclined to refuse going forward. I wish you all the luck and hope for your prevailing in all your legal issues stemming from this incident.
What, exactly, does having your receipt checked at Circuit City have to do with the Revolutionary War? Keep in mind that I generally believe the “slippery slope” argument you’re advancing to be a logical fallacy.
I’d certainly like to see a credible source for that…
Bottom line…trouble maker or not it doesn’t matter.
Preplanned or not it doesn’t matter.
Circuit City had no right to detain you unless they thought
you were shoplifting. They did not think so by their own
admission. They then had one recourse. “We don’t want
you shopping at our store” That is perfectly fine and legal.
Anything else crosses the line….
You are not required to have ID to be a passenger in a
car or shop at Circuit City. All you are legally obligated
to do is identify yourself truthfully.
I can only say that since reading about these kind of cases before I have put this into practice unless in a serious hurry. As a non-citizen I am of course weary about the repercussions if police are to be called but then again, it would be interesting to see the authorities process me for this petty issue and also see them contradict themselves in court. If it ever were to go to court I am certain it would be thrown out by a grand jury and it would all be a waste of time for the accusers.
For all of you who complain; go read your history. Or go live in Russia under Putin. Sounds like he is creating your utopia for you… And even if this doesn’t help one child in Africa it is still important enough as I sure don’t want any of my children having to constantly carry ID and having to identify and prove their schoolbooks are not contraband or stolen when entering or leaving school. What’s the next step? Do we all have to carry receipts for the clothes we have on lest we be accused of stealing them when we leave a store? You decide in what kind of society you want to live in, I personally want to live in one where the police police, not harass and unlawfully detain at the whim or store owners.
With hopes for total vindication by Michael,
/Lindus
I think the next time one of these people ask me to look in a bag I will walk with them over to the returns counter and request a refund. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior.
Jim, I believe the proposed legislation Christopher is referring to is what is detailed here: http://papersplease.org/wp/2007/08/12/dhs-proposes-to-require-both-id-papers-and-passes-for-all-air-travel/
You may or may not find this to be a credible source, I’ll leave that up to you, but please note the off-site links that at the very least help to corroborate what you may decide to label a “conspiracy theory” before dismissing it out of hand.
Also, when you make comments like “Keep in mind that I generally believe the “slippery slope” argument you’re advancing to be a logical fallacy.” it’s typically expected that you either or explain or are prepared to explain why you think that…You can’t just say “that’s a logical fallacy nyah nyah” and move on as if we’re all supposed to agree with you.
THAT would have probably been a better response that causing an unnecessary challenge. Hit ‘em in the pocketbook and they’ll get right a LOT quicker than making it into a suspected theft scenario.
Here are my thoughts.
I truly despise all of you sheep that think it’s better to comply to a request that you are not legally bound to honor then to refuse and be a “jerk” about it.
If the store is not going to accuse you of stealing and you refuse to show your receipt then they can’t keep you from leaving. Now, when you are entering the store and you refuse to allow them to search your bag, sure I can see how they can refuse to allow you entrance. They still can’t detain you.
Just because a store has a policy, or has a sign posted does not automatically give it the force of law.
Go ahead and post a “Tresspassers will be shot” sign on your property. I’m nearly 100% positive that does not give you the right to shoot anyone that walks onto your property that you don’t want there.
A sign, or store policy that states that the store can inspect your receipt and/or bag before leaving still does not give them the legal force to detain you. If they are not accusing you of stealing they can not keep you from leaving.
Whether he was arrogant about it or not Mr. Righi still has rights. Dismissing those rights because its “easier” is the wrong answer.
Amanda:
Please show us where he has involved the ACLU in his case. He hasn’t. The only mention of the ACLU was that if the donations exceed his legal costs, he will donate the surplus to them.
Your knee jerked so hard it knocked all the sense right out of you.
Michael, I applaud your willingness to stand on principal, no matter how small the infraction seems tot he small minded. This rampant lack of principal, coupled with the dismaying “just give Authority what it wants” attitude is something that needs to be fought tooth and nail.
Well, there’s a positive way to win friends and influence people.
Look, it seems clear to me that the store didn’t really have the right to push things as far as they did. However, was the proper response to push the situation to the point where law enforcement needed to be called? I submit that he could have stood up for his rights without going that far.
Maybe the better response would have been what Al said: If you want to look in my bag, you can walk with me to the returns counter and watch while I get the items out of the bag while I’m returning them. Oh, and by the way, you won’t see me darkening your door again. That way, he stood up for his rights in an eminently appropriate way, delivered his message, and didn’t wind up in jail for no reason.
BRAVO!!! It is refreshing to see that somewhere out there in this US of A is another citizen who is cognizant of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!! I have myself verbally expressed my disatisfaction (while complying in action) to producing my ID when using a credit card - which is on the presumption of “Guilty until proven Innocent”. I am proud of you and every american who stands for our freedom!!!
Jim, I certainly won’t argue with you that a good solution would have been to return the material rather than allow himself to be searched. My one contention would be to replace the phrase “better response” with “easier response.” I’d say that the “better response” of the two was to do what he did. If he takes the appropriate steps from here, I think he has the chance to send a much bigger statement to Circuit City and other companies with such draconian loss prevention policies than he would have had he returned the item and forgotten about it.
Have you looked at this supreme court case?
(FindLaw) — In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel.
Noel - I guess it all depends on how far you want to go to make a statement about draconian loss prevention policies. You would make a statement by simply returning the item and informing the manager that they just lost a customer and you’ll be sure to tell all your friends about Circuit City’s draconian loss prevention policies.
The path he chose was to set up, seemingly on purpose, an adversarial situation between himself and the store manager in which he called the police, all over what he perceived to be his “civil rights”. Circuit City, in the resulting situation, may well have falsely detained him, but at that point, both the store manager and the cop that was called had reason (based on their previous experiences) to believe that he had indeed attempted to steal something.
All of that could have been avoided if he had not chosen to escalate the situation as he did. The more I think about the situation, he seems to have engineered a situation in which he can be the martyr more than anything…
Obviously a calculated stunt. No one would do something like this with the intention to go straight to the ACLU.
No one would do something like what? Refuse to show their receipt and let someone look through their bag after buying something? Other people have done that. I know at least one. The reason it’s legal for stores to ask for this is that they’re asking for voluntary cooperation. You’re supposed to be able to say no. The fact that you’re on someone’s property does not give them the right to look through your things when you’ve told them no.
Or do you mean no one would actually call the police if someone was physically preventing him from leaving their property? Yes, it looks like this man had some training in how to deal with this sort of situation without giving in, and without getting violent. Good for him. If someone happened to know this store was not really treating it as voluntary, and decided to set up a scenario to show just how far they’d go, then good from them.
disclaimer: IANAL
Wow. I can’t believe that people are bashing Michael for this.
For those who are bashing there are simple questions that should show you why he stood up for his rights:
Do think it’s acceptable for a store manager to restrain you illegally?
Do think it’s acceptable to be arrested illegally?
There isn’t a slippery slope or anything else. These are the questions.
Both times, Michael simply refused to comply with a request. Rude? Maybe. Illegal? No.
Would it have been within his rights to comply with either request? Yes. But he wasn’t compelled to, according to law.
Ciao!
I understand completely where you were coming from in regards to the Circuit City security, but, at least where I’m from, if you are 16 or older you legally have to have a state issued ID on you at all times and you must produce it if asked by a law enforcement official.
Similarly, when pulled over for no reason, then asked for permission to search my vehicle, I like to decline. I feel that by doing so I am standing up for my rights, and if the cop decided to waste my time by making up a reason to stop me and ditto for wanting to search my vehicle, I feel it’s just desserts wasting their time getting a warrant so they can search my vehicle. Then, when nothing is found, the point proves itself.
Actually, I’ve been thinking a little bit about this and I think the
disconnect between some of the people and Michael is that
they view morality differently. They value authority above fairness.
I have a post about this on my blog, with pointers to a quiz you can
take (I recommend taking that first) and a video explaining what it
means.
http://docwhat.gerf.org/2007/05/morality/
Ciao!
Joe
I do not believe it said that you are required to hand over your driver’s license or any other form of identification to the officers.
I believe the underlying issue was that you are required to IDENTIFY yourself. From what I read it appears that Hibel did not identify himself and refused to do so.
Hiibel was a moron. He admits he’s not even really familar with the Constitution:
More here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0628/p09s01-coop.html
What Hiibel did was refuse to identify himself at all. He wasn’t randomly stopped and asked “papers, please”. He was being investigated because the police had received a report of someone striking a woman in a pickup truck. There’s no “Constitutional right” that protects you from having to at least IDENTIFY yourself to police.
I totally agree with Michael and applaud him for having the courage to stand up for himself and for common sense civil rights. We are turning into a country in which you are GUILTY UNLESS PROVEN INNOCENT!!! What’s wrong with this picture? Been on an airplane after 9/11? - you are automatically forced to practically strip down to the your underwear to prove you are not guilty of anything and just want to fly to see your grandmother in Florida. Dept stores automatically assume you are a thief when you walk in the door by limiting the number of clothes you can try on at once and asking for receipts when you leave. And the rudeness with which these demands are forced upon us is pervasive, disheartening, and undermining a decent society.
Common has lost it’s sense. Any time I have challenged authority in the past, I am also made to feel like I’m just being difficult, not that there might be a legitimate reason.
My favorite quote is from Albert Einstein: “BLIND RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF TRUTH”. Amen
What strikes me as funny is the people that are leaving posts here about ‘tying up the judicial system’, ‘just do what they are asking and move on’, etc. You are all showing what model citizens YOU are. I believe that the group of cats sitting around in the 1770’s who were the guys ‘wasting taxpayers money’ by doing the ‘bullshit’ that they were coming up with. Like telling King George that they weren’t going to take his shit anymore or live in his police state, and were willing to sign their names on paper to it, and die for it. I’d be willing to bet that those guys would probably be out in the streets right now protesting the hell out of you spineless chumps who rollover to any authority just cause you’re a model citizen. I’ll be you guys are the ones waving the flag about how are guys are fighting for our freedom. Open your eyes and understand how precious freedom is, earn it everyday, they are giving it to you, yes even though you didn’t ask. And before you flamebaiters start ripping me up about how I don’t support our troops, you’re wrong, I love those guys, I was one of them and served a tour in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I didn’t stand behind the flag, I stood in front of it. WAKE UP…………morons. Fight the good fight.
Chad,
It doesn’t matter if you live in a draconian state that requires anyone 16 and older to carry around their “papers”. Ohio is not one of them. They even have a law specifically stating that not showing an officer a form of identification is not sufficent enough to warrant an arrest.
Andy - I’ll say it again. Michael Righi had other options open to him. He chose the most difficult path. Protesting a stupid overbearing Circuit City employee wanting to look in your bag to verify your purchases is in no way comparable to the American Revolution, unless one is so full of himself as to overestimate the importance of the issue and of himself.
It sounds like you enjoy starting trouble and need a hobby.
I’m sorry if having your receipt checked caused you so much trouble, but this happens to be one of the best and least expensive ways for retail stores to control shrinkage. Anyone working in fraud, audit or law enforcement would tell you this an excellent internal control, which is also used by the Best Buy on the other side of the highway.
As I’m sure you have been told, if you do not like this policy, go shop elsewhere.
Having lived over 10 years within a 3 mile radius of this shopping center, I’m glad they are taking necessary steps to reduce shrinkage so that the costs don’t get passed on to consumers like myself.
This whole case is stupid. No one is asking anyone to give up rights. By law if the store has “Reasonable Suspicion,” they can “request” to search your bags and even detain you until the police arrive if they have “Reasonable Suspicion,” that you stole something. You can walk out and say no, but they can then detain you as they did. He is stating that they didn’t accuse him of anything but rather were holding him just to search his bag…hmmmm…perhaps they did or didn’t actually say “we think you took something,” but I think it’s pretty well implied and IMO there are some facts regarding the matter being left out or lied about. That will be determined and come out later I’m sure. Regardless, he’s going to have argue that point in court….it’s never going to be settled right there on the spot by anyone. He even said he knew what they were doing was about and that he’s been in these situations on a number of occasions before at other retailers. That sounds to me like a guy looking for trouble and guess what…he found it.
There are two points in the story…how CC folks reacted/acted and what happened to him with the police. Let’s start with the police first since this whole thing stems around his arrest. This guy called in via the Emergency 911 phone system gives the cop clear rights to verify the identity of those involved in this emergency call. An investigation is going to happen here folks, NOTE: it’s a 911 call HE MADE.
There is clearly “reasonable suspicion” that this guy “may” have been engaged in criminal activity otherwise he wouldn’t have had been detained by store security and the situation blown to the proportion it was with the cops being called. Given that, the cop doesn’t have to just take it at face value that he is telling him his real name. In Ohio the cop was within the law to hold him either there on the spot or bring downtown for up to three days/until his identity has been verified.
He did state that he gave the receipt and bag over to the cop to search, which does constitute a personal search. A personal search that was requested by the officer and agreed to, in order to disclose evidence or lack there of any criminal activity….which in itself part of an investigation that translates into “Official Business”….again, to which THIS GUY AGREED TO through his own actions of allowing the bag to be searched. That personal search also allows the cop to pull out his wallet and go beyond just a simple weapons pat-down. NOTE: this entire action…..HE INITIATED
In the end, sure the guy doesn’t “have” to do squat…he can stand there like a idiot refusing to give the cop his Drivers License…but in the by refusing to assist, he has then attempted to delay the performance of the officer involved in “official business,” so he was charged accordingly. He wasn’t arrested for not providing his DL….so stop beating that dead horse already…the cop had the right to get it from him based on the granting of a personal search….but he asked for cooperation and wasn’t given any……thus this guy was charged with Obstruction. He purposely delayed clarifying his identity while in possession of the means to do so. So everyone can stand behind the fact that he doesn’t have to provide his DL…that’s fine…..but that doesn’t prevent the officer from charging him as he did for purposely delaying an investigation as he was doing. Serves this idiot right.
The question begs asking…..why would anyone not want to cooperate with a police officer that THEY CALLED and simply give him their Drivers License to clarify their identity? His “rights” aren’t in jeopardy by doing that, the cop isn’t a threat to him by taking the DL and looking him up and using the information in his investigation. I mean, so he has a right to say no, that doesn’t mean it’s going to get him anywhere. Who gives a crap? What’s going to happen? What’s to be afraid of? Obviously this guy has some fear or dislike for authority for some reason……or perhaps he has something to hide??…..like his past, similar experiences ??? hmmmmmm….smells fishy to me. Smells like he’s hiding behind “rights” in order to hide something.
Bottom line is no-one needs any more drama in their life and putting up a fight, arguing and being resistant to such a simple request like this tends to not help the cause at hand. It’s much better to achieve a goal than argue a point for the sake of an argument. Especially to a cop that brought to the scene by the person involved….but hey, some people like drama and the attention that comes with it. He obviously wasn’t interested in discussing his being detained by the CC folks with the cop…he instead shifted his focus to arguing with a cop about the clarification of his identity.
Put yourself in the cops shoes…what would you do? You get called out to a situation which was created initially by some store employees who “suspected a shoplifter” and are detaining him….because at that point, that’s what the cop is likely thinking while in route on the call….It’s very unlikely the store security is making all this up and giving this guy a hard time for no reason….now when you get there (which likely isn’t your first time at such a call), the guy in question, WHO CALLED YOU out via 911, gives you a hard time right from the very first question you have for him….geesh! Any fifth grader who has seen two episodes of COPS can tell you what’s going to happen next. What an Idiot.
The cop was simply trying to do his job and this guy wouldn’t let him. The cop isn’t going to waste time & attempt to debate this guys case in a parking lot. Instead he chose get him off the streets into a controlled and safe environment, let the store security get back to business and have the D/A and legal system do their thing……Smart move on the cops part. It’s very, very unlikely due to the legal protections for both the office and the department that either will be prosecuted for anything….especially since the cop did nothing wrong, so stop the debate there. There is plenty of immunity for law enforcement depts. and officials.
Let’s not forget we’re only hearing his side of the story too…..a story from a guy who admits he’s been in situations like this on several occasions….which is pretty strange in itself. Don’t take this guys blog and actions to drum up internet support as gospel. I’m sure the cop asked the CC guys a question we’re not hearing nor the associated answer. What are the chances he didn’t? Slim to none.
I’m also pretty sure CC will have some type of video or at the very least their employee testimony that provide “reasonable suspicion” and that’s all they need to do what they did and detain him. I also believe given this guys background of being involve in these types of situations on a number of occasions, that CC and the Loss Prevention guys will be in the clear too.
The true reality of it is, the whole thing will never get to trial. Somewhere along the way the case will be settled or this guy will pay a fine/be found guilty. So this guy can so-called “fight” all he wants for rights of the people, blah, blah, blah….. Unless the case makes it to trial and he wins and establishes case law or changes a law, he’s not really “standing up for anyone’s rights” or accomplishing anything beneficial to all those that are cheering him on. He’s just creating a bunch of banter on the internet and not changing the law in or further protecting our rights in any way.
I don’t see anything official in the way of a victory going on the books with this whole situation. I think he’s just wasting the courts time, giving your donations to a hungry lawyer and costing the taxpayers money as they are the ones to have to pay to defend the police/officials. So to all his supporters: thanks for spending the tax dollars of all the residents of Cuyahoga County Maybe he should apply his own “ethics”, to how he lives his life and not waste everyone’s time. I’m sure he’ll use all that money to defend himself….sure….
Guys like that who go looking for trouble usually find it. He’s being a silly Drama Lama on the internet……and that’s not going to build him any credibility as time goes on….but hey, it’s his life and his business…..and that’s my opinion.
Not saying that the Hibel case proved Michael in the wrong. Just was wondering if he was aware of it. Because it is quite similar to his case.
Ya know, I seriously never thought once about when a store employee asked to see my receipt. I always assumed it was a new law to stop thiefs. Now that I see exactly what it is, I wonder if Sam’s Club, or Costco know this? Every time I go to Costco, there is someone at the exit and they from what I thought HAVE to check every cart that leaves with receipt. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I told them no I won’t. Might try it next time I go.
(1) Michael brought some “Circuit City owned merchandise” to the cashier.
(2) The cashier a Circuit City employee accepted Michael’s payment.
(3) This employee then gave Michael a sales receipt and bagged the purchased merchandise.
(4) Note: At the moment the “sales receipt was in Michael’s possession the merchandise was the property of Michael”.
(5) From this point forward, no Circuit City employee had a need to approach Michael and ask him anything as he departed this Circuit City store.
Jim B.
I agree with you, he did have other options. What we have here is a guy, and I’m assuming a relatively young guy at that. So, he hasn’t had time to fall into the ‘ah the hell with it’ mold like the majority of us. And I will concede that I’m in that mold too. I don’t do anything that will find me in the annals of history. But, from time to time, I have you get excited and rally my support behind a guy like this. I have been around the world in some less than ideal circumstances, and have seen the direct result of letting authority take away the extra inch in basic liberties for the ‘greater good’ that it will bring about. And before anyone realizes it, they find themselves living in a WWII Germany, a post WWII Soviet Union, feel free to add your own favorite police state. People can say what they want but it happens, all over the world everyday. I will leave you with this quote:
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
- Benjamin Franklin
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither” - Ben Franklin
Anyone arguing that Michael should not have done what he did doesn’t deserve to live in a free society. One of the basic tenets of democracy is that the people be allowed to freely question the government without fear of reprisal. If you think that what Michael did was wrong you obviously don’t believe in democracy. Please move out of the US as soon as possible so it can go back to being a freedom loving country that actually follows democracy.
Yes, Mr. Righi had other options. But why do we condemn him for choosing the one that should be backed by law? Why is there a large response of “Do the easy thing, we don’t care if it’s illegal.”?
I’ll try again - without the link - my initial attempt got caught in the spam filter:
Hiibel was a moron. He admits he’s not even really familar with the Constitution:
Google up Hiibel’s name and read more.
What Hiibel did was refuse to identify himself at all. He wasn’t randomly stopped and asked “papers, please”. He was being investigated because the police had received a report of someone striking a woman in a pickup truck. There’s no “Constitutional right” that protects you from having to at least IDENTIFY yourself to police.
Sam’s/Costco have memberships and by joining you agree in the fine print to show receipts. I’m sure even the guy doing so won’t know how to react…no more-so than you know how you’re going to either. He’s probably only a slight bit more aware of the fine print than you either.
# Vernon Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Ya know, I seriously never thought once about when a store employee asked to see my receipt. I always assumed it was a new law to stop thiefs. Now that I see exactly what it is, I wonder if Sam’s Club, or Costco know this? Every time I go to Costco, there is someone at the exit and they from what I thought HAVE to check every cart that leaves with receipt. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I told them no I won’t. Might try it next time I go.
Reading these posts makes me realize how stupid some of you people are.
Here is how it works:
Scenario #1
Criminal buys an item.
Criminal returns w/ bag and old receipt and steals identical item.
Criminal returns original stolen item.
Why do you think places like Sams club put a mark on your receipt when you leave?
Scenario #2
Theif goes through line of their cashier friend and pays $10 for $100 item.
Theif leaves w/ bag and receipt having paid below fair market value for item.
While checking receipts doesn’t eliminate the possibility of these scenarios, it certainly helps reduce the possibility of them happening, and these are only two examples. There are dozens more.
As for the refusal to show ID, what do you think the police officer is thinking when someone refuses to identify themself? My gut feeling is that 99% want to know what you are hiding. Fortunately, we have organizations like the ACLU, which will spend countless hours and $ on ridiculous cases (like this one) just to get a bit of media attention. So now our law enforcement is thinking not only about what this person is hiding, but whether on not he has a legal right to question him and if the ACLU will be getting involved and suing.
In case anyone has been sleeping for the last several years, welcome to the post 911 world. I’m sure everybody who lost a loved one on those planes does not complain when their bags are searched or their shoes are checked at airports. The rules of the game have changed and minor inconveniences like showing our ID or having a bag checked are the prices we pay for our safety and freedom.
As has always been the policy, if you do not like it you are welcome to leave.
@Vernon:
The membership clubs are in a slightly different situation… They still have no legal ability to force a receipt-check, but they do have the option to revoke your membership, should you choose to defy their policy. I know this to be the case with BJ’s, as I read all the fine print when considering a membership. For me, the receipt-check demand was a deal-breaker, but it was disclosed in the membership contract.
Hope this helps.
Also, I’ve posted my own writeup and commentary on Michael’s situation at my website, should anyone wish to read:
http://www.barnyardbbs.com/Ben/Blog/Default.aspx?PostID=462
I love the retards that use Hiibel as justification for condemning Mr. Righi. The Supreme Court case “Hiibel vs Nevada” *ONLY* stated that you are required to identify yourself to authorities. It did not state you have to show identification. Furthermore, only 21 states have passed legislation on the grounds of Hiibel vs Nevada requiring you to identify yourself (which does not mean showing ID). Supreme Court cases set a PRECEDENCE. They do not dictate state rights. You do not have to show identification.
Furthermore, it is not Curcuit City’s corporate policy to enforce searches and detainings of its customers. That’s all there is to it. Thank you. Have a nice day.
Tom Flannery:
Please see my invitation to find a country that suits you better.
the items are then property of Michael, but if the store deems “resonable suspicion” they can go beyond the voluntary search, and inform him that he is by law able to be held and temporarily investigated….in most every single case the cops are called….in this case, he was detained and during the debate as to why he was being prevented from leaving, he threatened to call the cops….so they let him….they were likely going to do so themselves anyway.
# RHB Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
(1) Michael brought some “Circuit City owned merchandise” to the cashier.
(2) The cashier a Circuit City employee accepted Michael’s payment.
(3) This employee then gave Michael a sales receipt and bagged the purchased merchandise.
(4) Note: At the moment the “sales receipt was in Michael’s possession the merchandise was the property of Michael”.
(5) From this point forward, no Circuit City employee had a need to approach Michael and ask him anything as he departed this Circuit City store.
Andy/Sartoris/ST - You guys are picking the wrong battle. First off, fighting “the Man” at Circuit City is just stupid, because Circuit City isn’t an oppressive government. If you don’t like what they did, take back the item you purchased for a refund, and stop shopping there.
Second, as has already been pointed out, this cop didn’t randomly stop Righi and ask “papers, please”. He was asked in the course of a police investigation that Righi himself brought about by calling 911. Righi may get off with the charges against him dismissed, but that’s about all he can hope for. He’s not the revolutionary hero you guys make him out to be…
Tim:
If the shop wanted to restrain Michael, they would have to accuse him of shoplifting (theft). They may then detain him until the police come to search him.
They did not accuse him of shoplifting. Many shops require employees to witness the theft before accusing someone of shoplifting.
The whole situation would have been different if they had accused him of any crime.
Tom Flannery:
The theft they were preventing wasn’t by Michael. They were preventing theft by their employees. In other words, they didn’t trust the cashier and were addressing this by inconveniencing the customer.
It doesn’t prevent customer theft at all.
Ciao!
I actually don’t really care about the situation with the Circuit City employees (even though that is what lead to the police confrontation). I care more about the cop that arrested him for no reason and ended up costing him (if nothing else) $300 bail money. There is no law requiring someone to provide more than their name, address and date of birth to an official and the officer violated his civil liberties by placing him under arrest. He doubly did so by not reading Michael his Miranda rights.
he doesn’t have to show his DL…we know that….again that horse is beat to death….he was charged with obstruction….see my very long post above. He was obstructing and charged accordingly…showing a DL or not isn’t what the cop was focusing on.
CC corp. policy isn’t a fact of the matter either…..regardless of what the store’s policy is, the employees can break policy, deal with that internally later, but still hold him under Ohio law if they have Reasonable Suspicion he stole something.
# Tim Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Furthermore, only 21 states have passed legislation on the grounds of Hiibel vs Nevada requiring you to identify yourself (which does not mean showing ID). Supreme Court cases set a PRECEDENCE. They do not dictate state rights. You do not have to show identification.
Furthermore, it is not Curcuit City’s corporate policy to enforce searches and detainings of its customers. That’s all there is to it. Thank you. Have a nice day.
Tim,
by “Retards” are you referring to people with Down Syndrome?
Maybe it would be more pc to call them their 50’s term “mongoloid idiots.”
He wasn’t arrested for no reason….he obstructed an investigation that he initiated by calling 911. He also gave the cop the bag and receipt and thus permitted a personal search which includes the cop going beyond a simple weapons pat down. The cop could have and did get his wallet and DL himself.
However, the cop simply requested cooperation to clarify his identity…he gave Michael the right to do so or refuse….. He refused, thus obstructed official business and then was arrested accordingly. Pretty simple.
# Sartoris Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I care more about the cop that arrested him for no reason and ended up costing him (if nothing else) $300 bail money. There is no law requiring someone to provide more than their name, address and date of birth to an official and the officer violated his civil liberties by placing him under arrest. He doubly did so by not reading Michael his Miranda rights.
Tim:
Actually, he was arrested for not providing his driver’s license, not obstruction. See quote from Michael’s blog - ‘He explained that I had been arrested for failure to produce my driver’s license.’
He was charged with obstruction later when the cop had to figure out something to charge him with.
We don’t know if they did or didn’t accuse him…..again, either way, Michael has to deal with that matter separately and play out the night as it happened first….that’s the way it is. Even if CC was wrong, the end result was he obstructed official business and took the focus off the CC actions and chose to argue with the cop.
He lost focus, didn’t handle the situation(s) correctly and now is facing a whole new set of issues on top of the CC employee actions issue. He created the obstruction part….and that’s what got him arrested.
Tim:
If the shop wanted to restrain Michael, they would have to accuse him of shoplifting (theft). They may then detain him until the police come to search him.
They did not accuse him of shoplifting. Many shops require employees to witness the theft before accusing someone of shoplifting.
The whole situation would have been different if they had accused him of any crime.
Doc,
It is called an internal control designed to help prevent shrinkage.
At what point do my examples reference the employee stealing?
In one scenario the employee conspires w/ the theif.
The policy of checking everyones receipt helps deter the would be criminal.
I can see how people are able to draw the correlation between having patrons open their bag and show the clerk their receipt and a complete loss of cival liberties.
My advice to anyone who has a huge problem w/ circuit city’s policy is to shop elsewhere.
You can’t be arrested for a law that doesn’t exist…the actual charge on the books is Obstruction…he even cites the ORC# in his blog.
The police don’t have to tell you the ORC# you’re being brought into custody for until the point you’re being officially charged…..he did simply and sarcastically say he was being brought in for not showing his DL, but that’s a laymens short-version obstruction…he didn’t have to say one word to him the whole way downtown.
As I noted above, he got him downtown in a safe and controlled environment and then clarified the legal reason he was being arrested.
# Sartoris Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Tim:
Actually, he was arrested for not providing his driver’s license, not obstruction. See quote from Michael’s blog - ‘He explained that I had been arrested for failure to produce my driver’s license.’
He was charged with obstruction later when the cop had to figure out something to charge him with.
And you’ll excuse the rest of us who maybe want to hear both sides of the story? He arguably was, after all, legitimately obstructing the investigation.
CC behaved deplorably, in my opinion, but Righi escalated the problem, in the desire to be a crusader/martyr, and it got out of hand.
Tim,
Do you really believe that paying for your items, having a cashier hand you a receipt and bag those items, and then walking to the door meets the “reasonable suspicion” standard?
“Yes, officer, my employee rung him up and saw him pay for the items, but we still think he’s a theif!”
If they don’t have a *real* reason to believe you are shoplifting (such as actually seeing you fail to pay for an item, and attempting to leave the store), they have no right to detain.
The stores that have loss prevention policies that require an employee inspect receipts as customers are leaving are basically saying “We have a reasonable suspicion that everyone is a shoplifter”.
Now, is that a reasonable statement?
What if a cop stopped your car, asked you for consent to search, and failure to consent became probable cause?
That’s basically what your saying, although in a different situation.
Seeing as I am the one who brought up Hibel I figure you are calling me a retard. Except I did not bring it up condem Mr. Righi. I merely mentioned it because it delt with identifying yourself to the police. Nowhere have a said if I agree or disagree with Mr. Righi in this case.
What I believe is that by law as long as I’m in the store or on their premises, they can use “reasonable suspicion” to do what they did.
We can debate the CC portion of all this all day. We don’t have but only one side of that story. Either way, Michael needed to address that issue later….or with the cop when he showed up…but instead he gave the officer a hard time and pigeon holed himself into an obstruction charge.
Searching a car does under the law require “probable cause” that’s completely different than “reasonable suspicion”.
# Wam Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Tim,
Do you really believe that paying for your items, having a cashier hand you a receipt and bag those items, and then walking to the door meets the “reasonable suspicion” standard?
“Yes, officer, my employee rung him up and saw him pay for the items, but we still think he’s a theif!”
If they don’t have a *real* reason to believe you are shoplifting (such as actually seeing you fail to pay for an item, and attempting to leave the store), they have no right to detain.
The stores that have loss prevention policies that require an employee inspect receipts as customers are leaving are basically saying “We have a reasonable suspicion that everyone is a shoplifter”.
Now, is that a reasonable statement?
What if a cop stopped your car, asked you for consent to search, and failure to consent became probable cause?
That’s basically what your saying, although in a different situation.
This is pretty much going to be a slam dunk for your attorney, with that piece of the Ohio law that says you don’t have to give anything apart from your name, etc.
Surely (unless you’ve decided you actually quite want your day in court!), you can just have your attorney talk to the prosecutor and have them drop the charges/present no evidence.
They’ll have no interest in taking this to court when they have absolutely no realistic chance of winning.
Damn you Tim,
Here’s the pertinent law about identification 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
For christ’s sake it already covers the part where the individual is suspected of comitting a crime.
Mr. Righi is not “obstructing” anything. He gave the information and the officer wanted more than required by law. The officer was “inconvenienced” because it would have been “quicker” to see the driver’s license but Mr. Righi was not preventing the officer from ascertaining his identity.
There is a saying “Don’t stick your hand in a hornets nest.”
Had he complied w/ the police or even stopped copping an attitude we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
While legally he might not have to produce his drivers license, it is quite clear he was enjoying being a pain in the rear to the arresting officer.
.
Contact Us
Welcome to Circuit City’s email support page. Simply choose a topic from the menu below, fill out the required fields and click send. A customer service associate will review your email and reply to your request with a personal response.
Sometimes our emails get filtered out as spam, so be sure to check the junk folder of your inbox.
http://www.circuitcity.com/cs_customer_email.jsp
http://www.circuitcity.com/
.
ST,
Are police to just assume the information you gave them is correct?
It’s not like criminals would ever lie or use someone else’s information to avoid getting arrested.
Tom Flannery:
So you think the first assumption an officer should make is that we are criminals?
ST - I’m no lawyer, but I could certainly see a scenario where the cop could reasonably conclude that if the man didn’t supply ID during the course of an investigation, that the cop could have reasonably concluded that he failed to disclose his Identity. After all, he could have said “mickey mouse”. Be that as it may, this STILL wasn’t some random instance of “papers, please”.
Sartoris - verifying someone’s identity during the course of a police investigation by requesting that they flash their driver’s license isn’t assumption of guilt.
I just wanted to commend you, Sir.
Any step, no matter the size, taken in defense of our civil rights is a step to be commended.
Sadly, we, as citizens, have failed to observe our rights and liberties being taken away in tiny pieces. The subtle erosion has left people ready to show their papers to cops, at a moment’s notice, in a parking lot, anywhere. I believe it will get worse if those, like yourself, do not start standing up. The Real-ID act could even manage to make us show ID for using currency (have to show federally approved ID to make use of federal stuff). There was a nice article on CNN about having to have a passport to visit national (federal) parks if our state ID’s didn’t meet the Real-ID standards — standards that are potentially more restrictive than those to get a passport.
I just wanted to say that I see your action as beginning a stand against such a strong police state.
People such as yourself bring a little more light back into a world that tries to hide us in fear and darkness.
I applaud and commend you on your actions.
Thank You!
Let me just state I know the 2921.29 fairly well….and weather you want to believe he’s guilty of Obstruction or not, again, we can debate that all day long….joy to the internet….. Even the officer knows that…so instead he chose to book him and Err on the side of the law as he knows it and let the courts decide. He’s allowed to do that and the protections he and the the dept. have are there to protect them if the case turns the other way.
You can be charged with Obstruction if you “Inconvenience” an officer in the line the duty. Call it what you want, that’s obstruction. If in court you withhold information completely vs just inconveniencing a judge, he’ll call it contempt. On the streets however, you’ll be charged with Obstruction.
It’s no different when folks are stopped for jamming laser radar….it’s not illegal to jam light waves(in Ohio..yet), but if you interfere with the officer conducting speed enforcement you will be charged with obstruction. Little different twist buy I’m hoping you might understand that a little easier. Same deal if you flash your headlights warning other drivers.
# ST Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Damn you Tim,
Here’s the pertinent law about identification in Ohio
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
For christ’s sake it already covers the part where the individual is suspected of committing a crime.
Mr. Righi is not “obstructing” anything. He gave the information and the officer wanted more than required by law. The officer was “inconvenienced” because it would have been “quicker” to see the driver’s license but Mr. Righi was not preventing the officer from ascertaining his identity.
Tim you are ABSOLUTELY wrong about CC having the ability to detain Mr. Righi with cause.
2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.
(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
Tim you are ABSOLUTELY wrong about CC having the ability to detain Mr. Righi without cause.
2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.
(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
Sure, you can give a fake name, address, date of birth to the cops if you want.
Still does not mean you have to hand over your “papers”.
You will be charged accordingly for not accurately identifying yourself.
I’m not saying that when the cop asks your name you can answer “Joe Bob” and assume that is ok. I’m only saying that if you give them accurate information and comply with the law, you are not obstructing anything.
Here’s another similarity….the officer had the right to ask for the DL…he got that right when Michael gave him permission to search his bag….that constitutes a personal search and again, goes beyond a simple weapons pat down…thus the cop could take his wallet and license without even asking…..but he resisted the cooperative request and thus was charged with Obstruction.
Same in this scenario….a cop wants to handcuff a person of interest for his own safety and asks the subject to put his hands behind his back….if the subject refuses, even though the cop is in the right to ask and can physically cuff him through further action/force, he can also charge the subject with Obstruction.
Again, if you delay or interfere with official business you can be charged.
ST Says:
(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.
Righi called the police then refused to cooperate with them. He was within his rights to refuse to show his ID. However, by doing so,he must be prepared to allow the officer to verify his identity even if it means being hauled into the police station. He was charged under a city ordinance for actions the officer felt met the standards under ord.525.07. It will be up to a judge to determine whether or not those standards are met. There is no “false arrest” yet unless a judge determines it to be so. Righi can claim false arrest all he wants, but that doesn’t make it so.
Citing ORC is all well and good, but irrelevent here because he was not charged under any statute contained within.
He may have cause to file suit against CC, but good luck. By walking past the doorman and refusing to show his receipt, thewn hopping into a car that was conveniently waiting outside the door with the engine running and a driver ready to go it will be hard for him to show that there was no cause for suspicion of wrongdoing.
Lesson learned: If you call 911 don’t make things difficult by claiming to know the law better than the officer you are talking to and refuse to fully cooperate.
I hold a little hope that CC will file charges against him for attempting to bypass their security measures. But, since that is not in their best interest, I doubt they will.
CC can ask anyone for a voluntary search of their bags….you can say no. Now if they then have probable suspicion they can follow you outside and and again request to compare your receipt and the contents of the bag….at that point, if you say no, they may say okay….and let you go, many times they will……but if they believe they witnessed you take something they now have probable cause to detain you and call the police. If you don’t believe me, ask any cop or lawyer who has prosecuted a shoplifter. These laws can vary by state and local ordinance too. Especially in areas where there is outdoor shopping or open malls.
# ST Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Tim you are ABSOLUTELY wrong about CC having the ability to detain Mr. Righi with cause.
2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.
(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
.
Contact Us
Welcome to Circuit City’s email support page. Simply choose a topic from the menu below, fill out the required fields and click send. A customer service associate will review your email and reply to your request with a personal response.
Sometimes our emails get filtered out as spam, so be sure to check the junk folder of your inbox.
Contact Us
Welcome to Circuit City’s email support page. Simply choose a topic from the menu below, fill out the required fields and click send. A customer service associate will review your email and reply to your request with a personal response.
Sometimes our emails get filtered out as spam, so be sure to check the junk folder of your inbox.
circuitcity [DOT] com [Click: Contact Us]
.
As I’ve already quoted CC needs “probable cause” and not just “reasonable suspicion” to detain someone.
Despite “reasonably assuming” that because he refused to show his receipt for something he paid for and got into a car that was just outside it is much weaker than a probable cause of suspicion.
They did not see him take any merchandise and fail to pay for it.
if you are in the midst of being questioned by a cop who is conducting an investigation, yes, you can be charged with Obstruction….this isn’t some random case of a cop walking by you on the streets asking to talk with you after picking you out of a crowd. M.R. called 911 and began an investigation. He permitted a personal search and then decided not to cooperate with an officer and a simple request to provide his DL…..something accessible by law now…..he can’t back up and take back granting a personal search….which if he had not agreed to, would have prevented the officer from having access to his DL….he instead refused to hand over something the officer now had legal rights to ask for.
ST Says:
Still does not mean you have to hand over your “papers”.
You will be charged accordingly for not accurately identifying yourself.
I’m not saying that when the cop asks your name you can answer “Joe Bob” and assume that is ok. I’m only saying that if you give them accurate information and comply with the law, you are not obstructing anything.
OK, I’m familiar with the concept of being required to give your name and address if required by a copper. I’m also familiar with the concept of being required to present an ID card (in some European countries, in the UK during and just after the Second World War - and possibly again if the current government gets its way).
However, a driving licence is specifically a document authorising the bearer to operate a motor vehicle. Mr Righi was NOT operating a motor vehicle but was clearly about to get into a vehicle as a passenger. How the hell does the plod get to demand his drivinglicence in the absence of any evidence that he was driving and with no suspicion that a driving offence was being committed? (I leave aside such issues as the driver being his father, able to confirm Mr Righi’s identity, the vehicle presumably bearing some form of identifying mark which would have associated it with the elder Mr Righi as owner….)
That’s not probable cause by just denying a REQUEST. And as you said yourself VOLUNTARY.
That is more like a hunch.
“Hmmm.. guy wouldn’t show his receipt. Maybe he is hiding something.”
Hell, anybody can ASK anybody to do just about anything. If you are not coerced and voluntarily submit many things are legal. Not complying to a request without any other evidence is not “probable cause” for suspicion of anything.
Tim Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
CC can ask anyone for a voluntary search of their bags….you can say no. Now if they then have probable suspicion they can follow you outside and and again request to compare your receipt and the contents of the bag….at that point, if you say no, they may say okay….and let you go, many times they will……but if they believe they witnessed you take something they now have probable cause to detain you and call the police. If you don’t believe me, ask any cop or lawyer who has prosecuted a shoplifter. These laws can vary by state and local ordinance too. Especially in areas where there is outdoor shopping or open malls.
Maybe those who are able so clearly to discern the blogger’s “pain in the rear” nature - and condemn him because of it regardless of the legal niceties - should post the sentences or paragraphs from the account which decided it for them.
Again we can debate the actions of CC all day….the real point is M.R. needed to deal with that whole issue seperately. We don’t know if they had Probable Cause for sure so you can’t state as you did that they didn’t see him take anything…just as I can’t say for sure my point is pure fact…….we won’t until all is done with. I believe they did, you don’t, that’s fine.
He wasn’t arrested for anything related to the above. He brought that upon himself.
ST Says:
As I’ve already quoted CC needs “probable cause” and not just “reasonable suspicion” to detain someone.
Despite “reasonably assuming” that because he refused to show his receipt for something he paid for and got into a car that was just outside it is much weaker than a probable cause of suspicion.
They did not see him take any merchandise and fail to pay for it.
No, denying a voluntary request isn’t Probable Cause, but again, I’m dropping it after this….they likely felt they saw him take something, otherwise, they aren’t likely going to go out to a vehicle, with mulitiple occupants and detain everyone and as they did. I doubt they started their job 2 minutes before and this is the first time this happened to them.
It just doesn’t make sense that they would do that over a pissing contest about seeing a receipt. Gut tells me as a blog reader, they had reason to believe he stole something….and again, we can debate that all day
Too bad M.R. didn’t handle the entire situation correctly and have the cop address the CC. issue so that he could then have a valid police report and an officer on his side for when he goes back to a lawyer to go then go after CC. properly. Instead, he screwed up and everything backfired on him due to the chip that sits heavy on his shoulder.
ST Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
That’s not probable cause by just denying a REQUEST. And as you said yourself VOLUNTARY.
That is more like a hunch.
“Hmmm.. guy wouldn’t show his receipt. Maybe he is hiding something.”
Hell, anybody can ASK anybody to do just about anything. If you are not coerced and voluntarily submit many things are legal. Not complying to a request without any other evidence is not “probable cause” for suspicion of anything.
Because, as he explained, it’s a false sense of authority that people are just so used to giving into as American citizens. He wasn’t required to show the receipt, and from the looks of what he bought it doesn’t look like there was any reason for them to suspect he’d stolen anything in the first place. Standing up for your rights and not caving into authoritatize, pig-headed, goonish attitudes is never something that should be criticized or questioned.
I’ve outlined the answer above…basically he subjected himself to a personal search by granting the officer permission to search his bag and the handing him the receipt both of which were on his person.
By doing so, the officer can then go beyond a pat down for weapons and search his pockets and remove his wallet and license…which he eventually was forced to do.
However, now that the officer has legal rights to ask for his DL through the consent of the personal search, he instead asked M.R. to cooperate and hand it over. He chose not to and in turn met the definition of obstruction.
# Alan Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
However, a driving licence is specifically a document authorising the bearer to operate a motor vehicle. Mr Righi was NOT operating a motor vehicle but was clearly about to get into a vehicle as a passenger. How the hell does the plod get to demand his drivinglicence in the absence of any evidence that he was driving and with no suspicion that a driving offence was being committed? (I leave aside such issues as the driver being his father, able to confirm Mr Righi’s identity, the vehicle presumably bearing some form of identifying mark which would have associated it with the elder Mr Righi as owner….)
There are some interesting posts here. Some reasonable, some not. But all keep in mind that all you have read is Righi’s account of the events and nothing from CC or the arresting officer. I’m not saying Righi is not telling the truth, only that he is telling things as he remembers them. Memory is not good with details and tends to slant in one’s own favor. Add to that the fact that nobody would relay a story like this and give any information that would cause the reader to think of him as being anything but totally innocent.
I admire you for standing up for your principles. I assume the legal justification you’re using is your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonble search and seizure, correct?
Your case is being very passionately debated at a forum I frequent — over 400 posts so far:
http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=48763
One question I have that is not clear — are you suing Circuit City, or is the lawsuit you reference simply you defending your unlawful arrest?
Anyway, thank you for the inspiration you’ve fostered. The more people out there like you, the better future our country will have. You’re a modern day Howard Roark, as far as I’m concerned.
We don’t know for a fact that CC employees did or didn’t see him or really suspect him of anything….we only have his blog/side of the story.
I have nothing against maintaining rights, but in this case, it’s clear M.R. has a problem of selfishness and enjoys the attention that comes from challenging any level of authority. As a side note, I bet his father didn’t react at all as he has probably grown accustomed to it!
The CC request to compare the bag and receipt wasn’t a threat or flexing of any authority. It’s simply a voluntary request to their patrons to help them curb product loss. By doing bag checks they are guarding against patron and employee theft. They don’t know if the cashier didn’t slip a friend a free Game or DVD, etc.
It’s a very reasonable and legal request yet, again, he chose to be selfish and seems to go around believing no one else counts and it’s only what he wants that matters. His type is common. Folks always hide behind laws and statutes to protect themselves and do selfish acts. It’s almost comparable to the bank robber who holds a child in front of him as he goes past the cops….only in this case it’s our rights as law abiding citizens that can function in a society.
Sounds to me like M.R. would be more happy living all by himself on Liberal Island somewhere not to be bothered by anyone else’s laws or customs.
# amanda Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Because, as he explained, it’s a false sense of authority that people are just so used to giving into as American citizens. He wasn’t required to show the receipt, and from the looks of what he bought it doesn’t look like there was any reason for them to suspect he’d stolen anything in the first place. Standing up for your rights and not caving into authoritatize, pig-headed, goonish attitudes is never something that should be criticized or questioned.
disclaimer: IANAL
To