OT: Standing Up For What's Right - Against Circuit City and the local Police

[Rick Kent]

What makes this country great and to a lesser extent this site great is the fact that we can have discussions about anything without fear of the government bashing in our doors and dragging us away. Some may feel like we are a becoming a police sta,



Hold on, there's someone banging on my door. Let me get that.....

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mike H said:

TJR, in one of your replies to my original post you said, "identifying yourself *AND* providing indentification are two differnt things." I beg to differ with you. They are exactly the same thing under the requirements of law. True, you do not have to carry some form of identification such as a driver's license unless you are engaged in some activity that requires it, such as driving. But, if while your walking down the street with no identification card and an officer has a lawful reason to question you and askes for identification and you give him your full name and date of birth, you have just done both. You have identiied yourself and provided indentification all in one fell swoop.

When I said "provide identification" I was talking about the physical act of showing proof of identification, as in showing a drivers license or other such papers. Sorry if I wasn't clear. So, yes, I see how you can think they are the same thing, but I didn't mean to talk about the same thing.



Also, note that you said two key things: "an officer has a lawful reason to question you", and "you give him your full name and date of birth".



As I said and you have said, giving someone your full name and date of birth is a way of identifying yourself (you saying who you are). As I was talking about "providing identification", I should have said "providing PROOF" of identification. For that, the police damn right better have a lawful reason to request that proof.



Others have said that you can be detained while proof of ID is obtained. Again, it seems to me, that the police better be charging you with something if that is the case.



I guess what I am saying is that if there are those out there that think it is okay to be walking down the street, have a policemen come up to you on a whim and say: "Who are you?", and then possibly follow that up with "Can you show me some ID", then all I have to say is WTF.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Nelson and others discussing military vs civilian police,



Can we all agree they are different? Can we agree that the military person, especially when on base, has fewer civil liberties than Joe Schmo walking on the street? Can we assume that being trained for one duty doesn't mean you are ready to do the other?



My bro-in-law was an MP stationed in Germany. He did undercover drug stings. He served honorably for years and was in the reserves. He tried to get into civilian police (RI staties, local RI and Conn police). He never really was able to break into it. Might it have been nepotism, etc that kept him out...sure. But he himself will tell you that what makes you good at one job, doesn't necessarily prepare you well for the other.



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

...this site great is the fact that we can have discussions about anything without fear of the government bashing in our doors and dragging us away

And, I'll add for the most part is polite and without name calling.... <edited>

 

[TomT]

As a former MP, CIA, FBI, CSI, State Trooper, Texas Ranger I must say I opposingly approve of most of the implications of this story, in its abbreviated entirety.

 

[Rich Stern]

Tom, that's the entire list of your law enforcement resume? No DEA, State Department, FEMA, NASA, NOAA, NYPD or Mayberry RFD credentials?



Get back to us when you have accumulated relevant experience.

 

[TomT]

I have others but if I tell you, then I would have to kill you.

 

[Gavin Allan]

My exwife slept with a cop. Does that count for anything?

 

[TomT]

My exwife slept with a cop. Does that count for anything?

Only if your were still married to her at the time!

 

[Gavin Allan]

I was...

 

[Bill V]

Checking just to be checking without probable cause is an illegal search,

Why? It's the store's private property. Through their policies, they make it clear to all who enter that they may be subject to such a search upon departure. If you don't like the policy, you're free to shop elsewhere--but you are not free to enter the store without being subject to that policy.



Let's say that I decide to have a party at my place, that I know will be attended not only by my friends and family, but also by friends and family of theirs who I don't know. Let's also say that I have a collection of, oh, I don't know--let's say small handmade sculptures--that is of very large value, but which for whatever reason I don't want to put under lock and key. (Perhaps the party is a viewing/gallery type event.) Therefore, to protect my assets, I hire security personnel, and instruct them to pat down departing guests and inspect coats, purses, and bags to check for potential theft. I put signs on my door telling all guests that this will happen, and that if they don't approve of it, they're free to not enter my home. I have the security personnel inform the guests of this policy as they arrive.



Am I within my rights to do this? It sounds like many of you would say that I'm not--that this is "illegal search". But--IT'S MY HOME! I made the rules clear as a condition of being granted entrance to MY HOME. If you didn't like the rules, then you were free to not enter MY HOME. When you were informed of the rules I had set on MY HOME, and chose to enter despite those rules, you effectively entered into a contract with me, agreeing to abide by my rules, and give up the stated privacy rights, in exchange for access to MY HOME. Because of that contract, what is and isn't "your property" with regard to the contrctually allowed searches is meaningless. If you refuse to abide by these rules that you agreed to abide by via this implied contract, not only do I have the right to boot you out, but I should also have the right to have police come and enforce the rules that you contracted with me to abide by, and to detain you temporarily until those law enforcement personnel arrive to enforce this, as your refusal to abide by the contract you agreed to is, IMHO, sufficient to be considered "probable cause".



While Circuit City is clearly not a home (well, they have some techno-geeks in their service department that I could easily believe live in a back room there, but that's beside the point), it's still private property, and, it seems to me, should be subject to the same ability to enter into an implied contract with people entering their store, and to enforce that contract.

 

[Alan Beaulieu]

I will agree that there are differences between civillian officers and military police. With todays ever changing world and GWOT, as well as, OIF a lot of my brothers and sisters are on convoy duties, prison duties, IED sweep duties. 99 percent of my brothers and sisters in the miltiary working dog career field are out t here embedded with army/marine units. getting law enforcement training really depends on yourself. We get taught crime scene processing, traffic stops, high risk traffic stops, DUI's, processign inmates, corrections and many other law enforements type situations. It is an outstanding foundation for getting out and becoming a civillain police officer. I th ank you for your kind words about the career field. I am mereley trying to make you see taht we do more with Law Enforcement than everyone thinks (which is just riding in a car "pretending" to be cops) The only difference between what i do and what they do is the fact that i have not attended a police acadamey. Miltiary bases do have gang problems, stabbings, shootings, rapes and everything in between.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V, I agree with everything you last said.



If a business owner wants to make a policy that has all patrons strip nude as they walk in the door, stick Kazoos in all their orifices, and fart/hum the Star-Spangled as they shop, then as far as I am concerned, they should be allowed to do so.



If people don't like it, then don't shop there.



TJR

 

[Johnny O]

In my opinion....

Once you've paid for something what is in the bag is YOUR property, not the store's. Without probable cause, they should leave you alone, unless as mentioned earlier, store policy is to check EVERYONE'S receipt.

I don't know if a judge would agree or not.

Speaking of probably cause, every store now has a dozen conspicuously mounted cameras, you mean they don't have someone watching the monitors and videotaping?

Nevermind, they likely don't want to spend the money when they already won't hire enough cashiers.

Store I worked at laid off the full-time security guy and kept the part-timer. I guess they figured what got stolen cost less than what they paid him.:blink:

When I worked in retail we were told that we HAD to stop shoplifters outside because until they left the store (and stuff was outside w/o being paid for), they had not committed a crime. In fact, if they know they're being watched they will usually put back whatever they took before they leave and you can't do anything about it. I did bust the adult daughter of an employee for opening a bag of candy, eating half of it while she walked around, and stuffing the bag in a rug in the rug dept. We didn't press charges but she was banned from the store.

Laws in other states may be different.

 

[Rich Stern]

Bill, when I enter your home, what is mine remains mine, including my DNA, my bodily fluids, what I am wearing, and the inside of my pockets, backpacks, bags, etc.



You can refuse me entrance if I refuse to agree to your terms. You can ask me to leave if I don't comply with your wishes while there. The law will be on your side in those cases and I will be committing a statute violation (tresspass), subject to arrest, if I don't comply.



However, under no circumstances may you lay hands on me or detain me against my wishes, except in defense of yourself or your property. Defense of your property doesn't include patting me down when there is no reason to suspect I have taken anything.



Remember, your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. My being in your house doesn't give me a right to your stuff, and you don't own me or have special privileges above my rights just because I am in your home.



If we have a contractual agreement for me to be searched and I don't allow it, you only have whatever breach remedies the contract allows, or what you can get in a court. You still can't search me if I object.



If you testify to a law enforcement officer that you witnessed or have other evidence of a crime, the officer can affect an arrest and a subsequent search of my person and possessions.

 

[Mike Hyde]

TJR,



Your right, an officer must have a "lawful" reason to ask for proof of indentification. If your were walking down the street and an officer pulls up and starts talking with you and is not asking you about a specific offense and asks for your name and you don't want to give it, you don't have to and can't be compelled to give your name. Period. If the officer pulls up and starts asking you questions about a specific offense, and has information or reason to believe your involved or have information about an offense, it's a different story.



The other point you mentioned about being detained, you can be tempoarily detained wtihout having to be "charged" with something. Here's an example if I'm understanding you correctly: A robbery occurs, the officer at the scene gets a description of the suspect and broadcasts it over the radio to the other units. Another unit sees Joe Shmoe walking down the street on the next block and he matches the physical description with similar clothing. The officer has the authority to stop and detain Joe and obtain his ID. If, after talking with Joe, it turns out he's not the suspect, he's turned lose and he goes on his way. It's a legal stop and detention.



But it all boils down to what were all saying. An officer has to have lawful reason to compell someone to provide identification. Of course we could start another debate on what constitutes "lawful reason." Just kidding!!!!





Mike H

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I still say the potentially "sticky" piece here that is debatable (and that depending on your POV you side more with Bill V or with Rich Stern above) is the debate as to WHEN the purchased merchandise becomes the buyers personal property.



If the items become your once paid for, and you can then deny a search of your bags (etc) as you exit then you side with Rich's interpretation of civil liberties.



If you assume that it's not until you exit the door with the purchased items in hand that they become yours, without ability to be inspected, then you side with Bill.



I tend to side more with the latter, and recognize legit reasons why a store would want the same interpretation of purchase/ownership/possession.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

you don't ... have special privileges above my rights just because I am in your home.

I do IF you agreed to those special privileges as a condition of your entry. And when you walked through the door, that's exactly what you did.

you only have whatever breach remedies the contract allows

I agree--and as the signs on the door and the verbal communication stated, that contract includes searches--which are implicitly both part of the main contract and part of the breach remedies in the contract. Further, even if I choose not to enact the search allowed by the contract, I have the right to detain you until police arrive, as once again, your breach of contract fully qualifies as probable cause.



Rich, just curious--do you feel this way about searches at airports, stadiums, concerts, bars/clubs, etc? I would argue the situation is the same--if you don't want to be searched, don't patronize the airport/stadium/etc. By voluntarily becoming a customer of these establishments, you are agreeing to their rules, which include such searches. Are you saying that the things you carry into an airplane are your possessions, and therefore cannot be searched--but that you should still be able to fly on the plane? Sorry, that ain't the way it works. You're free to avoid the search--by simply staying out of the airport. Whether the search occurs as you're entering (as in the airport example) or departing (as in the Circuit City example) is completely irrelevant--by entering the facility, you've consented to the search.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mike H...



Regarding "lawful reason", I think (and hope) that if we were to debate it and look into it that we would find that "lawful reason" for demanding "proof of identification" would have to hinge on the police having probable cause that the person being questioned committed some illegal activity.



So if someone were to fit a description in an APB, that could be probable cause.



However, consider this scenario. As I said earlier, I witnessed a vehicle vs pedestrian accident. The police responded and I was a witness so I was questioned. I was asked my identity, but never asked for proof of identification.



The policeman on the seen clearly had a lawful duty to perform, but I think he had no lawful reason in which to prove my identity; and clearly no lawful reason to detain me (if that were needed) in order to prove my identity.



I cite my example because I think it is like Righi's. If Righi's account of the incident is true, then he did nothing legally wrong, was being accused of no wrong-doing, and being charged with no wrong-doing. He was a witness (or a plaintiff of sorts) to wrong-doing. He shouldn't be compelled, or detained, to show proof of his identity in such a scenario.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

I still say the potentially "sticky" piece here that is debatable (and that depending on your POV you side more with Bill V or with Rich Stern above) is the debate as to WHEN the purchased merchandise becomes the buyers personal property.



If the items become your once paid for, and you can then deny a search of your bags (etc) as you exit then you side with Rich's interpretation of civil liberties.



If you assume that it's not until you exit the door with the purchased items in hand that they become yours, without ability to be inspected, then you side with Bill.

TJR, actually, that's not what I'm saying. I still think that once the purchased merchandise is paid for, it becomes your property. I realize I did toss out the question about when the transaction is completed, but that was to just offer another possible perspective some may have, although it isn't my main contention.



What I'm saying is that even though that property is yours (assuming you properly paid for it instead of stealing it), when you entered the store you agreed to an implied contract allowing certain items to be inspected, regardless of whose property they may be at the time, while on the store's property. And that the store is completely within their rights to take reasonable steps to enforce that contract. The definition of "reasonable" may warrant discussion--for example, firing a weapon at you is clearly out of the question. Locking the doors to prevent your departure until police arrive is considerably more reasonable, I would consider it acceptable, but I concede it's not cut-and-dry. Taking photos and recording license plate numbers are clearly acceptable. But the long and the short of it is that the store still maintains a contractual right to that inspection, and if you breach that contract by refusing the inspection, it qualifies as probable cause for suspicion of theft, thus allowing further action on their part.