Arrested after refusing to show receipt

**trekgirl** · 09-08-07, 05:23 AM

This came up on another board. Its a gun owner board and most of them are convinced that Officer Arroyo assisted in violating this man's constitutional rights. Personally I think the guy (Righi) is an idiot, but what say you all?
Here is the link:
http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007...-circuit-city/

**jcsdscott** · 09-08-07, 06:13 AM

I really feel that this one is pushing it. Any one of us can arrest someone for obstructing as, depending on the jurisdiction, it can be a very broad term. How the person is obstructing is important however in this case, though the officer may technically by the statute he used be justified, I don't truly see it as being necessary. An explanation to the individual that showing the contents of the bag and receipt to the officer could resolve the issue may have helped, but from this man's tone probably not. I believe that Officer Arroyo bluffed Righi and Righi called his bluff. I don't believe Righi was prepared to have Arroyo follow through. This all is rather ridiculous, and it is now up to the court to decide. I don't like that loss prevention can simply check any bag they choose, however it is apparently a common practice in that part of Ohio.

I can sum this up by saying that I would have done things differently but Officer Arroyo stuck to his word instead of giving in and compromising his integrity. Righi appears to be an individual looking for any reason to flout his knowledge and opinion of law. Thank goodness I'm in southern Illinois.

**me again** · 09-08-07, 08:52 AM

Case scenario
There is probably more to the story than what has been printed. Having said that...

And just going by what's in the article...

If no theft was committed, then a Florida officer would not have justification to make an arrest of someone who had a receipt for all the merchandise. Additionally, after I found the receipt and determined that no theft had occurred, then I would not have arrested the citizen. I would simply let him go.

All-in-all, it would have to involve good interviewing skills by the officer. He would have to ask the merchant if he witnessed a crime (theft) or if he had probable cause to determine that a crime had occurred. If the officer has no PC for a theft, then he'll simply have to "let it go." If the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, then he will have to use persuasive interviewing techniques to find out the truth.

At best, I think that all the officer could do was trespass the customer from the store. In Florida, if the customer paid for all his goods, then there is nothing else that we could do. We do have a charge called "resisting a retail merchant," but the underlying basis is if a crime (theft) has occurred. In this case, a theft did not occur.

Refusal to produce a receipt
I really get annoyed when merchants demand to see my receipt when I'm exiting the doors. It makes me feel uncomfortable, as if I'm a thief, but I always remain silent and comply with their request.

However...

It has crossed my mind: What would happen if I simply walked away from the merchant and left the store with my purchased goods? Would they forcibly detain me in the parking lot?

Okay, now I'm going to get silly, but...

What if I "ran" with my purchased goods? Would they tackle me???

LOL

**Ruffy** · 09-08-07, 10:39 AM

Yeah it was kinda border line...but whats the harm in stopping and letting them see your receipt. and why question the officer when he ask for your license, What if he was doing it to verify that that was him. and ppl that support the ACLU...well thats another story

**cajunguy** · 09-08-07, 10:43 AM

He is going to "call in the ACLU!"

Guess that speaks volumes for his character. Or the lack thereof . . .

What a maroon!!

.

**Ruffy** · 09-08-07, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by cajunguy

He is going to "call in the ACLU!"

Guess that speaks volumes for his character. Or the lack thereof . . .

What a maroon!!

.

I very much dislike the ACLU...

**Recidivator** · 09-08-07, 10:48 AM

Interesting story. As me again said, I doubt that's the whole story. I personally would have arrested everyone involved for aggravated dumbass and called it a day.

**Bob Loblaw** · 09-08-07, 12:26 PM

I wasn't there. I don't necessarily believe Righi's account of the situation because, after all, he got arrested and is pissed. If you ask half the people I've arrested, they were just walking down the street to chuch when I pulled up and shoved a baton in their ass and punched them in the face because they were black/hispanic/italian/woman/man/young/old and no crime actually occurred.

**jmur5074** · 09-08-07, 12:43 PM

Screw that guy.

Once I read his initial encounter with Officer Arroyo, I stopped reading that garbage.

He refuses to comply with store loss prevention when they make a REASONABLE request. (More than once)
And refuses to produce an ID when requested to do so by Law Enforcement. Read Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada . That asshat was the subject of a criminal investigation, and is required to produce an ID.

Screw him. He's looking for fame and money. Jackass.

**Elle** · 09-08-07, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

If you ask half the people I've arrested, they were just walking down the street to chuch when I pulled up and shoved a baton in their ass and punched them in the face because they were black/hispanic/italian/woman/man/young/old and no crime actually occurred.

That's funny right there.

**countybear** · 09-08-07, 01:30 PM

The ultimate right held in a free-market economy is that of freedom of choice. If you don't like the way that a particular store chain treats their customers, don't do business there. By refusing to shop anywhere that policies exist that are contrary to your personal principals, you refuse to cater to, financially support, or in any way subject yourself to being aggrieved. The comments made regarding the incident in support of Righi claim that those who abide by such invasive procedures are "cattle", and berate those who do not "stand up for their basic human rights", when in fact, patronizing any store which one realizes offends their own personal sensitivities by policy is more cattle-esque to me. Righi expected the search procedure admittedly, he no-doubt saw other customers being approached in the same manner, or at least observed the employee standing the post to do so. Seeing this and finding it personally objectionable, he certainly had the discretion to leave without making a purchase and shop elsewhere. He chose not to, with the obvious intention of actively objecting to the procedure, which in turn created an interference of the normal flow of business in that store, the disturbance which followed, and initiating the chain of events that culminated in his arrest.

Making the statement that he failed to press his shirt before taking his mugshot lends further to my premise of his engineering the incident, as it displays a mindset pre-disposed to planning for just such occassion.

I find it objectionable, suspicious, and trite that an obviously articulate human being like Righi fails the common sense test so miserably. Are those like him crazy, or are they just "crazy-like-a-fox?" Righi's obvious intent was to create this issue, engineer himself as a victim, and ultimately profit from the incident, which he, himself instigated. I'd be willing to bet that he has the ACLU on his speed-dial.

Its the victim-mongering Sharpton syndrome, played out with skill and finesse. Arroyo's charge might float, or it might not, it is purely up to the magistrate, who will hear both sides of the case, and not read Righi's rambling alone.

I'll donate to Righi intellectually, offering only advice: Mature in wisdom, it is of much higher value than intellect alone. Wisdom teaches discretion, discernment, and maintains peace in life; these traits lengthen life and improve its quality. After all, only your numbered days, personal faith, nearness of loved-ones, and happy memories remain of value to you when in the throes of life's end. Being used by the rebellious leftist establishment as a pawn in the victimization war only leads to eventual rejection by those same fair-weather friends when your usefulness expires. Just ask Cindy Sheehan or Jane Roe.

**Lazy Fed** · 09-08-07, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by countybear

The ultimate right held in a free-market economy is that of freedom of choice. If you don't like the way that a particular store chain treats their customers, don't do business there. By refusing to shop anywhere that policies exist that are contrary to your personal principals, you refuse to cater to, financially support, or in any way subject yourself to being aggrieved. The comments made regarding the incident in support of Righi claim that those who abide by such invasive procedures are "cattle", and berate those who do not "stand up for their basic human rights", when in fact, patronizing any store which one realizes offends their own personal sensitivities by policy is more cattle-esque to me. Righi expected the search procedure admittedly, he no-doubt saw other customers being approached in the same manner, or at least observed the employee standing the post to do so. Seeing this and finding it personally objectionable, he certainly had the discretion to leave without making a purchase and shop elsewhere. He chose not to, with the obvious intention of actively objecting to the procedure, which in turn created an interference of the normal flow of business in that store, the disturbance which followed, and initiating the chain of events that culminated in his arrest.

Making the statement that he failed to press his shirt before taking his mugshot lends further to my premise of his engineering the incident, as it displays a mindset pre-disposed to planning for just such occassion.

I find it objectionable, suspicious, and trite that an obviously articulate human being like Righi fails the common sense test so miserably. Are those like him crazy, or are they just "crazy-like-a-fox?" Righi's obvious intent was to create this issue, engineer himself as a victim, and ultimately profit from the incident, which he, himself instigated. I'd be willing to bet that he has the ACLU on his speed-dial.

Its the victim-mongering Sharpton syndrome, played out with skill and finesse. Arroyo's charge might float, or it might not, it is purely up to the magistrate, who will hear both sides of the case, and not read Righi's rambling alone.

I'll donate to Righi intellectually, offering only advice: Mature in wisdom, it is of much higher value than intellect alone. Wisdom teaches discretion, discernment, and maintains peace in life; these traits lengthen life and improve its quality. After all, only your numbered days, personal faith, nearness of loved-ones, and happy memories remain of value to you when in the throes of life's end. Being used by the rebellious leftist establishment as a pawn in the victimization war only leads to eventual rejection by those same fair-weather friends when your usefulness expires. Just ask Cindy Sheehan or Jane Roe.

I wish me could talk so elequently

**Recidivator** · 09-08-07, 02:41 PM

I don't think anything else can be added at this point. Checkmate, countybear, checkmate.

**SaraJ** · 09-08-07, 03:14 PM

I agree with CB. When I lived in the States I was hassled this way many times. Rather than starting WWIII, I would just hold my receipt in my right hand as I was leaving the store so the security guard could see it. He would smile and thank me and I would be on my way. No fuss no muss no bother.

**Bob Loblaw** · 09-08-07, 03:52 PM

It's what happens everytime I leave Wal-Mart...the old-ass person at the door wants to look at the receipt. No skin off my nose...I hold it out, he looks at it for a second then flashes back to dream about some flapper he met at a speakeasy 75 years ago, and I walk off. No fuss, no mess.

**Motorwaycop** · 09-08-07, 04:28 PM

While the laws in the UK are somewhat different, all I can say about Righi , obviously not as eloquently as countybear, is "What a TWAT!"

**Star Man** · 09-08-07, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Recidivator

I don't think anything else can be added at this point. Checkmate, countybear, checkmate.

+1

If you have any question on how full of himself this moron is try glancing at the three articles he linked to in his message. They all say how "wonderful" he is and that made his head blow up bigger than even Sharpton's ego. An example of that is his e-mail address,,,

Q: What is the best way to reach you?
A: I can be reached by email at michael dot righi at field expert dot com.

"Field expert" ........... What an asshat................

**bayern** · 09-08-07, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Motorwaycop

While the laws in the UK are somewhat different, all I can say about Righi , obviously not as eloquently as countybear, is "What a TWAT!"

TWAT, translated: Friggen Jerk. All he had to do was show the receipt and goods. But no "I have my rights to do as I please, when I please." He is a friggin TWAT.

**Pudge** · 09-08-07, 06:44 PM

He's trying to tie in a Terry Stop to his legal detainment. We all know how/when Terry applies, but under these circumstances he was legally detained and required to show identification. It's all semantics. The officer requested a Driver's license, but it was a form of ID he was really looking for. He'll get spanked in Court. I've made obstruction arrests similar to this where all they did was give me a name. Of course it wasn't the correct name and that was the base of the charge.

**121Traffic** · 09-08-07, 06:44 PM

CB hit it right on the head. The "rights" he's speaking of are protected from governmental institution, NOT from retail establishments. While there might not be anything on the books, I liken this policy (and others like it) to a store not permitting licensed CCW permit holders to carry while in their establishment. While That's also an inconvenience (well, it was before I was LEO), I just took mybusiness elsewhere. Checking bags on the way out the door is as much as violation of rights as retailers prohibitiong CCW on their property is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

I wasn't there, and I certainly don't purport to take this twat's word over the cop, just based on the info it sounds like a sketchy charge. Now, if he was being investigated for a crime, you could stretch the need for positive ID a little further. For example, it isn't mandatory to present ID here either. But if I've got you for petty shoplift, where I would normally issue a summons onscene and trespass you from the property, I would now take you into custody so I can book you, photograph you, and verify your identity via fingerprints. In this case, however, the cop (again according to the article) had already determined that no theft had been committed.