UPDATE: TigerDirect Apologizes For Unlawfully Detaining Customer For Refusing To Show Receipt
I was visiting a Tigerdirect (Large Electronic Retail Store) in Naperville, IL today (8/23/07)(8/22/07). All was going well until after I had paid for my merchandise and tried to leave.
A security guard demanded that I show him my receipt, which I respectfully declined with a “No Thanks” and continued walking out the door. At that point the Guard physically placed himself between me and the door and said “I can’t let you leave until you show me your receipt.” I attempted to walk around him, explaining I didn’t have to show him anything, and he continued to block my path and called several other employees to block my retreat.
I understand the “Shopkeeper’s Privilege”, but under no possible interpretation of the law would refusing a voluntary receipt check constitute grounds for reasonable suspicion of shoplifting. At this point, I warned them that I was being unlawfully restrained, and unless they immediately allowed me to leave, I would call the police and press criminal charges for unlawful restraint, and also file a civil suit for false imprisonment (fortunately, I knew my rights).
None of them budged, and the store manager began verbally abusing and slandering me…
He called me a thief, and said he would have me arrested for “attempted shoplifting”. Both the manager and security guard said it was corporate policy to detain customers unless they submitted to a receipt check.
At this point, I pull out my cell phone, call 911, and inform the operator I’m being illegally detained and not allowed to leave the store. The operator said an officer was on the way and would be there in a few minutes. In the meantime, the manager continued screaming at me, telling me I was banned from the store (fine by me, I’ve spent easily over $10,000 in the last few years at Tigerdirect and planned to take my business elsewhere if this was the kind of treatment I could expect) and so on.
Fortunately, an officer arrived within 5 minutes. The manager and security guard began to tell the officer I was trying to steal something. After they were done I calmly explained the situation to the officer. The officer agreed that they couldn’t hold me unless they had seen me shoplifting, which they obviously had not. I then asked the officer to arrest the security guard for unlawful restraint, which she refused to do; she instead suggested I talk the the state’s attorney if I wanted to press charges (which I plan to do). I got the security guard’s name, and the officer’s name and badge number. I then left, and was again verbally informed me I was banned from returning. As I was leaving, the security guard continued to taunt me, and dared me to press charges.
As soon as I got home (approximately 4 hours later, I had errands to run), I called the company the security guard was from (Securitas), explained the situation, and asked if their corporate policy was to forcibly detain customers who refuse to show their receipt. I was escalated three times, until a “supervisor” there said he didn’t feel comfortable answering the question, but he would have his boss call me back shortly. I waited 2 hours, with no more response. I called back again, and after reaching the same supervisor asked why my call hadn’t been returned. He informed me that they had my contact information, and if they had anything to say to me they would call. I demanded to speak to his boss, and was told that the boss was busy now, but would call me within an hour. Again, after 4 hours, no call.
Nowhere in any of this did anyone apologize to me or tell me they were mistaken. I probably would have been satisfied with an apology and a guarantee that the security staff would be properly retrained at any point after I left. But, after the shoddy treatment I received, even after they realized they had made a mistake, I want to fight this thing to the end.
How do you recommend I go about contacting the State’s Attorney? I understand that the prosecutor has some discretion on filing charges, and that they have many other cases on the table. There is no dispute of the facts, there were security cameras everywhere, and the guard agreed with my version of the events when speaking with the officer. Also, I would like to file a civil suit against them, but must admit that money is an issue for me. How do you suggest I find a lawyer/firm that would take this case on a contingent fee?
Thanks for the time,
Shaneal
What a story! Where was this store located? Do you have the name of the security guard and manager to share? As far as contacting the State’s Attorney, I think simply an initial phone call to their office is fine. Finding a lawyer is as simple as calling your local bar association, describing in brief your case, and asking for a referral.
Thanks for the support,The store is located at
175 Ambassador Drive
Naperville, IL 60540
(630) 548-2000The security guard’s name is “Malcom Melton,” and the corporate office he works out of has a number (630)963-9456.
I called the States Attorney’s office for my county and spoke to a prosecutor who “said charges would not be forthcoming.” Basically, his explanation was that I wasn’t detained long enough for him to bother. The police report is filed with the Naperville Police Department, report number [redacted].
I also contacted the bar, and was told that no lawyer would take this case on a contingency because there weren’t enough damages, but I was welcome to hire a lawyer on an hourly basis. However, they informed me that in all likelihood the attorney’s fees would be ten to twenty thousand, which I can’t afford.
Thanks for your quick response. No one else seemed bothered by this. All I really want is for them to change their policy and/or retrain the guards. Hopefully, with your support they will at least be shamed into doing that much.
Stinks. Did you happen to catch the manager’s name? At this point, you could either complain to corporate, or try pitching your story to the local media.
I did not get the manager’s name unfortunately; by the time I was leaving and got around to taking names the manager had already disappeared. I emailed corporate with the story too, but have yet to receive a response.Thanks for the suggestion, but I doubt the local media would be very receptive to my claims. When the whole warrantless wiretapping scandal was taking place the little coverage it got was all in favor of government (e.g., “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”). I’m fairly certain they’d just tell me I should have showed the guard the receipt and been done with it.
The voluntariness of the receipt checking is an interesting issue that we’ve touched on before. Unless you’ve signed a membership agreement agreeing to receipt checks, or they actually see you shoplifting, stores have no right to stop you from leaving the store for refusing a receipt-check. However, in the grand scheme of things, it’s probably a lot easier just to flash your receipt and get on with your life, but you’re perfectly within your rights to make a stand about the issue. Furthermore, beyond the mere detainment, the Tiger Direct store definitely went “beneath and below” by verbally assaulting you.
As you said, the reason you’ve had a hard time getting people interested in your case is because you didn’t actually incur any monetary loss. Companies care about balance sheets, not feelings, so your options for recompense are relatively limited. The most satisfaction you can probably hope to get is that I’ve just posted your story, informing more consumers of their rights, and casting a big stinky shame cloud on TigerDirect of Naperville, IL.
PREVIOUSLY:
Ask The Consumerist: Do I Have To Let Stores Check My Receipt?
The Straight Scoop On If Stores Can Legally Stop You And Check Your Receipt
(Photo: Critical Miami)
More From Consumerist
-
TigerDirect Won’t Accept My Coupon Because It Just Won’t
-
The Last Vestiges Of Circuit City To Disappear On Dec. 31
-
Passengers Filing Suit Against JetBlue Didn’t Appreciate Pilot Freaking Out On Their Flight
-
Man On 50-Day Drinking Binge Makes Unwise Decision To Open Plane Door During Landing
-
Plastic Surgeon Sues Patient For Defamation After Negative Online Reviews
I’ve faced this kind of crap for well over two decade – Softwarehouse / CompUSA, Highland Electronics, BestBuy.
Sometimes when they tried to stop me, I’d ask under what premise. Most said that they wanted to ensure that their sales associates were not failing to ring up the items correctly. My response was that if they felt that they had a shrinkage problems that was employee related, then it made no sense to harass every customer as they exited the store.
When they failed to offer any explaination for their attempt to detain me, I took umbrage if they even implied I was a shoplifter.
I also stated that people with no store bag (and therefore no receipt) were free to exit the store unmolested, and that people who had obviously made purchase were being stopped.
Most of the time, I just keep walking — if they want to get in my way, I have no problem giving them a shoulder and putting their ass on the pavement.
So the other side of this is – If I were to go a store that has a show me your reciept policy, look around, and not purchase anything I should expect to be searched and patted down on my way out to prove I didn’t steal anything?
I think that it’s a pretty big stretch to say that a security person checking your receipt (which merely contains information regarding your purchase, information that at least one cashier has already seen) is tantamount to “giving up my rights! rah rah rah!”
It’s like saying you shouldn’t have to show your ID when buying alchohol “because they should trust that, because I am a paying customer, I have the right not to show that information. They should trust me!” (I won’t even go into how you have more information on your driver’s license than would be on that receipt, and you show that to any convenience store clerk or bouncer who asks to see it.) (Oh wait… I did go into that.)
The obvious solution, if you feel that your rights have been violated when someone dares to ask to see your receipt, is this:
1. Don’t show them your receipt.
2. Stay in the store and return whatever you purchased.
3. Never shop there again.
I think that’s pretty simple, don’t you?
Me? I’ll just show them the receipt.
I am amazed at your overabundance of excessive personal pride to brazenly assume you can just do whatever you want on private property. Although you are on an open business’ property, it is still private and they still govern what can or cannot take place there. By refusing to cooperate with security, you are waving giant red flags in a semaphore fashion indicating that, not only are you a possible shoplifter, but you’re really bad at it because you’re actually refusing security’s requests because you think apparently you have some kind of rights. It is not a voluntary receipt check, and it is completely at the liberty of a business to establish a receipt checkpoint. If you’re offended over being asked for your receipt, then you are deliberately personally taking a nonissue. What you, legally, actually did was resist completely legitimate detention — and like a raving idiot, even! Your excessive, prideful, boastful air of being something resemebling “I am above store policy” demeanor is what got you into your lousy position. I would chip in for TigerDirect’s lawsuit against your incessant arrogance.
Solution:
STAPLE THE BAGS AT CHECKOUT.
Jeez.
So showing receipt is no big deal? What if they require showing both receipt and the content of bag? What about allow examination of the consumer’s purse? How about showing identification? Where does one draw the line?
For some of you, there is no need to draw the line if you can get lower price (and corporation keep greater corporate profit?) . For some of us, the line stops at checking the receipt. The law is on our side, not yours.
This analogy can be taken further – why not just let the government listen in on your calls and check your mail and e-mail? You have nothing to hide right?
@AimeeGee: “It’s like saying you shouldn’t have to show your ID when buying alchohol “because they should trust that, because I am a paying customer, I have the right not to show that information.”
You fail. Showing ID is required by law.
Consenting to a voluntary search is not.
@sifr: I didn’t publically announce this whole situation. I’m just simply wondering why he seems to be contradicting himself. He states he has no problem showing a receipt, but he obviously does by saying “no thanks” when asked to show it. Just wondering why the fuss in the first place. What happened after that is pretty clear.
As one of the people who used to stop people and ask for receipts I can assure you that the purpose was to deter shoplifters not catch them.
The main purpose for it was to make sure that everything leaving the store had been properly paid for. As anyone who has shopped with kids can attest, it is easy to get distracted and forget to place something on the checkout counter. So many times people would leave the register and walk out of the store with something they had not paid for. I realize they are not trying to conciously steal something from the store but the result is the same.
I hated doing receipt checks because I knew how much people hated being inconveinenced so I was always polite and never forced anyone to comply. But it did get results. If I found something that was in their cart that had not been purchased I would give them the option of paying for the item or leaving it with me. I also explained that we understood that these things happen and that I was in no way trying to accuse them of theft. If they decided to purchase it I would escort them to the nearest register with no line and have the cashier ring it up for them. We had to log all of these incidents and I personally “recovered” over a thousand dollars of merchandise in a year through receipt checks alone.
It sounds as though TigerDirects policy was different from ours since we would only check receipts for items that had not been bagged. Most of the things I would see would be items that had been placed under a cart that had then been honestly forgotten while the person was checking out. But there were exceptions to this. One guy, who was friends with a cashier, was buying a $2000 big screen TV when I asked for his receipt it showed that he had just purchased a $100 model. After checking video we saw that he had cut the UPC off the cheaper model and then handed that to his friend when he got to the register. Him and the cashier were charged and the cashier was of course fired.
In my store it was against policy to block or restrain a customer unless you had them dead to rights as a shoplifter. Meaning you had personally seen them take something from the shelf, conceal it, and then attempt to walk out of the store. If I had treated a customer like this guy did my manager would have fired me on the spot.
Finally, to those of you who are saying “just show the receipt if you have nothing to hide” I don’t agree with this attitude either. The security guard has the right to make the request, and the customer has the right to tell them to stick it. At that point the guard can either be a jerk, or realize that they have been called out, suck it up and go about their day. Forcing the issue is childish.
@SOhp101: So you, at your own discretion, are at completely liberty to distinguish what is or isn’t law enforcement? I suppose you are somehow also hyprocritically unperturbed by the fact that they make you actually PAY for items there. True, they COULD actually let you walk out of the store with an item for free (if it were company policy) but they have a price set, and you have to obey THAT PRICE. Who the frack cares if you think the price is too high, does that mean that you get to pay less, and that they can’t detain you for paying only a certain amount? It’s the same principle. The crybaby making the big fuss is effective stating, “this limitation does not apply to me because I am some variety of royalty who may or may not ride the short bus” and obscenely and disgracefully tramples the actual definition of rights as if it were some kind of constitutional amendment to bypass receipt checkpoints as if you had some sort of assinine receipt immunity. You will get out your fracking receipt and YOU WILL LIKE IT.
@Jerim: He didn’t show a receipt until the cops arrived, therefore he was illegally detained for merely refusing to submit to a check which the law says is voluntary.
The stores have no legal right to require you to show a receipt for exiting. I also agree that it’s easier just to show the receipt and keep going. If the request is polite and your response is polite then no one really has a problem. Consumerist’s stance on the altercation is correct since what the store did was not only rude (bad for business) but illegal. I would not agree that telling stores no when they ask to see your receipt is always the best policy.
If you choose not to show the receipt and the store finds fault with that it is THEIR right to ban you from their private property. Violating store policy is not the same thing as breaking the law but banning you from the premises is not violating your rights in any way. You do not have a right to shop there.
I offer this analogy: What if the store asked you to see your car keys before leaving the store? Obviously this is none of their business. Neither is the receipt, since it is not theirs and they have no right to read it. But if stores started banning customers for not flashing their car keys on the way out we could expect that store to fail, and quickly.
We can hope the same would happen to a receipt-requiring store, if only more people knew their rights.
Don’t waste your time with small claims. Hire a lawyer and sue for real.
The reason the Securitas folks are hemming and hawing is because they know their guard screwed the pooch.
Real shoplifters will not hesitate to sue for $50k+ when some guard loses sight of them for a minute and cannot prove that the shoplift had actually happened.
An actual case of gigging an innocent person should cost them plenty.
I encourage everyone who thinks that this person isn’t telling the truth, or has left things out, or otherwise embellished to exercise your right to decline the voluntary search the next time you’re in a non-membership store that conducts them.
Remember to be calm, be polite, and be prepared to defend your choice with facts.
And take careful note of the disproportionate behavior you’ll encounter. Also take careful note of how you’re treated.
Remember: you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve done nothing that constitutes reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You’ve just legally declined to consent to a voluntary search.
Then come back here and continue claiming that the OP isn’t telling the whole story, or must be lying, or must have stolen something, or is just making it all up.
The thing about tinpot dictators, even when their realm only extends as far as the store exit, is that they get unreasonably lathered up when you refuse to submit to their every whim. And never forget the fact that it is indeed their whim, not the law, to which they’re trying to force you to submit.
I always wondered what it was like to suffer from cranium-rectal inversion and now I know. I’ve been in retail most of my life and I have seen just about everything there is to see. This is a new one that even had me smiling.
First of all, decided to make a purchase from a private company on private property. When making a purchase from a company you are creating a legal “this for that” contract. They agreed to provide you with a product for a price and under certain conditions often referred to as “Terms Of Service”.
These “Terms of Service” are responsible for your ability to purchase or return a product. These are often not published on the door, and it is impossible to fit them on the back of a receipt. These policies often can be available at the request of the customer in some form or another expressed or implied.
You are not obligated to make a purchase, but making a purchase binds you as the consumer to these policies.
A receipt check is not so much to cause a problem for the customer, but a check and balance for the clerk. Most often clerks don’t ring up all products for friends and family and without a receipt check a company would stand to lose millions.
What the manager and guard did was unreal and I would stand to be very upset. However, try to remove head from said ass and look at the big picture, not just what makes you happy at that very moment.
We don’t do it to upset you, we do it to control the cost of doing business. Just show your receipt and move on. It’s not like you were guilty of something… right?
This is a very sensitive issue for common sense and consumer rights. I am sure if you talk to the supervisor and inform them that you disagree with their exit checking policy, they would assist you with a personal security guy that will overlook over your shoulder or simply will deny you access to the store.
I understand your rights as consumer, I also understand the stores policy against shoplifting. I even understand the frustration of both parts, you and the store people, and I bet nobody wanted to spend the time having all this happening that day. I bet the cop left the store thinking that could have something better to do than spending time on this issue.
it is a matter of consumer rights vs. policy implementation. If you have the time, money and health to deal with this, I applaud your effort and wish you luck. Hopefully the judge does not find this issue as ridiculous and a waste of time like the rest of us.
DAN_M AT 01:57 PM wrote:
Just remember a few things:
[snip]
It’s easier to beat someone with a bat instead of a lawsuit.
——
But man oh man! The satisfaction index way off the chart. It’s immediate, doesn’t tie up the court system and you walk away with problem solved.
Next!
@killavanilla: Very true. Way to bring out the FACTS…
@dysthymia: It’s not an issue of “consumer rights”. Its an issue of a citizen’s rights. Specifically the right to privacy, and the right to be secure in one’s person and possessions.
Everyone, not just consumers, are entitled to these rights. And those rights may only be abridged in very specific circumstances. This wasn’t one of them.
@sifr: “Why do you refuse to let people stop you on the street and search you if you’ve got nothing to hide?”
My PDA was stolen last year. You don’t mind if I search you to see if you have it do you? Come on. Let’s meet somewhere so I can search you and your car and house…. After all, you have nothing to hide. I’ll bring the rubber gloves. BTW, I am going to search you every time something goes missing.
Get it now?
@skrom: how are you able to survive each day with such illogic running through your brain?
paying for gas and then receiving that gas is a far cry from paying for something and then being treated like a thief.
i guess you don’t mind not being trusted. or maybe you are untrustworthy to begin with and had the experience of someone trusting you.
@jwissick: “My PDA was stolen last year. You don’t mind if I search you to see if you have it do you? “
you missed my point entirely. I was arguing AGAINST the “you should consent if you’ve got nothing to hide” position.
Perhaps you should read back through the discussion.
Don’t you people understand?? It’s not that “oh I don’t have anything to hide”. It’s “I don’t have anything I want to show.” It’s the same reason why the police can’t search your house or your car without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.
@Hackoff: Couldn’t agree more. I’ve often wondered how a madman like Hitler managed to come into power. I now see that Germany must have been full of those “just show them the receipt” types.
I would’ve just shown the receipt and went on with my day. I go to Fry’s once in awhile and always have the receipt out. The guy slashes it with his pink highlighter and glances in the bag and I’m on my way. Takes about 5 seconds.
Most people who steal are not going to hide it in the bag anyways.
The manager was wrong in the way he acted toward the customer. They didn’t detain this person they just simply blocked the customers way of getting out. the customer should have tried to get out and let them then grab him and then it would be a case. Getting evidence will be hard. Did this person get phone numbers from witnesses? The video cameras, most of them only record a day or two of video and then record over that, so I bet there is no evidence of what happened. it’ll be the customers word against the store employees word.
This person should have gone to the local newsstation and maybe they could have done a story on it. Most newsstations have a consumer help thing. Where they air the persons experience and they try to help out anyway they can.
*shakes head in frustration after reading the story*
That’s a perfectly reasonable policy put in place for loss prevention purposes. Normally, honest customers wouldn’t refuse something as quick and easy as allowing the security guard to verify that they actually bought the items that they’re leaving with by taking a quick look over the receipt and said items.
You want to talk about rights? How are honest shopkeepers supposed to protect their property if they have charges pushed against them every time they take reasonable measures like these to make sure that shoplifters are caught and arrested? They should have the right to protect their inventory.
I’m glad that nobody was willing to take your case. Neither the security guard nor the company did anything wrong, and it would be an injustice if you managed to exploit the law to steal money from that company.
@louballs: “I’m just simply wondering why he seems to be contradicting himself. He states he has no problem showing a receipt, but he obviously does by saying “no thanks” when asked to show it. Just wondering why the fuss in the first place. What happened after that is pretty clear.”
Please stop responding if you aren’t going to read what the OP is saying in his comments. He says he has no problem being ASKED to show his receipt. He never said he didn’t have a problem with showing his receipt. See the important word you keep dropping off? Being ASKED to show his receipt is the entire point. Stop distorting what has been said. Also, if you would have read the comments, the OP explains why he didn’t want to show the receipt. On a previous visit, the security person in question was rude to the OP. Since the security person was rude before, the OP didn’t feel like being nice to him on the visit in question.
@jrdnjstn78: “They didn’t detain this person they just simply blocked the customers way of getting out”
Preventing someone from leaving is called detaining them.
Grabbing them is called “battery”.
I never fail to be astonished by the number of douchebags who will take the store’s side. Clearly, those people do not understand the the freedoms they enjoy, and much less the Historical struggles that were needed in order to secure those rights.
The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is the very foundation of our Western civilization!
Allowing a private entity (a store) to violate the basic principles of our civilization is totally unacceptable. The fact that many sheep will allow such raping of their unalienable rights is particularly worrysome, given that when civil rights are being eradicated, it’s a litte bit by little bit.
Today, you have to have your receipt checked. Tomorrow, you’ll have to be strip-searched whenever you leave a store, and god knows what will be demanded next week!!!!
@sifr:
clever how you deduced I am a neocon when I haven’t mentioned the current administrations policies. As a matter of fact, the only political thing I mentioned was that this is a private issue between two private entities and has nothing to do with the current administration, President Bush, or the war in Iraq.
You are wrong, by the way.
But hey, you are the ‘great champion’ of civil liberties.
Naturally, you would have time to spend here on the consumerist chastising anyone who finds your militant arguments objectionable.
So far you’ve managed to call me a neo-con and a nazi (gee, I hope I’m not leaving anything out).
Tell you what, I’ll just laugh at you and you can just laugh at me, then we can all go our seperate ways.
I am not a nazi, nor am I a neo-con. So give it a rest.
You ‘fight’ for civil liberties, which obviously makes you a jovial, pleasant fellow.
Me? I’ll show my stupid receipt so I can get out of the store and on my way. That way, we can avoid involving police officers who, i’m sure, have better things they could be doing. You know, like oppressing you or fighting crime or doing whatever you think police officers do.
You can feel free to make as big of a deal about every little insignificant perceived injustice.
One thing is for certain – I’m WAY happier than you could possibly be, what with the weight of interpreting and defending our constitutional rights to NOT show receipts when asked by security hanging over your head.
Me? I don’t really care. It’s a minor inconvenience. The government isn’t behind it and I don’t find it the least bit invasive.
Spaz’s like you give websites like this a bad name.
That’s right, I said it.
People like you make outsiders believe that everyone who visits consumerist.com is a militant, willing to fight! fight!! fight!!! ANY perceived injustice for as long as it takes and by any means necessary.
Especially the egregious, malicious, evil and nazi-like behavior of *gasp* asking a customer if you can see their receipt before they leave.
Tiger direct handled it wrong, but please stop trying to pass yourself off as Captain America.
Its truly laughable.
A few more comments.
- The nazis, too, were “just doing their jobs”.
- Policy is overhead. Customer satisfaction is pure profit.
- A (movie, train, bus, plane, boat, theater, circus, meal) ticket is not a receipt, but proof of payment for goods/services TO BE received.
- Freedoms wears down only when you don’t use them.
I’m like to be able to say that I’m laughing at those of you who say he should have showed his receipt because it’s easier. I’m saddened by you all, though, so I can’t laugh. Um, it would be “easier” to allow store security to frisk you, too, but would you go along with THAT?
It’s ALWAYS easier to go along with unreasonable intrusions than to fight them. So what?
When I was a boy, we were in a “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. One of the reasons given to kids in school for that “war” was that the Russians spied on their citizens; a country that didn’t trust its own people was an EVIL country. We’re rapidly turning into the same kind of nation.
My question: Why was it “evil” for the Soviet Union to act like that but RIGHT for US to do it?
My suggestion for this customer: Contact the ACLU to see if they will take the case.
@killavanilla: “People like you make outsiders believe that everyone who visits consumerist.com is a militant, willing to fight! fight!! fight!!! ANY perceived injustice for as long as it takes and by any means necessary.”
Good. Corporations need to wake up to the fact that we’re not all pliant little sheep.
@wesa:
“Am I the only one who noticed the tone of “entitlement” to the email? Maybe if the customer was a bit more corporative and a little less snotty, the situation wouldn’t have gotten out of hand in the first place.”
…best typo ever
I’ve got… questions. Firstly, I understand that the detention was a violation of rights. That’s ridiculous. At the same time, the guard was probably misinformed – I know this, having *been* a security guard before, state licensed. But what I don’t understand is how asking to see a receipt is infringing rights. Why would you not flash a receipt, specifically? Honest answer. I’m not going to judge, but I want to know. Do you feel that being asked means that you’re being singled out as a criminal suspect? Do you think it’s a hassle? What about the process bothers you? Be specific.
In a really big store, employees really can’t see where everyone is or what they’re doing, and lots of things -do- get stolen; including particularly big, expensive items just wheeled out the door when nobody is looking. Do you promote that? Of course not. Can you come up with a better solution than making sure folks have receipts when leaving with a cartful of goods?
I think attitudes at the door need to change on both sides. Retailers should surely consider not pestering every single person who walks 5 feet from the register to the door with a receipt check. But you know what? If you get asked, maybe the guard didn’t see you go through line with that air conditioner or big screen or whatever. Humor them. Ask for help if it’s a big item you’re holding and you don’t have your receipt handy. Retailers are asking a favor of you – don’t be a dick if you don’t want them being a dick back.
As an aside, I’ll admit to having waltzed past receipt checks before when the line was huge or the 90 year old wallyworld receipt person is taking their geritol-loving time.
(Also, I’m not a retailer or executive, nor do I have pecuniary interest in the matter whatsoever. just a consumer interested in rights, and not sure how i feel about situations like this yet.)
@Jean Naimard: Oh for crying out loud, why don’t you take a trip to Darfur and then come back and we’ll talk about how badly we have it here in the US. Don’t ever come out swinging, talking about how our civil rights in this country are being “eradicated” when there are people in this world who have it a thousand times worse than some guy being asked to show his receipt at a fucking TigerDirect. Let’s find something else to argue about, huh?
Wow what a fucking drama queen.
Anyone who thinks the cops will choose to go to a simple civil disturbance over a murder, rape, fire, etc is just a fucking loon. If a cop, while at the store for potential theft or detainment, hears “Shoot out at Fifth and Main, all units report” will quickly end the detainment and leave, within seconds. Just as it happened, cops have discretion in who to arrest and what crime to investigate.
@ HUNGRYGRRL,
Are you kidding? You really wonder “Why are we expected to show sympathy to someone who CHOSE TO violate a store’s policy?”
REALLY? Are you that dim?
What if the store’s policy is that they require your driver’s license to be shown, too? It’s store policy, right? What if the policy is to fingerprint customers as they leave the store? It’s a policy, so we should just go along with it? Even if it’s illegal? Even if they’re taking photos & posting them online? Even if they’re insisting that only white people can shop there (ooohh — actual historical example)? Even if the policy hurts us, slanders us, makes us late getting back from a work lunch break, and so on?
I would ask the opposite of your question: Why is anyone showing sympathy for a STORE that CHOSE to enact a store policy that violates the LAW?
@ SKROM,
You ask, “Who says it’s voluntary?”
The 4th amendment of the US Constitution gives us freedom from unreasonable searches:
[www.law.cornell.edu]
Some will say that only applies to the government, and others may detain at will. However, I don’t buy that, first of all. But second of all, even if it’s true, there are additional laws on the books, such as “false imprisonment” which specifically calls out using intimidation tactics to block someone’s movement:
[www.answers.com]
If it were me, I would have done the same thing as this article describes (refused to give my receipt or allow a search of my shopping bags). However, I would have concluded my business differently. I would have turned around, gone back to the register, and told the cashier to issue a refund. I have no intention of contributing to the salary of an employee who calls me a thief.
@aboyd: What if? What if? What if? Blah blah blah. We’re talking about what did happen, not what might or could have.
Aboyd, it’s because the vast majority of posters who have criticized the OP and explained why have said that they agree that the detainment was inexcusable. The policy of asking to see a receipt, however, is far from illegal. If you disagree, please cite whatever statute makes it so. And no, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not prevent a store from asking to see your receipt. If it was that simple law schools would not pay Con Law professors to teach.
@aboyd said: The 4th amendment of the US Constitution gives us freedom from unreasonable searches.
BUT:
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): “This Court has … consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.” (punctuation omitted). See this.
The unfortunate thing is that you won’t get far with Securitas. I use to work for Securitas, and the manual clearly states that we are to not get involved (according to them, the officers are there to “observe and report” and that’s it). The handbook says the moment the security officer took matters into his own hands, he was on his own. Securitas will not back him and has nothing to do with him in the case of a lawsuit. He did sign a waiver that said that he understands that his actions outside of Securitas protocol are his own actions.
That’s pretty typical of Securitas to give you the cold shoulder like that supervisor did. They will not tell you anything that may be incriminating. They want to keep as neutral ground as possible.
Hope it all works out for you. I’d like to see Securitas go down. They are a no good company.
Louballs, Skrom, et al.: learn something about the US law.
It’s called Habeas Corpus. Unless the evidence of wrongdoing is presented, you have the right (yes, a right!) to walk away/out and if anyone restrains you without being able to produce the proof of legal justification for physical restraint, they’ve broken the law and you have a right to damages and penalties, civil and criminal.
Simply breaking a law, BTW, isn’t justification for physical restraint unless there is a specific law defining how and when restraint is allowed – which is why police can do certain things that rent-a-cops and average citizens are not allowed to, like engaging in high-speed pursuits.
Habeas Corpus is the most basic part of common law dating back to 1306 (700 years old!). Common law is the basis of all US, UK and Commonwealth law.
If the State’s Attorney will not assist you with prosecution you are able to present your case directly to the grand jury. If the grand jury issues an indictment then the State’s Attorney will be obligated to prosecute the indictment. You should consult with an attorney in your jurisdiction before proceeding. You are at risk for a suit for defamation and malicious prosecution by proceeding with criminal charges. Also you should know that in most states threatening an opposing party with criminal prosecution in a civil dispute constitutes extortion.
i searched google for security guard “malcolm melton”. the only hit i got was the following post about professional wrestler hulk hogan:
malcolm melton said:
I DONT KNOW WHAT THE SITSUATION IS BUT I HOPE HULK HOGAN DOES GET DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND KIDS ARE FUCKING BITCHS AND WOULD HAVE NOTHING IF HULK HOGAN NEVER WERSTLED ALL THEY DO IS TALK SHIT ABOUT WERSTLEING WHEN WERSLING GAVE THEM ALL THEY HAVE KNOW
June 29th, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
at this point i have more pity for the security guard than the guy he illegally detained.
It is unbelievable to me that people are criticizing the decision to not “just show the receipt and move on”. Why should any customer who just spent they’re hard earned money in the store be treated like a thief. It is alarming, given the times we live in and that our civil liberties are already under increasing attack from our government trying to “protect us from terrorists”. What if Tiger Direct wants to pat you down and check your bag before you leave?
If you give in to receipt checking now, what do you think the next step is going to be once thieves figure out how to circumvent this by printing receipts before they come in for teh items they would like to steal.
@sifr: yes, everyone and not only consumers are entitled to civil rights. but it seems this became a civil issue because he decided to make look like that. At the update, it seems, the customer came back a second time after a first incident where the police officer already advised him not to comeback if he was not going to comply with the store policy. and that is a consumer issue.
he was denided of freely leave the store, the first time. he came back even when was adviced by the officer not to return if was not willing to follow the unwritten but now known policy.
if the update is true and what the manager is saying is true, no judge will take this matter serious, because he recurrently and knowingly of the policy, came back for more.
This is a civil rights issue, and it seems, an abuse of his part as well.
@dysthymia: I was never told not to come back. After the first visit, the officer told the guard I could not be detained (I was not detained the first time either, I was told I was free to leave). I was never banned/kicked out. I thought I’d give them a second chance, hopefully the guard would have learned his lesson. He didn’t.
What a lot of people here don’t seem to realize is that checking the receipts at the door isn’t only about checking up on customers — it’s usually not even mostly about that. Any loss prevention manager will tell you that internal (employee) theft is generally their main concern. I managed a retail video rental store for a year or so recently and my regional LP manager told us almost 3/4 of all shrink was internal. So the main reason these guys are checking you at the exit is because one dishonest cashier could do a LOT of financial damage in a short period of time. Imagine: you bring up 2 or 3 items, some of which are cheap to moderately expensive, one of which is ridiculously expensive. The cashier rings you out and takes your money but never charges you for the high-dollar item (maybe they even scan the cheapest item twice to make it look/sound good). The high-dollar item is then sold on eBay or Craigslist or whatever still in unopened packaging and the money is divided up. Repeat a few times a week or month and suddenly a low-paid cashier can make a whole lot of tax-free money on the side. Having the guy at the door should piss off the cashiers much more than it does the customers. The notion of a cashier and a door guard colluding on a scam like this must be a real nightmare scenario for places like this.