Reader Matt has launched the dreaded EECB (Executive Email Carpet Bomb) on Home Depot—attaching a copy of a formal complaint that he filed with the Metropolitan Police in Washington, D.C..
In addition to poor customer service and an inadequately maintained and stocked store, Matt says he was illegally detained by the Metropolitan Police and forced to return to the store to show his receipt to a Home Depot employee.
According to his police report, the officer stopped Matt without reasonable cause and forced him to comply with “store policy.” Matt feels that this was a violation of his 4th amendment rights.
Why are the Washington D.C. police enforcing Home Depot’s “store policies” as if they were laws? Nothing better to do?
Here’s Matt’s letter to Home Depot’s CEO Frank “Li’l Frankie” Blake:
Dear Mr. Blake,
Since purchasing my home in March 2007, I’ve spent nearly $10,000 on various projects around my home; most of that was spent at my local Home Depot in Washington, DC. Despite the poor inventory, poor customer service, long check out lines, disorganization of the store, rummaged-through/opened/broken/incomplete items sold, and many other problems with the store, I’ve shopped there because it’s local and has a good-sized lumber/drywall supply. After a recent incident, however, I’ll likely not return and instead will probably drive a few miles further to a Lowe’s in Maryland or Virginia in the future.
Long story short, I refused to show my receipt to exit the store, and was detained illegally (albeit briefly) by a uniformed Washington, DC Metropolitan Police officer in the 5th District on February 21, 2008. I’ve submitted a formal complaint to the police department, which is attached. I refuse to be treated like a criminal and be held at your store illegally in the future. As you probably know, most retail shrinkage/loss occurs as a result of internal theft by employees, not customers, so the store “requiring” customers to display receipts at exits likely isn’t doing much good anyway (not to mention that customers are not legally required to display receipts).
In addition to this incident, I’ve experienced the below within the past few months:
-Lack of knowledgeable sales staff
-Discourteous sales staff
-Inattentive sales staff
-Trouble receiving replacement parts missing from a ceiling fan kit; the local Home Depot associate actually opened up a new box for a different fan, gave me parts he assured would work, and sent me on my way. The parts didn’t fit my fan at all, and now the local Home Depot has yet another opened and incomplete item; the Chinese manufacturer was more efficient and shipped the parts to me as a courtesy.
-Saw used for cutting/ripping plywood and other lumber has been out of service for some time (forcing me to go elsewhere)
-Initial refusal by a cashier to allow an exchange of a Commercial Electric brand item; she claimed that the item was not purchased at a Home Depot, even though this brand is sold exclusively by Home Depot (after wasting 30 minutes of my time, a manager overrode the decision)
-Inaccurate inventory numbers, resulting in perpetually out-of-stock items (e.g.: one time, the store’s inventory system indicated to a sales rep that the store had hundreds of an item in stock, yet no associate could find the large, oddly-shaped item, forcing me to go to a competing store out-of-state, which has helpful staff and plenty of the item readily available)
-A store security guard grabbing my person and my purchased items and not allowing me to leave the store; my father had the receipt and already left the immediate area (Again, this type of action is unlawful; store employees or contractors have no legal right to touch/assault customers or prevent them from leaving, even if no receipt is shown. After purchasing the items, a customer’s obligation to the store ends.)
-Common items out of stock (one more than one occasion, I couldn’t find a CPVC 1/2″ elbow; this is a very common part, and it’s frustrating to have to rig several components together to complete a project)
-A 40-minute wait to even speak to someone about ordering a sheet of laminate countertop material (I recently built my own kitchen cabinets and counters); three other associates were present and available in the department, but claimed that the one busy associate was the single person in the store who could give me a rough guesstimate of price (I gave up and drove a few miles out-of-town to Lowe’s, which had a handful of popular styles of laminate sheets in stock, unlike Home Depot).
When I first arrived to DC, I was happy to hear that there was a Home Depot in town, as I was familiar with the “You can do it, we can help” attitude portrayed in advertisements. My experiences (only some are list above) have proven, however, that the Home Depot is most certainly not in a position to help as advertised. In fact, I wish I would have spend the thousands of dollars at Lowe’s or other stores. Even with a further distance to travel and possibly higher prices, I wouldn’t have left the store stressed out or frustrated nearly every time.
Mr. Blake, I realize this is a long e-mail, but I hope you– as Home Depot’s CEO– will consider what I’ve said and work to institute changes at the Home Depot in our nation’s capital; until then, though, I’ll likely find a store that’s well-organized and staffed with persons who are helpful.
In addition, I read today that Home Depot recently posted its first-ever annual sales decline, with a 27% drop in the fourth quarter of 2007. With those losses, I’m surprised that Home Depot hasn’t gotten back to basics like having good customer service, sensible policies, and treating customers as they should be treated.
Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or telephone at [redacted] should you have any questions.
Yours,
Matt
UPDATE: Home Depot’s CEO Has Responded To This Complaint
More From Consumerist
-
Burning Down Home Depot Will Not Help Save Your Friend's Hardware Store
-
Home Depot Uses LG Appliances To Advertise Deal That Excludes LG Appliances
-
Did My Home Depot Test These Shovels Before Putting Them Out For Sale?
-
Home Depot Batman Just Wanted To "Inspire Hope," Says He's Not The Only Real-Life Superhero
-
Home Depot (Sort Of) Explains How An In-Store Purchase Can Result In E-mails From Its Website
@G-Dog:
a bedroom/bathroom is an individual’s private propery, and we have laws governing illegal search/seizure.
The store/receipt/purchase checking policies though do not fall under illegal search/seizure until you have left the premises. Until you have left the store’s property though, you are still under the realm of their rules.
@zippyglue: I am glad that you feel that refusing a receipt is somehow making you a better person than all of us. I bet when you’re not on the internet, you are the guy checking the receipt.
Let me see…the store tries to protect its inventory by requesting to see proof of purchase before he walks out the door with merchandise. What did he have to lose by showing his receipt? He admits refusing to show his receipt, then later in his letter says that his father had the receipt and had left the immediate area. Which is it?
This guy simply has a beef with Home Depot. I would too if I had received the type of service he claims to have received over an extended period of time, but I wouldn’t shop at that store anymore. I’d be willing to bet that the “grab” was nothing more than the guard getting his attention, but I can’t say for sure since I wasn’t there. My opinion…this guy was just looking for a battle, pure and simple.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will cry foul over something so petty as showing a receipt on the way out of a store and try to hide behind the 4th amendment. I wonder how many of the same people fall within the group that try to supress what other people say because it might offend somebody. They try to shut people up, rather than simply not listening or going elsewhere.
Please forgive me if this post is duplicated; I experienced some kind of error when posting it the first time.
For all of you sheep who don’t seem to value your rights:
There are very simple, straightforward steps for establishing a solid base for probable cause. Failure to do so opens the store up to liability for false arrest (if a citizen’s arrest is performed), unlawful detainment/imprisonment, kidnapping (unlikely that this would stick), etc.
1. A store employee must see the shoplifter approach the merchandise.
2. A store employee must see the shoplifter select/pick up the merchandise.
3. A store employee must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert the merchandise.
4. A store employee must maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter.
5. A store employee must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise.
6. A store employee must wait for the shoplifter to leave the store before confronting them.
It really is that simple. If those six steps are not followed, the suspect cannot be detained without risking liability. And if the suspect has not stolen any merchandise, *and* decides to press charges, the risk is realized. Please note that, while several states make exceptions to this (some allow for detainment of 10-15 minutes, I believe), most states DO NOT allow stores to detain individuals unless they have ACTUALLY broken a law. “I’m just checking your receipt” is not legitimate cause to detain. They MUST allow you to leave, or they are detaining you illegally, against your will. Time to call the cops.
Now, I see your point. “Why do you care so much,” you might ask. Well, for a lot of reasons. First, I dislike the precedent. I don’t like the idea that just because I didn’t wear a tie that day or maybe I’ve got dirt on my jeans from a project, that someone will treat me differently. Second, I’m not being paid by whatever company decides to stop me to improve their security. I’ve got places to go and things to do. And quite frankly, by the time they’ve decided to stop me I’ve probably already been waiting in line for a while to check out, and a while longer because something wasn’t marked correctly. As Buran so eloquently put it: “Feel free to surrender your rights. But don’t you DARE bitch when someone else stands up for theirs.” You can be a sheep all you want. But us whiny bastards who make a stink are the only reason you HAVE rights like this, civil protections, and statutes preventing you from being taken advantage of.
For those of you who keep complaining about this sort of behavior by stores:
With the exception of specific cases (like this one, in which he was detained by the police), the appropriate reaction is very simple: as you approach the door and the security/store employee asks for your receipt, you simply say “No, thank you,” and keep walking. That’s it. Stop freaking out about how “horrible” these companies are for even asking. Yes, you have the right to say no. And similarly, they have the right to ask in the first place. Most people are sheep. They just go along with it without questioning why they are waiting in a second line after checkout to just get out of the store. If they would stop being sheep and refuse as well, eventually stores would stop asking because they would realize it doesn’t work. Until then, they will keep asking. And you can keep saying no. ‘Nuff said.
It is rare (though not unheard of) for store personnel to follow you out complaining about it. I’ve had it happen at Best Buy once, and I just said “Look, you have the right to ask me for my receipt, and I have the right to say ‘No, thank you.’ Go ask that police officer if you have any further questions.” (Yes, apparently Best Buys in the SF Bay Area have police hanging out in the stores, augmenting security.) He walked inside and spoke excitedly to the police officer, who gave him a bored look and shook his head. That was the end of it. Yes, if someone actually DETAINS you, make a stink. It’s unlawful detainment, and it’s grounds for a civil lawsuit, if not criminal charges. You’re not a thief, and you’ve broken no law. Call 9-1-1 (if you don’t have anywhere to be) and make your point. But don’t expect them to allow you to come back if you do. You may not agree with the politics, but it *is* their store. Otherwise, JUST KEEP WALKING. Store policy doesn’t mean ANYTHING. They can claim it’s store policy to strip-search you and chop off your hands if you steal something. Does that mean they actually can? Of course not! The only stores that have ANY legal right to search your bags, check your receipt, etc. are membership-based stores such as Sam’s Club and Costco. You’ve signed a contract with them that allows them to do so. Setting aside the fact that some rights can’t actually be signed away, you’ve agreed to allow them to check your receipt, search your bag, or whatever else they put in the contract. If you refuse, they could (potentially) sue you for breach of contract. I doubt they would; they’d just warn you not to do it again, or perhaps cancel your membership. (Probably resulting in a refund of membership fees.) But other than those specific circumstances, NO store has a right to detain or search you, or your property (including your documents, such as your receipt), unless your state has granted them specific rights to do so.
Now, this particular case is of course the exception to the rule, altogether. If that store told the officer you shoplifted, the officer was well within his rights to detain you. Of course, you could always have asked him the standard questions: “Am I under arrest? Am I being detained? Am I free to go?” If the answer is yes to the first, ask for what charge. If yes to the second, ask under what grounds. If no to both of the first, the officer MUST say yes to the third, or one of the first two answers weren’t correct. Either you’re under arrest/being detained, or you’re free to go. If you’re free to go, GO. If the store did NOT tell the officer that you shoplifted, you are not being accused of a crime. Unless you’re under arrest for a crime or being detained as a suspect of a crime, you cannot be detained by the police. (Legally, anyway.) “We think he might have, but aren’t willing to say he did” is NOT (so far as I am aware, though the current political climate may have changed this) enough for an officer to legally detain you. Either the store commits to this action and says you did, or the officer has to let you go.
If the store DID accuse you of shoplifting, the burden of proof is on them. That’s where the six steps come in. Now, assuming that you didn’t actually walk out the door with something that you didn’t pay for (intentionally or not), they have NOTHING to support their claims, and they are liable. Sue their pants off. They’ll likely settle (particularly if they’re a large chain) because they know they have no legal backing for their claims. Document, document, document, and get yourself a lawyer. They know the law. You don’t. Guessing wildly at the right way to handle things may end up losing your case. Do it right, or give it up.
That’s really all there is to it.
- Ezra -
I read through most of the comments, and maybe I missed something, but…
I don’t see enough information here to come to a conclusion. Information on the event is sparse and seemingly contradicting.
Did he have the receipt or did his father? Did he show it or not? Was he physically detained or briefly questioned?
I am also wondering if requiring to show a receipt is unlawful. We have rights, but so does Home Depot. As much as some of us would like to think they don’t, they still have a right to protect their business. Personally, I don’t see how it is any different than the rights we waive, upon entering the store, when they use security cameras or ask for ID when we write a check. If anyone has some information I would like to see it.
I don’t know if he was unlawfully detained because I don’t know the details of the detainment. If it is legal to require a receipt check, and a customer refuses, I see that as probable cause and see no reason why an officer who happen to be there can’t question the customer.
But receipt checks are everywhere, and if they are in fact illegal, shouldn’t we be organizing to have this law enforced across the board, and not using it as a chance to complain about broken saws or CPVC elbow stock?
By making a purchase, you are entering into an agreement to follow the store’s policies. The store can ask for you to show proof that you purchased your item, but it also obligates the store to honor any returns or warranties that it has published under its policy. Having said that, the store has no authority to detain anybody. At most they can refuse your business in the future and refuse to honor any returns or warranty service, since *you* broke the policy agreement. Simply put, if you don’t agree with the policy, just don’t shop there. You’ll be happier, they’ll be happier, and you won’t have to depend upon a cop’s faulty understanding of the law to go on with your life.
Ummm, people seemto be forgetting that we have rights. For those people that say”Go ahead and show them the receipt”, well, tell me where you live so I can go and search your house for drugs. Because after all, if you aren’t doing anything illegal, you should have no problem with that. Or, how about if I search your wife’s purse for a gun? If she objects, I can have her arrested because again, if she has nothing to hide, then she should let me search her and her person.
So, I await, your addresses. Please post them here.
But, I bet you won’t post it.
I don’t see the big deal…if they wanted to do a full body cavity search then yes, but they just want to see a silly piece of paper. I don’t understand how this is being horribly intrusive on your rights!
sometimes my hands are full and the receipt is in my pockets, and i dont feel like putting all the shit in my hands down on the ground to scrounge for a reciept to prove that i just paid for something, nor am i legally required to do so.
If it’s policy to show your receipt at the door, then show the damn receipt. Costco does it all the time, they just look at it and mark it with a green highlighter. You don’t even have to stop if you’re walking slow enough.
And who is going to take this letter seriously when he starts out saying, “I PROBABLY won’t come back to your store, I MIGHT go a few miles out instead, I don’t want to be detained in the future from you guys”. WTF?
@amccoll:
It’s not a violation of your rights or privacy if they ask to see your receipt. It is, however, a violation of etiquette and common courtesy. Absent a criminal investigation, I’m under no obligation to to justify or prove ownership for MY property to anyone, no matter how trivial or inconsequential such request may be.
Simply put, it’s rude. And the appropriate answer to a rude personal request is to ignore it, or to respond with a simple and polite “No you may not.”
The reason so many people discuss the receipt check issue with talk of privacy and rights is because over the past few years, the practice has become so widespread and so commonplace that many people, including door “guards” and LP employees, are starting to think that they actually have a RIGHT to see your receipt. The more people continue to meekly submit to this “minor” inconvenience, the more those seven dollar an hour blueshirts think that they actually have the authority to force you to produce it. This has led to a growing number of incidents of people being accosted, detained, verbally abused, forcibly restrained, and even assaulted by under trained or overzealous store employees.
And those are a violation of your rights.
And until people start standing up and saying NO, the worse it will get.
Consumerist commenters: making the consumer the bad guy in the first two posts.
It’s not really a corporate Home Depot problem that the service at that store is crappy, it’s really just a function of being in D.C. I’ve never experience such poor service and lack of goods anywhere until moving to the District two years ago. My girlfriend asked an employee if they had mint during a trip to the local grocery store. The employee’s response: “You mean like gum?” Um, no.
For those of you ragging on Matt for continuing to shop at Home Depot, thanks to the crappiness that is DC, the closest Lowe’s is a good 40 minutes away from that Home Depot.
@bkpatt: You’re a fucking moron. HD has ZERO right to detain anyone without legal cause. It has been proven TIME and AGAIN that stores have a right to ASK for a receipt, but absolutely ZERO right to require one. Even Costco and Sam’s can’t force you to show your receipt… only expel you from their “club.” Maybe you ought do some research before you open that big, fat, stupid mouth or your (metaphorically speaking that is…)
I see all the sheep have come out to bleat in support of Home Depot.
I don’t know if its been said because I got tired of reading in circles but heres my two cents.
First off I think the “shrink is not my problem” comments are just selfish. If the company incurs shrink they compensate for it by RAISING prices, while lowering wages of the employees who are just trying to make a living, everyone looses. So you pay either way (I prefer in time) Which is my next point, the reason most of the shrink is internal in retail is because its harder to detect. By checking receipts on sco transactions and when the merchandise protection systems go off it acts as a deterent to shoplifters. Thus reducing externally caused shrink, keeping prices down and employees happy and more willing to help.
Bottom line give the poor employee that is probably making 10-25k a break and stop for a few seconds so they can check your receipt and not feel ignored/disrespected. As someone who is working retail and can’t wait to get out of it I can say that things like this when people abuse employees is probably the root cause of all poor customer service.
@pibbsman0 said “If you’re not a criminal you have nothing to hide. “
If I have nothing to hide, then why would I accept the default assumption that I’ve done something criminal?
@bkpatt: Again, since I have yet to see the other post, and because after rereading you post, I realize how much MORE of an idiot youare…)
irst, entering and exiting a store are completely different. They can have what ever rules they want for entering, they cannot have ANY rules for exiting…. He moron, it’s called illegal detainment. By your theory, if you enter my house I can forbid you to leave before paying a “exiting” fine, or you don’t get out. The law is VERY straight forward…. once you pay for something IT IS YOURS! No one can say different. You are allowed to leave the premises at will. The store could bar you from re-entering in the future, but they NEVER have aright to control when you leave….
Also, it has been found time and again that refusal to allow a search CANNOT be grounds for suspicion of wrong doing. No if, and, or buts! If a cop pulls me over and tells me to open my truck, and I say no, they have no right to open it, unless there are other factors introduced, like say blood leaking out of the truck…
Get a life bone head… or maybe you’re just a troll…
@m4nea: Go blow yourself. You want to show yours, go ahead. But the rest of us aren’t legally required to, nor do we plan on it… Jerk-off!
@aszure: What makes you think that because I purchase an item at a store, which after the point I have purchased it becomes MY item, I can be required to prove that it is my item? Like you go into a store and they have every right to do anything they want to you as long as you are on their property. If that were the case their would not be laws in place in every state that dictate how a shoplifter can be detained by a retailer. The idea that you are subject to whatever thing they want to do to you is ludicrous. — Here’s the bottom line, if they want to have security, then do it properly. Watch me on one of those cameras, make sure I purchase my items. Done. This check the receipt crap is just a cheap way for the stores to do security legally — period.
@aszure: Making me a better person that all of us?? Have you bothered to read the majority of the comments here? I don’t care if they check your receipt. You can show them your underware for all I care. The point is that they have no right to do it and I will not allow it. Why does it bother you that I don’t want to do things that I don’t have to do? You think I’m the receipt checker? Nice comment obviously designed to get a rise out of me. Sure sign of ingnorance is to insult the person making the arguement rather than citing the facts.
I live in Australia and I mentioned in my previous comments that our local major hardware store requires one to show their receipt at the exit door!
I should also have mentioned that the same lady who quickly “eyes” your receipt and purchases at the exit is also a ‘meet and greet’ lady.
That is, she smiles at you as you enter the store and wishes you a happy day as you head for the aisles.
When you exit you have already “met” her and there is no sense of ‘obligation’, rather an understanding that she is doing her job, that she is doing it courteously and with a smile and there is no sense of intrusion of the customer’s rights, whatever they may be!
@CMU_Bueller: No, Holme Depot is not the government. But a uniformed police officer is. The one working for Home Depot.
You’re an idiot. Let’s blame the customer.
Matt, thanks for making the effort in the two well-crafted messages to the Home Depot CEO. Even if you hadn’t succeeded (and you did succeed in a big way for every Home Depot consumer), you did your part.
The reply by the CEO [tinyurl.com] makes me feel way better about shopping at Home Depot, where I’ve had a few similar experiences to the ones you recount.
“Since purchasing my home in March 2007, I’ve spent nearly $10,000 on various projects around my home;”
- no point reading further than that. Having done my time in retail, that is one of two regular phrases for asshole customers looking to bleed the system for whatever they can. The other is “I have $10,000 of stock in this company…”
I really don’t understand why people are bitching about this guy standing up for his rights.
What is it that annoys you so much?
Is it because his actions make you realize that you’re too cowardly to do the same? So you have to brand him as a jackass?
Yes, if you’re in a store and someone wants to see a receipt, show it to them. It’s common courtesy to respect the rules of the area you are in, whether you like it or not. If the store is as shabby as claimed, I highly doubt the receipt checker is actually going to go item-for-item down the list and see that you’re not bilking the store of something. Instead he’ll highlight a line down the center of it and send you on your way.
@Nissan: Australian law may not be the same as ours. What is the closest equivalent do you have to our law barring unreasonable search and seizure?
I do this all the time but have never been “detained” I never show home depot the receipt or at Costco. I’m sure I will end up in a similar cituation eventually. For those who said “just show the receipt” you are missing the point. Yes it seems like a small inconvenience but if we continue to allow ourselves to be treated this way then we deserve it.
Buran- you may well be perplexed (probably horrified) to learn that in Australia we do not have the protection of a Bill Of Rights!
This extract sums it up:-
“Even though Australia has signed all five international treaties that make up the International Bill of Human Rights, none of these treaties are legally binding in Australia. Nor is there is a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution. This means that the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone living in Australia are not protected by the law”.
Ouch!! I can almost hear you say! ” no wonder that mob down there so docilely present their receipts at the check out!”
….and why we do not have the enshrined right to bear arms as you do under the Second Amendment!
However, all is not lost, as we do have the protection of Common Law ( which as the name suggests came to us from our British heritage)
This principle may be summarised as ” the body of law based on judicial systems and custom as distinct from statute law and is bound up in a set of precedents.
The key word in the context of our discussion is ” custom”
Thus it has been established under Common Law that a person may not be unreasonbly detained ( and certainly not unreasonably seized).
Citizens arrests fall under this category as does wrongful arrest. Any one making a citizen’s arrest would need to be sure of their grounds if they were to avoid subsequent litigation!
By coincidence, I was at a different Hardware Chain store the other day when there was quite a kerfuffle going on just outside the store, which illustrates my point here!
A customer was quite volubly expressing his dis-satisfaction at a turn of events which saw store management detain him, then hand him over to police for questioning. I asked the attendant what was going on and was informed that a store detective had observed the customer stuff an item up his shirt then walk out of the store!
I appreciate that this incident is quite different to the one germane to this argument, but it illustrates an example of when a receipt would need to be produced to establish one’s innocence or otherwise!
As another example I was shopping recently at a Woolworths grocery store, when an announcement came over the store central speaker system to the effect that in future all parcelled items not purchased at the store ( ie brought into the store)would be searched. I noticed a similar sign at each checkout!
The store has let the customers know it will be enforcing it’s common law rights!
This somewhat lengthy discourse may well raise as many questions as it provides answers. There are always grey areas in situations like this! After all who defines ” unreasonable”
To the detainer their action is reasonable. To the detainee it is most certainly unreasonble!
I’m a mere layman and do not profess to have anything but a passing knowledge of our law. If I’m challenged at a checkout I go weak at the knees and cough up my receipt every time!
I have just come across this article on the Net which makes for interesting reading:-
Man is arrested after refusing to show his receipt at Circuit City
A guy named Michael Righi was arrested after shopping at a Circuit City in Brooklyn, Ohio. His crime stemmed from making two separate purchases while in Circuit City and upon leaving, refused to allow the Circuit City loss prevention employee to search his bags or look at his two receipts. When he left the store and got into his father’s car, the Circuit City employee followed him and would not allow the car to leave.
Righi asked the Circuit City loss prevention employee if he was being accused of shoplifting. He was told that he was not, but that he would not allow him to leave the parking lot until Righi produced the receipts and allowed him to search his bags.
Righi refused and since the Circuit City employee was physically blocking him from leaving, Righi called the police.
When the police arrived, they told Righi that Circuit City had the “right” to inspect receipts and bags of customers leaving their store. They don’t have this right. The police then demanded to see Righi’s drivers license. He refused. He was not driving a motor vehicle. The officer had no right to ask him for his license to drive a motor vehicle. The police reacted to this refusal by placing him under arrest.
After taking Righi into the police station, they realized they had no business demanding that a person who was not driving a motor vehicle to produce a license to drive a motor vehicle. It would be like stopping a car and asking the driver to produce a fishing license. Not having anything to actually charge Righi with, the police found something vague enough to satisfy a reason for the arrest.
ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.
Righi was able to pay the bail ($300) and he was released. His trial will be September 20. He will undoubtedly beat the charge, but he shouldn’t have to. Righi did the right thing in not showing the Circuit City employee his receipts and not allowing him to search his bags. Righi did the right thing in refusing to show the police officer his drivers license.
That doesn’t mean I would have done the same thing. I wish I could say that I would, but I know how I would have responded. I made a vow to myself a long time ago to never be placed under arrest in the United States. Other countries don’t count.
Its important to point out that at no time did anyone from Circuit City accuse Michael Righi of shoplifting. If they had, they could have legally demanded to see his receipts and to search his bags. They had no reason to suspect him of shoplifting.
The reason stores do this type of thing is because they don’t trust their own employees. They lose more money every year to their own employees stealing then they do to shoplifters. Employees have their friends come in and purchase things and they covertly place items in their bags without scanning them into the register. If stores like Circuit City want to stop employee theft, they should hire better employees. They shouldn’t coerce their customers into producing a receipt or consenting to having their property searched.
Its degrading and annoying.
I’m used to poor customer service, open & incomplete items, and bad stock-keeping practices, but if a a store employee ever lays hands on me accusing me of theft, I will respond in kind. I have no problem with a 3-5 second door check, but if I were grabbed, it would be a completely different situation.
> So what’s real reason for checking receipts?
The idea is that having visible and audible “security” measures in place will dissuade shoplifters from targeting their store.
@Coder4Life
“JUST SHOW YOUR RECEIPT AND PROVE THEM WRONG.”
Shit – that’s a great way to skirt the whole “domestic spying” mess … Just request that every American citizen agree to a “voluntary” wiretap – refusal being conclusive enough evidence for a warrent anyways; as nobody in their right might would refuse a simple wiretap unless they had something to hide.
I sure hope for the sake of your coworkers that this isn’t the same brain you use for your coding.
@Balance_In_Life (PSN):
Uhm… according to the official complaint he lodged with the PD, he *did* show his receipt. It just wasn’t in the correct manner for the guard or something apparently.
OH yeah… and btw, someone has been bothering my sister online and their handle is similar to yours. Give me a record of all your online activities for the past year so I can confirm it’s not you.
You have nothing to hide, right?
Now that I think about it, I wonder how those ‘just show it’ folks would react if their favourite neighbourhood diner asked them to prove they paid their bill before they left the restaurant….