[QUOTE=catsix]
Once the money has been exchanged, the item is no longer ‘merchandise’ but ‘property’ and no, they’re not required to let you do anything.
[/QUOTE]
OKay, but if a customer is walking out the door with merchandise and no visible receipt then the merchant doesn’t know if it’s their property of not. Aren’t merchants allowed to require a receipt before they let their property leave the premises?
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
If the merchant has probable cause to suspect an item is being stolen, then the merchant may detain the customer long enough to conduct a reasonable investigation by searching the customer’s property but not the person.
[/QUOTE]
What would be reasonable? I would think merchandise with no bag or visible receipt would be probable cause.
“Excuse me sir or madam, I need to see a receipt for that item you are holding.”
Would “No thanks” and keep walking be an acceptable response? Would it be defending ones civil rights to say. “I’ve purchased this item but I’m not required by law to show you a receipt. Either accuse me of shoplifting and call the police or let me go”
Would that person be a dick if they responded that way?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Thirteen pages of thread and, sadly, this still needs to be said. Absent probable cause, no search is allowed. If probable cause had existed in the linked situation, no one here would have protested.
[/QUOTE]
So, leaving with a bag means no probable cause. The question here is , if a customer walks out the door with obvious merchandise not in a bag and no visible receipt is that probable cause to stop them and demand a receipt?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So, leaving with a bag means no probable cause. The question here is , if a customer walks out the door with obvious merchandise not in a bag and no visible receipt is that probable cause to stop them and demand a receipt?
[/QUOTE]
Unless you have an appellate court opinion one way or the other that is close to your facts, the answer is probably, “it depends on your judge/jury that day.”
A case like your hypo would likely get fled then settle out after a few months of arguing, posturing, and puffing about what each side thinks a court would do if it went all the way to trial.
If you are asking whether is should be probable cause, my gut says it should not be probable cause unless the merchant observes someone pick up an item and fail to pay for it before heading for the door.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Unless you have an appellate court opinion one way or the other that is close to your facts, the answer is probably, “it depends on your judge/jury that day.”
A case like your hypo would likely get fled then settle out after a few months of arguing, posturing, and puffing about what each side thinks a court would do if it went all the way to trial.
If you are asking whether is should be probable cause, my gut says it should not be probable cause unless the merchant observes someone pick up an item and fail to pay for it before heading for the door.
[/QUOTE]
So whether the customer has bagged merchandise or or is just carrying merchandise out the door with no bag or visible receipt the merchant has no right to detain them if they insist they paid for their merchandise but stubbornly refuse to prove it with a receipt, goods check? Is that it?
IYO,What kind of security position does that place the merchant in?
On a gut level, would you say the customer with merchandise and no bag is a jerk if they stubbornly refuse to produce a receipt when asked, or, like Righi, are they just defending their civil rights and not going to let those assholes at the store push them around?
If you look carefully at the definition of probable cause, you have to have had someone watching them take it and carry it out without paying.
Just seeing them carry it from a register to the door is not the same thing.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Well there ya go. I think your friend has the right spin on it and has found a more reasonable way to protest the policy. IMO Righi could easily have done something similar and made an effective protest even though the CC employees were in the wrong. When he stubbornly refused and even called 911 while his siblings were crying in the car he consciously participated in escalating a minor situation. The attitude I get from his comments on his website is that it’s more about him being right and proving it, than it is about civil rights.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing minor about being detained. It’s illegal.
His siblings were crying because a strange man was blocking the door of the car. Again, this was store behavior.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So, leaving with a bag means no probable cause. The question here is , if a customer walks out the door with obvious merchandise not in a bag and no visible receipt is that probable cause to stop them and demand a receipt?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know. It might be. In my experience, that has only happened when the boxed item is too large to be bagged, and the cashier staples the receipt to the box. If boxed items are supposed to have receipts stapled to them, and one doesn’t, I would say that that is probable cause. But I could be wrong.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Unless you have an appellate court opinion one way or the other that is close to your facts, the answer is probably, “it depends on your judge/jury that day.”
A case like your hypo would likely get fled then settle out after a few months of arguing, posturing, and puffing about what each side thinks a court would do if it went all the way to trial.
If you are asking whether is should be probable cause, my gut says it should not be probable cause unless the merchant observes someone pick up an item and fail to pay for it before heading for the door.
[/QUOTE]
COUGHpost #75COUGH
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
COUGHpost #75COUGH
[/QUOTE]
I had the feeling this thread was going in circles.
I think establishing identity is part of cooperating with an investigation. So many witnesses and accused give false names, especially if they are guilty.
[QUOTE=back before irony]
I think establishing identity is part of cooperating with an investigation. So many witnesses and accused give false names, especially if they are guilty.
[/QUOTE]
Post #8, 12, 15, 17, 42, 49 …
[QUOTE=Magiver]
There’s nothing minor about being detained. It’s illegal.
His siblings were crying because a strange man was blocking the door of the car. Again, this was store behavior.
[/QUOTE]
and you know they were crying for only this reason because???
Five more days, folks. Just five more days.
If anyone gets any news on this, I’m sure we are all hanging on the edges of our seats.
So much for that.
I liked this from comments
bolding mine
News update on the story from The Plain Dealer:
OMG my civil rights are surely lost now without Righi to fight the noble fight.
There has to be some misinformation given by the reporter as these statements don’t jibe:
wow, the bag checker sounds like a real douchebag. can you imagine having that kind of job and screwing with people like that? It’s like, go get a state job were mediocrity rules.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
There has to be some misinformation given by the reporter as these statements don’t jibe:
[/QUOTE]
It’s the difference we’ve been discussing. The technicality of the law vs the interpretation and application of the law.
They made a deal. Both statements jibe with that.