Thanks. I wasn’t quite thinking of suspicionless searches, but rather of changes in the existence of probable cause for a given set of facts. In the MacWade debac… er, case, the court carved out an exception to the probable cause requirement rather then declared that probable cause existed where it didn’t before.
But in the final analysis, perhaps that’s a thin distinction.
Personally, I would think so. I tell you, though, have you read the fine print on the back of some of those two-foot long receipts you get from some of the tech places? Like CompUSA? Not to mention the signs they have everywhere. It’s entirely possible it says on there I have to get the thing validated. Now, since that usually means a scribble with a highlighter, it’s not like that can’t be forged…but still…it depends on how serious the store takes it, I guess.
I think the point that he was trying to make, is that the legal right to do something doesn’t rely on being able to quote the law giving that right.
At trial, if it came to that, the manager (or the store’s lawyer) would have to cite the law to the court, but the fact that they don’t know the law doesn’t affect the legal rights. Conversely, even if you think it’s legal, and they think it’s legal, that doesn’t affect whether a court finds it legal.
You cite stabbing as being “obvious”, but in fact it’s less so. Does the manager need to know the exact text of the law? The citation? Or just the fact that it’s a law? In court, they need all three. In the street, it’s more fluid. You act, then courts sort out later whether you had a right to do what you did, or whether you’re liable for it.
In this case, the store agents can do anything they want; **ask **for reciepts on the door, detain someone. Later, a court sorts out if it’s legal; you don’t sort it out in the street in any binding way. In this case, it seems that the store was in the wrong. It doesn’t matter if they can or can’t quote the law; it doesn’t matter if they think bag checking is or isn’t legal, or it’s OK or not to detain someone (or for that matter to drive away) what matters is the court’s decision of what the law is.
In this case, I think there wasn’t a right to detain; but that’s irrelevant to the question of whether anyone, police officer, shopper, or store manager has an obligation to quote a law before they act.
IANAL.
There are two ways you can be able to return something: if you agree to do so in the sale contract, or if the store offers to do so regardless of its legal rights.
In the first, the text on the back of the receipt matters, as long as both parties agree to it. (legal nerd/ UCC-2-207 would probably mean that the terms are added to the contract, unless the buyer “seasonably complains,” and then you go to the default UCC terms, which (in simple terms) only allow returns if there’s something wrong with the product /legal nerd)
Using this, if the back of the receipt says you can’t return it without a mark, you can’t.
If the store is (in essence) doing you a favor by accepting returns (assuming that you have no right to compel them so to do in contract), again, they can set any conditions they want. Mark on the receipt? Sure. Bringing the bag in in your left hand? Absolutely.
In very broad terms, most of the ability to “return” non-faulty goods you have is because of the seller’s good will; absent a specific provision in the contract, there is little right to MAKE them accept your return if they don’t want to.
Just like they can’t MAKE you get the receipt marked unless you 1) agree to in contract, (legal nerd/ “seasonably objecting” in this case might be very reasonably interpreted as refusing to show it to the checker; if you don’t expressly agree, it’s hard for them to get such a term in if you object /legal nerd) or 2) are doing them a favor. This guy was willing to do neither; maybe asinine, but it seems clearly legal for him to refuse.
IANAL
Getting back to Righi’s actions in particular, one minor point:
I don’t think so, Marc. 911 is for emergencies, and I don’t even a little bit think this qualifies.
“Calling the cops” in this situation is not totally unreasonable. Using the 911 system, reporting as an emergency that “some CC drones are being mean to me,” seems way out of line to me. The only reason for it that I can see is to make an even bigger deal out of things, to create trouble, and to be an ass.
.
On the few occasions I called the non-emergency police number in our town about any situation I thought merit police attention, every time they directed me to call 911. A couple of examples off the top of my head were when some kids were ding-dong-ditching us, and when a band was playing late at night. neither qalified - in my opinion - as an emergency. But in my neck of the woods if you want to talk to a cop you must dial 911.
I think whoever answers the non-emergency phone might be willing to give you some adminstrative info concerning vehicle permits, dog licenses, and such, but I’m not sure.
I don’t understand why people accuse the consumer of “causing trouble.”
The consumer wasn’t doing anything except leaving the shop with his duly purchased personal property. The shopkeeper could have just left the consumer alone, especially since the shopkeeper had no probable cause to stop him, and none of this would have happened.
Everything was going well until the shopkeeper fucked up everybody’s day by inappropriately interjecting himself in the consumer’s personal affairs.
Please tell me you are kidding.
When my car was broken into I called the non-emergency police number because I had quick and easy access to a phone book. If I were away from home and somebody was blocking my me or someone else from getting into their vehicle I would likely call 911 before going through the trouble of calling information for a non-emergency number. We’ll just have to disagree I suppose. I think dialing 911 was perfectly reasonable. If someone tried to stop my wife from getting in our car I’d be tempted to knock his teeth out. Calling 911 showed remarkable restraint I think.
Marc
Did I miss something?
Consumer properly buys stuff
Consumer goes to exit shop
On the way out, shopkeeper demands inspection of stuff with no basis as it pertains to this consumer
Consumer refuses and exits
Shopkeeper detains consumer
Consumer calls cops providing only that info. which is required by law
The person who should have been arrested is the father, for raising a kid to be such a dick. What the fuck is the big deal about having a bag checked at the door. Fuck that asshole kid for turning this into so big issue and involving cops who might have better thing to do with their time. Fortunately the kid will be doing time—going through life as his dickish self.
Anything?! What about shooting him in the leg to prevent him from getting away? Clearly there are lines to be drawn and detaining someone without probable cause is far over that line.
In fact, there were two things completely wrong with what the store did that makes it false imprisonment.
Yes, magellan01, it’s always better to just get in line with the rest of the lemmings.
Yeah Cat you keep fighting the important battles to protect us lemmings…
Isn’t protecting oneself from infringements on one’s own personal liberties in violation of law an important battle?
At what point does a person’s refusing to be unlawfully detained by another turn that person into a troublemaker?
I find it incredibly annoying when I go to BestBuy and purchase something, and while I am being rung up the guy at the door is looking RIGHT at me the whole time, and when I get to the door he asks for my recipet. Oh, I give it to him, but I say loud enough for everybody around to hear “You fucking watched me get rung up and pay AND walk over to the door, not stopping on the way, if you are that fucking retarded you need to see my receipt, here ya go dipshit, happy now? Fucking retard (As I go out the door)!”
So you take it out on the person doing his/her job for a few bucks an hour and don’t protest to management or the the head office that actually makes the policies? Brilliant!
If you find it that offensive, perhaps you should consider simply saying, “No thanks.” Then, walk out the door and be on your merry way, unless of course, the shopkeeper oversteps his lawful bounds and detains you.
Of course, the shopkeeper is entitled to refuse service to you in the future and enforce trespassing laws against you should you unlawfully return.
.
I’m sorry I wasnt’ clear–I wasn’t arguing that the store had the RIGHT to do anything they wanted to-quite the opposite (as I hope you see with my bolding below).
My point was that legal rights aren’t defined in the street. You ask why the store didn’t follow “standard procedure”–my point (responding in some degree to earlier posters) is that the store’s “standard procedure”, or whether the manager thinks he has legal rights has nothing to do with his actual legal rights.
The guy in the car isn’t necessarily in the right because the manager can’t quote the specific law. That’s decided by a court.
But conversely, if he isn’t liable for being unpleasant, it doesn’t matter if he is or not. It doesn’t affect his legal rights.
The store can ask for his receipt, and he can refuse. That’s clear.
My point is that nobody is holding the manager responsible for the consequences of his acts (while they’re trying to do so for someone leaving the store). The manager chooses what to do when he refuses to show the reciept. If the manager does something he doesn’t have a legal right to do, he can (and should) be sued or arrested. The other point I was trying to make was that nothing about the opinions of the people of what was legal or right affects the actual determination of a court.
In this case, the manager chose to stop the car. Having done so, he is completely taking the risk that that would make him guilty or liable of false imprisonment. He is free to stop it-**-he’s responsible for the consequences of doing so. ** As you say, refusing a search is generally not probable cause. That is true regardless of what the person trying to search thinks it means. (an oversimplification-the test is probably whether a “reasonable person” would have had probable cause. In this case, I don’t think one would)
I don’t think we disagree that the manager broke the law, and should lose if sued. I agree that lines should be drawn. But absent self-defense, they are drawn in court, not on the street. If someone breaks the law, you sue them; there is nothing in the law that “pre-emptively” stops the manager stopping the car. The law gives a remedy to the passenger if he does so, but it does’t stop it in advance.
IANAL.
Originally Posted by whorfin
In this case, the store agents can do anything they want; ask for reciepts on the door, detain someone. Later, a court sorts out if it’s legal; you don’t sort it out in the street in any binding way. **In this case, it seems that the store was in the wrong. **It doesn’t matter if they can or can’t quote the law; it doesn’t matter if they think bag checking is or isn’t legal, or it’s OK or not to detain someone (or for that matter to drive away) what matters is the court’s decision of what the law is
Good points. I’m happy to comply with a polite inspection request. However, if it becomes a demand or a detention should I refuse, then we have a problem.
The customer in this case didn’t want to comply. The merchant should have said, “Do not enter this store ever again.” That should have been the end of it.