Man arrested for not showing Driver's License

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

Guess what?
He won, all charges dropped.

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

 

[grydth]

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Any discipline against the cop?