Ohioan Civil Rights violated (not showing DL at Circuit City)

[BloodRed]

for you and Mensan...why would I give my Drivers License (DL) to the cop? Because I approach situations like this by asking myself some pretty basic questions.

 

Why would I not want to cooperate with a police officer that I called and simply give him my Drivers License? I mean, so I have a right to say no, doesn't mean it's going to get me anywhere. Why be afraid? Who gives a shit? What's going to happen to me? Why do you think doing so shows fear? What's to be afraid of?

 

Let him do his job. It's not like holding it back from him is going to protect me from anything. My "rights" aren't in jeopardy, he's not a threat to me by taking it and using the information. Shit, the information you are stating to just give verbally is the same shit....unless you're out to hide something. I have nothing to hide by not giving him my DL. The cop was just trying to get a handle on the situation and who this guy in the car is and what the situation is about.

 

Please explain to me the big deal outside you just wanting to not do it for the sake of being difficult and hiding behind a "right" not to give it to him. Hell, he called the cops in the first place! I tend to approach things like this by being a bit more cooperative and find that helping the cops actually gets me what I want. It certainly didn't do him any favors to argue now did it? Perhaps if just simply helped the cop help him, he would be on with life.

 

Bottom line is I don't need any more drama in my life and know that putting up a fight, arguing and being resistant to things like this tends to not help. I'd rather achieve the goal than argue a point for the sake of an argument. Especially to a cop that I called.

 

I didn't have problem letting the cops run the s/n on my gun when I called them a few weeks back (when I thought my house was broken into) or running my DL in the system. No big deal and quite understandable really...and guess what...I had nothing to hide, they know that and my life has been smooth since. Case closed.

 

Re-reading the posters situation I laughed at his quote:

"Not being able to find the law in the books that states that a citizen must provide a driver’s license while walking through a parking lot, Officer Arroyo had to settle for “obstructing official business."

 

"He explained that I had been arrested for failure to produce my driver’s license. I asked him what would happen if I never learned to drive and didn’t have a driver’s license. After all, at the time that he arrested me I was standing on a sidewalk outside a Circuit City. I wasn’t driving a car, and even when I was seated in the Buick I was a back seat passenger. The officer never gave me a satisfactory answer to this question, but promised to explain the law to me after I was booked."

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the cop was being a bit sarcastic and to the point by stating he was being arrested for not showing his drivers license. It's very likely he was pissed that this stupid kid was being uncooperative for no real valid reason other than to give him a hard time. Again, give me a valid reason other than some "rights" bullshit. A common sense reason that is....it was pretty obvious that the kid was being uncooperative and obstructing the cop in his investigation right from the get-go.

 

Put yourself in the cops shoes...what would you do? You get called out to a situation which was created initially by the store employees....who have no reason to make shit up and give this kid a hard time....then when you get there, the kid in question, who called you out, gives you a hard time....geesh! Again, any fifth grader who's seen two episodes of COPS is going to tell you what's coming next.

 

100% agree. This guy brought it on himself and now he is going to whine and complain about it. If he wants to fight it go a head. If he gets anything back, I say he should only get maybe the court costs back since he really didn't do anything or loose anything. I am sure he will try to sue for millions over nothing. That is what happens in our sue happy country.

 

What I would be interested in knowing is if this Circuit City has any signs about being able to search your bags. I know I have seen it in many stores where basically steping foot on their property, you agreeing to searches for no reason. I know I never have anything to hide, so it doesn't bother me.

[TTQ B4U]

I doubt the case will be kicked for not reading him his Miranda Rights. They don't "have to" read them to an individual who is under arrest or simply in custody. Especially if they have no interest in further questioning. They just wouldn't be able to use anything he said prior to his Miranda Rights being read in court.

 

In this case, there was no need. He was arrested for Obstruction. Done deal right there. They don't have to question him any further.

 

If the cop never read him his miranda rights then the whole case will be thrown out. My brother got picked up one time for underage drinking and was never read his rights, case got thrown out.

 

Good luck on his fight though, people need to be aware of their rights and should not be so willing to give them up.

[TTQ B4U]

I talked with my wife....she said he may have grounds against the employees and CC for wrongly holding him and preventing the car from leaving. However when he goes before a magistrate they will take the entire incident into account and the fact that he was arrested will likely negate any reasonable judgment in his favor. Agree with it or not, it's the judges call and they likely will side against him given the whole story.

 

Besides, he wasn't harmed or injured and his family wasn't scared by anything the folks at CC did directly. What they may claim as emotional damages was more based on the fact that he was arrested and that was as a result of his own actions, not CC or the cop. :nutkick:

 

She said if wasn't arrested, cooperated with the cop he may have stood a better chance at getting something from CC. Basically, he pissed away his only card that could have gotten him anything simply by arguing a stupid point with the cop. Serves him right if you ask me. :finger: him!

 

Charging the cop with anything.....likely won't happen. Especially in this situation where this guy was clearly was a uncooperative. The cop may be seen as reacting a bit over the top but they will argue he was only considering the safety of others around him at a retail shopping center and maintaining order at the store front. :thumbup:

 

The cop erred on the side of caution and the qualified immunity he and the department receive is enough to keep the cop and department safe. Especially given the circumstances.

 

My money is on the side of him not getting shit except a nice bill from a lawyer. He prolly won't pay it and instead sail off to liberal island and argue the matter among friends and continue to deny the store has a right to search his bags.....which they do have while he's on their property even if he squeaked out the door before they were able to confront him with the request.

 

 

If he gets anything back, I say he should only get maybe the court costs back since he really didn't do anything or loose anything. I am sure he will try to sue for millions over nothing. That is what happens in our sue happy country.

 

What I would be interested in knowing is if this Circuit City has any signs about being able to search your bags. I know I have seen it in many stores where basically steping foot on their property, you agreeing to searches for no reason. I know I never have anything to hide, so it doesn't bother me.

[LJ]

The obstruction charge may actually hold up in court no matter what the guy's lawyer says. The cop wanted a form of ID so the guy could prove he was who he says he was. He did not comply, therefore he was obstructing.

 

The cop was an ass, yes, but the guy was wrong

[Stallion Motorsports1647545491]

here is what i read.

 

a guy walks into circuit city and buys two items. when he walks to the exit he is asked a simple request that we have all been asked from these stores before, "sir, may i make a black mark on your receipt?" the guy just keeps walking to a running vehicle parked directly in front of the store with several other people in it.

 

not profiling here, but sounds like half of the shoplifters i have stopped before. maybe the lp guy, and the manager have had previous work experience that led them to believe that this guy was showing signs of theft. (Ex. not stopping, running car out front, then the ordeal in front of the store)

 

i know i am going to get flamed for this, but isn't this kind of like people suing mcdonalds for spilling hot coffee on yourself? Everyone knows, including that guy that many, many retailers do that receipt check, so why does he shop there if he feels it is that big of an issue? i understand we have rights, however, where do you draw a line, what is unreasonable? I don't think it is unreasonable that Circuit City wants to protect, and make money. I wonder where that guy works. If i walked into his office and picked up his desk, and began to walk out, would he stop me? what if i had setup a agreement with the owner to buy that desk, and he didn't know it. i am guessing he would want more than my drivers license.

 

tom

[launchin1st]

i really hate what this country has become and is pushing towards.

the idea of "america" is still one of the best that mankind has come up with.

its up there with the blowjob and french fries.

 

here read this,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

 

then lets see how you feel about bush and his ideas.

[2 Sweet]

Why the fuck does any topic/story/event that is somewhat related to the government always lead to unnecessary president bashing? WTF does this thread have to do about Bush?

[Mattsn2o281]

It has plenty to do with bush, under his leadership the patriot act 1 and 2 were placed in effect. under his leadership we have never been closer to losing a great many of our civil liberties. The Guy was 100% in the right, he did not have to identify himself, and did not have to stop for a bag check. if they think you are shoplifting, here's and idea for the lazy ass lp guys, walk the fucking floor! if you see some strange behavior then you stop someone.

[LJ]

The Guy was 100% in the right, he did not have to identify himself.

No he wasn't

and yes he did

[Stallion Motorsports1647545491]

No he wasn't

and yes he did

 

+1

[Adam]

holy crap some of you guys are scary

 

its not that this guys is hiding behind rights and what not, it is that the laws are already there in place and he did nothing illegal to be searched, now if any of the cc guys or the cop would have said we have suspicion that you shop lifted due to this reason then they would have just cause to search him. Why was that never said (at least by the own guys story) if they actually had a reason to believe he was shoplifting then they should have said it. The guy said he paid for everything, then guess what he had proof of it when they illegally search his possessions. What is not being understood here, by law you don't have to show a drivers licence when not driving a vehicle and they made him and arrested him for it. Do you guys not read between the lines and see how this slippery slope could lead to illegal searches and seizures which our laws say the government and its officials can't do. Or can you not see how this could lead to not having the right to any kind of privacy for the fact that someone "thinks" you are doing something bad.

 

You are allowed to be an innocent dick

[LJ]

holy crap some of you guys are scary

 

its not that this guys is hiding behind rights and what not, it is that the laws are already there in place and he did nothing illegal to be searched, now if any of the cc guys or the cop would have said we have suspicion that you shop lifted due to this reason then they would have just cause to search him. Why was that never said (at least by the own guys story) if they actually had a reason to believe he was shoplifting then they should have said it. The guy said he paid for everything, then guess what he had proof of it when they illegally search his possessions. What is not being understood here, by law you don't have to show a drivers licence when not driving a vehicle and they made him and arrested him for it. Do you guys not read between the lines and see how this slippery slope could lead to illegal searches and seizures which our laws say the government and its officials can't do. Or can you not see how this could lead to not having the right to any kind of privacy for the fact that someone "thinks" you are doing something bad.

 

You are allowed to be an innocent dick

 

He is not innocent, all the cop did was ask him to verify his identity with a form of gov't issued ID, the guy refused, he obstructed justice. If he was innocent he should have complied with the officer. There was no search and seizure, everything was fine with the cop till the guy turned into a whiny, immature moron and refused to comply with the officer

[Adam]

what justice, the dude payed for what he had in the bag, right?

he actually was innocent right?

they took his wallet and searched the bag right?

i don't know how he obstructed justice when there was no crime commited

what if the guy didn't have an id on him since he actually wasn't driving a car, so that means whenever i am not driving and don't have my license i can be taken to jail for it

[LJ]

what justice, the dude payed for what he had in the bag, right?

he actually was innocent right?

they took his wallet and searched the bag right?

After he was already arrested, which is violating nothing

He was innocent until he refused to comply

i don't know how he obstructed justice when there was no crime commited

Then you obviously don't understand law enforcement

what if the guy didn't have an id on him since he actually wasn't driving a car, so that means whenever i am not driving and don't have my license i can be taken to jail for it

 

That is completely different, then he would have said that he didn't have an ID on him, rather than refusing to comply with the officer

[Adam]

when does refusing to comply with an unlawful act by a police officer make you guilty of something, and I guess you are right I don't understand law enforcement, just civil liberties and constitutional rights but whatever. And that example isn't different, if you didn't have you id, and you told a cop and they didn't believe you then they still have the right to search you? I understand the whole fact of just letting the cops do whatever they want to you because you are innocent makes things easier on you, but it isn't allowed by law to do what they did. It just so happens this guy called them on it. And if you think that guy is an immature moron, he did post some links about his immaturity in that thread

[TTQ B4U]

In the state of Ohio a business owner or employee has the legal right to detain a suspect if they have probable cause that they have stolen property or are attempting to leave the premises without paying. They also have a right to search any and all packages that the patrons enter or attempt to leave with. The mere fact that they were attempting to check his bag and receipt is a clear indication that they felt there was probable cause that he was shoplifting. They weren't lazy, they attempted to do their job. Did they call him a shoplifter in those exact words? we'll never know, but I don't buy the fact that they just stood there asking to search his bags without saying anything.

 

The Guy was 100% in the right, he did not have to identify himself, and did not have to stop for a bag check. if they think you are shoplifting, here's and idea for the lazy ass lp guys, walk the fucking floor! if you see some strange behavior then you stop someone.

[Razorback]

I will be following this story. This guy is great. I am glad he is for fighting the system legally.

 

No shit. I wish I had half the balls that this guy does.

[TTQ B4U]

its not that this guys is hiding behind rights and what not, it is that the laws are already there in place and he did nothing illegal to be searched, now if any of the cc guys or the cop would have said we have suspicion that you shop lifted due to this reason then they would have just cause to search him.

 

I doubt the CC employees stood there with nothing to say other than open your bags sir. That could ultimately be more confrontational and lead to more harm than good. they are completely within their rights to search his bag given probable cause and they don't have to explain themselves in detail to him. His voluntary search can be refused, but if they feel there was proof, they can approach him as they did.

 

Why was that never said (at least by the own guys story) if they actually had a reason to believe he was shoplifting then they should have said it. The guy said he paid for everything, then guess what he had proof of it when they illegally search his possessions. What is not being understood here, by law you don't have to show a drivers licence when not driving a vehicle and they made him and arrested him for it.

 

I think it's quite clear that if they would have accused him that he wouldn't simply comply to let them search his bags and look at his receipt. It's hindsight yes, but then my point is he wasn't about to comply and that's clear.

 

He also wasn't arrested for not showing his drivers license, so we can drop that claim already. The officer was called out and began and investigation. Once he arrived, his investigation of the call begins and he can request information, but if anyone interferes then they can and should be arrested for obstruction. This kid blatantly challenged the officer and refused to comply with a request and by doing so was impeding the officers investigation. IMO, he should have just stated he didn't have his license....but guess what.....he did likely have it and just refused....that's wrong and the cop did the right thing.

 

Do you guys not read between the lines and see how this slippery slope could lead to illegal searches and seizures which our laws say the government and its officials can't do. Or can you not see how this could lead to not having the right to any kind of privacy for the fact that someone "thinks" you are doing something bad.

 

there was no illegal search and seizure here....that law only applies to gov't searching our homes, etc...not the retail environment where they are allowed to search his bags. again, drop the search and seizure stuff....CC was completely in the right to demand to compare his receipt with any and all bags he attempted to leave with.

 

You are allowed to be an innocent dick

 

yes, we are allowed to be innocent dicks, but once you cross the line, you'll be a jailed dick and rightfully so.

[TTQ B4U]

He was innocent but the store has a right to search his bags/compare his receipt. according to what he stated, the cop took his wallet and that's only after he refused to comply with a request and the cop felt he was impeding his investigation. Again, completely within the law....the crime was Obstruction. Cops can search your pockets/wallet when they are detaining you during and investigation like this.

 

You don't have to have your ID or license with you when you are not driving, but if you imped the investigation of a shoplifting case or any crime where an officer is involved and questioning you, then yes, you can and likely will be arrested for Obstruction.

 

In this case, I think the cop was correct for attempting to verify the kids story and identity. Especially when he was cocky enough to try and tell the cop he didn't have to show him his license. Too bad he didn't understand the law and what Obstruction is and how far it could extend. Obviously he's not a law student.

 

 

what justice, the dude payed for what he had in the bag, right?

he actually was innocent right?

they took his wallet and searched the bag right?

i don't know how he obstructed justice when there was no crime commited

what if the guy didn't have an id on him since he actually wasn't driving a car, so that means whenever i am not driving and don't have my license i can be taken to jail for it

[MrMeanGreen]

Some of you need to read the comments in his blog, where people are stating the Ohio Revised Code.

 

One states that unless he is accused of shoplifting, they cannot search him or his property without consent. They didn't accuse him, and he didn't give consent. He was within his right to deny them anything.

 

The second states that in Ohio, he is only required by law (unless operating a motor vehicle, which he wasn't), to only provide his name, DOB, and address to law enforcement. He states they only asked him for his name, which he gave them and had the officer asked him for additional information, he would have provided it. He was not required to provide his driver's license by law.

 

So he is correct in defending his rights, whether you agree with his approach or not. Is he being a dick about it and making it more difficult than it needs to be? Yes. Is he also fighting the system for what he believes in? Yes.

[Skinner]

He is not innocent, all the cop did was ask him to verify his identity with a form of gov't issued ID, the guy refused, he obstructed justice. If he was innocent he should have complied with the officer. There was no search and seizure, everything was fine with the cop till the guy turned into a whiny, immature moron and refused to comply with the officer

actually he was innocent. By law he is not required to provide anything more than name, address, and age. with that info the officer can easily pull up any info (I have been pulled over before without my lisence I was asked for this info and the office pulled me up without issue.)

 

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

 

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

 

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

 

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

 

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

 

© Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

 

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)© of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

 

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

 

© Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

 

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

 

 

 

Would him giving the officer his DL made his job easier yes. But he did not legally have to give him anything other then what is listed above.

[LJ]

 

He also wasn't arrested for not showing his drivers license, so we can drop that claim already. The officer was called out and began and investigation. Once he arrived, his investigation of the call begins and he can request information, but if anyone interferes then they can and should be arrested for obstruction. This kid blatantly challenged the officer and refused to comply with a request and by doing so was impeding the officers investigation. IMO, he should have just stated he didn't have his license....but guess what.....he did likely have it and just refused....that's wrong and the cop did the right thing.

 

 

 

 

Exactly

[Mensan]

 

i know i am going to get flamed for this, but isn't this kind of like people suing mcdonalds for spilling hot coffee on yourself?

 

Yes, that woman was in the right as well. Several of my friends are lawyers; one of my very good friends owns his own firm. We have discussed this case in detail, and my opinion of the matter was changed. Check it out.

[TTQ B4U]

if you didn't have you id, and you told a cop and they didn't believe you then they still have the right to search you?

 

yes. if they have probable cause they can. in this case the cop could and likely did detain him and is allowed to empty the guys pockets and search for weapons or a drivers license if the guy has a big fat wallet in his pocket and he suspected the guy had one and simply was being a dick.

 

I understand the whole fact of just letting the cops do whatever they want to you because you are innocent makes things easier on you, but it isn't allowed by law to do what they did. It just so happens this guy called them on it. And if you think that guy is an immature moron, he did post some links about his immaturity in that thread

 

yes, the cop was in his right to search him and yes, the CC clerks were in their rights too....and after checking with my wife who is an attorney and knows this law very well....they were within their rights to detain him....at least here in Franklin County. She even sited a case at Burlington Coat Factory where she defended them for detaining a woman until the police came. They locked the doors and refused to let her leave but didn't touch her.

[TTQ B4U]

Obstruction laws are pretty broad and can include his refusal to provide the officer with information. Basically anything he did to delay the investigation is obstruction.

 

True, by law doesn't have to produce his license, but if the officer feels he's purposely hiding information that could lead to discovery of a pertinent fact.....in this case, his true identity, he has a right to search him, open his wallet and produce the license.

 

In brief, his actions led the cop to believe he could be bullshitting him about who he really is and that gave him the right to detain and search him.

 

You weren't likely detained in the case of a traffic stop because you were cool, complied and led the officer to no reasonable suspicion that you were being anything but truthful.

 

 

Would him giving the officer his DL made his job easier yes. But he did not legally have to give him anything other then what is listed above.