Having your receipt checked at the door: police involvement?

[ghaverkamp]

I'm not too surprised or bothered that a Circuit City employee would be ill-informed about the limits of his legal authority, but the fact that a cop was not so well-informed is more troubling.

 

It is troubling, but it's also commonplace. And why not? Cops are generally protected by qualified immunity, despite its problems. It's not clear that there's much incentive to see that they're well-informed. In some instances, there may be disincentives.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

It is troubling, but it's also commonplace. And why not? Cops are generally protected by qualified immunity, despite its problems. It's not clear that there's much incentive to see that they're well-informed. In some instances, there may be disincentives.

 

I can see that being (somewhat) immune from the consequences would remove the incentive to be well-informed.

 

However, what would the disincentive be for having well-informed officers? I would think it would have saved a lot of trouble in this case. The officer still could have asked the guy for his driver's license; less knowledgeable/obstreperous subjects would willingly comply with the officer's demand, but if the officer had known his limits then he could have backed down when this guy asserted his rights. Instead, he's busy not being on patrol while he processes this guy at the police station, and there's considerable paperwork/prosecutor man-hours required to deal with the situation.

[Twisties]

It is troubling, but it's also commonplace. And why not? Cops are generally protected by qualified immunity, despite its problems. It's not clear that there's much incentive to see that they're well-informed. In some instances, there may be disincentives.

 

I can see that being (somewhat) immune from the consequences would remove the incentive to be well-informed.

 

However, what would the disincentive be for having well-informed officers? I would think it would have saved a lot of trouble in this case. The officer still could have asked the guy for his driver's license; less knowledgeable/obstreperous subjects would willingly comply with the officer's demand, but if the officer had known his limits then he could have backed down when this guy asserted his rights. Instead, he's busy not being on patrol while he processes this guy at the police station, and there's considerable paperwork/prosecutor man-hours required to deal with the situation.

 

Intentional acts of police misconduct may have more serious consequences than merely misguided acts.

[ghaverkamp]

However, what would the disincentive be for having well-informed officers? I would think it would have saved a lot of trouble in this case. The officer still could have asked the guy for his driver's license; less knowledgeable/obstreperous subjects would willingly comply with the officer's demand, but if the officer had known his limits then he could have backed down when this guy asserted his rights. Instead, he's busy not being on patrol while he processes this guy at the police station, and there's considerable paperwork/prosecutor man-hours required to deal with the situation.

 

Well, for the officer, they're going to pay him, anyway, right? Maybe he'll even get overtime out of the deal. Or, the union will demand more officers, so they win.

 

For the municipality, they save money; training is expensive. They might save on liability, too. Monell liability for failure to train requires that they specifically acted to prevent training on an issue. No pesky emails weighing training decisions if you simply don't do but the bare minimum. (And, of course, they will want to ensure they've educated on those things that are almost sure to cause liability.) Then there's the problem that the qualified immunity standard rests somewhat on what a reasonable officer would be expected to know the law to be. Not training keeps that standard low.

[BerndM]

I have a different twist on this topic.

I knew up front that a requirement of my Costco membership was having my receipt checked against my purchases when I exited the store. No problemo!!

So a couple of months ago, I had made a fairly large purchase of groceries, socks, underwear....you get the drift...lots of items, but not a huge amount of money.

So I get to the door, and since I obviously looked like a decent enough customer, the receipt checker did a very quick cursory inspection and marked my receipt accordingly.

Well now, I said to him, I don't believe you did your job fully. There are MANY items, actually some of the more expensive ones, near the bottom of the cart, he you never actually checked.

The end result was that there were some less than pleased customers AND store personnel, including the manager, loitering around.

The manager and checker did proceed in fact to check EVERY SINGLE item in my cart before letting me leave.

They never asked for my card or ID and actually told me to "have a nice day!"

I smiled ALL the way home.

Just part of my "Don't get mad, get even" policy.

regards

Bernd

 

[4wheeldog]

[i'm not too surprised or bothered that a Circuit City employee would be ill-informed about the limits of his legal authority, but the fact that a cop was not so well-informed is more troubling.

 

Your confidence in local law enforcement is seriously misplaced. Memorize this phrase for use anytime you come up on their radar:

"I wish to speak to my attorney".......Repeat as necessary. An angry cop is never your friend.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

[i'm not too surprised or bothered that a Circuit City employee would be ill-informed about the limits of his legal authority, but the fact that a cop was not so well-informed is more troubling.

 

Your confidence in local law enforcement is seriously misplaced.

 

Well, my confidence has been appropriately recalibrated at this point - but the facts are still troubling.

 

Not wishing to bear the financial costs and stress borne by the fellow in the Circuit City case, I suppose if I were in his situation I would hand over my license while informing him that I would be filing a complaint against him after the present matter was settled.

 

Or would even that small act of assertion be courting disaster?

[casticus]

Mitch,

 

I'll try to give you some Michigan answers regarding the criminal code...I can't speak to civil liability burden you could assume by not taking some mitigating de-escalation actions (I liked that by the way).

 

#1 Private citizens in Michigan can make citizen's arrests for felony crimes committed in their presence or not in their presence (be very careful in the latter), at the direction of a Peace Officer, and (only exception) if they are an agent or owner of a "store" where an item offered for sale is being stolen (i.e. retail fraud or shoplifting).

 

#2 You are required by law to identify yourself to law enforcement if "we" are investigating a violation of the law (local ordinance where I work).

 

#3 You have to be disobeying a LAWFUL order from a peace officer to be arrested. But flight itself can equal justification for a "stop" and then continuing to flee becomes a crime in and of itself (if the Officer is yelling "stop" so to speak).

 

#4 You cannot resist an unlawful or a lawful arrest.

 

There is no automatic investigation or instances when someone is arrested and then not charged by the Prosecutor's Office. Happens all the time in situations where the arrest was legal but the Prosecutor simply decided not to charge without their determining no probable cause existed. Anyone who feels they have been treated "wrongly" for lack of a better term can always contact whatever agency it was' Internal Affairs Unit.

 

It is perfectly legal for a LEO to lie to someone during an investigation (i.e. bluff) I strongly encourage subordinates to pick those battles very carefully. I don't like using deliberate deception during an interview because it may not be very helpful in the long run.

 

My advice to citizens is always comply with LEOs orders in a dynamic contact. You have no idea why we are stopping/contacting you. You may know you have done nothing wrong but we may believe something differently i.e., resembling description of someone involved in something very serious, etc...

 

Now I do find showing my receipt to be silly but what the heck, like others have suggested, if I don't like it that much I can just go elsewhere.

 

Oh, that made me think of something. Here any agent of a business can deny your service and your refusal to leave is trespassing. It doesn't matter "why" you think they are picking on you (i.e. protected class status) if you don't leave when PD gets their you go to jail. Now you can always sue them civilly in federal court for ACLU type violation but criminally that doesn't matter when "we" get there.

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

 

Hi Dave -

 

Thanks for stopping by; long time no see.

 

#2 You are required by law to identify yourself to law enforcement if "we" are investigating a violation of the law (local ordinance where I work).

 

Assuming I'm not operating a vehicle (or even seated in the driver's seat), am I required to show a driver's license when asked to identify myself in Michigan?

 

 

[VinnyR11]

Summary: Customer tried to exit Walmart carrying a 37" TV he had just purchased, and politely declined to show his receipt. He faced some physical obstruction from the receipt checker, but remained unfailingly polite and physically non-aggressive while verbally asserting his rights the entire time, even enduring a stream of verbal abuse from another customer. A second receipt-checker approaches to offer reinforcement to the first. Once a manager arrives on scene, the customer explains the situation, and the manager agrees with him that he is indeed free to leave without showing his receipt.

 

But wait...there's more!

 

When a friend asked the TV owner, "Where did you get the new flatscreen?" the owner of the TV said...

 

"You are NOT going to believe this. I was noodling on the Net and stumbled on this BMW forum. I think it's a motorcycle website for old guys, but those guys will debate anything. Anyhow, I was reading this thread started by this Joe Fryin' Fries guy, or whomever, and I figure if I just keep my cool I can pick up a TV and walk right out of the store with it! I can't believe I stumbled on it in time for Round 1 of the NCAA's. Want some chips?"

[motorman587]

Hi Dave -

 

Thanks for stopping by; long time no see.

 

#2 You are required by law to identify yourself to law enforcement if "we" are investigating a violation of the law (local ordinance where I work).

 

Assuming I'm not operating a vehicle (or even seated in the driver's seat), am I required to show a driver's license when asked to identify myself in Michigan?

 

 

 

 

In Florida too...........

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

[Kathy R]

Hi Dave -

 

Thanks for stopping by; long time no see.

 

#2 You are required by law to identify yourself to law enforcement if "we" are investigating a violation of the law (local ordinance where I work).

 

Assuming I'm not operating a vehicle (or even seated in the driver's seat), am I required to show a driver's license when asked to identify myself in Michigan?

 

 

 

 

In Florida too...........

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

 

John,

Can you point out to me where in that link it talks about citizens being required to show their drivers license when asked to identify themselves by an officer of the law? Thanks! I couldn't see it?

 

[motorman587]

Assuming I'm not operating a vehicle (or even seated in the driver's seat), am I required to show a driver's license when asked to identify myself in Michigan?

 

 

If it is just a citizen contact then no.......meaning I walk up to you and just start talking to you. No reason at all.

 

If I am called to a scene, I am conducting an investigation, ie your refusal to show a receipt, then yes. What is the investigation, possible shop lifting, and your resisting to show the receipt, changes this to suspicion stop, which means I can legally stop you.

 

 

 

[motorman587]

Hi Dave -

 

Thanks for stopping by; long time no see.

 

#2 You are required by law to identify yourself to law enforcement if "we" are investigating a violation of the law (local ordinance where I work).

 

Assuming I'm not operating a vehicle (or even seated in the driver's seat), am I required to show a driver's license when asked to identify myself in Michigan?

 

 

 

 

In Florida too...........

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

 

John,

Can you point out to me where in that link it talks about citizens being required to show their drivers license when asked to identify themselves by an officer of the law? Thanks! I couldn't see it?

The scope of Terry was extended in the 2004 Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that a state law requiring the suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

 

[motorman587]

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop; some states (e.g., Colorado[4]) require that a person detained provide additional information, but as of November 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.

 

 

[motorman587]

Read this one too...............

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

[tallman]

Problem is, if someone doesn't have a valid state issued ID, then they can ID themself as someone else.

Had a former student, a murderer, spend nearly 2 years in Georgia detention facility using his cousin's name.

Eventually ruse detected when cousin ran afoul of gendarmes blowing the cover off.

Original offender finally brought back to FLa. and paid the piper.

[motorman587]

Problem is, if someone doesn't have a valid state issued ID, then they can ID themself as someone else.

Had a former student, a murderer, spend nearly 2 years in Georgia detention facility using his cousin's name.

Eventually ruse detected when cousin ran afoul of gendarmes blowing the cover off.

Original offender finally brought back to FLa. and paid the piper.

 

We can use rapid ID'er in our vehicles. Thumb print, also in Florida we can use D.A.V.I.D., investigation and technology is only good as the LEO.

[4wheeldog]

I have lived my entire adult life without ever being detained by an officer of the law. When I have had contact, I have been cooperative, but I keep my lip zipped, only answering those questions asked that could not possibly be improperly construed.

 

The event that gave me this view occured when I was 14, (A loooonnng time ago). I was a passenger in a car on the way to the movies with 3 other young men, when we got pulled over, and wound up face down in the dirt. When I could not produce a DL, (I was 14, but big and ugly for my age) I was kicked in the kidneys so that I pissed blood for a couple of days. As soon as it started, it was over.......We were back in the car and told to get out of there. No explanation, no apologies. My attitude of cooperation ended that day. If they are not inclined to listen, I ain't going to give them anything to listen to.

 

This attitude was given a boost when I took a CCW course from a retired cop. He made it clear that there was nothing to be gained by any extra conversation with a LEO....And there was no way for a citizen to know if he is a suspect or not.

 

All that said, I have no issue with showing a receipt to a door guard, or a license to a cop. But that is pretty much the limit of my immediate cooperation. Just sayin'.

[MT Wallet]

In viewing and participating in this thread I've noticed all our basic insecurities showing. We don't like to get jerked around unnecessarily and we don't always know where the legal boundries are. It's a nuanced environment. I think we all feel vulnerable and don't like to be not in control. At least I don't. Once the cops get involved we all get a little tense. Is the cop going to be reasonable? even handed? or is he going to overstep? The last one always concerns me. If I get stopped or ticketed fair and square I don't mind nearly as much as if it was some chicken s--t nonsense. I still don't like it, but I can live with it.

I see different LEO points of view and approaches to the issue. So now I am no more reassured than a man standing on quick sand. Are we having fun yet?

[upflying]

When I have had contact, I have been cooperative, but I keep my lip zipped, only answering those questions asked that could not possibly be improperly construed.

 

He made it clear that there was nothing to be gained by any extra conversation with a LEO....And there was no way for a citizen to know if he is a suspect or not.

 

Pulled over a driver a few weeks ago with the same perspective. I just saw him make an illegal u-turn. I asked the driver if he had seen the no u-turn sign. His reply, "you must have my car mistaken for someone else".

Ok then.

[beemerman2k]

Summary: Customer tried to exit Walmart carrying a 37" TV he had just purchased, and politely declined to show his receipt. He faced some physical obstruction from the receipt checker, but remained unfailingly polite and physically non-aggressive while verbally asserting his rights the entire time, even enduring a stream of verbal abuse from another customer. A second receipt-checker approaches to offer reinforcement to the first. Once a manager arrives on scene, the customer explains the situation, and the manager agrees with him that he is indeed free to leave without showing his receipt.

 

But wait...there's more!

 

When a friend asked the TV owner, "Where did you get the new flatscreen?" the owner of the TV said...

 

"You are NOT going to believe this. I was noodling on the Net and stumbled on this BMW forum. I think it's a motorcycle website for old guys, but those guys will debate anything. Anyhow, I was reading this thread started by this Joe Fryin' Fries guy, or whomever, and I figure if I just keep my cool I can pick up a TV and walk right out of the store with it! I can't believe I stumbled on it in time for Round 1 of the NCAA's. Want some chips?"

 

 

The real world at work.

 

 

[4wheeldog]

When I have had contact, I have been cooperative, but I keep my lip zipped, only answering those questions asked that could not possibly be improperly construed.

 

He made it clear that there was nothing to be gained by any extra conversation with a LEO....And there was no way for a citizen to know if he is a suspect or not.

 

Pulled over a driver a few weeks ago with the same perspective. I just saw him make an illegal u-turn. I asked the driver if he had seen the no u-turn sign. His reply, "you must have my car mistaken for someone else".

Ok then.

 

I fail to see how you equate his attitude with mine......But I have given up second guessing LEOs. So it goes........

 

 

[casticus]

The requirement to identify yourself does not equate to present valid photo id unless you are operating a vehicle. However you are still required to identify yourself as I mentioned earlier. If you provide false information that is an additional separate crime.

 

If an Officer suspects you have provided false information because what you verbally provided doesn't link to a MI id or MI ops then depending on the situation you could find yourself going out to the County Jail to be "live-scanned" as John described he could do in the field. At the very least you would be printed and photographed in the field and then tracked down later if you had lied. Most of t hat depends on the severity of the offense.

 

I know its been awhile since I have been "around". 2 "new" lil ones are taking up most of my time. Abby is almost 3 and Max is almost 1. Lemme know if you guys are getting together in Michigan anytime soon. Still riding.

[Rocer]

John, can you clarify for me:

 

Whether or not a customer is notified on entering the store that the store have a policy of checking receipts against merchandise at the exit and then asks an exiting customer to show their receipt and purchases aren't we talking about a civil issue and not a criminal issue? ie. just because a store has a check receipt policy doesn't mean every customer is suspected of shoplifting.

 

Reading through these posts it appears that there is an assumption or suspicion of shoplifting but that is not clearly stated to the customer. If the police arrive and the store has NOT made a direct statement to the customer that they suspect them of shoplifting but are just enforcing store policy then is the officer not wading into a civil issue?

[MotorinLA]

John, can you clarify for me:

 

Whether or not a customer is notified on entering the store that the store have a policy of checking receipts against merchandise at the exit and then asks an exiting customer to show their receipt and purchases aren't we talking about a civil issue and not a criminal issue? ie. just because a store has a check receipt policy doesn't mean every customer is suspected of shoplifting.

 

Reading through these posts it appears that there is an assumption or suspicion of shoplifting but that is not clearly stated to the customer. If the police arrive and the store has NOT made a direct statement to the customer that they suspect them of shoplifting but are just enforcing store policy then is the officer not wading into a civil issue?

 

If it is clear that it is in fact a civil issue, then yes. The problem is that LEOs may have very limited information when arriving on scene, or in some case they have been provided with information that is not correct. I base this on personal experience and the assumption that most stores don't call the police because of a "civil dispute", rather they call because of a "suspected theft". Thus, the officer arrives on scene with the mindset that he/she is investigating a possible theft.

 

Are there police officers out there that are not well versed in the law? Unfortunately, yes.

 

Are there a whole lot more citizens out there that are not well versed in the law? Absolutely.

 

Working as a traffic officer I have the pleasure of contacting a large number of "normal citizens" on a daily basis. I'm not contacting these people because they are career criminals, I'm just contacting them because they committed a simple traffic violation. Many fail to pull over properly. Some refuse to produce ID. Some refuse to sign the citation. Some want to write on the citation. Many disagree with the violation. Most of them base this on their personal knowledge of "the law". As it turns out, these behaviors are based on a lack of knowledge of the law, rather than the other way around. The fact is that many people think they "have the right" to do a great number of things, without actually finding out if they have these "rights".

 

I ask those that are immediately critical of LEOs in this thread, to take these factors into consideration. There are many police officers out there that strive very hard to educate themselves and provide the best possible law enforcement service to the people they serve.

[Mister Tee]

All this discussion points to one conclusion:

 

Do all of your shopping online.