dicta \ 'dik-te \ n. [L. fr. neut. of dictus, ptp. of dicere] (1599) 1: a noteworthy statement: as a: a formal pronouncement of a principle, proposition, or opinion b: an observation intended or regarded as authoritative 2: a judicial opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case 3: a legendary coach of the Chicago Bears football team from 1982-1992. 
An old buddy of mine posted a link to some idiot's blog and asked me to comment (I hope he understood he is unleashing a monster). Here's the scenario:
I agree - this is a protest just for the sake of having a protest. The rights violations - from both the store owner and the police - are de minimus in this scenario. What is this guy's problem (or, more likely, when is he graduating from law school)?Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. Having forgotten that it was my sister’s birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”
(LONG STORY SHORT - the police were called when Mr. Righi refused to show the contents of his bag.)
At this point Officer Arroyo asked to see my receipt and driver’s license. I handed over the receipt, and stated that my name is Michael Righi. Again, Officer Arroyo asked to see my driver’s license. The conversation went something like this:
Me: “I’m required by law to state that my name is Michael Righi, but I do not have to provide you with my driver’s license since I am not operating a vehicle.”
Officer Arroyo: “Give me your driver’s license or I will place you under arrest.”
Me: “My name is Michael Righi. I am not willing to provide you with my driver’s license.”
Officer Arroyo: “Turn around and up against the wall.”
The store has a legitimate interest in preventing shoplifting. As stupid as this sounds, they are on stronger legal footing by inspecitng everyone's bag than by utilizing selective enforcement, which brings up all sorts of racial profiling and other Equal Protection problems. It is the same legal principle as mandatory baggage searches at airports. Even though most of us are not shoplifters (or terrorists), so long as we bear the burden equally, and as long as burden isn't too intrusive, and so long as the need for the security is legitimate, there isn't any constitutional problem there.
The obligation to show a driver's license to police without probable cause is a much more significant issue (though again, in this particular instance, the shopper was just being a jackass). The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada that during a Terry stop that only the name of a person in a stop-and-identify state is required for identification. Photo ID is not required. I personally believe that while the police have a right to demand identification in order to conduct a legitimate investigation, the failure or refusal to produce identification is not sufficient grounds for arrest. Many people do not own or do not regularly carry identification and we shouldn't punish them for that, especially when there is no probable cause for other criminal conduct.
Sorry to up the nerd level on this discussion, but this is the type of issue that really interests me. Maybe I can design a moot court scenario around this case for my future students.
2 comments:
I'm afraid I have to agree. Even though the Ohio law is clear, police officers frequently act as if the customary response is the only lawful response - and given the pressures of their jobs, it is reasonable for them to assume so. Certainly those who are mistakenly arrested due to that are entitled to have their charges dropped - but certainly there's no injury for which a court may provide redress - especially since the police were called by the arrestee.
I hate to agree here, because the fact is that nobody behaved very intelligently in this situation. Circuit City should have not made a fuss about the bag, the police officer definitely should not have made a fuss about the license, and Mr. Righi just plain old shouldn't have made a fuss.
Here’s a fact: Michael Righi is an arse (ass). Whether he is right to stand up for his “rights” is open to discussion, but in my opinion what makes him an arse is his misuse of the emergency services let alone what he put kids through by “playing dumb”. He didn’t play dumb - he was dumb. He should have been arrested for wasting valuable police resources.
I wonder if he was mugged or attacked and the police came to his rescue whether he would abdicate his “rights”? I really dislike hypocritical people with double standards. You see, his profile is on Facebook yet he doesn’t seem to have a problem with Facebook’s policy of “owning” his assets and doing what they well please with them - where are his concerns (more founded I would have thought) with his “rights”?
As far as suspicious behaviour, which from his account is unquestionable, it will always warrant a reaction. He should try behaving suspiciously in an airport and then, and only then, would he truly witness first hand an “assault” on his “rights”.
When asked for his driver’s license, after all, perhaps the officer assumed that he was the driver and hence asked for the relevant documentation, a simple “I’m sorry I don’t have a driver’s license and I was not driving but I do have a social security number ...etc. But no, he had to further his stupidity by further proclaiming his “rights” - from his post you get the idea that at the time he was actually not completely aware of his “rights”. Let’s face it, anyone of us has the opportunity to trigger this type of behaviour - but why would we? We have better ways of being known.
As far as Circuit City, whether or not they should react and enter the conversation, is debatable. And how would you answer his complaint without fuelling the conversation further?
I hope that Circuit City learnt a lesson, there are more arses out there… so you should remember that the customer is always right, or as I read once, who cares if the customer is right - it’s the customer. I learnt from my experience that sometimes it’s better to let go when you are faced with this type of person. The financial loss is minimal and it’s not as if other customers will suddenly see the apparent opportunity of becoming shoplifters.
As for the police, I hope no one died or was unable to have the necessary urgent assistance as this officer wasted his time and American Tax Payers money. Shame on all those who are, or will be, financing his ludicrous crusade. In the end there will be no winners and no point made (at least not a favourable one).
911, as we all know, is for EMERGENCIES. As for his lack of respect for his family, enough said. There are battles worth fighting - this is definitely not one of them. He should pay his fine, apologize to the police and then do whatever he thought with Circuit City.
Post a Comment