Merchants aren't allowed to require your ID

Get credit card fraud help: For victims of credit card fraud and identity theft, and those that can help.
88 posts
JCarter
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby JCarter » Tue May 01, 2012 5:50 am

FastSRT8 wrote:Hmmmm a good idea but that would mean I would have to carry my passport everywhere I go! I guess the premise behind not showing your drivers license is to prevent the merchant from knowing your address?


Correct, but here in the US we have both passport booklets and cards. The card is for land entry to Canada and Mexico. Card is about the side of a DL.


JCarter
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby JCarter » Tue May 01, 2012 5:50 am

2percentPlus wrote:Passport card is much more portable and less risky to carry with you.

The idea is address and date of birth but I guess the passport card still fails in the DOB dept.


Even I do not want a reminder of how old I am, much less the cashier knowing.

JCarter
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby JCarter » Tue May 01, 2012 5:51 am

2percentPlus wrote:Awesome idea, thanks. The cashier robots will still lift their head and say "that's not a drivers license". Next time I'm saying my license is revoked, habitual offender, have a few vehicular homicides, something like that.

Funny thing is, they don't ask for it over $5,000, sometimes on something for $6.


Simply say "My license is a license to operate a motor vehicle not utilize a credit card" or, go with the vehicular homicide response. I like that.

Maybe I will try "Sorry, I lost it when I was trying to outrun the police the last time." next time I get requested for an ID.

DoingHomework
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:15 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby DoingHomework » Tue May 01, 2012 4:36 pm

JCarter wrote:KYC does not apply to most retailers.


I'm not a retailer per se. But I am required under the state law in which I operate to confirm the identity of customers. Since nearly all customers pay with CC, checking ID is part of my process. Customers paying by check must show ID as well. We have never had someone try to pay cash. If someone did, I'd still ask for ID.

You would not get a larceny or any other conviction against me for holding a suspicious credit card. The cops would show up, ask you for ID, ask me for ID, ask you why you refuse to identify yourself and follow the rules I have established for my business. They would ask me to give your card back and then escort you off the premises without your merchandise since you have not paid for it. If you identified yourself as a lawyer they would get annoyed with you and might not even give you your card back. Instead I would report it as abandoned after a suspicious incident and send it to my merchant bank along with the police report.

Of course you are right that the merchant agreement says "thou shalt not ask for ID." But in practice nothing is done if you ask for it as part of a general transaction security process. The intent of those rules are that they don't want merchants to discourage use of credit cards, or of high fee cards. The intend is not to tell merchant's how to run their business. For example, rental car companies and airlines always ask to see ID for other purposes. That does not get them in trouble with Visa. What is forbidden is asking for ID because someone uses a credit card.

And, the CARD Act did make some changes to some of those rules. It used to not be allowed to charge a fee or set a minimum on CC charges. That is now allowed.

User avatar
FastSRT8
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:32 pm
Location: Canada

Postby FastSRT8 » Tue May 01, 2012 6:47 pm

JCarter wrote:Correct, but here in the US we have both passport booklets and cards. The card is for land entry to Canada and Mexico. Card is about the side of a DL.


We have the 'same' thing. It's our citizenship card. I got my first one recently replaced as the photo was of me when I was 7 LOL!! I'll be using my new one from now on.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero!

2percentPlus
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: North America

Postby 2percentPlus » Tue May 01, 2012 10:40 pm

You would not get a larceny or any other conviction against me for holding a suspicious credit card. The cops would show up, ask you for ID, ask me for ID, ask you why you refuse to identify yourself and follow the rules I have established for my business. They would ask me to give your card back and then escort you off the premises without your merchandise since you have not paid for it. If you identified yourself as a lawyer they would get annoyed with you and might not even give you your card back. Instead I would report it as abandoned after a suspicious incident and send it to my merchant bank along with the police report.


Oh yes, I would, trust me. You do not have the right or authority to confiscate the property of another person. I would most likely also sue you for unlawful imprisonment if you made me wait until the cops arrived when no crime has been committed. If you wouldn't complete the transaction, I would leave. If you prevent me from leaving with my property, that's a big problem for you.

You my friend are not law enforcement, and would be wise to not get yourself in the middle of things like that whether it is suspicious, illegal, or not. If you don't want to accept the card, don't accept it and if the customer has a problem with that they can contact Visa/MC.

Of course you are right that the merchant agreement says "thou shalt not ask for ID." But in practice nothing is done if you ask for it as part of a general transaction security process.


No, it does not say "thou shalt not ask for ID." You can ask for anything you want. The merchant agreement states that an ID can not be made a condition of purchase, ie. required.

DoingHomework
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:15 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby DoingHomework » Wed May 02, 2012 8:29 am

2percentPlus wrote:Oh yes, I would, trust me. You do not have the right or authority to confiscate the property of another person. I would most likely also sue you for unlawful imprisonment if you made me wait until the cops arrived when no crime has been committed. If you wouldn't complete the transaction, I would leave. If you prevent me from leaving with my property, that's a big problem for you.

In the example, Mr Carter said HE would call the police. In that situation I most certainly do have the right, indeed the obligation, to preserve potential evidence. That suspicious card became evidence the moment he started dialing. I would not prevent you from leaving. But any claim you might have would be pretty seriously undermined if you fled after calling he police.

2percentPlus wrote:You my friend are not law enforcement, and would be wise to not get yourself in the middle of things like that whether it is suspicious, illegal, or not. If you don't want to accept the card, don't accept it and if the customer has a problem with that they can contact Visa/MC.

I am in the middle of things. You seem to miss the point that as soon as you initiate a transaction with a merchant, they are in the middle of things. A whole slew of laws come into play including the right to detain under certain circumstances. It happens all the time with suspected shoplifters for example.

But it is not my policy to detain anyone. I simply require ID. If someone refuses they don't get to buy from me. If they try to take something without paying then they've committed a felony. Once that happens there are many options available to me, possibly including shooting them. But I don't see it ever coming to that.

2percentPlus wrote:No, it does not say "thou shalt not ask for ID." You can ask for anything you want. The merchant agreement states that an ID can not be made a condition of purchase, ie. required.

When state law requires verifying the name and residence of a customer and Visa says ID may not be required as a condition of purchase, which do you think takes precedence?

The whole point though is that, while those words about ID are in the merchant agreement, they are only enforced in a few instances when the ID request makes people avoid paying by credit card. It's more of a marketing thing they instituted to make credit cards more convenient than checks. I can tell you that, as a merchant, they are far more concerned with security and data protection now than even 2 years ago and I seem to get positive marks on the security questionaire by openly stating that I require ID.

JCarter
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby JCarter » Wed May 09, 2012 3:28 am

* NOTE * I do not practice law in the State of Arizona, and this is my personal opinion.

Firstly, if you're doing so in compliance with state law then you're obligated to follow said law. I am unaware of which business sectors fall under that rule, so I am not going to address that.

Second, presuming you take my card and refuse to return it. Let me outline something for you:

Per ARS 13-201 The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law which the person is physically capable of performing.

Per ARS 13-204 Effect of ignorance or mistake upon criminal liability

A. Ignorance or a mistaken belief as to a matter of fact does not relieve a person of criminal liability unless:
1. It negates the culpable mental state required for commission of the offense; or
2. It supports a defense of justification as defined in chapter 4 of this title.
B. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of law does not relieve a person of criminal responsibility.

and ARS 13-402
Justification; execution of public duty

A. Unless inconsistent with the other sections of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force or deadly physical force or with some other superseding provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable when it is required or authorized by law.

B. The justification afforded by subsection A also applies if:

1. A reasonable person would believe such conduct is required or authorized by the judgment or direction of a competent court or tribunal or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; or

2. A reasonable person would believe such conduct is required or authorized to assist a peace officer in the performance of such officer's duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded the officer's legal authority.
----
Now since you stated you are sending the card back to the merchant, you have no claim to justification. It requires that you are assisting a peace officer, and you are not doing so. You're attempting to "assist" the merchant. You would need to contact law enforcement for the suspected unlawful use of said card, which you admittedly did state you MAY depending on circumstances. But if you wish for immunity of prosecution then the law requires it.

Per ARS 13-1802 (Theft) Format Document

I have you under:
A(1) Control property with intent to deprive.
A(2) Conversion

ARS 13-2102 (Theft of credit card) Format Document
A(1) Control

Possibly even ARS 13-1902 (Robbery) Format Document depending on how things played out.

If for some crazed reason the state then refused to follow up on the criminal charges, I would move to act Qui Tam on their behalf and prosecute you privately.

User avatar
FastSRT8
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:32 pm
Location: Canada

Postby FastSRT8 » Wed May 09, 2012 8:39 am

JCarter wrote:* NOTE * I do not practice law in the State of Arizona, and this is my personal opinion.

Firstly, if you're doing so in compliance with state law then you're obligated to follow said law. I am unaware of which business sectors fall under that rule, so I am not going to address that.

Second, presuming you take my card and refuse to return it. Let me outline something for you:

Per ARS 13-201 The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law which the person is physically capable of performing.

Per ARS 13-204 Effect of ignorance or mistake upon criminal liability

A. Ignorance or a mistaken belief as to a matter of fact does not relieve a person of criminal liability unless:
1. It negates the culpable mental state required for commission of the offense; or
2. It supports a defense of justification as defined in chapter 4 of this title.
B. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of law does not relieve a person of criminal responsibility.

and ARS 13-402
Justification; execution of public duty

A. Unless inconsistent with the other sections of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force or deadly physical force or with some other superseding provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable when it is required or authorized by law.

B. The justification afforded by subsection A also applies if:

1. A reasonable person would believe such conduct is required or authorized by the judgment or direction of a competent court or tribunal or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; or

2. A reasonable person would believe such conduct is required or authorized to assist a peace officer in the performance of such officer's duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded the officer's legal authority.
----
Now since you stated you are sending the card back to the merchant, you have no claim to justification. It requires that you are assisting a peace officer, and you are not doing so. You're attempting to "assist" the merchant. You would need to contact law enforcement for the suspected unlawful use of said card, which you admittedly did state you MAY depending on circumstances. But if you wish for immunity of prosecution then the law requires it.

Per ARS 13-1802 (Theft) Format Document

I have you under:
A(1) Control property with intent to deprive.
A(2) Conversion

ARS 13-2102 (Theft of credit card) Format Document
A(1) Control

Possibly even ARS 13-1902 (Robbery) Format Document depending on how things played out.

If for some crazed reason the state then refused to follow up on the criminal charges, I would move to act Qui Tam on their behalf and prosecute you privately.


!!!!! With that I 'rest my case".

Mental note to self.... PUT JCarter on speed dial #2
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero!

DoingHomework
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:15 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby DoingHomework » Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am

Um...two can play that game. But I'll mostly avoid the pointless p*ssing contest and just leave it at this:

You've only cited the criminal code. In order for the criminal code to even apply, an action must not be "justified" under other statutes and there must be criminal intent. If you hand me your business card (which is your property), for example, that is not theft because you gave it to me. If I take it from a display rack, same thing, because it is justified. If you punch me in the face and a business card falls out of your pocket and you try to grab it while I won't give it back because it is evidence of your identity, that is not theft even though I am controlling your property. Yada yada.

In any case, you've missed the key statutes that make what I said I would do allowable - justifiable does not even come into play until there is a criminal act. And the tests of 13-1802 are not met under Arizona case law for the circumstance I described.

You've also missed the issue of establishing intent. If I withhold your credit card it is not with intent to deprive you of it, it is with the intent to ensure it is returned to the rightful person. There would be no intent to punish you, deprive you of its use (you still have the number), or personally benefit from it.

Arizona law and courts give great latitude to business owners and individuals to protect themselves. No peace officer would arrest me or court convict me for refusing to sell to someone who won't provide ID I'm entitled/required to ask for. And, while it would be rare that I would actually hold a card, it would be reasonable for me to do so in the situation I described. If you made any physical attempt to get it back from me then it would be reasonable to believe that you had crossed the line to committing an act for which physical force, possibly even deadly force, is authorized.

Dude, we have ranchers KILL people every few years for trespassing or annoying a cow, They almost always get off even though their actions violate the letter of the law. Do you really think anything significant would happen to me for holding a credit card until the cops arrive from someone I believed was trying to steal from my business? Nope. Welcome to the wild west. We don't take too kindly to yankee lawyers. Get a rope!



Return to “Credit Card Fraud”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests