Terry Beachler is danged if he does and danged if he doesn’t.

After his business, Beachler’s Servicecenter at the corner of University and War Memorial Drive was cited and paid a hefty fine twice for selling cigarettes to minors, Terry initiated a new policy:

If an under age person attempts to make a tobacco purchase, we ask for the i.d. If the i.d. indicates that the person is under age, our employees are instructed to place the i.d. in our drop safe. Employees have no access to the drop safe. The next morning we call the police, and if appropriate, the parents to take further action. As we have good evidence, we felt that it is not necessary to call police immediately. We use the drop safe so that a person will not return and try to obtain the i.d. This provides protection for our employee.

It seems to me that this is just the kind of policy that the police would want retailers to have. By confiscating the ID and holding it to the next day, the perpetrator can’t just hit up the next gas station for cigarettes and the next one after that until he finds one that will sell cancer sticks to him.

But in this case, the police — who have already ticketed his business twice for violating this law — were not happy when he followed the law either. Here’s Terry’s account of the incident (emphasis mine):

On March 26, 2007 an under age person made an attempt to illegally purchase a pack of cigarettes. The cashier on duty was given the i.d upon request. Upon examination it was determined that the person was under age and the i.d. was dropped in the safe. The person left. A very short time later a person entered belligerently demanding the i.d. back. A badge was flashed.

I received a call from the cashier on duty indicating that there had been a sting operation and they wanted the i.d. back. I suggested that they return in the morning and I would provide the i.d and left the phone call. Shortly after, I received a second call indicating that the employee would be arrested for theft if the i.d. was not returned. I was near Mossville and returned to the business, about a twenty minute ride. Upon arrival, I turned my digital recorder on. I noted an SUV idling at the south end of our building with a person inside. I recorded the license number and entered the building through the back door. I asked the cashier on duty who needed help. He pointed me to a person outside with big muscles, a buzz haircut and an old shirt. I asked how I could help. The person demanded the i.d. back. I invited him to the office and asked for i.d. He presented a business card. I asked to see a badge which he flashed. I asked again to take a closer look at the badge and established that he was a police officer. He was demanding and argumentative. I went to the drop safe. I seldom open the safe as certain employees do the cash handling procedures. I worked with the combination and the safe was opened after a 2 minute time delay. Occasionally a customer will leave a credit card here or a driver’s license after an i.d. check for check cashing or age verification. Employees are required to drop the item which was left in the safe. We then contact the customer. I found an i.d. in the safe and was examining it to be sure it was the correct i.d. and to determine the age of the person presenting the i.d. The officer made an attempt to grab the i.d from my hand. I reacted to the sudden move and did not release the i.d. At that time he announced that I was under arrest. I was handcuffed and taken to the county jail and released a couple of hours later.

Here’s the digital recording of the incident:

[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Beachler.mp3]

What are we to make of this? In my opinion, I think the officer should have waited until the next day to get the I.D. back. If the police want to do a sting operation, that’s fine. But when a business follows the law — which I assume is the outcome the police are wanting — the least the police can do is cooperate with the business’s policies and not drag a business owner in at the officer’s convenience and then arrest the business owner because he was perturbed at being ordered to come in and return an I.D. like he was doing something criminal. If you were arrested as well for some reason, there’s more in the article which are related to laws and bonds for you to read about.

Now, I’m not out to bash the police here. I want them to be out there patrolling our neighborhoods and fighting crime, and stopping underage sales of cigarettes and alcohol is a legitimate police action. But when they find that a business is cracking down on this kind of crime like they’re supposed to, it’s not right for the police to inconvenience the store owner just because the employees didn’t fall for the sting. They should rather applaud the business and hold them up as an example.

In another case of “danged if you do, danged if you don’t,” Beachler’s recording of the confrontation is actually illegal in Illinois. Illinois law prohibits recording a conversation — even in person — without the consent of all parties involved. Naturally, that law doesn’t apply to the police. So if the tables had been reversed and Terry were the one being belligerent and the officer was secretly recording it, that would have been okay.

In the end, all charges were dropped. But, as Terry pointed out, “Ultimately, valuable police resources [were] squandered” on this incident. If the police want business owners to cooperate with the police, the police need to cooperate with the business owners, especially when their only “crime” is following the law.