Consumerist's Receipt-Checking Coverage Referenced In Delightful Comic
As part of our unrelenting curiosity about all manner of things consumer and shopper, we've posted a number of reader stories about how they were illegally detained by stores and local police for refusing to stop and show their receipt. It's finally paid off, we've been immortalized in a Married To The Sea comic.
RELATED:
Receipt Check Policies For Costco, Sam's Club, And BJ's
TigerDirect Unlawfully Restrains And Verbally Abuses Customer For Not Submitting To Receipt-Showing Demands
Detained And Harassed At Walmart For Not Showing A Receipt
Post a comment
Comments:
"Boucherie de cheval?" Doesn't that translate to "Horse Butcher"? Yummers!
(Hooray for grade 7 French!)
The security is a derriere de cheval.
Hee hee hee hee heee.....
Could not resist. :D
And BTW thanks for the link to Married to the Sea. More ways to waste time at work!
I think most people who refuse to show receipts are douche bags.
How long till Consumerist develops the habit Woot has in posting artcles/blogs/websites that mention them in it?
If you liked this, check out this couples other sites
www.marriedtothesea.com (the couple)
www.toothpastefordinner.com (the husband)
www.nataliedee.com (the wife)
They are great, a daily read. They also have a friend at www.thesneeze.com that I find tears-streaming funny, especially "Steve, Don't Eat It!" segments.
@buckeye17: You might think of them as douchebags.
I think of it as sticking to my guns and refusing to be treated like a criminal, for the mere act of shopping at a store that sucks.
I'm sure there are some people who insist on acting like douchebags when refusing to show a receipt. That doesn't mean we all are.
If anything, we're douchebags for shopping at stores with these policies, no matter how infrequently.
I actually discovered The Consumerist through a link on the Toothpaste for Dinner blog. It was the story with the recording left for Jimmy Dean. So I guess you guys compliment each other...
@buckeye17: I think trolls on the consumerist are. To each their own.
I paid for it not 10 yards away, it is in a bag, if you have a problem with that, go talk to the cashier, or go review video footage, or give me two receipts when I'm there, and I'll give you one as I go. I am not wasting my time waiting for you to review my receipt - unless I agreed to it prior (Sam's Club)
@buckeye17: I agree. IF they sign or enter into a contract which says they must be subject to them, i.e. Sams Club, BJ's, Price Club, Costco. I also agree if they enter a store which has prominent signage explaining they have the right to inspect inside(as opposed to outside) packages/bags. I also agree if they are suspected of/breaking the law in some way, i.e. shoplifters, scammers, etc.
OTHERWISE, people who say that people who don't show receipts are douche bags, are themselves, douche bags. I have the same right to refuse that they have to search. Their rights end where mine begin.
I think people who submit to illegal searches beacuse it's "easier, and only takes a few seconds" are douche bags. To each his own, I guess...
Weird, I just went to the Consumerist as I thought about how I hadn't read Married to the Sea in a while.
Freaky.
This will need to be said time and time again.
At a MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE, such as COSTCO, it is in your MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT that you will yield to the receipt checkers upon your exit. If you do not agree to such, then by all means DO NOT SHOP THERE. Paying 50$+ a year is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
@RockStarr: Say you break that agreement. Is it legal, in the united states, to detain someone because they have broken an agreement with you?
@gavni: Interesting question. I would think most likely it would terminate your agreement with them and you would be "forbidden" to return.
@gavni:
Is it legal, in the united states, to detain someone because they have broken an agreement with you
No
But it is legal for them to terminate your membership (assuming they can figure out who you are).
Yes! I submitted this story. Finally, a Gawker site that has published a story that I submitted! My life is complete.
I guess I'd better get back to wasting time at work now.
@Bladefist: Fourthded. We were talking about it in one of my classes today as a tangent from a civil liberties discussion!
@Bladefist: AT last a story where I can honestly say: Bladefist is absolutely right.
I think the planets must be all lined up or something
It's really not that hard - if you don't want to show your receipt, don't shop in stores that demand you show it.
I just ask for my receipt when I check out, and I hold it up like a flag as I walk out of the store. 95% of the time, the security guy doesn't even ask, because I'm so blatantly providing my receipt.
If you start a fight with the guy who is just trying to keep his job, guess who's the a-hole.
@wgrune: I dunno. I don't think people who refuse receipt searches are necessarily douches, but at the same time, it seems to me that sometimes you have to pick your battles. Personally, some dude who feels the need to verify my purchase, which will take up five second of my time and won't give up any privacy that I really care about, doesn't bother me.
And let's be honest, some of the people that have refused the receipt searches have done so in a bit of a holier-than-thou manner.
I can see where he's coming from, even if it doesn't apply to a very large portion of people who don't let their receipts be checked. He just should have qualified it.
@RockStarr: Considering all deals, great customer service, and well paid employees, I WILL show my receipt at the door. And live.
@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->:
I also agree if they enter a store which has prominent signage explaining they have the right to inspect inside(as opposed to outside) packages/bags.
Just because they say so, doesn't make it true. A store that posts such a sign has exactly the same right to forcibly search your bags as one that does not post such a sign -- no right whatsoever unless they can prove a crime. In all other cases, forcible search is a right restricted to law enforcement personnel, and they are highly regulated in how they are permitted to apply it. The store can post whatever sign they wish, it doesn't alter the law that says if they lay hands on you and cannot prove you are a criminal beforehand, then they are criminals as well. Private policy does not trump law.
I also agree if they are suspected of/breaking the law in some way, i.e. shoplifters, scammers, etc.
The law requires that they have more than a simple suspicion in order to conduct such a search. Refusing such a search would tend to make many people suspicious. If mere suspicion were enough, nobody could ever decline a search.
@ohenry:
which will take up five second of my time and won't give up any privacy that I really care about, doesn't bother me.
And there lies the heart of the problem. You choose to give up your rights; Doing what is easy, rather than what is (pardon the pun) right. And that is your right. But that doesn't make someone who stands up for their rights (however minor the infraction) a bad person. They just have more respect for their rights, that's all.
I always just shake my finger at them and cluck disapprovingly.
Never had them try to stop me.
@Difdi:
The law requires that they have more than a simple suspicion in order to conduct such a search.
Careful there. You're correct, and I (mostly)agree, but phrases like "simple suspicion" can lead to confusion. The law varies widely by state, so no generalization is always true.
HOWEVER (warning, Chapter 6 of War and Peace follows)
The well defined and widely accepted standard of "reasonable suspicion" is the MINIMUM requirement needed to DETAIN someone suspected of shoplifting. In many states, even that is not enough - PROBABLE CAUSE is required.
Regardless of state, I have never heard of a case where refusal to show a receipt, by itself, was considered either. In fact, my experience leads me to believe that even setting off the beeper alarm doesn't rise to the level of PC in most states.
The actions allowed during detention are also widely variable. For example, in New Jersey, detention must be only for a 'reasonable time' and is limited to exactly that - DETENTION. Do so much as touch a detainee who is neither trying to get away nor resisting and you just bought yourself a possible lawsuit.
California, on the other hand, allows the detainer to search your bags (regardless of your consent) while you are in custody (dunno if purses are included - IANAL and don't much care about California issues)
Frankly, I wish there were one single website with all 50 state "shopkeeper privilege" listed, along with relevant case citations and (NON LAWYERLY) interpretations and discussion.
/hmmm
// trying to decide on a domain name now
The readers of Doonesbury are not impressed!
I saw this comic this morning and loved it! It combines my love of Consumerist and Married to the Sea.
I bring up the receipt checkers all the time in Torts, so I'm sure they'll be glad to see this tomorrow!
@buckeye17: Since you're getting ripped a new one, I'll agree with you this way:
I feel that people who are asked to show their receipt, and then feel they need to march on Selma are douchebags.
It's a receipt, not warrantless wiretapping. Quit fighting the cosmetic battles, there are plenty of real ones to devote your time to.
@semanticantics: I've been reading them for quite a while now...at some point I went all the way back to the beginning and worked my way through the archives.
Thanks for another link to look at!
I work security for a large retail store. For the sake of me keeping my job, we shall call this store Trojan. I check receipts. For exposed merchandise only. And IF and only if You (the customer) allow me to.
It is my job to ask for a receipt if :
1) The item you have is not in a Trojan shopping bag.
2) Has no sticker on it proving it went through the register.
3) The item is exposed.
4) The item probably costs more than $20.00
I may NOT request for a receipt if:
1) You have twice declined my request for a receipt.
2) The item is in your purse/backpack/fanny-sack/personal luggage.
3) I can see that/ you told me that you purchased medicines from the pharmacy. No one, EVER should have the right to know what medicines you bought.
4) When the buzzers go off (Iâll come ask if you purchased any electronics, shoes, etc. If you did, I may ask for a receipt even if the stuff is in a Trojan shopping bag.)
5) I just donât feel like it.
It's the reason I've only shopped at Walmart once.
Those comics are delightful.
@buckeye17: even out here in China reciept-checking isn't required or done (not even by Best Buy or Wal-mart- they know they'd flop if they were any less convenient than their competitors they'd be eaten alive- especially Best Buy since they're not allowed to sell some things in China that they do in the US.
@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->: although the receipt checks at Costco are a joke - they are supposed to be counting the number of items in your cart, and verifying that number matches the number on your receipt... we usually just get the checkmark and are waved through
@AllegraBuzzard: I am glad that you posted that. I also work at a large retail store, and occasionally someone will get all upset about having to get their receipt checked or their bag checked. If someone comes from the till's rarely do we require a receipt (unless it's a large TV which we inspect for damage before it leaves the store) If a person comes from within the store and has merchandise, whether its in a bag from our store or not it is within our rights to verify that the person actually purchased the item and is not in fact trying to steal from us. At my store approximately 9/10 of the people that refuse to show their receipt or allow their bags to be searched turn out to be shoplifters. If you don't want your bag searched you don't have to come into the store. We have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. (at least in Canada)
And to note those stories never get old. One of the reasons I started reading this site, and still my favorite articles to see.