Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
I think the shopper in question was trying to make a point. And the point is very valid.
The law of the land is that you do not have to identify yourself to the government unless you are reasonably suspected of a crime. You have a right to be secure in both your person and possessions, and your identity is part of those things. You have a right to be anonymous with respect to the government, to move freely without interference, unless government has a valid reason to believe you have commited a crime.
That brings us to the suspicision of a crime.
There is no law anywhere in the U.S. that says, when walking out of a retail store, after having (presumably) paid for one or more items, you must show proof of the transaction. Righi violated no law in refusing to do so. The store clerk's attempt to detain him by blocking his exit from the parking lot is an example of illegal arrest and imprisonment. This was the only crime commited.
The officer, upon arriving, can certainly ask for anything he feels he needs, but he is not entitled to it. Righi had no legal obligation to state his name or provide his license, because he was not reasonably suspected of a crime. He wasn't operating a motor vehicle, so the context for giving a drivers license isn't there. Even if he had been, the stop would have been an illegal search.
The officer has an obligation to act based on suspicion of a crime. He didn't. Had the store clerk said "I saw him shoplift an MP3 player," the officer would have had much more leeway. But in the absence of some piece of actual evidence (such as a witness statement) of a crime, the officer has ZERO business detaining or questioning anyone.
And, to prove the point about why it's important to nitpick this stuff and stand up for your rights: The officer's using the obstruction charge is a GROSS abuse of government power. "I have no suspicion of anything. I can't prove anything. I'm just pissed off that this guy is forcing me to respect his rights. Let me charge him with something."
And that, Alan Beaulieu, is why rights need to be guarded jealously. The founders of our nation stated quite clearly that power in the hands of government often becomes corrupted. And the b.s. obstruction charge is a microcosmic example of how sometimes, unfortunately, police abuse their power. It's common for the police to not even know the proper application of the law. And who can blame them? It's freakin' complicated! Sometimes the judges even apply the law incorrectly.
There are many fine police officers out there, doing a difficult, dangerous job and trying to do it well. The fact that it is difficult and/or dangerous does not release them from their obligation to respect the rights of citizens.
Depends on the location and circumstances. In some states, it is absolutely your right to carry a gun openly, and an agent of the state IS violating your rights by stopping you unless he or she has reasonable knowledge that you may have committed a crime.
The law of the land is that you do not have to identify yourself to the government unless you are reasonably suspected of a crime. You have a right to be secure in both your person and possessions, and your identity is part of those things. You have a right to be anonymous with respect to the government, to move freely without interference, unless government has a valid reason to believe you have commited a crime.
That brings us to the suspicision of a crime.
There is no law anywhere in the U.S. that says, when walking out of a retail store, after having (presumably) paid for one or more items, you must show proof of the transaction. Righi violated no law in refusing to do so. The store clerk's attempt to detain him by blocking his exit from the parking lot is an example of illegal arrest and imprisonment. This was the only crime commited.
The officer, upon arriving, can certainly ask for anything he feels he needs, but he is not entitled to it. Righi had no legal obligation to state his name or provide his license, because he was not reasonably suspected of a crime. He wasn't operating a motor vehicle, so the context for giving a drivers license isn't there. Even if he had been, the stop would have been an illegal search.
The officer has an obligation to act based on suspicion of a crime. He didn't. Had the store clerk said "I saw him shoplift an MP3 player," the officer would have had much more leeway. But in the absence of some piece of actual evidence (such as a witness statement) of a crime, the officer has ZERO business detaining or questioning anyone.
And, to prove the point about why it's important to nitpick this stuff and stand up for your rights: The officer's using the obstruction charge is a GROSS abuse of government power. "I have no suspicion of anything. I can't prove anything. I'm just pissed off that this guy is forcing me to respect his rights. Let me charge him with something."
And that, Alan Beaulieu, is why rights need to be guarded jealously. The founders of our nation stated quite clearly that power in the hands of government often becomes corrupted. And the b.s. obstruction charge is a microcosmic example of how sometimes, unfortunately, police abuse their power. It's common for the police to not even know the proper application of the law. And who can blame them? It's freakin' complicated! Sometimes the judges even apply the law incorrectly.
There are many fine police officers out there, doing a difficult, dangerous job and trying to do it well. The fact that it is difficult and/or dangerous does not release them from their obligation to respect the rights of citizens.
Depends on the location and circumstances. In some states, it is absolutely your right to carry a gun openly, and an agent of the state IS violating your rights by stopping you unless he or she has reasonable knowledge that you may have committed a crime.
Last edited by a moderator:
