These receipt checking stories keep coming in and they just keep getting weirder. Reader Patrick was shopping at a Memphis, TN Walmart to buy a firearm, some ammunition and some groceries. First, Walmart refused to sell the groceries and the ammunition because Patrick was buying a firearm.
Then, as the Assistant Manager was carrying his firearm ( it is store policy that a manager escorts the firearm out of the store) another employee demanded to see a receipt. Patrick refused, as he had not even touched the firearm. The employee refused to let him leave, and Patrick decided to return his purchase instead of showing his receipt.
Here’s a basic run down of my WalMart experience from this past Saturday in Memphis, TN. I went there to buy 1)firearm, 2)ammunition for firearm, and 3)groceries. I knew the firearm would take the longest so I went to the sporting goods counter first with the intent of buying the firearm and ammunition back there and groceries up front ( I had produce). I was going to have my initial purchase in its own basket and flow through the self check out with my groceries.
While waiting for the government approval to buy the firearm, I gathered my groceries and the ammunition. The cashier, who really was nice and pleasant, kept telling me it would be just another five minutes and to wait instead of going up front and buying my groceries. After an hour the approval came through so a manager was called to complete the sale. We waited 15 minutes for Assistant Manager Ladarrel to show up. He checks the paperwork then tells me he can’t ring the ammunition up with the firearm. I would have to take them to the car and come back. Since I had already spent an hour waiting so far and no one in sporting goods bothered to point out that store policy, I decided I would just buy the ammunition at another time. I already had to wait in 2 separate lines. I didn’t want to make it 3. Ladarrel sells me the firearm. I give him cash. He gives me a receipt. He then says it is store policy that he escorts the firearm out of the store. So he, holding the box with the firearm, follows me and my shopping cart to the front of the store. When I walk to a check out line he tells me he has to escort the firearm out of the store immediately and I would have to take the firearm to my car and come back to buy the groceries. I explained I could not secure or even hide the firearm in my car so once I put the box in my car I was leaving. He insisted I could not buy my groceries at that time. So, we abandoned the cart and went to the door.
When he reaches the door checker, he, still holding my purchased firearm, stops and tells me to show them my receipt. I say that I don’t do that. He says it’s store policy. I explain that it’s my policy not to show my receipts unless absolutely necessary. Soon another man who apparently is in charge of the front joins in and insists that unless I show my receipt I can’t have my firearm. I try to explain that not only did I give cash to Assistant Manager Ladarrel AND he gave me a receipt of sale AND he has been in complete possession of the firearm since the sale; he escorted me from the back of the store to where we were standing. At no time had I been in possession of my merchandise. He knew he had sold me the merchandise and he knew I was the owner at that time. It was useless. We argued for about 10 minutes. It all came down to their saying that unless I showed proof of ownership the merchandise was not mine. I insisted that not only did Ladarrel know I owned the merchandise so he was illegally in retaining possession of it; the proof was located in the records they are required to keep for a firearm sale; records that Ladarrel had personally verified for accuracy.
Finally, I said I wanted to return the item. They insisted that without a receipt I could only get store credit. I told them that I paid cash and I would get cash. We walked to the sporting goods counter and they easily printed a copy of the receipt from the register. I received my cash back and they kept the firearm. I left and went to a grocery store and a sporting goods store. All in all, I would have spent over $450 at WalMart but other companies received my business.
Patrick
That policy makes no sense.
(Photo:Brave New Films)
More From Consumerist
-
Walmart Worker Stops Woman From Wiring $2,100 To Fake Stranded Grandson
-
Florida Man Claims He Shot At Walmart Shoplifter’s Car So Cops Could Find It Later
-
When Your Coupon Gets Rejected, Don’t Pull A Gun On Walmart Staff
-
Walmart Oil Change Turns Into $3,000 Disaster And I Can't Even Get Store To Call Me Back
-
Some Walmarts Still Short-Changing Customers On Gift Receipt Returns
@toddy33: Hey…that was my line
@Dashrashi: Thanks. I agree that introverts are not cowards.
Introverted means that you are less focused on the outside word and are more reflective.
I’m pretty introverted. I also happen to be a bit cowardly. I don’t think they are automatically connected.
And I don’t like Walmart’s policy.
In related news, this thread now has over 500 comments. By golly, I think Consumerist readers really are interested in stories about this topic!
ok…lets start with its pretty stupid for the assistant manager not to verify the purchase of the gun. However, there is a point to “well…how does the door checker know you’re not his buddy and he’s helping you steal it? Point taken. Sounds a little bit like checks and balances. hmmm
As far as search and seizure….ummm what are they searching? Any identifiable info on that cash purchase? even credit card info is blocked out…its already been stored in the register….this is not a violation of your right to have just cause for a search. period. Search and seizure applies to someone coming into your personal space (such as your home or car, or pockets, or clothing) and looking through your personal belongings, not to you proving you made that purchase.
Right to privacy is not violated because the receipt does not have personal identifying information on it. And hell, they can get that just by standing next to you and scanning your credit card number without you even taking it out of your pocket or purse.
Lets talk about the store’s right. Does the store..any store…not have the right to ask for proof that you made a legitimate purchase before you walk out the door? especially when carrying some of thier merchandise?
Someone doesn’t have time to stop for 5 seconds to prove they paid for merchandise? It takes less time to show the receipt than it does to argue about it and then return the purchase on principal? By the way…what principal. If I owned a store and I saw someone walking out the door with a piece of merchandise, your saying I can’t make sure its paid for? Bet everyone commenting on here makes sure or tries to make sure they aren’t being robbed everytime they turn around…bet you wouldn’t let me walk into your house and walk back out with something in my arms without making sure it was mine to walk out with.
Its a stupid arguement…just show the damn receipt and put your efforts into something more worthwhile.
Not to mention the fact that receipts are given as PROOF OF PURCHASE! For the SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVING YOUR NEW PROPRTY IS PAID FOR! Why the hell else would you be given one? just to kill another tree?
Someone way back there said they could just hire more employees to work the aisles….not a bad suggestion…so while on the verge of a recession…or even perhaps in the throes of one…lets hire more people to just hang out with the customers….jack the prices up to pay thier hourly wages…and still expect all that disposable income to keep rolling in…umm…sorry but as a business my objective would be to keep overhead down and prices low so the customer keeps spending what little disposable income they have in MY store rather than the more expensive competition down the road…the most effective way to do that is to check the receipt I purposely gave you for the exact reason I hired only one person to stand at the door for…proof of purchase.
“insist he show his receipt? Is your real name Ladarrel?”
NO, but my other brother is Ladarryl….
Violated what constitutional right??? “Illegal search and seizure” is prohibited IF it is done by the government…not some underpaid guy who is working for a living and having to put up with overly critical and, supposedly, intellectual jerks. Next time you go out to eat lunch in a restaurant or supper in one of those places where they put caviar on a ritz cracker listen to the crowd and I’ll guarantee you that you will hear someone griping about their constitutional rights being violated because of any of half a dozen reasons …from violating their constitutional right to free speech when they got fired for telling their boss to go screw himself to “Hells bells, they put an ashtray outside the front door of the place where I worked….how can they tell me what I can or can’t smoke…”
@ryoudeaf:
It is worthwhile. Just because you wish to follow their policy will never make it otherwise.
It has nothing to do with the time I might wait. It has nothing to do with seach and seizure. It has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. It has nothing to do with “rights”. All of these are red herring issues.
The main point is that the store, in asking for my receipt at the exit, is telling me with no provocation that they assume I am criminally taking something that belongs to them when I am not. They are adding an extra layer of intrusion. I find it insulting. I find it unnecessary. I have no intention of complying with this assumption.
It doesn’t matter how many permutations of people telling me that I am an asshole for not complying come flying at me. It’s an issue that, in my own personal multitasking universe, is perfectly worth standing up and saying, “Enough.”
@ryoudeaf:
“Lets talk about the store’s right. Does the store..any store…not have the right to ask for proof that you made a legitimate purchase before you walk out the door? especially when carrying some of thier merchandise?”
As has been said a million times now, yes, the store has the right to ask for proof of purchase. And I have the right to refuse. What the store does not have the right to do is detain me simply because I refused to show my receipt.
I don’t show my receipt, as I’ve said a dozen times in this thread alone, because rarely is it ‘just 2 seconds’, at least around here. It is almost always several minutes, because you have to wait for the guy to thoroughly go through the bags of the person(s) ahead of you because they had one item not bagged. Then I’m supposed to wait while they match up stuff on my receipt to what’s in my bag? No. And if it’s one of the rare instances where it’s the guy who just looks at the receipt and nods, then what is the point? Having _a_ receipt does not assure I did not steal anything. Other times, it’s because the two-ton Tessie they have stationed at the door likes to sit on one of the electric carts in the back of the cart shed, and she demands I bring my receipt and bags to her. Why the fuck, quite frankly, should I walk to the back of the filthy cart shed just because she’s a lazy cow?
“Not to mention the fact that receipts are given as PROOF OF PURCHASE! For the SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVING YOUR NEW PROPRTY IS PAID FOR!”
No, not for the sole purpose of that, or at least not for the sole purpose of showing that to TT-Tessie at the door. It can be for tax purposes, for reimbursement, or because the system is simply not set up to not print receipts. I can go to the gas station, do pay-at-the-dispenser, and choose to not get a receipt. If I don’t get a receipt there, and they try to accuse me of theft, guess what, they’re still in the wrong.
And again, it’s _my_ property after money has changed hands. I don’t have to prove to anybody that it’s mine. Maybe I’ll just start walking up to random people on the street and ask to see proof that their clothes are truly theirs. I mean, after all, they could’ve taken them from someone/someplace at some time in the past.
I wonder if anyone who gets off on punishing the poor big box store employees has the cajones to stand up for our rights with the actual government by ALWAYS refusing car and other searches when police request them. [www.charityadvantage.com]
@witeowl:
Well, since I don’t ‘get off’ on ‘punishing the poor big box store employees’, I can’t really speak to your target. I simply offer a polite ‘no, thank you’ if there isn’t a line, or walk past the line and ignore any comments when there is one.
As far as standing up for my rights to a police officer, I’ve been lucky enough to never have to have done so. The times I’ve been pulled over, I was indeed guilty of speeding, and that was the only thing the officer and I discussed.
@witeowl:
I am absolutely mystified as to why it comes up so many times in this thread that somehow my refusal to comply with a request that I find unreasonable is punishment of someone or that I am “getting off” on something.
The simple fact is, I find it unreasonable for the store in question to assume that I am a thief simply for leaving the store with merchandise that I just paid for. I’m not getting off on anything, I’m not punishing anyone, and I’m not even being rude in return for thier rudeness. I’m just politely saying, “No.”
And yes, if I must answer your apples-to-oranges question in which you misspelled “cojones” that I would in fact say, “Yes, I do object” in a case in which an officer asked if I objected to a search of my vehicle, my person, or my home. But I have never been stopped, so it’s purly hypothetical.
@toddy33: Heh heh… thanks for showing that misspellings are common enough – even for those that are quickly to point out others’ errors.
Secondly, I’m not necessarily referring to posters here, but you can’t deny that this gun/ammo/eggs shopper is puffing his chest out over this.
The punishment, from my perspective, is in making it impossible for this poor person to do his job. How would you feel if you had to deal with people making your daily grind even more miserable than it had to be by preventing successful completion of part of your job?
These protestations are misguided, IMNSHO. Find the policy unbearable? Shop elsewhere and send off diatribes to your local newspapers and the people who make the decisions. “Vote” with your dollars, I say.
@BugMeNot2: The receipt CAN be used for tax purposes, etc. etc. But was intially created as PROOF OF PURCHASE. You stated its yours once money has exchanged hands….in a store as large as Walmart…do you really expect the door handler to see every transaction that takes place. Besides…so YOU say money exchanged hands. PROVE IT!
DOn’t get me wrong…I never said you were an asshole….I have actually walked right by the door handlers myself…but my reasoning has nothing to do with feeling like I have been accused of something I didn’t do. I personally don’t mind proving my innocence if it helps to catch those who aren’t. Our crime rates are out of control and until people start taking responsiblity for thier own actions, then someone has to protect the interests of the rest of us…and yes, low cost is an interest of mine…I work hard for my money and see no reason to piss it away on overpriced merchandise because an asshole thinks he/she is entitled to the five-finger discount, regardless if its coming out the front door or the back.
As far as detaining a person for not showing a receipt…I have never personally seen it happen…and think in THIS case it was probably the smart thing to do. Why you ask? Because the assistant manager who engaged in the transaction and the escorting of this customer didn’t have the balls to stand up and simply say he did purchase it and caused the volatile reaction that ensued. Simply put…the asst. manager was wrong and provoked it, however the jackass that had to make a scene over it obviously has a temper issue and probably doesn’t need to be carrying a gun in the first place. When I say find a worthwhile issue to put efforts towards…why are we spending so much time pissing and moaning about an asshole manager and a lunatic that wanted a gun but had to make an issue out of a stupid piece of paper? asshole manager + temper issue man with a gun = a mess we could have been reading about on the front pages. Personally, if I were purchasing a gun, the last thing I would want is for all the attention to be on me becaue I raise six kinds of hell over a piece of paper. I probably would have waited until I was buying my groceries instead of a deadly weapon.
And just an additional comment….you all are right.
1. They have the right to ask.
2. You have the right to refuse.
3. They don’t have the right to detain.
4. You have the right to sue if they do.
5. You also have the right to not shop there.
6. They have the right to ask you not to come back.
What the hell is the arguement?
@BugMeNot2: Maybe I’ll just start walking up to random people on the street and ask to see proof that their clothes are truly theirs. I mean, after all, they could’ve taken them from someone/someplace at some time in the past.
Up until that comment, you sounded pretty smart…walmart doesn’t stop random people..they stop…or try to stop everyone…and walmart isn’t assuming you took the merchandise you are walking out with from somewhere at sometime in the past. They are verifying you paid for it this time, right here, right now and you aren’t trying to rip the store off and in the long run, ripping the rest of us off too.
I would love to know how many people they have caught using this method, and what the value of the merchandise was, vs the cost of lawsuits and police time spent on illegal extracting customers from or supporting illegal detentions.
“time spent on extracting customers from or supporting illegal detentions.”
You stated its yours once money has exchanged hands….in a store as large as Walmart…do you really expect the door handler to see every transaction that takes place
I don’t much care what the blueshirt at the door sees or doesn’t see throughout the store.
so YOU say money exchanged hands. PROVE IT!
I don’t have to. Your attitude of guilty until proven innocent is an attitude we don’t need at ANY level in this country. Not even at the exit door of a crappy retail store.
I personally don’t mind proving my innocence if it helps to catch those who aren’t.
I do. Presumption of innocence is one of the most sacred principles in American Jurisprudence. Your casual willingness to abandon it is disappointing. Especially since you’re willing to give it up just to save WalMart a few bucks.
@ryoudeaf:
The burden of proof is on them, not me. That’s the whole point. If they want to prove something, then they must do so.
@ryoudeaf:
The argument is that they don’t realize that their right to request is just that, a right to request, not demand. Too often they demand it and expect blind obedience. Again, my main thrust for not showing my receipt is simply because my time is better spent elsewhere than in a line at Wal-Mart waiting to have my receipt checked. I like consistency, so I don’t show my receipt, line or no.
@ryoudeaf:
There’s the rub, though. They don’t try to search everyone. They do often just pick someone at random to stop. I don’t know their reasoning behind it. For all I know, the greeter could’ve had a long streak of not having anyone to check and got bored. (and before someone says I’m being contradictory by claiming to hate standing in line, then saying they don’t check many people, hence the boredom, I’m allowing for the wide gamut of Wal-Mart stores, ranging from the one we have here that has no greeter ever visible, to the one where the guy stands at the door and tries to stop every single person, with various types in between.)
Again, I’m sorry, but if they want to deter theft, stop shrinkage, word it however, the onus is on them, and I expect them to do it the least intrusive way possible to me. Since there are more and better ways that don’t involve any interaction with me past the register, door checks don’t meet the least intrusive qualifier I like.
It’s been said, I know- Wal-mart, private business or not, did not really have the right to detain the customer. Sure, they could have just continued to hold his gun, and he COULD have been a true “ass-hat” and refused to leave without it or refused to go back into the store with the manager.
End result? Whichever local police had jurisdiction would have been called into the dispute, and Mr. Manager and Wal-Mart would have been left trying to explain the Federal sale approval for the gun and following security cam tapes detailing the manager receiving payment of the gun and escorting the customer through the store, from the time of purchase to the time of the altercation at the front over the receipt.
Police would then wonder why Manager Man refused to surrender the customer’s property to him. Basically, he was unlawfully seizing the guy’s property. If it was such a huge deal to the manager, he could have traipsed back to the Sporting Goods counter and reprinted his own copy of the receipt to show the receipt checker. I did much the same at restaurants I’ve managed when a customer had a problem. Did he? No. Escorting this guy out with a gun most likely interupted the flow of his day, and he chose to be surly about it.
And I know that Wal-Mart is a private company. However, like most private companies, Wal-Mart doesn’t want to totally alienate it’s customer base, however much it may seem like it. I doubt that they don’t care when they lose almost five hundred dollars in one sale- it adds up to huge losses for them when it comes from thousands of stores where customers demand their money back or stop shopping there, because of policies that really aggrevate consumers. They can ask for receipts as often as they please- you don’t have to show them, although I do agree that it would have been much less painful to just pull it out- the checker isn’t going to be using it to compile a list of purchases you’ve made at that Wal-Mart in the last six months. If store security detains you, they can’t search you. They have to call the authories- who quickly find out you’ve broken no laws and were unlawfully detained by a civilian.
It isn’t so much, I think, of simply showing a reciept, but more of private companies in general pulling Big Brother tricks. If they try to detain you or seize lawful purchases over a receipt check (which generally don’t work, as no one checks all of your purchased items anyway), and no one creates a fuss, it stands to reason that one day in the near future they’ll begin to implement policies that really do step over that line that separates pain-in-the-butt from those that do seriously infringe upon constitutional rights.
Everyone is missing the point. The customer must show the receipt because Walmart wants to make sure that the Assistant isn’t working with the customer to steal the gun. How does the person at the door know that the weapon was ever paid for? I would imagine that employees must show recieipts when they leave with their own stuff too!