Michael Righi was at a Circuit City store and bought a gift for his sister’s birthday. Upon leaving the store, an employee demanded to see his receipt. Michael politely refused, as is his right. The manager came out of the store, blocked Michael’s car door (passenger door, not driver) so that he couldn’t close it, and demanded to see Michael’s receipt and examine his purchases. The manager wouldn’t move, so Michael did the prudent thing: he called 911.
The police officer who responded to the call was as confused as the manager about the Fourth Amendment. He then asked for Michael’s driver’s license. Michael stated his name, but refused to give his driver’s license, as he wasn’t driving a car, and the officer had no right to ask for his license. Michael was placed under arrest. Michael was then subject to an illegal search. Michael was charged with a crime:
ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.
At no point during the arrest were his Miranda rights read to him. He’s out of jail on bail.
Read his story in detail here.
He’ll be contacting the ACLU, who, I hope, will see that the manager and the cop pay dearly for their violations of Michael’s rights. If you value your freedom from unlawful search and freedom from having to comply with “papers, please” demands, I strongly urge you to donate to his legal defense fund.
Rob says
Whoa, hold on now. I agree that people shouldn’t have to show ID if they don’t want to, but are you seriously suggesting to me that people have a “right” to waltz out of any retail store they want to without having to prove that they purchased the items they brought with them?
At what point do property rights get applied?
Brigitte says
Some stories are hard to believe.
Perhaps it would have been better to show the receipt. Better for him, I think
Patrick says
Rob:
He paid for the items. They were HIS ITEMS TO LEAVE THE STORE WITH. The cashier knew he paid for them. At what point did he violate the property rights of Circuit City? THEY VIOLATED HIS by asking to search HIS BELONGINGS.
Having to PROVE you purchased something is assuming guilt before innocent. Since our legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty, you shouldn’t have to prove you’re not breaking the law (and in fact, you can’t. It’s a logical fallacy).
Brigitte:
Nice to know you’ll do whatever authority tells you to, even if it is a gross violation of your rights. You know that whole ‘land of the free’ thing that Americans believe they have? How free are you when you say he should have just shown his receipt?
What exactly is this FREEDOM of which you speak if you so easily give it away?
Rob says
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the consitution’s privacy language protects Americans from “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Is being asked to show your receipt to prove you purchased items before you exit a retail store unreasonable?
I don’t think so at all.
This is why most libertarians aren’t taken all that seriously. We talk about limited government and individual freedoms and everything is well and good, then someone refuses to do something as simple as show a receipt and suddenly the lot of you start acting like people are being herded off into ghettos.
Get a grip. Being asked to show a receipt is not an unreasonable search, nor is it unreasonable for a retail store manager to call the police when someone refuses to show one and walks out of a store with merchandise.
Christopher says
If he had a gun he could have made the world a bit less stupider.
Michael Galante says
I agree with Rob, this is way out in left field. There are a few stores in my area like circuit city that are asking to see your receipt as you walk out the door. It’s obvious they are doing this to cut down on people stealing their merchandise. Michael’s refusal was a blatant disregard for authority. His refusal to show them his receipt made him a suspect.
Excerpt from his story
“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.”
He has it all wrong; it’s the lack of obedience which is a dangerous thing. It’s a blatant disregard for authority which will lead people to do stupid things like he did and suffer the consequences.
As God’s word says, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
And in 2 Peter it talks about those who disregard authority “then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,”
Mark says
He bought the items! They’re HIS property. As soon as he pays for them, the store is done. They are not the store’s items. So property rights get applied the moment he buys the items and they become his property.
First of all, that’s talking about searches by the government. At no point does a private citizen have the right to search you. Second, read the Constitution again. Such a search requires a warrant signed by a judge. And a warrant requires reasonable suspicion. It must describe the people, places and things to be searched.
In a retail environment, a store has the right to detain someone if:
Anything less, and they’ll be facing a lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment. And likely losing.
Private citizens don’t get to detain other private citizens on a hunch (or in this case — less than a hunch: simple refusal to produce a receipt when asked to volunteer it).
He was herded off. He went to jail. He was unlawfully detained by the store manager. He was unlawfully searched by the police officer. He was unlawfully arrested (was not read his rights). He was detained on a charge that doesn’t exist. Those are multiple violations of his Constitutional rights.
And your Orwellian comment makes you a suspect to me. But I don’t have the right to search you.
The manager of a retail store is not a figure of authority. He was trying to pretend he had authority, but he didn’t. He was demanding that Michael submit to a search of his person and his possessions.
It was egregious, but not deserving of death. I probably would have just started driving off slowly. The manager would have tired out eventually.
Michael Galante says
The police officer was certainly an authority figure and his refusal to comply with the officers request to show his license is what got him arrested. I believe if Michael humbled himself under the police authority he would have been let go. God’s law still applies no matter how cleaver one’s argument is. God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble.
Mark says
No, it is not. That is not a crime. Authority is not absolute. The officer made a request. Not a legitimate order as an authority figure.
Maybe. Same as when dealing with a mugger or a rapist. Let them have their way with you and it’ll all be over faster. But maybe Michael didn’t want to let the officer have his way with him.
Rob says
Mark, c’mon. You’re out in nutso land now.
The constitution provides protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. What is so unreasonable about asking a customer to prove that he purchased the items he’s leaving the store with before he leaves the store? And what is unreasonable about a private citizen, the store owner, calling in the authorities to resolve the dispute.
This is a perfectly legitimate function of government.
I mean, you just compared asking for a receipt to rape.
You used to be smarter than this.
Patrick says
The store is a private entity. The Constitution doesn’t apply, at least, not in this sense. Certainly they have the right to ASK for your receipt. Just as it’s your right to refuse to show it to them.
There is no probable cause for them to ask for it. Why? Because:
This presumes guilt. Since you cannot PROVE you didn’t steal the items (case in point: a congressman in my area was recently arrested for “returning” items with fraudulent receipts), there’s no rightful reason to accuse someone of stealing something unless you’re damn good and sure they did.
I have friends and family who work in retail. The rule of thumb where they work is: you do not challenge someone’s items unless you WATCHED them remove them from the shelves and head for the door. Why? Because stores have been sued for defamation of character for accusing innocent people of theft. Asking to see your receipt is the exact same accusation. The only difference is a question of scale (a bald-faced accusation versus a subtle suggestion of guilt).
The store owner wasn’t present. The store MANAGER was. And he didn’t call the police – Righi did, because he was being unlawfully detained.
Finally, on the issue of whether he should have shown his license:
Ohio state law specifically forbids police officers to request identification if you are not operating a motor vehicle. Righi was in the back seat. He was under no legal or moral obligation to prove who he was, and anyone who claims he simply “should have done as the police officer asked” worries the hell out of me – what is this so-called freedom you defend if you’re willing to do anything and everything an authority figure demands of you?
The Founding Fathers were suspicious as hell of authority and wanted the citizenry to be as well. Authority should never be trusted easily, and our founders knew that. Seems much of the American populace has forgotten it.
Rob says
Patrick,
I don’t know what to tell you. As someone who actually manages a retail store and deals with the constant threat of shoplifting every day I can tell that a store manager asking you for your receipt, and calling the police if you refuse because he/she suspects you of stealing, is not an unreasonable scenario.
If someone were walking away from your garage sale with some stuff and you didn’t know if you paid or not would you not ask them for some proof that they did pay? Would you not call the police to prevent them from maybe stealing your stuff if they refused? Is it not reasonable for the police officer to also ask for that proof in order to settle the dispute between yourself and the other person?
I guess I don’t know how to put it any other way for you. If you want to be a retard and stand on some phony-baloney interpretation of our laws, I guess I can’t help you.
Good luck getting anyone to take you seriously.
Patrick says
Now the bias becomes apparent. I recognize the difficulty of the situation you’re in. When I was in high school, my best friend’s dad was the head of security at a major retail chain. More than once we visited him and he had to run to catch a shoplifter. They had lists of how much the stores had lost over various months.
I recognize the situation for what it is. What you have to understand is that there is no moral obligation to make your job easier. In a free society, there is always a balance to be struck between freedom and its costs.
I am probably the one taking the cash. So I know who’s paid and who hasn’t.
That aside, the same issues arise. I’m free to ask, and they’re equally free to refuse. At that point, I can bully them, or I can call the police. Bullying will probably result in the police being called anyway. It was never my right to force them to prove their innocence – just as it isn’t yours.
More than that, there’s no question of authority, or its perception, here. I have no more authority over an individual than a wet noodle. The same cannot be said for a manager of a store. There’s a perception of authority there, warranted or not: “Let me see your manager!” is a phrase commonly heard in retail establishments.
The officer asked for Righi’s receipt, which he dutifully and immediately produced. Of course that’s reasonable. What more do you want? He had no right to ask Righi to produce picture ID.
Oh, well, that’s going to convince me. [rolls eyes]
And.. that’s the crux of it isn’t it? American society has bought into the idea of inviolate authority for so long it’s become incapable of questioning said authority. Just because that’s the case, doesn’t make me – or anyone who agrees with me – wrong.
The worst part is, you’ve never even made any apparent effort to grasp these arguments. You’ve only seen the issue through your bias, the fact that you manage a store and by damn, you’re going to catch those good-for-nothing shoplifters! Rights or any of that nonsense be damned.
I’m not asking you to agree with me. I only ask you try to see the other side of the argument, as I have attempted to see yours, above.
Mark says
It’s insulting, but not unreasonable. Nor is it unreasonable for someone to refuse such a request.
Compared, not equated. A search of your person is a violation of your privacy and freedom, and like in the case of rape or mugging, there are people who advocate that you not resist, as you’re less likely to get hurt if you just comply.
No, but it is unreasonable for said manager to physically prevent you from leaving just on “suspicion” of stealing, which is what happened in this case.
Biggi says
I guess it would have been much easier to him, if he had done what they wanted from him. But I can understand why he didn’t want to show them
Eoin says
My feeling is that if this principled individual really cared about civil liberties, he would be protesting outside the white house against the unprecedented increase in legislation allowing; the un-justified questioning, search, and phone tapping of US citizens.
If reducing terrorist threats means increasing the infringement on civil liberties, have the terrorist won in the end?
Patrick says
Eoin:
I love that name. 🙂
On the topic – I don’t think caring about civil liberties is an either-or proposition. It’s impossible to pursue every cause at the same time; consequently people choose the ones that are important to them, or more practically, the ones that they’re able to fight.
Righi may very well care a great deal about the Bush administration’s wiretapping; but it may be more prudent for him to deal with the issues that present themselves in his life.
Bill says
Patrick, your comments are cogent and concise. You really expose Rob for his lack of knowledge and understanding of the law. Thank you for providing your knowledge. It is sad how many of us are willing to give up our rights under any pretense of authority. If you want to live in fear, think like Rob, and I’m sure the government will provide for you the authoritarian police state you ask for (perhaps they already have?). If you want to live free because you understand that there is no such thing as true security, think like Patrick. Benjamin Franklin said something along the lines of “Those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
Bill says
One other thought, when someone has to dismiss your arguments by resorting to comments like “You’re way out in nutso land now” or by calling your ideas too far left or right, they have already lost the argument. It is logical to assume that if an argument is flawed that one can point out logically exactly how that argument is flawed. Resorting to saying someone comes from the “left” or the “right” or is “nutso” makes no attempt to analyze the argument and consider the points it makes. Then again, it is no surprise that those of us who either think less or are lesser educated are the quickest dismiss the ones they are arguing with, they are otherwise incapable of dealing with the argument.
Patrick says
Bill – thanks for the kind comments 🙂
And I agree with you about dismissing arguments by throwing insults – I became impervious to that sort of poo-flinging years ago (lots of time spent arguing on forums, I guess!), and now see it for what it is.
Louis says
When are these obstructionists idiots going to get with the program and cooperate with the society and social system in which they live. I hope the same jerk, when next stopped at a DUI cue, simply drives through and spends another few hours or nights (hopefully a weekend arrest) in jail and the following weeks formulating some BS excuse and bogus complain to tie up other idiots with ACLU. I guess they assume asserting the minutia of their individual rights at every turn is more important than making things work in the crazy, unsafe world they are creating. Next, I suppose, they will dash down the street waving an AK47 around to assert their right to bare arms. That, at least, will hopefully rid us all of their nuisance devalue.
Patrick says
While I suppose I can see the appeal of a nation full of soulless zombies, I think I’d rather live in a world where people fight to remain free, even if it is a more difficult world to live in.
Who needs free speech? It’s easier if the government just tells everyone what to believe and what to say. Who needs the right to due process? It’s so much more convenient to just throw everyone in jail who is suspected of wrongdoing, because at least they’re no longer on the street making trouble.
So let me ask you, which of your rights enumerated in the Constitution ARE worth fighting for, by the standard which you’ve set? ANY of them? What in the world could you possibly believe this nation, this “society and social system in which you live”, is founded upon?
It’s pathetic that the best you can possibly imagine of those who attempt to maintain YOUR freedoms is that they’re a “nuisance.” You’ll always think so, until you’re the one who needs those freedoms. Then you’ll regret giving them away so easily, in exchange for… oh that’s right, nothing, not even security. You gave that away when you accepted the idea that a police officer’s authority over you is total.
BookWise says
It seems to me that many stores have (or used to have) a little notice near the door stating that they reserved the right to inspect any packages carried through the store.
This seems reasonable to me.
Does CircuitCity have something like this displayed?
Dale says
All shops have the right to check all customers bags. But still a little overboard
Dale
http://dzrbenson.com/blog/
Rod Souza says
I agree with Rob. What was the big deal that a store manager just wanted to validate your purchase if that was the case? If your gift was already paid for wouldn’t it have been much easier to have just shown the man what he wanted to see? He must have had a reason if not delusional. Instead you call the man. I am 100% on the side of our privacy and 4th Amendment right, but you gotta learn how to pick your battles my friend.. Looks like in your case unfortunately regardless of who is right or wrong I would say you picked the wrong battle and hopefully you will learn from this. Been there done that.
troy d says
The only was to keep our rights is to fight for them. To just lay down and let officers do what ever they want is foolish. Authority should be followed when they are following the laws they are upholding, but to just go ahead and do what a cops says when he is not backed by the law, just because he is a cop, is foolish and weak and places you with those who in this counties founding thought we should say part of england!!!!