I take insults pretty hard. I generally avoid them as they cause me mental distress. I mean, what if I really am a criminal ? I think I am. I think we’re all criminals at heart. What the hell, I think I’ll just go rob somebody.
Of course, when you purchase a ticket to an event like the concert, the ticket has the rules or tells you where to find the rules that you agree to by virtue of the purchase. Circuit City can do that too if they chose. But they don’t.
Quothe myself:
The problem I see here is “suspected shoplifters”. Circuit City is treating everyone as such. That kinda blows the whole argument.
Yes.,
That’s why I said more information was needed, and it also depends on how their court looks at it. Does refusing a receipt check at the exit comprise reasonable suspicion? That’s up to whoever hears the complaint, I think.
I think that lawfully there’s no way for them to detain the customer, but I suspect that the store could report to the police anyone who left without going through the security check without getting in trouble. Circuit City could put cameras in the parking lot to capture license plate numbers.
In case anyone is interested in the actual law…
Quoted in Hodges v. Meijer, Inc. 129 Ohio App.3d 318, 717 N.E.2d 806 Ohio App. 12 Dist.,1998.
This is fun.
No. I am correct in both theory and practice.
You are confusing (a) the social security number with the card itself and (b) what you wish to be the facts with the actual facts.
There are a number of other documents that I have which prove both my identity and my birth: my driver license, my passport, my military retiree identification card.
It’s not all that hard.
This whole thread has inspired me to burn my receipt the next time I am at Wally World and am asked by the greeter to show a receipt. If you don’t hear from me for a few days, you know why.
SSG Schwartz
I wonder also how someone could consider it an arrestable offense for one party to an agreement to not follow that agreement. It would seem to me that the recourse for the other party would be in civil court.
Regardless of the law (which Supports Circuit City) everyone knows that these big box stores ask to check your receipt before you leave. If you don’t like that policy, don’t shop there. It’s not right to knowingly violate a store’s policy.
Note that your cite says the merchant must have probable cause in order to detain. Refusing a search to police does not give them probable cause to search you, so how could refusing a search to a shop owner give them probable cause to search you?
Garfield226, did you see post forty nine? I don’t think they are supporting the police, or the store. I think they are supporting the person who was arrested? 
No you’re not.
The card is requested at the DMV before issuing a license in some states. The purpose of this is to identify idividually from others with your same name. That’s the fact. It is used expressly as ID by many DMV offices.
You said:
That is not true. That’s all I was saying. I understand that you have other forms of ID but just knowing your info is not enough. You must document ID to get a replacement card.
The relevant precedent here, Hodges v. Meijer, Inc. is, indeed, a civil case. A woman was suspected of shoplifting some vacuum belts from a department store, and a couple of store employees took her to a back room and looked through all of her stuff for 20 mintues. She later sued for wrongful imprisonment and defamation (and, hilariously, her husband sued for loss of consortium). Her suit was summarily dismissed under the above-referenced “shopkeeper’s privilege” statute.
Well, the question becomes, as someone said upthread: is a refusal to show your receipt ‘probable cause’? And the answer to that question probably depends on the judge you get.
I left out something. A child’s birth certificate is not sufficient to get the child an original social security card for the child either. The parent must present proof of the parent’s identity and, of course, state the relationship. In short, another person is attesting that the applicant (the minor) is as purported. The social security account, of course, is issued for the person. The account card, still, is not an identification card.
I guess she shouldn’t’ve been shopping at noon.
The more I look at this situation, the more wonderfully complicated it becomes.
I’d support the guy in any criminal suit. The law is on his side vis a vis his ‘impeding a public offical’ charge. (or whatever the BS is that they say they’ll charge him with)
But as far as any civil matters go, it looks like the law might come down on Circuit City’s side.
But IANA judge.
ETA: Normal IANAL disclaimers apply
I agree that it is not an identification card. However, many states require the actual card as proof of the number so that it may be used to identify you in the DMV data base. They are using it for this purpose despite it’s explicit direction not to.
If that’s not use as identification, we’re at least using a different understanding of English.
It’s proof that the number you assert is attached to a particular name is, in fact, attached to that name. I’ll give you one guess why the military identification card can also function as proof of the same thing.