• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Customer gets Arrested...Failure to show reciept to Store Employees

RedCOMET

Platinum Member
Hey all.... Excuse the Subject title and summary, Its been a long day driving and this was the best I could come up with.

So in homage of the Customer refuses to show receipt when exiting Tigerdirect store thread, I have a Fraternity brother who got arrested for something in directly related to not letting Circuit City staff check his reciept of stuff he purchased.


Blog Link

Now I don't personally know the gent, but I'm on emails list and so I read his blog entry... Civil rights and all that jazz, etc.

The key thing though, is that he called the cops to assist him, and then when he failed to show the cops his ID, when asked for it, he refused... apperently you can do that in Ohio.

Lots of interesting info in the blog post about what he was arrested for vs what he was charged with.

So, considering peoples responses from the Tiger Direct thread, would any of you change your minds after reading what the statutues/code say....



 
Stop and Identify States
Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
That guy is an F'n idiot.

Well said.

How ever, after further read all the blog entry and a few comments left by users, I think that the cops were pissed they got call on something "trivial" such as this.

Note Section E
Link to Code 2935.041
Ohio Revised Code 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.

(B) Any officer, employee, or agent of a library, museum, or archival institution may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section or for the purpose of conducting a reasonable investigation of a belief that the person has acted in a manner described in divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section, detain a person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within, or in the immediate vicinity of, the library, museum, or archival institution, if the officer, employee, or agent has probable cause to believe that the person has either:

(1) Without privilege to do so, knowingly moved, defaced, damaged, destroyed, or otherwise improperly tempered with property owned by or in the custody of the library, museum, or archival institution; or

(2) With purpose to deprive the library, museum, or archival institution of property owned by it or in its custody, knowingly obtained or exerted control over the property without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent, beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent, by deception, or by threat.

(C) An officer, agent, or employee of a library, museum, or archival institution pursuant to division (B) of this section or a merchant or employee or agent of a merchant pursuant to division (A) of this section may detain another person for any of the following purposes:

(1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft;

(2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer;

(3) To obtain a warrant of arrest.

(D) The owner or lessee of a facility in which a motion picture is being shown, or the owner?s or lessee?s employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a person is or has been operating an audiovisual recording function of a device in violation of section 2913.07 of the Revised Code may, for the purpose of causing an arrest to be made by a peace officer or of obtaining an arrest warrant, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the facility or its immediate vicinity.

(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person?s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

(F) Any peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any act described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section , that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed an unlawful taking in a mercantile establishment, or that the officer has reasonable cause to believe has committed an act prohibited by section 2913.07 of the Revised Code. An arrest under this division shall be made within a reasonable time after the commission of the act or unlawful taking.

(G) As used in this section:

(1) ?Archival institution? means any public or private building, structure, or shelter in which are stored historical documents, devices, records, manuscripts, or items of public interest, which historical materials are stored to preserve the materials or the information in the materials, to disseminate the information contained in the materials, or to make the materials available for public inspection or for inspection by certain persons who have a particular interest in, use for, or knowledge concerning the materials.

(2) ?Museum? means any public or private nonprofit institution that is permanently organized for primarily educational or aesthetic purposes, owns or borrows objects or items of public interest, and cares for and exhibits to the public the objects or items.

(3) ?Audiovisual recording function? and ?facility? have the same meaning as in section 2913.07 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 03-09-2004

And this regarding Identifying yourself to a police officer while not in a moving vehicle...
Link to Ohio Code
Note Section C
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


Interesting rights one has in a "Stop and Identify" States
A Legal case on it. as mentioned.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

Wikipedia on
 
They still aren't getting my receipts. Arrest me if you want but better make sure its 100% solid b/c if no Im gonna be one paid mofo.
 
What the hell is wrong with some people? Showing a receipt is so simple. Why not just show it, then be on his merry way? I think some people just have one goal in mind, to start trouble.
 
Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
That guy is an F'n idiot.

Well said.

How ever, after further read all the blog entry and a few comments left by users, I think that the cops were pissed they got call on something "trivial" such as this.

Oh wait there's more.... appererntly in Ohio:

Ohio Revised Code 2935.041
Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution:
?(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the personâ??s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.?

And this regarding Identifying yourself to a police officer while not in a moving vehicle...
Link to Ohio Code

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


I guess note Section C. Interesting rights one has in a "Stop and Identify" State

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
 
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
What the hell is wrong with some people? Showing a receipt is so simple. Why not just show it, then be on his merry way? I think some people just have one goal in mind, to start trouble.

Yes, and they want to be made out to be martyrs or something, acting like they're doing some great humanitarian thing and fighting injustice. Its stupid. Yeah, stores would probably stop doing that if people as a whole started refusing, but its so simple and the vast majority of people really don't care that I don't see that happening.
 
#1 whether you *think* your in the right or not, the policeman is usually the one with the handcuffs and taser or pepper spray.

You wanna "fight the man" and not show them your ID or tell them who you are? Fine by me...I'll laugh at your dumb ass when it is posted on Youtube.

#2 You don't want me laughing at you? Show your receipt and/or ID...pretty simple.
 
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
What the hell is wrong with some people? Showing a receipt is so simple. Why not just show it, then be on his merry way? I think some people just have one goal in mind, to start trouble.

Yes, and they want to be made out to be martyrs or something, acting like they're doing some great humanitarian thing and fighting injustice. Its stupid. Yeah, stores would probably stop doing that if people as a whole started refusing, but its so simple and the vast majority of people really don't care that I don't see that happening.

You know some people are just plain old stubborn and if they are made out to be matyrs or something, then that's a bonus.

 
Wow. I'm reading the comments, and people are retarded.

Half the people rightfully say, wow, this is stupid.

The other half are like, OMG MY SAVIOR AND UPHOLDER OF RIGHTS

People, its a simple contermeasure against stealing. A store asking for a receipt does not automatically equal a totalitarian state.
 
Originally posted by: Wheezer
#1 whether you *think* your in the right or not, the policeman is usually the one with the handcuffs and taser or pepper spray.

You wanna "fight the man" and not show them your ID or tell them who you are? Fine by me...I'll laugh at your dumb ass when it is posted on Youtube.

#2 You don't want me laughing at you? Show your receipt and/or ID...pretty simple.


Not everybody has state/federally issued photo IDs. kinda tough to show it to the "man" when you don't have it. but then again, in some states, you don't have to produce it right away ( at least thats my take on it)



Not directed at any one in particular....
But, Are people actually reading the blog entry or just my poorly worded initial post?
 
Is this the new fad? Walk out of retail stores while refusing to show a receipt to LP/Security, and then lead a public outcry about it? Unbelievable.
 
Tough to feel much one way or the other on this. The guy getting detained was clearly just trying to cause trouble. The cop was clearly just trying to cause trouble in revenge. Both people were fairly stupid in the end.

Myself, I'd just show the receipt.
 
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Wow. I'm reading the comments, and people are retarded.

Half the people rightfully say, wow, this is stupid.

The other half are like, OMG MY SAVIOR AND UPHOLDER OF RIGHTS

People, its a simple contermeasure against stealing. A store asking for a receipt does not automatically equal a totalitarian state.

Ok, I might be going off the beaten path here, and well, I still don't know why i'm contributing oh so much to my own thread, but such simple countermeasures can often turn from benevalent to totalitarianism quickly.

I'm sure they've gotten all the kinks out of asking for a reciept and then calling the cops if one does not comply. Personally, I think the burden of proof should be on the company, ie Check the survallience tapes before you start bugging me about what you put in the bag you guys provided me at the time of check.

Also, good intentioned countermeasures, albiet not "simple", such as the DMCA and the PATRIOT Act do not contribute to a totalitarian state, right? I'm sure they did at one point, but not anymore.... all the kinks were fixed. </end really bad sarcasm here>


well, I'm off to dinner, and please by all means keep posting and telling me that I'm a moron becuase I can't post a coherent, logical repsone and make it funny at the same time.
 
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Is there any punishment for calling 911 for a non-emergency? Not sure if he could have been arrested/fined b/c of that.

Not really. They can chew your ass out though.
 
I'm all for standing up for one's rights.

Sure he could easily have avoided the whole situation by showing his receipt and ID, and maybe he is just trying to stir up trouble... but I'm glad he didn't back down.

It should be the retail store saying "Oh, it's not worth the trouble" in regard to forcing someone to show a receipt, rather than a customer saying "oh, it's not worth the trouble" and just complying with their request.

inconveniance isn't a good enough reason to give up a right.

Originally posted by: Wheezer

#2 You don't want me laughing at you? Show your receipt and/or ID...pretty simple.

you say that like someone should care
 
inconveniance isn't a good enough reason to give up a right.

You have to choose your hills to die on, man. This wasn't worth causing an uproar about. A department store asking to see your receipt or a cop asking to see your drivers license isn't Big Brother stuff.

Still say both the cop AND the guy were douches, though. I'm sure ATOT's sizeable Cop Apologist faction will crush me for suggesting the officer did anything other than his sworn civic duty, but the fact is the guy didn't do anything wrong and the cop arresting him was simply a way to get the guy back for annoying the him.
 
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Is there any punishment for calling 911 for a non-emergency? Not sure if he could have been arrested/fined b/c of that.

Not really. They can chew your ass out though.

Actually, you are wrong.
 
Originally posted by: dugweb
I'm all for standing up for one's rights.

Sure he could easily have avoided the whole situation by showing his receipt and ID, and maybe he is just trying to stir up trouble... but I'm glad he didn't back down.

It should be the retail store saying "Oh, it's not worth the trouble" in regard to forcing someone to show a receipt, rather than a customer saying "oh, it's not worth the trouble" and just complying with their request.

inconveniance isn't a good enough reason to give up a right.

Back down from what? He started it by refusing to show his receipt.

You know, technically, we give up rights all the time. We just don't care, because its inconvenient to uphold them. This is one of those rights.
 
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Originally posted by: dugweb
I'm all for standing up for one's rights.

Sure he could easily have avoided the whole situation by showing his receipt and ID, and maybe he is just trying to stir up trouble... but I'm glad he didn't back down.

It should be the retail store saying "Oh, it's not worth the trouble" in regard to forcing someone to show a receipt, rather than a customer saying "oh, it's not worth the trouble" and just complying with their request.

inconveniance isn't a good enough reason to give up a right.

Back down from what? He started it by refusing to show his receipt.

You know, technically, we give up rights all the time. We just don't care, because its inconvenient to uphold them. This is one of those rights.

and that's what we call a slippery slope.

If this isn't a right worthy to stand up for, then what is?
 
Back
Top