# Man arrested in connection with ignoring "bag checker" at Circuit City **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2007, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863 "2007-09-03T00:50:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/161 "2007-09-03T19:24:00Z")
[QUOTE=Bill Door] They are not allowed to make a search of my person or possessions unless they have probable cause. Just like I don’t have the right to search their persons or possessions. I’m not allowed to look through their purses or lunchbags, right? Will they let me search their offices? [/QUOTE] Just to be clear, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t enter the picture until the person doing the searching is an **representative of the state**. If I am your dogwalker, and while picking up your dog (using the key which you have given me) I find your crack and turn you in, no constitutionally protected search has taken place, because I am dogwalker citizen, not a public official. Therefor, “probable cause” never even enters the picture… unless you believe CC works on order of the government. 😃 They can’t search your person because touching you is battery, and for no other reason. They may well be entitled to search your personal effects, if this does not amount to some other tort. They may be jerks, and maybe possibly there’s some distant connection to contract law, but it isn’t unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/162 "2007-09-03T19:28:29Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] I am always amuse when people say things like “you don’t have to shop there if you don’t like it”. As if one party gets to make the rules. Equally, Circuit City does not have to do business in my community if they don’t like the rules. And the rules of the community are gonna beat store policy everytime. They’re called law. [/QUOTE] I never said or implied that store policy supersedes the law. In the example in the OP we it hasn’t been decided who was breaking the law. Often in a case like this theirs blame for both parties and it wasn’t necessary for the legal system to ever be involved except for the person or persons with a chip on their shoulder and some BS point to prove. BTW is there a law against making a bogus 911 call? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/163 "2007-09-03T19:32:25Z")
Well, how about we get an expert on this. [http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss\_prevention\_3.htm](http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm) This gentleman seems to be an advisor on this sort of thing, and he seems to be saying that, essentially, everything the man who was arrested did, he had a right to do. (I was once assaulted by a security guard at a CompUSA for not showing him the receipt. I was holding my only purchase, a computer case. He grabbed me and tried to stop me from getting in the car. I asked he not be fired, but educated. He was fired. The story can be found in one of my previous postings, circa '03 or so.) Oh, and one thing. If you have a right not to be searched, and exercise the right, that does not create probable cause. That’s like a cop asking to search your car. Refusing that does not give him probable cause to search your car. [http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm](http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm) These are the steps which establish probable cause. > [@](#): > > 1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise > 2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise > 3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise > 4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter > 5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise > 6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store Simple, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/164 "2007-09-03T19:33:11Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I never said or implied that store policy supersedes the law. In the example in the OP we it hasn’t been decided who was breaking the law. Often in a case like this theirs blame for both parties and it wasn’t necessary for the legal system to ever be involved except for the person or persons with a chip on their shoulder and some BS point to prove. BTW is there a law against making a bogus 911 call? [/QUOTE] I don’t think the call was bogus. The manager used force to prevent the car door from being shut, preventing the customer from being able to leave in a safe manner. BTW, is there a law against having a chip on your shoulder ? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/165 "2007-09-03T19:33:52Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] I am always amuse when people say things like “you don’t have to shop there if you don’t like it”. As if one party gets to make the rules. Equally, Circuit City does not have to do business in my community if they don’t like the rules. And the rules of the community are gonna beat store policy everytime. They’re called law. [/QUOTE] Also, there is no law saying people have to be courteous and considerate of others. It’s just a good idea in most cases. In this case being considerate would be the customer making his point without going overboard and calling the police out of his self righteous indignation. If the manager was on the ball he might have figured out that the guy was not a shoplifter but just a self righteous jerk trying to prove some point and let him be on his merry way. It didn’t happen to go down that way. I’d be interested in seeing what a judge determines. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/166 "2007-09-03T19:37:24Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] I don’t think the call was bogus. The manager used force to prevent the car door from being shut, preventing the customer from being able to leave in a safe manner. BTW, is there a law against having a chip on your shoulder ? [/QUOTE] Perhaps. It’s a call for a judge to make. I really don’t know. You can drive forward with the door open. Or if they attempted to leave and the CC employees took further action then unlawful detention would be more clear. I don’t think there is. If there was this guy should have been charged with it. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/167 "2007-09-03T19:37:30Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Also, there is no law saying people have to be courteous and considerate of others. It’s just a good idea in most cases. In this case being considerate would be the customer making his point without going overboard and calling the police out of his self righteous indignation. If the manager was on the ball he might have figured out that the guy was not a shoplifter but just a self righteous jerk trying to prove some point and let him be on his merry way. It didn’t happen to go down that way. I’d be interested in seeing what a judge determines. [/QUOTE] He called the police because he was being detained by force. His point is valid, IMHO, even important, in that there is no reason to treat random people as potential criminals. That is a problem for me no matter how trivial you deem it to be. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/168 "2007-09-03T19:40:57Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Perhaps. It’s a call for a judge to make. I really don’t know. You can drive forward with the door open. Or if they attempted to leave and the CC employees took further action then unlawful detention would be more clear. I don’t think there is. If there was this guy should have been charged with it. [/QUOTE] Driving forward with a door open could be called “unsafe movement”. That is a punishable offense. I don’t think there is a law about having a chip on the shoulder either. Being that there isn’t one, the guy wasn’t charged. It will be interesting to see what the court says. The whole thing is probably gonna get tossed, leaving the entire matter open to debate. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/169 "2007-09-03T19:48:40Z")
I’m a pretty regular shopper of Circuit City/Best Buy/Media Play/other electronics stores and I haven’t had someone request to see my receipt in years. I honestly thought they stopped doing it to everyone. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/170 "2007-09-03T19:50:05Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Perhaps. It’s a call for a judge to make. I really don’t know. You can drive forward with the door open. Or if they attempted to leave and the CC employees took further action then unlawful detention would be more clear. I don’t think there is. If there was this guy should have been charged with it. [/QUOTE] Absolutely not. The CC employees stood in between him and the open door of his vehicle, in a matter to physically block him from a path he was rightfully entitled to take. That is “deprivation of liberty” at least, or “kidnapping” at the worst, or “illegal detention” in the middle. The customer could have, IMHO, thrown a punch at the CC employee and been legal. Instead, he took the “responsible” approach and called the police, and the police officer being a typical Barney Fife idiot, screwed the pooch, and caused this guy to go to jail. And guess what? You can’t sue the cop or the PD unless the activity was grossly negligent, which would be almost impossible to prove in this situation. This is why nobody should EVER, and I mean NOBODY and EVER call the police unless it is a matter of life or death. The situation will not turn out how you think it will.. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/171 "2007-09-03T20:03:46Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I think he made his point when he asked them to cite the law that allowed them to search his bag and they couldn’t. [/quote] What point would that be? Lets assume that Ohio state laws says Circuit City employees have the right to search bags of customers exiting the store. Do the employees then have to be able to recite that law to you when asking to search your bag? No more than a police officer has to be able to recite what law says that you can’t stab someone when arresting you for stabbing someone. But this isn’t about whether store employees can search you; it’s about whether they can detain you, and the answer to that going by the Ohio statutes posted in this thread is ‘yes’. I’m not saying the employee(s) had a right to do so in this case. If the Crime Doctor site that E-Sabbath linked to is correct, then they didn’t, but a judge’s/jury’s interpretation of what constitutes _probable cause to believe_ an item was stolen may differ with the Crime Doctor’s. That site also isn’t specifying Ohio state laws and there may be more to story about reasons that Michael Righi was detained that he is telling us or that he may even be aware of yet. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/172 "2007-09-03T20:05:19Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] And guess what? You can’t sue the cop or the PD unless the activity was grossly negligent, which would be almost impossible to prove in this situation. .. [/QUOTE] I know I’m being a stickler here but the devil is always in the details. I agree with most of what you said except, you very well **can** sue anyone you want. You may not win, but you can sue. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/173 "2007-09-03T20:09:20Z")
Explain this to me- What’s the exact set up of the receipt check? Is the store laid out [merchandise] -\> [cashiers] -\> [exit] or are there significant amounts of merchandise beyond the cashiers desk? I just don’t understand why you’d check peoples’ receipts as standard. Cultural difference hijack alert but I was really shocked in NYC when I was asked to check my bag in before entering a store. I found it offensive and at odds with their supposed boho coolitivity that half these stores tried to project. They also had those alarms at the door so I thought it excessive. Checking of bags has never happened to me at a store in Ireland, the UK or any other European country I’ve been in. That isn’t to say these things don’t exist but they may be rarer than in North America. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/174 "2007-09-03T20:10:41Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] What point would that be? Lets assume that Ohio state laws says Circuit City employees have the right to search bags of customers exiting the store. Do the employees then have to be able to recite that law to you when asking to search your bag? No more than a police officer has to be able to recite what law says that you can’t stab someone when arresting you for stabbing someone. But this isn’t about whether store employees can search you; it’s about whether they can detain you, and the answer to that going by the Ohio statutes posted in this thread is ‘yes’. [/QUOTE] Actually, there must be a charge for an arrest. The officer should state what you are being arrested for. That’s just the fact. You aren’t supposed to be arrested without citing of a statute that you are accused of violating. As far as detaining by virtue of probable cause, an admitted random check of receipts is not probable cause. It is, by it’s own admission, random. That is not probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/175 "2007-09-03T20:12:18Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] I know I’m being a stickler here but the devil is always in the details. I agree with most of what you said except, you very well **can** sue anyone you want. You may not win, but you can sue. [/QUOTE] I stand corrected. You are right. You can sue, but you won’t win, and most likely, a lawyer will tell you that so you won’t waste your money filing suit.. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/176 "2007-09-03T20:13:12Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Well, how about we get an expert on this. [http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss\_prevention\_3.htm](http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm) This gentleman seems to be an advisor on this sort of thing, and he seems to be saying that, essentially, everything the man who was arrested did, he had a right to do. [/quote] I don’t think anyone is denying that Righi had a right to walk away. The question is did the empoyee(s) have a right to detain? [QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Oh, and one thing. If you have a right not to be searched, and exercise the right, that does not create probable cause. That’s like a cop asking to search your car. Refusing that does not give him probable cause to search your car. [http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm](http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm) These are the steps which establish probable cause. [/QUOTE] Those aren’t rules or laws that establish probable cause. That’s an article that seems to be an opinion on what guidelines a merchant should follow to prevent false arrest claims being made against him. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/177 "2007-09-03T20:23:11Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] Actually, there must be a charge for an arrest. The officer should state what you are being arrested for. That’s just the fact. You aren’t supposed to be arrested without citing of a statute that you are accused of violating. [/quote] That’s not the fact. I can tell you through personal experience that this is false and also a provide a cite: > [@](#): > > **Are the police required to tell me what I’m being arrested for?** > > The police are not required to tell you what you are being arrested for. Within 72 hours of being arrested, you have the right to be brought before a magistrate or released. When you are brought before a magistrate, that’s when the charges you were arrested for will be read against you. > **[Videojug](https://www.youtube.com/user/VideoJug)** > > Welcome to Videojug! Here you'll find the best how-to videos around, from delicious, easy-to-follow recipes to beauty and fashion tips. [QUOTE=Iknewit] As far as detaining by virtue of probable cause, an admitted random check of receipts is not probable cause. It is, by it’s own admission, random. That is not probable cause. [/QUOTE] An admitted random check of receipts is not probable cause? Huh? What I said was that a judge or jury may find that the employee(s) may be found to have had probable cause _to believe_ that something was taken by refusal of following obvious standard store procedure and possibly with more reasons for suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/178 "2007-09-03T20:26:41Z")
There are, however, definitions. My copy of Black’s Law Dictionary is buried somewhere, but the gist of the matter is, the information must show that it is _more likely than not_ that the suspect has committed a crime. [http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm](http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm) [http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/4494A6C8-8698-4F26-9B7ADDE110A7E091](http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/4494A6C8-8698-4F26-9B7ADDE110A7E091) Again, refusal of a voluntary search does _not_ establish probable cause. If it did, the search would not be voluntary, but involuntary. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/179 "2007-09-03T20:28:57Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] you very well **can** sue anyone you want. You may not win, but you can sue. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that’s true either. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863/180 "2007-09-03T20:33:21Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] There are, however, definitions. My copy of Black’s Law Dictionary is buried somewhere, but the gist of the matter is, the information must show that it is _more likely than not_ that the suspect has committed a crime. [http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm](http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm) [http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/4494A6C8-8698-4F26-9B7ADDE110A7E091](http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/4494A6C8-8698-4F26-9B7ADDE110A7E091) Again, refusal of a voluntary search does _not_ establish probable cause. If it did, the search would not be voluntary, but involuntary. [/QUOTE] Those articles refer to police officers arresting and searching, not probable cause store employees must have to detain someone until police arrive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-in-connection-with-ignoring-bag-checker-at-circuit-city/417863.md?page=10)