Residents of DC are only "half-Americans". They pay income tax, gas tax, property tax, sales tax but do not get a voting member of Congress, do not get to carry guns, and so on. Why should our police be bound to the laws of the country if we're not even considered full citizens?

A city cop wearing their uniform while being paid by a private employer during their time off - and this is NOT a problem?

Unbelievable!

Oh, Washington, D.C. - sad but believable.

I don't really have much to add to this discussion other than the fact that I miss living in DC... and its only been a month since I left.

Oh I will miss my amazing bike rides around that beautiful city.

@thesabre: I'm a resident of DC and I agree completely.

I was arrested for refusing to show my ID to an off-duty police officer when I wanted to dine at a Ruby Tuesday's. Though the officer had no reasonable suspicion and no charges were ever filed against me, the officer was not disciplined and I was told that even though off-duty cops are required to wear their uniforms when working security jobs, the police department cannot hold them responsible for their actions.

@SkokieGuy: Lots of cities allow their off-duty officers to wear their uniforms while they serve as private security. I have no idea why though.

@Jubilance22: In DC it's not a permitted thing, it's a REQUIRED thing. They HAVE to wear their uniforms.

If she was using the authority implied by her Metro P.D. uniform then she makes the M.P.D. liable for her actions, as well as Home Depot, in the event of any action on her part resulting in litigation. Otherwise, she should be wearing a generic security guard uniform.

No discipline based on being off duty is one thing. The decision that they had the right to detain the OP is another (I think more troubling) aspect. That opens the doors for continued detentions by all types of security officers...

I'm going to put on a Metro Police Dept. uniform and do...something funny. I can't come up with anything right now. Check back with me later, maybe I'll have a joke.

"He also stated that she had the right to detain me in her capacity providing security at Home Depot, even though she was wearing a full Metropolitan Police Dept uniform."

--Was that a personal opinion or a legal one?!

Well, when there's a conflict of interest like this, you shouldn't expect anything of a complaint made to one of the involved parties. You must complain to a third party to get results. Are there even any such places in DC?

Could be an interesting undercover TV news story to go to a place where receipt checking is routine, send in a bunch of people to buy a little something in a non-suspicious way and just walk out politely refusing, and see what happens.

so if a person is wearing a DC metro police uniform, but not representing the police, or acting in the capacity of a police officer, that person would be impersonating an officer. Not necessarily inthe legal sense (ianal) but in the literal sense. they are using their uniform to command a level f authority that they do not warrant.

@badhatharry: How about going to Wal-Mart or Home Depot, stop employees doing their jobs and question them re:(a)why they suck so much... (b)how their companies avoided getting further in the WCIA... (c)if they can bring some merchandise to you outside the back door... (d)where the white women at... (e)how to glue a toilet seat to someone's ass...

Amazing. So they are required to wear the uniform off duty, which conveys the full authority of the police, yet their actions are not bound by police department conduct, but the conduct of their private employer!!!

So if the customer refused to be detained, is he charged with resisting an officer or ignoring a Walmart hourly employee?

I'm not sure that what the police said was that they could detain you for not showing a receipt. The way I read it the department was saying "We're not going to punish the officer for doing this". It's not a legal conclusion, as the police as not judges (or even lawyers). Since the officer is in uniform, the Police Department would likely be liable under respondeat superior for the actions of the officer if they did indeed amount to false imprisonment.

Wait, what? They are required to wear the official Metro P.D. uniform while providing off-duty security functions, but the PD is not liable? Having cake and eating too? Enjoy the authoritah that the uniform imparts, but wait! They aren't technically representing the department because (didn't you know) they were off-duty. I know that I am damn sure representing my F.D. if I am out in public wearing my uniform.

D.C. police are known for a certain "flexibility" with individual rights. See e.g.

Federal Judge Rules Arrests Were Illegal
[www.washingtonpost.com]

Well, seeing as there are no Home Depots in the Washington, D.C. limits, this must have happened in either Maryland or Virginia. In either of those states, Metro DC cops have NO JURISDICTION. So, again, how can she detain someone when she the state she's working in has granted her no more power than Joe Bag-o-Donuts?

@SkokieGuy: Here's what I learned with my run-in.

The officer retains the rights granted them as a uniformed officer, including the power to arrest, the right to carry and use a firearm, and the protections of the law (resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, refusing a lawful order of a police officer, etc.)

However, the officer is not required to abide by the laws or Constitutional requirements of law enforcement.

This is a hot button issue for me and any DC people should write their council members. Seriously.

I stand corrected, I just remembered there is one in NE DC. Oops, maybe it happened there.

I have been following Consumist for long time regarding the "show or not to show receipt upon exiting stores". I understand the point that as a customer, we should not be treated as potential shop-lifters by the stores we visit.

However, what about just spend the extra five to ten seconds to show your receipt so that you don't have to deal with abusive security guards later?

If you don't like the stores that enforce this type of policy, keep a mental note and go somewhere else. If you really had some time on your hands, write a letter (an actual letter, not email) to the store's corporate headquarter stating you will no longer visit their stores & why.

That's just not right. Nothing more to say about that.

@tedyc03: If everything you say is true, yes, local citizens should be screaming to their elected officials.

How laughable that we are "fighting for the Iraqi's freedom" (or whatever this week's slogan is) when we are increasingly losing our freedom and protections.

And I also think it's outrageous that you are unable to Vote in the presidential election and the other limitations D.C. has on it.

@SkokieGuy: Good point. If the customer had pushed the cop/security guard would they be charged with simple assault or assaulting a police officer?

If they're allowed to wear their state issued uniforms for private employment do they get to use their guns/tasers/handcuffs/pepper spray if a receipt checked customer becomes hostile?

Where does the line between security guard and police officer begin and end?

@SkokieGuy: D.C. gets 3 votes in the electoral college. What they don't have is voting representation in either house of Congress.

[legallad.quickanddirtytips.com]

"You might find subjecting to the search annoying, but your refusal to comply with a security guard can have much more annoying consequences. The quick and dirty tip is to politely and calmly cooperate with the guard, and if you feel that a store's search policy is too invasive, take your business elsewhere."

That should be quoted at the bottom of every single "don't show your receipt" article here.

Wait, can I hire a police officer for off-duty hours, have them wear their uniform, and then have them hassle people?

That would be fun.

@tedyc03: I was arrested for refusing to show my ID to an off-duty police officer - This is interesting. A security guard can't arrest you for jack diddly. So, if the police officer is "not really a police officer" - if the department disavows all knowledge of and responsibility for their actions - then it stands to reason the officer lacks all powers of a police officer when acting as a private citizen.

I sure as hell can't go detain and arrest you for refusing to show me your ID. A cop can. But a cop who isn't working on behalf of the police force? Sounds like a private citizen to me.

The government can't have it both ways. You can bet your ass if you'd tangled with that prick local prosecutors would nail you for assault on a police officer. And he clearly had the power to arrest you, which makes him a police officer, ergo, the police department is fully responsible for his actions.

I'd have sued the ever loving fuck out of the department. It's high time the citizens of this country stop putting up with abuses of power like this. They don't have the right to arrest you for not showing ID in the first place, and they sure as hell don't have that right if they aren't actually acting as officers of the state. I'd argue that makes them nothing but a citizen, in which case I have the right to beat the shit out of them for laying a hand on me.

@sean77: I think a better response is for everyone to immediately return everything they bought. That would put an end to it rather quickly.

To be clear, DC residents can vote for President -- the District has three votes in the electoral college. What we don't have is Congressional representation.

@jimconsumer: "The government can't have it both ways."

Hahhhaahahhaaha! oh man, that's a good one, thanks.

@sean77: that, and what your rights are

I guess if an employee asks for my receipt I can say no, but if a uniformed officer (who may or may not be on duty) asks I should show it to avoid being pistol-whipped. Metro PD: "Hey, he was off-duty! Not our fault!"

Bullshit that her actions weren't those of the police department. The D.C. police are subject to liability under 42 USC § 1983 for violating his civil rights "under color of" the authority conveyed by their uniforms. Not worth suing about at all, but nevertheless BULLSHIT.

@tedyc03:

...the police department cannot hold them responsible for their actions.

Does this mean that you can't file a civil case against the police officer? I would think you can...you just won't have the large police settlement money.

In NJ uniformed security guards (police, off-duty police and otherwise) are protected by and enjoy some rights not afforded to the public i.e if you were to assault a uniformed security guard you would be charged under a different statute.

@jimconsumer: An off-duty officer is still required to act as a peace officer if they witness a crime, thus their power of arrest is not diminished by their on or off-duty status.

In fact, an officer in DC was fired for not acting when she observed another officer assaulting a citizen. She should have arrested that officer for breaking the law, because she is sworn to uphold it.

[www.washingtonpost.com]

@linus: You can file a civil complaint against the officer, and establishments are required to carry $1 million i liability insurance.

I'm going to dress up in the uniform of the TSA and frisk random strangers.

Hey pretty lady, you look like you could be a jihadist. I need to squeeze your breasteses in the interest of national security.

It seems to me that even if the cop was on-duty they have no right to detain you. Refusing to show a receipt is not probable cause to believe that you've been shoplifting or committed any crime. On what grounds could they possibly arrest you, legally?

@Nogard13: Yup -- right off Rhode Island Ave NE. I actually kind of like that HD as far as they go -- it's generally quieter than Seven Corners (plus, no snipers there. Probably because no guns allowed in DC)

[tinyurl.com]

We even have a Target now in the District!!!

Forgot the Washington Post quote:

Another officer, Tara Resper, returned to work in April because the department had taken too long -- 68 days -- to notify her of a decision. Resper was fired because, while off duty in 2003, she saw an off-duty officer get into three fistfights with another woman. She did not take police action or notify supervisors, officials said.

I'm going to dress up in my old Boy Scout Uniform, but intentionally not be thrifty, reverent or prepared.

@Tian, it'd be nice if I didn't ever have to shop at the Home Depot. But since they came to town, just about every hardware store has closed. I buy lumber at the lumber yard, and plumbing equipment at a specialty shop, but Home Depot is the only place to get certain things. I can't always wait three days for Amazon to ship me a router bit.

You would cede to them the authority to make a voluntary search mandatory because of what, their size? Their notoriety? After how many illegal detentions would you grant them the right to do so with impunity?

You're wrong if you think cooperating prevents being hassled. There was a recent posting here about a man who was detained at Wal*Mart because he couldn't produce his receipt for four bags of sugar. His mistake was cooperating. He did precisely what you advise, and it got him into a mess. Had he refused to show his receipt, I bet he could've walked right out without being detained. But he cooperated and that gave them the toehold they needed to stop him.

You don't have to show your receipt, any more than you have to empty your pockets or your purse. When you do, you have nothing to gain by the encounter.

There are two ways to make this work without everyone having to go through potential legal hassles.
1) Don't shop there.
2) Make the receipt checkers REALLY do their job. Check every single item, match it up with the receipt, make sure every price matches, make sure the item and dollar totals are correct. If they fail to properly check the receipt, ask for the manager. Demand that your receipt be properly checked to insure that you will not be subject to false accusations of shoplifting later - which is what they will do if you avoid the checker. Buy lots of small items. Shop during busy times. Film the encounter. Post it on YouTube. Tell Ben.

If lots of people did that, they would need as many receipt checkers as cashiers, making the practice overly inconvenient and costly - all while just insisting that you and the store fully adhere to their own policies and no fear of legal confrontations.

@testsicles: Yes, you can hire an "off duty" cop to hassle people for something like $100-$150/hr. Lots of people hire them for their big parties - especially New Year's Eve. It helps protect the host in the event that one of the guests drinks too much and wraps their car around a pole.

My favorite part of these stories is that the cop is always "off duty" when he gets into trouble and it's not the department's responsibility. Aren't we always told that cops are cops 24/7?

@Nogard13:
There is a Home Depot on Rhode Island Ave

Only in DC can the government spent half a BILLION on a baseball stadium and only spend a few thousand for students...who basically are at the bottom of the education barrel. And only in DC can the government have assault rifles and residents are left to defend themselves in the "safe city" with pitchforks and dinner knives.

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

The DC government is insanely corrupt. I'm surprised that there hasn't been much shake in the rank and file.

@AintEephus: I'm torn on this. You know, I appreciate people's right to protest as much as the next guy -- but if you're in a crowd that's destroying property you should probably remove yourself from the situation.

I don't know the particulars of that Adams Morgan incident and whether people who weren't actually committing crimes had a chance to leave (it sounds like they might not have) but just because we live in the District doesn't mean that protesters have the right to destroy our property, and I have little tolerance for those that engage in that kind of activity. I've seen groups of protesters breaking car windows and knocking over garbage cans and generally intimidating citizens.

The peaceful protesters are fine, but criminals need to be dealt with, and harshly.