# Man arrested for not showing Driver's License



## Monadnock (Sep 3, 2007)

"Michael Righi was arrested in Ohio over the weekend after refusing to
show his receipt when leaving Circuit City. When the manger and 'loss
prevention' employee physically prevented the vehicle he was a
passenger in from leaving the parking lot, he called the police, who
arrived, searched his bag and found he hadn't stolen anything. The
officer then asked for Michael's driver's license, which he declined
to provide since he wasn't operating a motor vehicle. The officer then
arrested him, and upon finding out Michael was legally right about not
having to provide a license, went ahead and charged him with
'obstructing official business' anyways."

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/03/1449200

full details at:

http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

I hope he wins in court...



Related: I was at Best Buy just the other day, carrying a rather heavy printer out the door, (which I had just purchased  ) at the register next to the "Security" folk. I mean they were RIGHT THERE. Couldn't they have seen me purchase it???

They asked me for a receipt - which was in my pocket, and rather hard to get to holding the printer...but I gave it anyways. I really wish I hadn't. I can't stand that hassel, yet it is happening everywhere now.


----------



## Ping898 (Sep 3, 2007)

You know he won't win though...people have sued in the past (someone in the west somewhere last year) and lost just for refusing to present a driver's license when asked and the guy was also not driving a car at the time or doing anything wrong....


Why didn't he just say that he didn't have his license?...if he wasn't driving it is not like he necessarily had to have one on him....


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 3, 2007)

This is a fascinating story. I find the "loss prevention" nonsense at my local Best Buy absolutely unnerving. It's plainly obvious to staff member at the exit door that shoppers have just come from cash registers. So they have staff to open up the shopping bags that were just filled by other staff and look at items that have just been scanned and/or had their alarm tags removed or deactivated. 

I can understand store staff stopping patrons if they witnessed them in the act of shoplifting, but treating everyone like a thief in the name of cheaper prices or better profits is a step to far.


----------



## Carol (Sep 3, 2007)

Yet another reason why I prefer to shop online.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 3, 2007)

A couple things, after reading the blog and links within it.

First, Michael Righi is clearly someone who believes strongly in his interpretations of his rights -- and who isn't above stirring the pot over things.  He's admitted to committing what would be computer trespass (possibly a felony, if he's done it to more than 5 computers) in Virginia.  And he's admitted in the blog that he's been non-cooperative at other stores in the past: 


> I&#8217;ve dealt with these scare tactics at other stores in the past including other Circuit Cities, Best Buys and Guitar Centers. I&#8217;ve always taken the stance that retail stores shouldn&#8217;t treat their loyal customers as criminals and that customers shouldn&#8217;t so willingly give up their rights along with their money.



Sometimes, when you kick the anthill... the ants come out after you.  Somehow, I suspect that Righi's behavior in dealing with the cop wasn't as calm and polite as he presents it; after all, we only have his side of the story.

Second, he glosses over an important detail:


> I reopened the door to talk with Joe and at this point Joe positioned his body between the open car door and myself. (I was still seated in the Buick.)
> ...
> I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands. I then gave Joe three options:
> 
> ...



It's unclear based on how he's written this -- but he may well have committed an assault.  (Why'd he have to open the door to talk?  Why not just lower the window?)  I realize there's also plenty of room to read this as self-defense...

Third, there are two factors to consider about where this took place:  it was private property, and the property owner has the right to set the terms of entry.  And it was a store; most states have some form of law that permits a merchant or their agent to detain someone suspected of theft while the police are called.  In some states, they're even entitled to make an arrest...  And we're not discussing a typical transaction; the payment for all of Righi's purchases was split between two transactions.  This is actually a common method of attempting to conceal several offenses, including credit card fraud and employee theft.  In other words -- they had at a minimum, reasonable suspicion to approach Righi, and then his conduct may have given rise to probable cause that he was involved in a larceny.  

I'm also a little skeptical; most stores do not want their loss prevention personnel or other store staff trying to detain people in cars, or to take any action if they're not absolutely certain.  Trying to stop cars is inherently dangerous, and most stores would rather lose even a couple of hundred dollars in merchandise rather than face the liability risks of a bad detention.

OK... with that out of the way, I'm also not impressed by the cop's actions, as described.  I don't know the specifics of Ohio law, but I wouldn't charge him with obstruction for the circumstances as given.  As said, he wasn't driving; there's no requirement in any state I'm aware of to have a license to sit in a car, not even in the driver's seat.  Especially on private property.  But -- at the same time, all we have is Righi's version.  

And... one final thought...  Righi could have easily avoided the whole problem by simply calling a cop himself, then, with the cop there, showing the receipts.  And filing a report for an unlawful detention.  

Yeah - I don't like that "show me your receipt" crap, either.  But I'm not going to get into a pissing match that I can't win, either...  I'll stack the deck so that I WILL win!


----------



## bydand (Sep 3, 2007)

Wow, kind of hope Drac chimes in on this one.  Interesting to find out how Ohio law is written about providing ID when asked by an officer.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 3, 2007)

In the United States, you are required to present your papers to anyone demanding them. Doesn't matter if it is or isn't legal. Just do it, or you risk assault, arrest and worse.


Denver bus riders forced to show ID or risk arrest and prosecution
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/200...ed-to-show-id-or-risk-arrest-and-prosecution/

'To Punish and Enslave'
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w28.html

Building an MIT Police State
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N28/Col_Smith_.28c.html

Should you have to show ID to ride a bus?
http://www.travelinlibrarian.info/2005/11/should-you-have-to-show-id-to-ride-bus.html



And 1 update:
Charges dropped against Denver bus rider asked to show ID
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/200...ed-against-denver-bus-rider-asked-to-show-id/


Some others I found:
IDP Featured Cases

Deborah Davis thought she'd save gas and money by taking the bus to work, but she was arrested by Denver "Federal Protective Service" cops when they searched everyone on the public RTD bus, demanding "ID" from every passenger.  She had an ID but thought she didn't live in a totalitarian state.  Public pressure forced the feds to drop the case, but the story is not yet over.
www.papersplease.org/davis/

Alaskans are particularly sensitive to governmental restrictions on their freedom.  A group of them are fighting in federal court against the government's incursions on their rights.  In 2004, they brought a case challenging the CAPPS II program.  The government has since abandoned the CAPPS II program.  In 2005, they were able to show, through records requests, that the Secure Flight program did not work.  The government has since abandoned their schedule to implement the program and has "returned to the drawing board" to reexamine the program as a whole.
www.alaskafreedom.com

The United States is a hard place to travel without your "papers", and John Gilmore is suing to uphold his right to travel by common carriers (trains, airplanes, buses, and ships) by merely paying the published fare and following the published rules.  The government claims he can't travel without getting and showing a "government-issued photo ID" (but they won't even publish the rules that supposedly say so).  After the March 2004 District Court dismissal and the Ninth Circuit 2005 rejection of Mr. Gilmore's appeal, a petition for cert was filed with the Supreme Court.  An answer from the Court is expected in January of 2007.
www.papersplease.org/gilmore/

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was standing by the side of the road, having a smoke outside the pickup truck his daughter was driving, when a policeman confronted him and demanded his ID card.  He declined numerous times, and the policeman arrested him, then yanked his daughter out of the car and threw her on the ground.  Since he hadn't been doing anything wrong, he was arrested for failure to follow a state law that required those "suspected of a crime" to state their name if asked for it.  His arrest and subsequent conviction were upheld by the Supreme Court, leaving the right to remain silent in jeopardy, as well as the right to live anonymously.
www.papersplease.org/hiibel/


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 3, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> In the United States, you are required to present your papers to anyone demanding them. Doesn't matter if it is or isn't legal. Just do it, or you risk assault, arrest and worse.



Not exactly...  But before I get into that -- let me issue the usual disclaimer.  I'm not a lawyer, just a cop!  Nothing I write is intended as, nor should be relied upon as, legal guidance or advice, either generally or specifically.  If you think you need a lawyer -- you do.  Get the best you can afford, even if that means going into debt!  Especially if your freedom is at risk!

First, it depends on state law.  In VA, for example, IF a cop has lawfully detained someone, and they lie about their identity, they can be charged with a misdemeanor, and taken into custody as permitted by law.  (section 19.2-82.1, 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended)  But there's no general requirement for a person to identify themselves or provide a particular form of ID.  Among other things, a person may not have a driver's license or DMV walker's ID!  

Second, there are federal aspects.  If you're here a legal permanent resident, or on a work or tourist visa, or otherwise legally present...  Agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or anyone else empowered to enforce federal immigration law, have the authority to demand your resident card or other appropriate paperwork to demonstrate that you are legally present.  

Finally, on private property, the owner is king.  If Bob decides, as a matter of routine, that anyone coming into his studio has to show ID...  they gotta show ID.  Or they don't come in.  In most federal, and many state and local facilities, there's a sign that's often not noticed.  It reads something along the lines that "by entering, you consent to a search of your person and effects."  That includes giving ID as appropriate, when requested.  If Circuit City and Best Buy and the rest were smart, they'd simply post a sign advising that all customers may be required to show their receipts prior to leaving the store.  If you don't want to agree to that... don't enter.

Hiibel was the most recent ruling; it didn't create a blanket "must surrender papers" rule.  It said that, if there is a state law requiring you to identify yourself to a cop in certain circumstances, you must do so.  I didn't re-read the ruling before posting, but as I recall, it specifically addressed and rejected a blanket rule that you must identify yourself to police.  In other words, the Fourth Amendment still applies; if the cops don't have grounds to detain you (at the least reasonable, articulable suspicion that you're involved in criminal activity), they also don't have grounds to force you to ID yourself.  Oh, and, just for the record... Hiibel wasn't "simply having a smoke."  He'd just finished a violent argument with the female occupant of the car, which had been reported to the police.  Read the case for yourself at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=177

But...  Let's think about this.  If you're not doing anything wrong, and you're not deciding to make a Pyrric victory of refusal...  why not comply?  Odds are that the encounter won't take but a few minutes, and there's likely to be a reason.  I ask for ID because it's easier to copy than ask for the various spellings, DOB, and other information.  And because it's hard to lie to me about your identity if I'm looking at your documents!  And, believe it or not... people lie to me all the time!  If you start arguing me about why I need your license...  I'm probably going to wonder what else you're being less than honest about.

Let me use a different situation to show why I start wondering...  I'm on patrol one day, early afternoon, but after typical lunch times.  I look up, and I see a guy walking up a street, peering hard at the houses.  He's dressed in dark clothes, carrying some sort of backpack which includes a long (3 to 4 foot) oblong kind of tubular thing coming out of it.  H'mm... this is a residential area, where most folks are two-income families.  Kids aren't home; it's school time.  And this guy is drifting up the street, paying all sorts of attention to the houses... especially the ones that advertise wealth & seem unoccupied.  I decide to have a chat.  I've done this lots of times; I'm allowed to chat with anyone willing to talk to me, right?  (Just nod; I am.)  I don't really have enough to detain him; it's not illegal to be out for a walk in the early afternoon, nor is it illegal to look at houses.  I stop my car, and ask, in my best "Officer Friendly" voice, if we can chat.  The guy freaks out and goes ballistic.  Especially when I simply ask where he lives...  H'mmm...  Now, as I said, I've done this more than once.  In fact, probably more than 100 times.  People who live in the area tend to be happy to talk, and thankful that I noticed and inquired about questionable behavior.  I think we had a notable absence of events that afternoon.  We didn't have burglarly that day.  Because the guy's response was out of the usual...  Just like someone who refuses to identify themselves (which he wouldn't do, either...)

Now, I didn't lock him up for obstruction, or anything like that.  But he knew a cop saw him and talked to him.


----------



## MJS (Sep 3, 2007)

I don't know Ohio law, so hopefully Drac will chime in.  All that aside, I'll throw in my .02.  IMO, half of the headaches that people get when they deal with the police, can most likely be avoided, if they just co-operate.  "Put your hands where I can see them!"  Do it, plain and simple.  "Turn the car off!"  Do it, plain and simple.  "Get down on the ground!"  Do it, plain and simple.  The list can go on and on.  If you feel that any wrong doings are happening to you, you can always file a complaint later, but at the moment, the #1 priority and concern of the cop, is their safety.  

As for this story...the guy sounds like an ***.  How difficult is it to show a damn receipt?  I've gone into Wal-Mart many times, made a purchase, and while walking out, the alarm at the door goes off.  The door greeter comes over, checks the bags, sees that I paid for the items in my bag, and I'm off to my car.  How much time did it cost me?  Less than a minute?

A big to-do and what exactly did it get this guy?  Satisfaction because he's done this in the past and likes to stir the pot?  It'll be interesting to see if anything else comes of this.

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 3, 2007)

In Michigan one is supposed to have an ID if over the ager of 18. If one does not wish to get a Driver License then they must get a Michigan ID.


----------



## Drac (Sep 4, 2007)

MJS said:


> I don't know Ohio law, so hopefully Drac will chime in. All that aside, I'll throw in my .02. IMO, half of the headaches that people get when they deal with the police, can most likely be avoided, if they just co-operate. "Put your hands where I can see them!" Do it, plain and simple. "Turn the car off!" Do it, plain and simple. "Get down on the ground!" Do it, plain and simple. The list can go on and on. If you feel that any wrong doings are happening to you, you can always file a complaint later, but at the moment, the #1 priority and concern of the cop, is their safety


 
Well said Mike...90% of the people who give us grief usually have warrants pending,,, 



MJS said:


> As for this story...the guy sounds like an ***. How difficult is it to show a damn receipt? I've gone into Wal-Mart many times, made a purchase, and while walking out, the alarm at the door goes off. The door greeter comes over, checks the bags, sees that I paid for the items in my bag, and I'm off to my car. How much time did it cost me? Less than a minute?


 

Some people have a real problem providing us with an ID..




MJS said:


> A big to-do and what exactly did it get this guy? Satisfaction because he's done this in the past and likes to stir the pot? It'll be interesting to see if anything else comes of this.


 
Getting arrested for not showing an ID..It depends what kind **** to give the officer requesting the ID..Yes its possible*.."Obstruction"*


----------



## Drac (Sep 4, 2007)

To find *ACTUAL* Ohio Law I gotta consult the ORC..


----------



## Drac (Sep 4, 2007)

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-5554P.ZO


----------



## Big Don (Sep 4, 2007)

As stated, it is really easy to not have problems with police, Chris Rock did a classic bit on this...


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Sep 4, 2007)

Interesting story. Hope the guy wins, though like someone said he probably wont. 

B


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 4, 2007)

I would think that if a Cop is involved in an encounter where he reasonably believes that the person MAY have been involved in a crime (someone calls 911 vs. the cop just walking up to someone as an example). That its the cops responsibility to investigate and if the person refuses to properly identify himself obstruction could be a right and proper charge. As odd as it may sound, people do lie to the cops about who they are to avoid getting arrested. I dont think they should just have to take a persons word for it (as long as the police are legitimately investigating a crime and not just demanding ID from everybody they meet).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 4, 2007)

Just to clarify, my issue with these events is when cops arbitrarily demand ID, especially when folks are singled out.  I've no problem presenting it if I'm pulled over for a traffic stop, or attempting to access a sensitive area.  But if i were sitting on my porch, and a car pulled up and demanded to see my papers, I'd have a problem with that. Especially if the car is unmarked, and the supposed cop refuses to clearly present his own credentials. I also have problems with unmarked cars but thats a different debate, lol.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 4, 2007)

There have been several times where I've been "shadowed" by store employees or security persons while shopping or just "browsing" which I like to do from time to time... I call it "pre-shopping" so I can better plan/budget my next paycheck, it also kills time. 
If I get stopped enroute out the door without making a purchase the only **** I'll give them is that if they find something that belongs to the store on my person that I haven't paid for then they're within their rights to do whatever, but if they do not... they're in a world of legal hurt. 
With the right tone of voice (not threatening but oh so full of confidence) this works out pretty well. 

I think that there are two sides of this story and that the guy is painting himself a lot more rosier than he should. Being belligerent while being (rightfully) challenged while IN the store is suspicious enough. However benefits of the doubts need to be given. If the exit alarms didn't go off then hey, either the guy paid for what he has on his person or they have a faulty de-magnetizer. 
As far as being on private (store's) property and being detained... well that's okay I guess... until you get in to your car which you are in your own domain and thus have a right to deny entry/search unless confronted with a warrant or the officer has probable cause. But if you're not hiding anything why deny searches by the police? Well mainly because it's within your constitutional rights to do so ... or it used to be prior to 9/11.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 4, 2007)

Ohio&#8217;s &#8220;stop and identify&#8221; law.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29
*2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person&#8217;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&#8217;s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.*

Now, where can a law enforcement officer ask to see ID?
If I was driving, I'd say he's within his right to ask me for my licence, to verify that I am authorized to drive said vehicle.

But, if I'm a passenger, it seems hazier.

The time line here reads:
- Store unlawfully detained individual
- cops are called
- cops verify that person did not have stolen property
- cops then arrest person for refusing to show them ID, an action that seems to be within Ohio law.

The rub here seems to be, while refusing to show your ID is perfectly legal, and there is no legal need to do so, refusing to show it or not having it creates a "suspicious state" thereby allowing LE to arrest you.

So, I don't have to show it, but if I don't, I now do.  Uh......I know, I know. If I'm not doing anything wrong, why shouldn't I comply with unlawful invasions of my privacy.

Can't we just mandate everyone get an ID number tattooed on their foreheads at birth? Maybe mandate an RFID chip as well for everyone?  Then they can just scan us from afar.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 4, 2007)

interesting side bar: (pulling comments from Slashdot discussion)


HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.h tml [cornell.edu]

[T]he Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.


This went to the US Supreme Court. The Hiibel case law is as follows:

* If the police ask your name you must give it, but you cannot be compelled to give any supporting documentation.
* The majority also stated that if someone was convicted of a crime as a consequence of giving their name that the issue could be reconsidered under a Fifth Amendment challenge but that such a challenge did not apply in this particular case.


You'll note in Dudley Hiibel vs. Nevada that they reference a previous case, Kolender vs. Lawson ( KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)461 U.S. 352).

Edward Lawson was "detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). 2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed"


Edward Lawsons crime was being a black male in an affluent neighborhood and jogging. During these stops he did not have his drivers license on him, or did not feel the need to present his ID upon request. The police would then arrest him for either interfering with a police investigation or PC 647(e)

In particular Edward Lawson, when refusing to show ID, was charged with PC 647(e). His lawyer's contention was that PC 647(e)'s definition of "Identify" was constitutionally vague, and successfully argued his case before the California Supreme Court.


PC 647(e)
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
himself or herself and to account for his or her presence when
requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
safety demands this identification.


In the Supreme Court of California the judges made the following statements and ruling:

Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . . ." Id., at 91. In addition, 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964). 8 [461 U.S. 352, 359]

...

We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

...

In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4


"Shopkeeper's Privilege" is a whole other issue too. Which was also violated and thus the protections under it to a shopkeeper for unlawful imprisonment are no longer granted.






In relation to "Shopkeeper's Privilege" which in most states falls under Common Law:

Some states, such as Washington and California have codified their Common Law and incorporated them into the UCC and PC. California in particular, we have Penal Code 490.5 (f):

Penal Code 490.5 f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.


Since (in California) PC 490.5(f) is in the Penal Code section of law, the definition of "Probable Cause" falls under that of the same Penal Code.

Under PC 490.5(f) a shopkeeper must have "Probable Cause" to believe the person being detained is attempting to, or unlawfully took merchandise from the store.

Since theft is a misdemeanor, and NOT a felony, then "Probable Cause" required to arrest requires direct first hand knowledge of the act or event taking place. i.e. An agent of the store must see personally, or via CCTV the act being committed.

If the theft was a felony (grand theft), then the "Probable Cause" necessary to arrest for a felony only requires a "reasonable doubt".


Regardless, refusal to submit to a search is not grounds for probable cause for either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Fourth Amendment Rights, confirmed numerous times by the US Supreme Court.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 4, 2007)

Interesting comment made on Slashdot "I work at this circuit city, and the cop who came is apparently friends with the store director. I know I have seen him shopping at the store a lot and will often talk with a few of the managers."


I just noticed this happened in Brooklyn Ohio. My impression of Brooklyn, from when I lived in Parma was it was a poor town, rather shabby and run down that had seen better days. Never had any issues with the cops there though, the few times I ran into them, they seemed friendly enough.


My gut says, theres more to the story.


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 4, 2007)

At least where I live, places like Best Buy or what have you have no legal right to ask you for a reciept unless they have a legitimate reason to believe that you are shoplifting, even though they would have you believe otherwise.
I just walk right past 'em.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 4, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Interesting comment made on Slashdot "I work at this circuit city, and the cop who came is apparently friends with the store director. I know I have seen him shopping at the store a lot and will often talk with a few of the managers."
> 
> 
> I just noticed this happened in Brooklyn Ohio. My impression of Brooklyn, from when I lived in Parma was it was a poor town, rather shabby and run down that had seen better days. Never had any issues with the cops there though, the few times I ran into them, they seemed friendly enough.
> ...


 
Isnt it the cops job to be familiar with the people/busniesses on his beat? I think that guy is making an assumption (a big one at that) thinking that the cop and the store owner have some sort of personal relationship.

I agree, the police shouldnt (and are not currently I believe) be allowed to just walk up to anybody the want and demand ID. But in this case I think the cop reasonably believed he was responding to a complaint of a crime and thought that this guy was obstructing his investigation.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 4, 2007)

I thought the guy who called the police (911) WAS the guy who was arrested. What was he obstructing?

This whole thing just reeks of a National ID system.  I think that is the point of it all... Privacy.


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> I thought the guy who called the police (911) WAS the guy who was arrested.


 
Correct.



> What was he obstructing?


 
I'm not a cop, but the only thing I can think of is that he was obstructing the investigation by the cop.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 4, 2007)

Here's the question: Since the US Supreme Court has clearly indicated what is acceptable response, and since there doesn't seem to be any need to present ID, why would it be demanded?

Seriously.

I'm more interested in the later part than the first part since it isn't reasonable to expect every LEO to know every court decision in the nation.

I call the cops because a shop keeper is forceably detaining me in violation of the law. The cops arrive, and can clearly see that I am being detained against my will. They investigate and find that I have commited no wrong doing, and am a passenger in a car, not operating it.  
Why do I need ID, and why do I need to present it?


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's the question: Since the US Supreme Court has clearly indicated what is acceptable response, and since there doesn't seem to be any need to present ID, why would it be demanded?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...


 
Like I said in the beginning, people could avoid alot of headaches but it seems like this guy was just being a jerk.  All that aside...I think it would be interesting to know store policy on detaining shoplifters.  What exactly is the store security able/not able to do?  I highly doubt they get paid a huge amount of money and I'm sure that they're not armed, so at the least, follow the person outside, get a description of them, vehicle description, plate, etc and call the cops.  If you dont have a strong reasonable cause to stop/detain someone, I think you could be opening the doors to some issues.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 4, 2007)

MJS said:


> Like I said in the beginning, people could avoid alot of headaches but it seems like this guy was just being a jerk. All that aside...*I think it would be interesting to know store policy on detaining shoplifters.* What exactly is the store security able/not able to do? I highly doubt they get paid a huge amount of money and I'm sure that they're not armed, so at the least, follow the person outside, get a description of them, vehicle description, plate, etc and call the cops. If you dont have a strong reasonable cause to stop/detain someone, I think you could be opening the doors to some issues.


 
Apparently the policy allows them to try to detain people when they have not witnessed a crime. Just multiple purchases at the checkout.


----------



## grydth (Sep 4, 2007)

I'm guessing the real case to watch will be Righi's eventual civil suit for assault and false imprisonment against Circuit City. 

I do not see criminal prosecution of Righi happening, as it turned out he really was not a thief..... he was simply being a Jerk in the First Degree... Similarly, no criminal prosecution of the store personnel...the police would be unlikely to arrest anyone even for driving an AMTRAK train over Mr Righi given how he acted.

Look for a quick and large settlement offer - with a nondisclosure clause - from Circuit City. This is a huge embarrassment to them, chasing down and detaining *a paying customer*. No evidence at all to support their reaction.... no video, no store cop seeing a theft... If they were so certain of their position, why was it Righi who called the cops? The longer it goes on, and the more publicity it gets, the more customers will go elsewhere. Execs hate these cases, as they wipe out zillions spent on advertising campaigns.

Circuit City's actions not only subject them to civil suit, but they are stuid and dangerous as well. Next time they boldly stand in front of a car trying to leave - especially if the driver does have stolen goods - the driver's reaction may well be: DIE UNDER MY WHEELS. Kind of tough to explain to the family how you sent a guy out to die for something like this.


----------



## Ray (Sep 4, 2007)

grydth said:


> I do not see criminal prosecution of Righi happening, as it turned out he really was not a thief.....


Once upon a time (working as a LP employee) I followed a teen out of the store who I was positive had some cassette tapes. Had I blinked or turned my head for a second, I would not have noticed that he dropped them in a garbage can outside the store. He then went in, got some more and was just about to drop them into the garbage can. He had made several trips.

As I said, if I had turned away for a second, I would have apprehended someone who (apparently) had stole nothing.

On the other hand, the guy in the story might really not have stolen anything.

I feel fortunate to have never detained anyone who didn't have the merchandise in the their posseion, not having paid for it.

Unbelievably, one guy actually took something, had to be handcuffed by the cops and driven away. I observed him stuffing it in his pants; the cops retrieved it after a scuffle and the guy got off. He had a rare form of epilepsy that caused him to take stuff from stores. Toy gun, it looked pretty real; the cops theorized he was going to knock off a liquour store.


----------



## grydth (Sep 4, 2007)

That's the difference, Ray. You relied on patience, personal observation and focus. These people from Circuit City relied upon only a store policy to detain somebody who the facts appear to show did not steal anything. Good gracious, their own cashier, receipt and/or store surveillance tapes could be used against them.

I doubt you faced any legal consequences... but expect Circuit City to be visited by a process server any moment...


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2007)

We don't have to carry any ID at all at the moment, one of the reasons it's causing so much debate about the government making us. We don't even have to carry a driving license when driving. If stopped by the police who may ask for your driving license and you don't have it, you are given a 'producer', this means you have 7 days to produce your docs ( it's usually insurance and MOT* as well) at your nearest police station.



**MOT* is a mandatory garage inspection done yearly of all vehicles over 3 years old to prove roadworthiness. You also need it to be valid to buy your _road tax_.

*Road Tax*, don't go there!!! Not only is our fuel and cars the most taxed we also have to pay to put our bloody cars on the road, its about $390 a year. It is an offence however not to have it and you will be stopped by the police. Then charged then fined!


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 4, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's the question: Since the US Supreme Court has clearly indicated what is acceptable response, and since there doesn't seem to be any need to present ID, why would it be demanded?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...


 

I would think that you are assumed to want to file a complaint, and are required to identify yourself to do so. If not, can't you be charged for calling the cops for no reason?


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 4, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The time line here reads:
> - Store unlawfully detained individual
> - cops are called
> - cops verify that person did not have stolen property
> ...


 
I disagree with the sequence in one major detail; the cop arrived in response to Righi's call, but Righi apparently never showed the cop or anyone else his receipt and purchases.  I presume they were examined during the search incident to arrest...

Beyond that -- a "suspicious state" is not enough to make an arrest.  The Fourth Amendment requires that, without a warrant, an arrest must be based on probable cause (facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a particular person more likely than not committed a particular offense).  Warrants are only issued by a neutral party (magistrate, in VA) upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.




Blotan Hunka said:


> Isnt it the cops job to be familiar with the people/busniesses on his beat? I think that guy is making an assumption (a big one at that) thinking that the cop and the store owner have some sort of personal relationship.
> 
> I agree, the police shouldnt (and are not currently I believe) be allowed to just walk up to anybody the want and demand ID. But in this case I think the cop reasonably believed he was responding to a complaint of a crime and thought that this guy was obstructing his investigation.


 
Cops have to tread a fine line; they should ideally know the people and businesses on their beat, but not be so intimate with them that they are unduly influenced.  But -- it's not always the cop who regularly works a beat who responds...

I think there was a reasonable set of complaints in this incident; the store understandably has a vested interest in ensuring that everyone pays for what they take out of the store (it's been little addressed here that a large part of the verification process there is making sure that a cashier wasn't participating in the alleged theft -- or just didn't make a mistake), and the customer in being treated well by the store he's just patronized, and not detained with minimal cause.  I don't know exactly what led up to the arrest; I have to suspect there was more to the case than Righi has admitted.  But it's also possible that the cop was influenced by his knowledge of the store staff...



grydth said:


> That's the difference, Ray. You relied on patience, personal observation and focus. These people from Circuit City relied upon only a store policy to detain somebody who the facts appear to show did not steal anything. Good gracious, their own cashier, receipt and/or store surveillance tapes could be used against them.
> 
> I doubt you faced any legal consequences... but expect Circuit City to be visited by a process server any moment...


 
Now this -- this I absolutely agree with!  And I'd say that the store is going to have an uphill battle...  There was a bare minimum of grounds to detain Righi, if you squint hard enough.  (Simply not complying with an admittedly invasive policy is not the same as observing suspicious behavior!)


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 5, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I call the cops because a shop keeper is forceably detaining me in violation of the law. The cops arrive, and can clearly see that I am being detained against my will. They investigate and find that I have commited no wrong doing, and am a passenger in a car, not operating it.
> Why do I need ID, and why do I need to present it?


 
If I were a cop, the FIRST thing I would do to "investigate" this possible crime would be to ID you. Just because this guy was the first to call 911 doesnt mean he wasnt the criminal. Just playing devils advocate. Perhaps this guy was an *** and the cop stretched this ID thing to arrest him. Which if by the letter of the law is OK, it violated the spirit of it.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 5, 2007)

As I understand, a lot of cops will verify ID early on, if nothing else to assertain whether or not the person they are dealing with has wants or warrants, this time lapse will also, in many cases give the participants a moment to cool off. Like everything else, this doesn't always work...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 13, 2007)

It has already been brought up about the right of stores to detain people they have reasonable suspicion to believe stole something.  This is the same right that all people have (at least in California).  It's called a Citizen's Arrest.

The question then becomes, just because someone chooses not to show a receipt, is that justification to detain someone.  Especially since this is an instance of a non-employee violating a store policy.  In my opinion, the proper response is to ban him from shopping at the store.  This is entirely a civil matter, not a law enforcement one.

That being said, a police officer doesn't have the right to demand anything from any one when no crime has occured, or a reasonable suspicion generated that one has occured. 

Put another way, I'm a police officer who responds to a scene where store employees tell me that they were trying to detain someone because he refused to show a reciept.  And that's all they have.  What reasonable suspicion have they given me to then force this "suspect" to do anything.  Absolutely none.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2007)

Guess what?
He won, all charges dropped.

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/


----------



## grydth (Sep 22, 2007)

*THAT'S* winning???    Not in my book.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 22, 2007)

Any discipline against the cop?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 22, 2007)

grydth said:


> *THAT'S* winning???    Not in my book.



I agree, but apparently he chose not to sue for family reasons, which I respect. It's one thing to stand up for oneself; however, the possible repercussions for others need to be taken into account. I found the following somewhat disturbing.



> I would not file a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on my civil rights.
> I would not make any disparaging remarks about the police department, with financial repercussions for doing so.
> I would not discuss the details of this agreement.
> These conditions were completely unacceptable to me...



How does one define a 'disparaging remark'? Isn't the ability to make a 'disparaging remark' part of the package in societies that value free speech?

Sidebar: I was purchasing some inkjet cartridges at an electronics chain store the other night with my wife. The loss prevention guy -- or whatever the heck they call him -- was stationed six feet from my checkout, and was staring at the transaction. As I walked out, I said to my wife, "I'm not showing this guy my purchases -- he was watching while I made them." As I sauntered by, the darn door alarm went.

I turned to the security guy, who said he would rescan my items to deactivate the alarm sticker. He could have just waved me on, but that would be too simple. Then, without even asking, he started checking my items against the receipt which I had left in the bag. I asked him, "Why do you need to do that? You just watched buy the the stuff?"

"Thank you, sir. Have a nice day."


----------



## grydth (Sep 22, 2007)

This narcissistic individual didn't give a hoot about his family or the public in the vicinity when he blew a security check up into a constitutional and criminal issue. 

More likely than a very newfound concern for anyone else, chances are that our hero got a bad forecast on both media spotlight and legal judgment from his advisors.

Calling a cop for help, and then making things difficult for the cop _may_ be within one's rights, but it also makes one a giant lawn sausage.

Maybe we'll see this guy back on a 'reality' show... with Britney Spears, the whoopee cushion from the Kerry forum and one of the Jena 6 civil rights heroes..... but what to call it?


----------

