The manager of the TigerDirect that unlawfully detained reader Shaneal Manek for his refusal to show a receipt called him this afternoon and apologized for his store’s behavior. Shaneal told The Consumerist by phone that Tony, the store manager, pledged to retrain his staff on proper procedures and that they wouldn’t retain the services of the security guard involved in the dispute.
Earlier, we spoke with Tiger Direct Executive Vice President Richard Wallet, who confirmed the receipt dispute incident did occur, and cast doubts on Shaneal’s version of the events.
When asked whether the verbal altercation happened as Shaneal described, Wallet said he couldn’t be sure as he wasn’t there. He said that he found it unlikely that the security guard would taunt and threaten Shaneal as he had met the guard and he “didn’t seem that type of guy.”
Wallet accused Shaneal of trying to bait the store after being detained a week prior for also refusing to show a receipt. Shaneal said that on that occasion, he declined to show a receipt because he had already waited over an hour for a part to be pulled from the back, some more time at the register, and didn’t feel like waiting in a line for a security guard to check his receipt when he was under no legal obligation to show the receipt. On that date, cops were called to intervene, which is store policy whenever there’s a possibility of a confrontation with a customer, Wallet told us. He also said the cop told Shaneal to not return if he wasn’t going to follow store policy. Shaneal says that that didn’t happen.
Wallet also told us that on the date of the most recent incident, Shaneal purchased three items in two separate transactions and stuffed one of the receipts in his pocket and began to walk out of the store with his items. Wallet said the head cashier only saw one of the transactions and that gave her cause to tell the security guard to stop Shaneal. Shaneal told The Consumerist that he was buying items for a friend who wanted his own receipt for record-keeping purposes.
By law, shopkeepers are only allowed to detain customers under suspicion of shoplifting if they actually see the customer hide the item on their person.
Wallet encouraged any customer with a TigerDirect complaint to call him directly at 305-415-2441.
Shaneal told us that he is satisfied with how the situation got resolved and thanked us for posting his story as he felt it otherwise wouldn’t have been paid as much attention by TigerDirect. Wallet said he had been fielding phone calls and emails about the issue all morning.
More From Consumerist
-
TSA Apologizes To 11-Year-Old For Detaining Her After Detecting Bomb Residue
-
Fairmont Hotel Decides That Handicap Spot Is Really Intended For Taxi Cabs
-
TigerDirect Won’t Accept My Coupon Because It Just Won’t
-
The Last Vestiges Of Circuit City To Disappear On Dec. 31
-
TSA Detains Sick, Wheelchair-Bound 12-Year-Old Claiming She Tested Positive For Bomb Residue
I have had situations like this happen to me before. Having to wait in line to buy the item and then wait in another line just to exit the store? It does seem a bit much. If I don’t have a busy schedule, I will wait. If I do, I bypass the reciept check line and exit. Only a one or two times was I ever stopped and detained. A security guard did try to detain me physically on one of them. I explained to him that I wished to leave the store and he was very rude, saying he “Had to see my reciept!” or he was going to “slam me to the ground” and search for it himself. At that point I politely let him know that I would not allow that to occur, and I that I was prepared to defend myself against this action. He sneered and asked what I could do about it? I then calmly explained that this was a state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. The smirk slipped off his face and I left without further incident.
Haven’t been back to that store ever again.
For the folks who are concerned that this sort of receipt-checking must be fought for civil liberties etc., I do want to point out that once the real authorities were called (police officer), the proper laws did take effect. Simply put, the government was on the customer’s side in this one. So I am not too concerned about this policy of receipt-checking, as far as 1984 fears are concerned.
Though I feel that this r-checking should not continue, because it is annoying and insulting, I do side with the corporation in one aspect. The intent of this detainment should be factored in. If the government detains someone illegally, it is a very, very large concern because of the likelihood of very bad things happening to the citizenry (1984).
However, this is just a brick-and-mortar store. If or when an employee of a store requests a receipt from me, I wouldn’t think “he’s intent on violating my rights for the nefarious purpose of undermining civil liberties”, I’d probably think “this store has probably lost lots of money due to thefts, here’s my receipt”.
This store probably received an email from HQ saying that they “lost a crapload of money, stop all suspicious customers”. And well, people overreacted.
@Hydrargyri: Again, the civil liberty issue isn’t the receipt checking. Stores are free to ask and I don’t think customers are being America haters for showing the receipts.
The civil liberty issue is the illegal detention. Unless the rent-a-cop can provide evidence of theft or fraud, he has no right to stop you from leaving a private property.
I think it’s been said much better after my original post, but I’ll restate what my intended argument was. Detaining him for not showing the receipt was clearly in the wrong, but asking to see the receipt was in no way a violation of any civil right. It’s not an illegal search or seizure of property, it’s not an invasion of privacy, it’s just a practice some stores use to minimize theft. Is it a pain in the ass? Sure. Will it go away? Probably not.
Again, my issue with the whole situation was that it clearly could have been avoided. Show the receipt or receipts and you’re gone. Simple as that. Having every customer show their receipts isn’t going to lead to pat downs outside of the store or hover-cams shopping with me, its just going to mean that I get to that first red light 3.5 seconds later. Clearly it seems to be this stores policy to ask to see receipts upon exit. If you take offense to that practice so severely as to cause an incident previously why would you go back? You know what their practice is. Apparently you don’t agree with it but will continue to shop there, either because A) the prices are low or B) you are looking to cause trouble.
@Mojosan:
So, if they asked you to give them a drug test because it’s their “policy”, you would have to do it??
@kushboy:
Yeah, sure. But he could have something in his pants, too. Should EVERYONE have to take off their pants because someone COULD shoplift something in their pants??
I said it when the story first posted, and I’ll say it again, taking 2 seconds for somone to glance at your reciept and run a highlighter across it is not some huge social crisis. Also, if what Wattle said about the earlier dispute was true then quite frankly I think it is Shaneal’s own damn fault for going back into the store when he knew store policy.
@Schmee: Yes, if you believe what Wattle says, but Shaneal wrote in an an earlier comment that in the previous encounter, the manager told him he was free to go and did not have to show his receipt.
Now, wouldn’t a reasonable person believe that the store policy doesn’t require you to show the receipt, and that security guard would get a reminder on the rules?
I don’t know who’s telling the truth, but I hesitate to take the side of a store that knowingly broke a law after there was an incident just a week earlier.
@Mojosan:
To summarize for you, as you don’t seem to know the difference between a law-making body, and a shitty convenient store policy:
1. store=not a lawmaking body/don’t need to obey
2. “store’s property”= not trespassing b/c not asked to leave/doesn’t entitle them to search, sorry =O
3. Please save us all the aggravation of reading your “well-thought-out” remarks, and read my last post.
4. Grow a brain.
Love Nero
“The point people are trying to make is that they would rather show a receipt and avoid the potential ensuing conflict.”
Well, if they want to pick up the soap for every Barney Fife stationed at the door of a retail entity, you’ll understand if I think they’re sheep, right?
I’ll ask again: If a store security guard told you he was going to frisk you before you could leave the store, would you go along with that? I mean, it would be easier and faster than arguing about it, right? That’s what some people here have tried to make the discussion about: convenience.
If you say no, you wouldn’t go along with that, then you DO have a line you won’t cross; it’s just different than mine. I prefer nipping this bullshit in the bud.
If you say you WOULD go along with that, how ’bout we cut to the chase: just put on the armband, practice saying “Achtung!” and be done with it.
The issue here is whether or not a store has the right to act as its own law enforcement agency.
So, does that mean in the confine of their own walls they are allowed to define law?
…I think that most of Shaneal’s critics would reiterate that the store’s illegal behavior would not have occurred if he had produced the receipt. Neither I nor they are condoning the store’s behavior once the situation escalated and Shaneal was detained. The point people are trying to make is that they would rather show a receipt and avoid the potential ensuing conflict…
So you’re not condoning the store’s behavior, you’re just saying it’s Shaneal’s fault. Riiiight.
@CubFan99: Two points here:
1. If we are to believe Consumerist, the law states that “shopkeepers are only allowed to detain customers under suspicion of shoplifting if they actually see the customer hide the item on their person”–not that the shopkeeper has the right to check receipts at the door.
2. If you are willing to give up your right to privacy, and submit to a receipt search, fine. That doesn’t mean that all other customers should be required to give up THEIR rights, too, or face store consequences if they refuse to relinquish those rights. That’s wrong.
There’s also the issue of policy being applied consistently. If anything is cited as “policy” my first questions are:
1) Where is a written copy of the policy that I can review?
2) Why am I subject to this policy?
3) Is the policy applied uniformly and consistently to everyone? If not, why not?
If it’s not published and not applied consistently, then there’s definitely some liability on the policymaker’s part.
Guy still sounds like a stubborn prick to me.
@Stockholder – you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether you think Shaneal should have just showed his receipt, is making a mountain out of a molehill, or is a muckracking troublemaker–the store shouldn’t have detained him. Shaneal had the right to complain — and I for one will never do business with TigerDirect again. Shaneal should not be subjected to some kind of veracity withchunt on the rest of his life because he wouldn’t just put up with it. You have the right to try to discredit him — but you shouldn’t be proud of yourself. And one wonders why people are so often silent in the face of injustices large and small. Speak up and get smashed down, apparently. How sad.
@Stockholder: OMG! Someone on the internet accused him of something and he didn’t deny it!!! That’s like, if the security guard asks for the receipt and, like, not presenting it! GUILTY!!! TigerDirect is off the hook!!!
Obviously, the store was BAITED into breaking the law by this crime non-denier. Poor little TigerDirect never have a choice against someone who didn’t deny taking the ACT for someone else!!
@astrochimp:
Belief is at the forefront of any action. It is also what keeps a person from being arrested for making a false claim. If I see someone crawling out the window of a house, carrying a bag and looking suspicious I am going to call police. If, when the police arrive, they discover that the person lives there and was was just carrying something out to the trash and didn’t want to go out the front door then it is my honest belief that he was committing a crime that keeps me from being arrested for a false report. I didn’t say “believe” as in “they think.” I said “believe” as in they had an honest belief in what they saw.
“the cop told Shaneal to not return if he wasn’t going to follow store policy.”
This is the most distressing part of the story, IMO.
The police have no business commenting on this in any way, and the manager definitely should not be making claims to higher authority by doing so.
A lot of people are getting on Shaneal because he baited the store purposefully.
I sincerely hope that every single person who says that has a personal emergency while in a receipt-checking/person-detaining store.
I sincerely hope that each one of you misses the birth of their first child because you ran post a security guard at Circuit City or whatever, and got illegally detained.
Our rights are valuable, but many of you would happily see them disappear if it might save you $0.17 per year. And sadly, I think it would take something extremely drastic for many of you to realize why it is that they are so precious.
The scariest part of this thread is the ubiquitous “just go along” mentality. This does not bode well for us as a (formerly) free country. Those of us who aren’t outraged aren’t paying attention. Stop being afraid and start getting mad.
The process of showing your receipt takes less than a few seconds – even with a line. I don’t see why it’s such a big deal to cooperate with their policy when it probably helps to reduce theft and keeps their prices low. If dude had to wait in line, that’s what happens when you shop at a warehouse.
It sucks to be inconvenienced, but that’s all. It’s not a crime and you certainly don’t have to shop there. Buck up or pay full price somewhere else.
I have to say that honestly it’s easier to just show them your receipt and go on about your day. They don’t check the damn thing anyway. They just use a hi-liter and mark on it. I could have Jimmy Hoffa in my bag and they wouldn’t notice.
We shop at tree-hugger marts and carry our own bags in, when we tried this at Target we were stopped at the door and told by the security guy that it was against their policy. I rolled my eyes and told him to get a manager. Dur…yes, Target is in favor of killing the environment. The manager apologized and said the security guy was misinformed their policy was something about not letting people fill unpurchased bags with merchandise and then pay for the bag too, or some such silliness. Anyway, we stopped doing that because their bags are great for kitty litter.
It amazes me at how many of you think it is ok to give up your rights in a situation like this. If you are willing to give up your time because a private citizen wants you to prove your innocense at the door, would you also be willing to be stopped by police and have your vehicle dismantled on the side of the road with no probable cause other than the suspicion that somebody may be trying to run drugs through town that day? Some of you should go spend a year or two in any other country. When you come back tell us how giving up your rights is no big deal.
The law doesn’t make sense !
“By law, shopkeepers are only allowed to detain customers under suspicion of shoplifting if they actually see the customer hide the item on their person”
when you see someone shoplifting it would be no longer a suspicion but a fact (hence it is a loose definition). Obviously this customer thinks he is big shit because he thinks that he has more rights than he should. If I was the security guard and some shit refuses to show me his receipts I would be suspicious, and I will call the police too. if he didn’t steal then he should not make a big issue out of showing his receipt, be nice to the security guard, he is a human and doing his job. if I was the security guard I will let him go because the law doesn’t allow to arrest without seeing however I will warn him that he is not to come to the store again if he is not complying with store policy, and will be arrested for trespassing if seen in the store again, then I take a picture of his face, follow him to his car and get his license number, and then call the police and report it as suspected theft. Again the law is bendable and very loose, the security guard could arrest him for trespassing (refusing to comply with store policy is trespassing because he has no right to be in the store if he is not to comply with store policies).