Rights Violation or a Complete Jerk?

[Bolty]

So on some bigtime blog sites (Digg, Slashdot, etc), news stories of this blogger's adventure at Circuit City are getting a lot of attention. I found myself intrigued by the story and discussed it with my coworkers.

Go ahead and read his side of what happened. Go on, read it.

Back? Okay.

So, was this a case of massive rights stomping by both Circuit City and the local police department, or is this guy just a grade A jerkweed who wanted to pick a fight? Sure, technically, he was RIGHT and within his rights for his behavior. But is he a champion of citizens' rights or someone who just had a proverbial long pole up the posterior?

I can't decide.

I kinda wish I could have witnessed the whole thing. It would be interesting to hear the story from the perspective of the Circuit City employees and the police officer. But that'll never happen, not since this guy is likely to sue both entities.

Ultimately we only have his side of the story. For all we know, he's the most belligerent weiner on the planet, and enjoys picking fights. Or, he's some guy who felt the need to stand up to silly store policies and cops on power trips, and he should be applauded for it. Someone has to stand up to The Man,™ right?

You decide. What do you think of these check-your-receipt store policies, which sound like they're more of a "check that the stores own employees are not stealing via proxy" than a "check if the customer is a shoplifter" sort of thing? Certainly when you go to Sam's Club or BJ's or some such place, being a member means you agree to such policies. What about the Wal-Marts of the world? Does anyone take the "well if you're not stealing, you have nothing to worry about by showing your receipt" argument seriously?

Papers please, comrade!

-Bolty

[kandrathe]

Probably the sensible thing to do would have been to return to the store and speak with manager. He was on their property, and possibly the mall owners. If he was denied redress then he should have offered to allow the store the option of taking back the merchandise and reversing his charges. How would stores ever prevent shoplifting without the means to stop suspects at the door. My experience has been Best Buy and Circuit City as well as others automatically inspect all bags to insure there is no loss (at least though the front door). I recall there is a statute here as well regarding not following a peace officers orders, and I believe where I live people are required to show identification (not just a DL, MN Id card otherwise) when asked or be in the company of an adult. I'm not much into provoking a Rodney King incident, so when the man says "Show me your papers", I show him the whole briefcase. However, if I inadvertently bump an undercover officer's foot while releiving myself at the Minneapolis airport, I would not relinquish my rights as lightly as some Idaho Senators seem to do.

So... Yes, I have my documentation in order, comrade.

[Taem]

I always thought because you were on the stores property, they could require you to provide proof that you purchased the item in the first place, however ironically, most super-chains use these door-checkers simply to see if you were "over/double charged" for items. It's suppose to be a beneficial thing, right, not a red herring. I know I always feel more comfortable with someone checking my receipt because if I am being double charged, the door checker always finds it; example: I was at Costco last week and bought 6-packs of begals (2-packs for only $1.99), but the door checker could only see two because I had so many groceries, so she affirmed with me, "did you get 6-packs of begals?" To which my reply of course was, "yes!" Another time at Costco last year, I was charged twice for a $20-pack of AA batteries, but I only purchased one pack. The checker saw this and helped me get my money back for the pack of batteries I never purchased. So in my view, door checkers are very helpful if you buy in bulk.

Now if you only bought one-or-two things, such as in your bloggers journal, that's where I can see someone feeling like they are being called a thief. Our justice system is not Guilty Until Proven Innocent, but Innocent Until Proven Guilty. This in-store policy of checking everyones receipts with their goods not only goes against our legal policy, but sounds suspiciously like it conflicts with our Constitution as well - however I acknowledge that I am far from being a law major and am speaking mostly from "common-sense".

[Munkay]

The guy's a Grade A wiener.

I'm always surprised at how much these 'protesters for justice' throw common sense out the window before they act. All of us reach a breaking point at one time another. And often times it can be the silliest thing that puts us overboard. But reasonable people take a moment, breathe deeply, and approach the situation correctly. The alternative is to be unreasonable, start causing a scene and end up in a holding cell to cool off. This man isn't a hero anymore than the guy in the next cell who decided to scream bloody murder over a speeding ticket until he was arrested.

The true heroes of our rights are the ones who take that moment of clarity and make a tough decision. Is now the right time to dig in our heels, draw a line in the sand, and try to make a difference? A difference not just for them, but for preservation rights for everyone.

This man wasn't trying to change policy. He knew before he started pulling this fiasco wouldn't stop stores from checking bags. He was frustrated and made a bad decision. Unfortunately he didn't have the sense enough to realize the futility of his exercise. There are a plethora of more reasonable things he could have done, many of which would have better results. And I don't doubt that deep down he knew that, whether he was cognizant of it at the time or not.

As for the arrest, I have absolutely no problem with the officer's actions. The man was asked to identify himself, refused to show the most common government identification (a drivers license), and didn't assert that he did not own a drivers license. Until the officer could confirm the actual identify of the man, he should be held in a holding cell. The assertion laws are there in the case that someone genuinely doesn't have any form of identification, is no longer posing any threat, and has not committed a crime. It's there for the officer to have some lee-way to use his own judgment. It's not meant to be a free pass for everyone to refuse to identify themselves, especially when they do have identification on them. Heck, for a very long time, until 2006 if I recall correctly, verbal assertion laws were on the books for border crossing. In lieu of any paperwork, a US citizen could state 'I am a citizen of the United States' and be granted entry into the country.

Now let's have a moment and think about what happens when we don't interpret laws with the tiny tiniest bit of common sense. The kind of 'justice' this man is standing up for is a slap in the face to the real men and women who fought against true injustice. He isn't a hero, he's a fool.

Cheers,

Munk

[LochnarITB]

Yes he picked a fight but I have to agree with him. Unless they suspect wrongdoing, there is no reason for them to inspect the package. If they do have reason to suspect theft, they stop him and make a citizen's arrest for shoplifting and call the authorities to proceed further. There are times when it is appropriate to create a disturbance to draw attention to an issue. While an individual like this is only a small ripple in the pond, if enough people make ripples, they can become a wave like those that brought many of the rights we enjoy today. Such inspections are false accusations and a waste of people's time. If he wants to make the effort to protect my rights, I thank him for that. Most of us (yes, us includes me most - but not all - of the time) just ignore the erosion of rights until they have been stomped on so hard that it is hard to get them back.

[Jarulf]

I always thought because you were on the stores property, they could require you to provide proof that you purchased the item in the first place,

Why would you have to prove that? Do you say that as long as you are on someones properties, they have the right to search you and your belongings? After all, it is a #public" (in the sense that they are letting the public in) place were they let you in in the first place. Are there any law in the US that lets someone search anyone on their property?

[Nystul]

I vote Complete Jerk.

Personally I have never in my life been to a store that asked me to show my receipt. I think the reasonable thing would be to have the security tags, and only check receipts on people who either set off the alarm or do something while in the store to raise suspicions. That said, you are trying to get out of a store with a bag full of stuff. If a store employee wants to check your receipt, just show them the receipt. Big deal. He isn't making our lives any better by fighting this policy, he is only making us have to pay more money for electronics products (assuming he has any impact on our lives at all, which fortunately isn't very likely).

Now if he had left the store without anyone saying anything, and then some guy runs out to the parking lot and demands to see his receipt, then I might be more sympathetic. But the reality is that he was in a fairly routine situation inside the store that could be viewed as part of the checkout process, and he should have just played along.

Yes, we have a Bill of Rights to protect against unlawful searches. Nevertheless, when I enter or leave work, I have to go through a metal detector. If I go to the city courthouse, I have to go through a metal detector. I haven't been to the aiport in a few years but I bet they still check luggage. I don't see a big deal to check the merchandise a person is carrying out of a store that owns and sells said merchandise when the person has the bag in plain sight.

[Hammerskjold]

>Certainly when you go to Sam's Club or BJ's or some such place, being a member means you agree to such policies. What about the Wal-Marts of the world? Does anyone take the "well if you're not stealing, you have nothing to worry about by showing your receipt" argument seriously?

I can only say what I've experienced in Wal-Mart up here in Toronto. There are the blue vest greeters that sometimes pulls double duty as receipt checkers, but it's not in all branches. I've only been asked once to show my receipt and bags, and that's because an alarm was falsely tripped. One of those RDF tags was probably not deactivated by the cashier properly, and judging by the guy's reaction who checked my bags it seems it's not a rare occurence.

Same deal with the Circuit City in here.

Having said all that, for me it's a case of knowing where you are and picking your battles.

I'm interested to know if the Circuit City in question was in a mall or a big box store setup. (It sounds from the blog like it was a big box store.) I don't know how they set it up, but one reason I usually prefer going to the mall version of such stores is because they have 'theft prevention personnel' patroling the mall stores. (Some folks use to call them Mall Cops. Like anything else, they range anywhere from competent and helpful to aspiring bullies who wants a badge.)

With stand alone big box stores, I personally haven't seen one. More likely I see store employees doing double duty. This is not always a good idea, exactly because of things like this.

Having said all that, the blogger was an idiot in my opinion, not because he chose to pick this fight. But because he chose the wrong time and venue to do it.

Looking at his writings, this is not the first time he experienced frustrations at receipt checks policy etc. So he probably had a battle plan forming, unfortunately it sounds like he let his emotion do the thinking on when to 'Take a Stand'. A better time to do it was with a bunch of undercover TV reporters with hidden cameras in the back seat and somewhere else. As part of a 'Dateline' Special on how Corporations are Going Wild, On Your Rights! Stay tuned for Accuweather and Sports at 11! Or hell, get a guerilla cellphone camera crew to film it then Youtube the hell out of it. Cellphone cameras that was bought from Circuit City if you want to be extra stylish about it.

But taking The Stand when his young siblings are waiting to go to a birthday party, probably not the greatest idea.

[kandrathe]

So... Why wouldn't he just boycott the store? If you don't like their policies, then organize your friends and picket. What about airport security? Is that unreasonable? How about metal detectors to enter a school?

But, I agree with the right to be free from unreasonable search (usually by the government though), so if that is his goal he should have shown the officer his ID. The officer would have taken his bag and unlawfully searched it, where the guy would have had a solid case to take to the Supreme court if necessary.

[NiteFox]

Having worked in a store (Actually a business wholesalers with some personal sales) where customers are required to have to submit their receipt before leaving, as well as also being a customer there frequently, and understanding the reasons why you have to go through that painless little procedure, it's my opinion that this guy is a grade-A jerk, and he should probably be branded on his rear stating something to that effect.

It's honestly not that big an issue. Seriously. As I mentioned, this place was a wholesalers, so they have to protect their meagre profit margins. All that happens is you hand over your receipt to whatever unlucky schmo was scheduled to watch the door for that hour (Fortunately being on the home electronics department I wasn't even in the running for that thankless job, especially in one of the coldest Nov-Dec stretches for a few years), they check your receipt, check the contents of the cart, then stamp it. Simple as that.

Stamping the receipt also validates the returns guarantee on your product. You try bluffing your way out, avoid getting the stamp, and if you return the product with an unstamped receipt you get nowhere, but I digress.

Back where I worked, mainly small home electronics (MP3 players, LCD TVs, videogames/consoles etc.) we had to go through numerous steps to sell a product. We had our own checkout (One checkout between three to four staff and dozens of customers. Every fortnight a catalogue bundle goes out to all the registered customers highlighting offers available for the next fortnight. If several of those offers were stuff we specifically sold, we'd be swamped.), we would have to sell the product seperately from the checkouts at the other end of the store, and stick the receipt to the product. We could not refer people to checkout at the regular checkouts, no matter how busy we were. Why? Because people would then stroll out the store with their £200 MP3 player (Our profit being approximately £5), claiming they've already paid.

That's why people check receipts on the way out, especially in stores with multiple checkouts spread throughout the store.

When you walk onto the private property of a store, you should abide by their rules, their policies. If the store's fire alarm goes off during your visit, you evacuate because you might be in mortal danger not because The Man is trying to harsh on your shopping spree. You abide by the store's opening and closing hours. If the store is out of stock of an item you wish to purchase, you don't throw a hissy fit and demand to see the manager and berate him for failing to keep the shelves stocked.

And likewise if someone asks you to produce your receipt so they can validate your purchase, you be a polite citizen and do so. In pretty much every store there's a sign saying "Shoplifters Will Be Prosecuted", personally a lighter punishment should be applied to small-minded individuals who decide to abuse store policy in such a manner.

In this case, this guy's punishment should be 100 hours checking receipts at the door of that Circuit City. Punishment fitting the crime.

[NuurAbSaal]

I vote complete jerk as well. I R on teh intarweb, I have the power. All his babble about maybe asking for a boycott of Circuit City and all, powertrippin' in my book.

And

Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.

oh come ON!

He should have worried more about creating an atmosphere of cooperation and some fricking common sense than martyring himself for The Greater Good Of Mankind.

[Tal]

Grade A jerkwad. He had an agenda and was pushing it. Unfortunately all he did was create a headache for the employees who enforce corporate policy. Grassroots campaigns should never start with being an ass to folks who have no decision making power.

[TheDragoon]

Personally, I think the guy is an idiot for pulling this sort of thing when he had people waiting on him and it sounded like he had much better things to be doing. Also, the guy could certainly have taken pretty mild mitigating actions (letting them look at his recipt, cooperating more with the police, etc) that would have prevented the incident from happening. That said, I do not think that the officer or store personnel are at all innocent in creating the situation.

First, I sympathize with the stores about wanting to try and prevent theft, particularly in electronics stores where very small things are often very expensive. However, it seems to me that following someone out of your store and preventing a car from driving away is not a good policy. It seems that obstructing a car (both in front and behind) should be illegal. If you had a similar situation with a group of gangsters or other hoodlums, it would certainly put a different light on the situation. A better plan for the employees would probably have been to get the license plate number and then go back inside to talk to the checkers and figure out if he had actually come from the registers. Since it sounds like he did, I imagine this situation would have just ended there.

Second, it really sounds like the police officer did not understand the laws he was trying to enforce. He seemed to think that there was a law that requires anyone to give him ID, but it sounds like that is not the case. The charges they brought the guy up on are very weak. If you read the section the guy quoted in the blog, the section requires both that the person not have the privilege to obstruct an officer (which this guy did not) AND be doing so "with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance" of the officer. The second part is where I think the charges will fall through. It sounds like the guy was perfectly willing to provide information, he just felt he was not required to provide a license just because the officer asks (and it sounds like he didn't since they didn't bring him up on those sorts of charges).

It also seems that there are things that Circuit City could do, as a store, that would prevent ever needing to engage in questionable actions like obstructing cars such as setting up the registers in full view of the exit (so the guys can see anyone who pays and immediately goes to leave), giving some way to prevent people from leaving (perhaps a lock on the sliding doors that is accessible to the recipt checkers) or any other engineered solution.

The one big question this leaves in my mind is whether or not it IS legal for stores to require that you let them search your bags and whether they are allowed to restrain you if you do not comply. It doesn't seem like a big deal to have people check recipts, but it DOES seem like the consequences of refusing are very much on the shady side of business.

So overall, I think the guy was being an idiot in how he chose to assert his rights. However, it sucks to get put through so much stuff if you were in the right, all along, so if it turns out that he was right in his interpretation of the laws, I would hope that the guy sticks it to the store and police since it sounds like they were being stupid as well. I also hope he never has any kids because we don't need any more whiny morons running around in this country. :)

[Zarathustra]

Jerk.

[ShadowHM]

After reading this part of the blog: (bolding mine)

My three siblings sat in the back of the Buick crying their eyes out, which is the only part of today that I regret. I wish my little brother and sisters didn’t have to watch this, but I knew exactly what I was doing and was very careful with my words. Other than putting my family through a little scare I don’t regret anything that happened today.

So, he screws up a family reunion, carefully doing so ? :blink:

Grade A asshole. And am I very grateful that the assholes of my family have yet to try this way of fouling up a family gatherings. :whistling:

[oldmandennis]

An other vote for jerk. The policies are posted clearly in those places - if you don't like it, don't shop there. There are plenty of alternatives. Heck, you don't even need pants to shop at Amazon.

As far as stopping the car, at that point the store employees definitely had reasonable cause to try and stop him. Weather the possibility that he is stealing an MP3 player is worth the chance of getting run over is a call they have to make on the scene.

As far as the charges go, the officer probably didn't know the law. Weather he should be able to demand the license or not is a debate the whole country needs to look at closely as we redefine privacy and rights in light of today's realities. Probably the charges will be dropped, but if you are being an ass and behaving oddly, they are within their rights to take you downtown and check you out. It's also a possibility that he did something else not mentioned in his blog that could be construed as interfering with the officer.

[Jester]

(WARNING: The following does not imply moral equivalence in any sense. It is only an example from similar rights-based challenges.)

This is very much like the classic free speech defense of holocaust deniers. What do you say when someone should have taken a sensible course of action, but instead took an odious-but-correct stand on their rights?

Cops and corporations taking a mile when they've only been given an inch is a greater danger than jerks making scenes.

On the other hand, there is a certain 'softness' that makes society go 'round. If everyone stood on their rights every time, there would be no cooperation. Blood pressures would go through the roof, and the society would collapse into a mess of bickering.

So, I think guys like this are important, but only occasionally. It is important to remember that people are the source of rights, not government, not police, and certainly not Circuit City. But, just like if every book published was David Irving, if every shopper was this guy, we'd be going to hell in a handbasket.

-Jester

[Xame]

Interesting mix.

The policies of Circuit City form a contract about what you need to do to buy an item. Some of it is implied, some of it is written policy. You need to take the package to the cash register to buy it. You cannot leave money on the floor. etc. etc. In this sence the guy is pretty much fighting a losing battle. He needs to follow the policy to complete his side of the contract. If he refuses, then he can leave and not make a purchase. Its simply his choice. They could ask for your last years taxes if they wanted if they though people would still shop there (see this all the time for large ticket items such as buying property, business contracts etc).

I'll give the store manager some leaway for not explaining the choice to the customer (ie. offering to take the item back if he didn't want to show the bag) and failing to explain that it is the policy of the store if he wishes to do business with a Circuit City that he needed to comply. Who knows, maybe he did and this guy just didn't get it.

Now the interesting part is the police officer. Here the guy wins in spades. Arrested without a crime? Forced to show papers without reasonable suspicion (the Circuit City manager was trained well enough not to make the charge because of the legal concequences). So the officer was not a witness to anything and no one was charging the man. Why the arrest? Why the suspicion? Forced into a booking where the officers supervisors could have tried to make right the situation. And now with a court date without the city attorney trying to beg forgiveness. Asserting legal rights is not grounds for suspicion or guilt.

He might be a fool trying to change Circuit City or any other stores policies. At best he will get them to post the policies more clearly (ie. McD telling me that coffee is hot :rolleyes:). Pressing his claim on the limits of goverment over its people, is a long fight if the city pushes it, but he should win and win big. No arrest without cause and no goverment search without cause. He has a HUGE stack of supreme court cases of very guilty people to pull from where the goverment screwed up a search/arrest. The police officer has no excuse. Let it be a civil matter between the guy and Circuit City. The goverment shouldn't take sides. Circuit City is big enough and has attorneys to deal with this on their own.

I only pray that the goverment will train its police officers as well as Circuit City trains its managers. I predict the city loses and circuit city wins. With a 50/50 record this guy will go off to do this again. More power to you dude. Whatever floats your boat.

[Munkay]

(WARNING: The following does not imply moral equivalence in any sense. It is only an example from similar rights-based challenges.)

This is very much like the classic free speech defense of holocaust deniers. What do you say when someone should have taken a sensible course of action, but instead took an odious-but-correct stand on their rights?

Cops and corporations taking a mile when they've only been given an inch is a greater danger than jerks making scenes.

On the other hand, there is a certain 'softness' that makes society go 'round. If everyone stood on their rights every time, there would be no cooperation. Blood pressures would go through the roof, and the society would collapse into a mess of bickering.

So, I think guys like this are important, but only occasionally. It is important to remember that people are the source of rights, not government, not police, and certainly not Circuit City. But, just like if every book published was David Irving, if every shopper was this guy, we'd be going to hell in a handbasket.

-Jester

I can see the fine line you're trying to walk Jester, and I think you're successful in making your point. But I do think you may be giving this man too much credit.

As I see it, most laws are self explanatory: follow the letter of the law and there's no disgreement. For example, speeding, murder, or physical assault all have clear cut definitions. Break the rule, you get punished.

But for-better-or-worse, there are some laws needed for a society to function that can't be so clear cut. Take for example verbal assault. I'm not a law student, so I can't quote (nor feign correct interpretation) of the law. Unlike speeding which can rely on cold hard physics to determine when the line is crossed, some crimes like verbal assault are subjective. The law tries its best to put it in objective terms: 'perceived threat', 'intent of action', etc. But no matter how many terms you put into the law book, it can't provide a crisp clear line in the same way it can for other crimes.

There are a lot of dolts out there who are willing to use these more subjective laws to get restraining orders, press assault charges, or sue anyone who happens to look at them the wrong way. Ultimately these cases get dropped in court thanks to a judicial system with competent lawyers, judges, and juries. But the damage of these cases can be lasting (lost jobs, lost wages, social standing in the community, etc).

Now in the case of this man, I'm aware it wasn't concerning one of these more subjective laws. But he's in the same vein as these snap judgment suers. Just because they believe their rights may be encroached on, they raise a stink to the high heavens. The problem is this 'crying wolf' takes away from people who are fighting against true injustice.

Just because the law protects my right to slap a lawsuit on anyone who looks at me the wrong way, doesn't make me a hero for standing up and asserting those rights. In the same way, just because this man raised a stink and rode the technicality of his rights all the way to a jail cell doesn't mean he's a hero.

You're point about the need for people to stand up for their rights isn't wrong Jester. But I think to apply that to this case is giving him way too much credit. His actions aren't going to change anything for anyone, make anyone freer, preserve our rights more than before, make society better, or draw attention to a 'great injustice of society'.

Cheers,

Munk

[Concillian]

While I agree with Jester, lets look at the logical chain of events provided these searches are deemed illegal (and I think they are)...

1) court and lawyers ($$$)
2) New policies in these stores that result in every customer being required to sign something stating that they are requred to show receipt and purchases upon exiting the store as a condition of purchase

So now he has cost the corporation time and money, which will translate to higher prices AND more time taken from me whenever I make a purchase here.

I don't really see a logical conclusion that ends in the removal of these searches. Were that the case, I think I'd be more prone to agree with his position. But the reality is that they will simply add in a purchase agreement that has every customer spending another minute at checkout agreeing to.