I need to check your receipt

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by Agent 007

Hmmm.....second time in a week that one of the loudest chest-thumpers on the board has spouted off about being arrested/locked up. I think I'm seeing a pattern.

Yeah, a lot of people get arrested who never actually committed a crime.

Or are you one of those who believes that "not guilty" or charges dropped means "they got away with it"?

Innocent people get munched by the system, thrown in with a bunch of real criminals, treated like dirt by both those other criminals and the guards subjected to fear, discomfort, and lost wages, all because of some "oopsie" by the police. And you wonder why those people might have a somewhat jaundiced view of "the system"?

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Well, unfortunately, not doing the crime is no guarantee that one won't do some time.

Is it too much to ask the system to remember that a significant number of the people in lockup/jail (not talking about prison here, after conviction) are actually not guilty?

[SirRealism]

Originally Posted by GetA2J

You assume incorrectly Sir
That remark was directed at nobody in particular unless you are one that says "I don't mind showing my receipt for unbagged items but NOT if that intrepid alarm goes off. I just keep walking if that happens"
That's like saying I don't really mind if they check my receipt to see that I didn't steal that mop handle or case of water... but I will not be hasseled if the cashier didn't properly disarm the security tag in my new copy of Rambo and it made the alarm go off! I didn't do anything wrong for cryin out loud.
Just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry for the assumption.

[Kirk Freeman]

Just so everyone is aware of the power Beatrice, the Greeter, has:

************************************************** **

IC 35-33-6-2

Probable cause; detention; procedure; statements by juveniles
Sec. 2. (a) An owner or agent of a store who has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred or is occurring on or about the store and who has probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing the theft:
(1) may:
(A) detain the person and request the person to identify himself or herself;
(B) verify the identification;
(C) determine whether the person has in the person's possession unpurchased merchandise taken from the store;
(D) inform the appropriate law enforcement officers; and
(E) inform the person's parents or others interested in the person's welfare that the person has been detained; but
(2) shall not ask the person to make a statement that acknowledges that the person committed the theft or conversion or waives any of the person's legal rights if:
(A) the person is less than eighteen (18) years of age; and
(B) the person has not been afforded an opportunity to have a meaningful consultation with his or her parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem.
(b) A statement acknowledging that a child committed theft or conversion in violation of subdivision (a)(2) cannot be admitted as evidence against the child on the issue of whether the child committed a delinquent act or a crime.
(c) The detention must:
(1) be reasonable and last only for a reasonable time; and
(2) not extend beyond the arrival of a law enforcement officer or two (2) hours, whichever first occurs.

************************************************** ****

Fear The Beatrice!

[jjohnisme]

Originally Posted by 2ADMNLOVER

Ever seen Falling Down with Michale Douglas ?

"There are other people wanting to use the phone?
Well, that's too bad. Because you know what?
[fires into the phone booth]
I think it's out of order."

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman

Just so everyone is aware of the power Beatrice, the Greeter, has:

************************************************** **

IC 35-33-6-2

Probable cause; detention; procedure; statements by juveniles
Sec. 2. (a) An owner or agent of a store who has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred or is occurring on or about the store and who has probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing the theft:
(1) may:
(A) detain the person and request the person to identify himself or herself;
(B) verify the identification;
(C) determine whether the person has in the person's possession unpurchased merchandise taken from the store;
(D) inform the appropriate law enforcement officers; and
(E) inform the person's parents or others interested in the person's welfare that the person has been detained; but
(2) shall not ask the person to make a statement that acknowledges that the person committed the theft or conversion or waives any of the person's legal rights if:
(A) the person is less than eighteen (18) years of age; and
(B) the person has not been afforded an opportunity to have a meaningful consultation with his or her parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem.
(b) A statement acknowledging that a child committed theft or conversion in violation of subdivision (a)(2) cannot be admitted as evidence against the child on the issue of whether the child committed a delinquent act or a crime.
(c) The detention must:
(1) be reasonable and last only for a reasonable time; and
(2) not extend beyond the arrival of a law enforcement officer or two (2) hours, whichever first occurs.

************************************************** ****

Fear The Beatrice!

What constitutes "probable cause" in such an instance? And what legal remedies are there if the detention is made or attempted without said probable cause?

This kind of reminds me of one of the serious problems with the exclusionary rules for dealing with illegal searches and seizures. I understand the reason the exclusionary rules were started in the first place. Originally, a person whose rights were violated was supposed to sue the government for redress but that was kind of hard to do if illegally obtained evidence had put the person in jail--and so there was no real "incentive" for law enforcement to actually follow the Constitution. And so evidence exclusion became that incentive and the form of redress.

The problem with that is when the government agents don't really care if the evidence is excluded or not. Case in point the US Marshals service tracking down fugitives as described in the book "Manhunter" (the autobiography of the Marshal who, among other things tracked down Mengele--or his body rather). They could ignore the Constitution because even if any evidence they found was excluded they had the original warrant for the guy being tracked.

Now, I'm all for putting bad guys away, but I'm more for protecting the innocent from the actions of government. And in the Marshal's case it wasn't just the fugitive whose rights were violated.

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Jay

Perhaps my soft and cuddly facial expression, makes me appear innocent.....

That MUST be it.

Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman

has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred

So exiting the store is probable cause? ...it's every. Single. Person. Leaving.
They think every single shopper is a thief?

[Scout]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Thats the line they parrot, when in truth less than 5% of "shrinkage" falls under that category.

The vast majority is by employees and vendors. Vendors steal stores blind. They never walk in with the merchandise, get a signature saying they brought it in while it was in their vehicle the whole time.

When I was a truck driver I used to deliver to Home Depot, and I once watched them throwing out carts and carts of good stuff. I asked about it and they said "You wouldn't believe."

If I was forcibly detained, I would ask exactly what they believe to be taken, ask to see the video, and ask for a police officer to do the search. I would tell them to tell the cop what they think I took.

[Kirk Freeman]

What constitutes "probable cause" in such an instance? And what legal remedies are there if the detention is made or attempted without said probable cause?

Probable cause=>fair probability that one is shoplifting.

Remedies=>lawsuit, potential criminal charges (but unlikely)

IC 35-33-6-4

Civil or criminal actions; exclusion of lawful detention; burden of proof

Sec. 4. A civil or criminal action against:
(1) an owner or agent of a store or motion picture exhibition facility; or
(2) a law enforcement officer;
may not be based on a detention that was lawful under section 2 or 2.5 of this chapter. However, the defendant has the burden of proof that the defendant acted with probable cause under section 2 or 2.5

So exiting the store is probable cause?

Certainly not.

But maybe exiting the store like in Animal House where they stuff all the steaks down his sweater, "nothing for me today, thanks."

I just smile and wave at Beatrice. I'm not doing anything wrong so I'm not stopping. However, if I am carting out a couple of cases of .22 (yeah, like I used to and like to now), I would slow down and wave the receipt at Beatrice and tell her that I paid in sporting goods.

If the store dicks want to run after me in the parking lot, O.K. fine, but there might be a little litigation involved later.

[IndyBeerman]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The vast majority is by employees and vendors. Vendors steal stores blind. They never walk in with the merchandise, get a signature saying they brought it in while it was in their vehicle the whole time.

May I ask what proof that you have that says vendors steal stores blind.
Be very careful on how you answer this because how you do will depend on just how reply back to this.

[wtfd661]

Originally Posted by dburkhead

Is it too much to ask the system to remember that a significant number of the people in lockup/jail (not talking about prison here, after conviction) are actually not guilty?

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is no significant number of people in lockup/jail (and I'm also talking about prior to conviction) that are innocent. Now you ask your self how does he know this, well I'll tell you its because I worked in the lockup/jail in a good size community for 15 years. Truth be told the significant number of people incarcerated (even the ones prior to conviction) are guilty. Sorry but thats the truth.