Cop Records Himself Detained At Walmart Receipt Check

A tipster has sent in an audio recording of himself being stopped at the Walmart doors for refusing to show them his receipt. He says that it’s in his pocket and he just doesn’t feel like getting it out. According to the reader, two of the men who stop him are sheriff’s deputies. When he asks one of them their name, the man responds, “John Doe.” Our reader, who says he is a cop of 20 years himself, says it took nearly half an hour of asking them whether they are placing him under arrest or if he can be on his way before they let him go.

RELATED: Calm Man Successfully Buys TV And Denies Walmart Receipt Checkers

The deputies say things like:

“Stupid what you’re doing.”
“You wanna play games, we’ll play with you.”
“You put your hands on me, I’ll give you a reason… I wish you would.”
“I’ll let the manager decide what he wants to do with this case, damn idiot.”

Reached for comment, a Walmart spokesman verified that the incident did occur. They said that a greeter asked the customer for his receipt and two police officers who were on the scene overhead him decline to show it and stepped in. That’s about where the audio picks up.

“We’re sorry that the incident occurred the way it did. Certainly it’s not something we want customers to have to experience,” said the spokesman. “It’s not our goal to inconvenience customers, just under certain circumstances we do ask to ensure our merchandise is paid for and it shouldn’t take all that long.”

After the assistant manager came over and asked to see the man’s receipt, which he again declined, he was allowed to leave after pointing out which register he went through.

Good times.

As we’ve discussed on this site many a time before, stores cannot legally prevent you from leaving if you decide to not show your receipt.

“In general, the store can’t force someone to show their receipt,” Joseph LaRocca, senior asset protection advisor for the National Retail Foundation told MSN recently. “The checks at the door are really designed to be a preventative measure and a customer service measure.”

One of the only time is if you’ve signed a contract with them where you agreed to do that, like with membership clubs like Costco.

The other is if the manager has reasonable suspicion that you are actually shoplifting, but you can hear in the audio the customer asking the manager several times if he would like to verify his purchases.

Of course if you make an issue out of it like this guy did, you can expect some hassle.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

    Sheriff’s deputies should know better, and should be disciplined.

    • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

      Agreed. I would recommend a 2 week suspension and mandatory re-training on basic legal theory.

      On another note when the spokesperson said
      :”It’s not our goal to inconvenience customers, just under certain circumstances we do ask to ensure our merchandise is paid for and it shouldn’t take all that long.”
      ,

      Did anyone notice that even Their representative still believes it is THEIR merchandise? FAIL

      • sendmoney2me says:

        he could solve the question of whose merchandise it is simply by showing his receipt. usually i just wave the receipt in the air and they motion me through without even looking at it. why do people make a big issue out of this then say it’s ok to feel up anyone that wants to fly on an airplane?

        • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

          Because legally speaking the merchandise became his the moment the transaction was completed. The store has no legal authority to detain him unless they had a reasonable suspicion that he shoplifted.

          Why not ask guys to display their willy to make sure they didn’t steal a condom and slip it on? I mean who cares since the greeter wouldn’t actually look at it.

        • drizzt380 says:

          I think you are shifting the blame.

          They made a big deal out of it.

          In this situation, he wants to do nothing except go about his own personal business. And they want to force him to do something or stop him from leaving.

          Who seems like the active party in this event?

        • spamtasticus says:

          What you don’t understand is that if you and the rest of the sheep that don’t comprehend the concept of erosion of rights continue complying with these ridiculous demands there is a progressive consequence. If you accept then they take that to mean it is “acceptable”. Then then start to ask you if they can check your pockets and your purse to make sure you did not stuff something in them before you can leave the store. If sheep accept that then the next thing they do is set up body scanners at the exit to bloomingdales and Macy’s and then I’m sure you will still think it is ok.

          • spamtasticus says:

            What you need to do, if you are honest with yourself, is keep thinking of slightly more invasive procedures that could be used to “make sure you are not a criminal”. Keep climbing up the ladder little by little until you get to a point that you would not be ok with it. Everybody has different levels they would be willing to accept. Mine is the receipt check at the door, to someone else it may be a pat down. To yet another person would be someone sticking their hands in their child’s pants to make sure the item is not there. Don’t worry, keep going up and you will find your limit. The only problem is that in your case, by then it will be too lake because you accepted everything else they did to you and us so reversing it will be impossible.

          • Clyde Barrow says:

            Oh good grief this guys acting like a five year boy. Do you really believe this? I don’t believe in conspiracy theories and this is only about showing a stupid receipt. It cuts down on theft which in turn cuts down on increasing prices that I will have to pay. Why is this so difficult to understand. Why is there also someone like you (respect intended) that pulls out the tall tales of gov’t misuse of law, we’re all in a world of shit, big brother, blah, blah, blah. It’s a receipt. Show it, prove it, be on your way. Maybe Area 51 and Bigfoot is the real issue here. lol.

            And a big “no” to the response of unlawful detainment. This falls in line with shopkeeper’s privledge and a business has the authority to detain anyone for a certain amount of time. My Torts I prof said the rule of thumb was about 30 minutes max before a judge would probably have an issue with it.

            It takes little effort to show some respect to businesses because it shows character. Asking for a receipt doesn’t do anything to anyone except throw a conundrum into someone’s psyche and bruise their ego.

            • Cavinicus says:

              Your Torts professor taught you this is an acceptable practice? What did your ConLaw professor say? Seriously, I’m embarrassed for your law school if a professor there doesn’t understand a very basic legal principle like “a citizen cannot be detained by a private party without reasonable cause.”

              • CreekDog says:

                Probably took those classes at Regent University. ;o)

              • bwcbwc says:

                Wouldn’t shopkeeper’s detention rights be a state or local law rather than federal? (Though with the broad interstate commerce clause…). There could be some variation across jurisdictions. Obviously, IANAL.

            • CreekDog says:

              You’re a lawyer?

              :facepalm:

            • Abradax says:

              If your law professor said a shopkeeper can detain you for any reason for 30 minutes you need to get a refund of tuition.

            • spamtasticus says:

              You are right. There is no abuse of power in our great land. Except, maybe, for the 10 or 20 cases that are perpetrated by just the police officers every single day:

              http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/

            • 12345678nine says:

              You don’t believe in conspiracy theories?
              You wouldn’t believe anything that people might regard as a “conspiracy theory”?
              So you understand that what you are saying is you believe everything the masses believes, and what the media feeds you?

              I’m sure you think you are so smart, and all the people who may not fully agree with what the media tell them are “crazies”.

              Think about how most people are like you, and how easy it would actually me to fool you idiots.

              Ugh, makes me sick.

          • Peacock (Now In Extra Crispy) says:

            Not for anything, but there scanners (of a sort) at the exits of department stores. If the security tags on the merchandise aren’t removed, alarms will sound. Problem (for the store, anyway) is that no one pays the least bit of attention to the alarm. When it happens to me, I go back inside because those things are hell to remove on my own and will generally damage whatever they’re attached to if I try to take them off myself.

            But I still won’t show my receipts. Nope.

            • dg says:

              Those alarms have been known to go off because of several reasons:

              * Malfunction in the system

              * Active tag that someone thought would be funny to toss onto a hapless victim

              * Active tag that is still inside a piece of clothing that the customer purchased elsewhere but which wasn’t deactivated (oddly enough, this often happens with shoes purchased from WallyWorld)

              * Active tag placed on a victim by a security guard looking for an excuse to stop someone.

              * Someone else with an active tag on them, or in their bag walking out at the same time as the victim

              Just because that silly alarm triggers and alerts doesn’t mean you have to stop. I NEVER STOP for receipt checkers, or alarms. I didn’t steal anything, it’s not referring to me, doesn’t concern me in the least, and I’m going to be on my way. Delay or detain me at your own legal peril.

      • regis-s says:

        Yeah but a lot of people that object to having their receipt checked also believe it suddenly becomes the store’s merchandise again when they decide they want to return it and get THEIR money back.

        I guess stores have to stick to their policies. Customers on the other hand can just accept or reject whichever policy suits them.

        • tomz17 says:

          Huh? It DOES become the store’s merchandise again when you return it and receive a refund.

        • Mr. Fusion says:

          That is as stupid as they come.

          If you purchase the item you own it. If, however, unknowingly on your part, you were sold an item that malfunctions, is dangerous, is not what it was advertised as, etc., then the “implied warranty” kicks in and the vendor must make good the purchase. Totally different concept.

      • CreekDog says:

        When a law enforcement officer says,

        You wanna play games, we’ll play with you.”
        “You put your hands on me, I’ll give you a reason… I wish you would.”

        That’s not going to be fixed by a 2 week suspension and a little training.

        That’s basically a thug who has commandeering color of authority.

        • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

          Well…. I would have to agree. I guess I didn’t look at it that way. Plus if he is saying that, who knows how his conduct is on patrol…

        • poco says:

          These are the assholes who hassled you in high school and didn’t have the intelligence to go on to college. They got a job where they can get paid to be a dick.

    • Papa Midnight says:

      Agreed.

    • KrispyKrink says:

      Absolutely! Before I left law enforcement we actually arrested the store employees for detaining or taking the customers items after they paid for them. It was rare but before I left the tally was 2 Best Buy yellow shirts and 1 Walmart employee.

    • cecilsaxon says:

      I thought they were the store thugs. I would immediately share the audio with the local Sheriff. The deputies are an embarrassing representation of law enforcement.

    • BurtReynolds says:

      They should be canned immediately. If my taxes paid their salary, I would want to know why they are working so hard to enforce Wal-Mart store rules, rather than laws.

    • HighontheHill says:

      These deputies should be fired. Period. Silly little scumbags hiding behind the badge and providing muscle for a company who cares not about citizens civil rights, not to mention that the much of meaningful loss occurs from within.

      Fuck W-mart and Fuck cops who think nothing of trampling citizens rights.

  2. moses says:

    This is a good thing, it provides jobs for the Deputies and Receipt Checkers. We must all do our part to provide jobs for Americans in these hard times. The next time your at a movie theater don’t clean up after yourself, just spill the popcorn and give someone a job. The next time your at WalMart give someone the opportunity to do a job, these corporations would have us consumers deal with robots and computers if they could, we must do our part to provide for our fellow flesh and blood.

    • dcarrington01 says:
    • tsukiotoshi says:

      As a former movie theater employee, please don’t do that. Although, don’t get me wrong, I detected sarcasm in that post, but just in case.

      • Alisha Gray says:

        The last time I was at the theater I accidentally dumped a bag of popcorn all over the floor… :( And then my boyfriend laughed at me.

      • haggis for the soul says:

        I always made my kids clean up after themselves after a movie in a theater (and cleaned up my own mess, of course). Looking around, we always seemed to be the only ones doing so. I just always felt stupid leaving a huge mess for someone else to clean up, when I could just as easily take my trash out with me.

  3. plumbob says:

    The guy handled this completely incorrectly, you can’t ask permission to leave.

    First politely but firmly demand to be allowed to leave. If the answer is no, then ask if you will be physically restrained if you attempt to leave the store.

    If the answer if yes, then clearly state that you are being detained against your will under threat of violence and that you do not consent to your detention or to being searched, call police.

    • parliboy says:

      Which police? The deputies that were right in front of him?

      • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

        That officer was off duty and being paid to be a receipt checker.

      • plumbob says:

        The off duty sheriff deputy is not a law enforcement officer at that moment, he may not even have jurisdiction were he is employed it could be in a different county or even a different state.

        The point is call the police and keep your cool, at least once police are officially involved you have largely protected yourself from illegal detention or in this case an assault.

        • Wburg says:

          Police officers are officers 24/7 and can make arrests at any time, as long as they first establish that they are police officers.

          • coren says:

            It’s hard to believe someone is a police officer when they won’t even tell you their actual name…

          • plumbob says:

            This is true, but in many states it would even be illegal for a traveling off-duty officer to carry a concealed weapon without the pertinent permit, let alone haul someone into the local police station for questioning because they refused to show a receipt. Also, part of being an officer means you give up certain rights, like being anonymous, upon request you have to give your identification and name.

            Certain rules also apply to sheriffs specifically and operating outside of the county that they are assigned to, as they are elected officials from the county which they serve.

    • Rocket80 says:

      This is exactly right. I prefer the phrase “Am I free to go?” Rinse. Repeat. Until you hear a yes or no.

    • sonneillon says:

      You should ask the deputy if you can leave, because while a Walmart employee can not detain you a deputy can. If you ask and the deputy says no, then you are being detained. They do that all the time even though the process is not often formalized.

    • plumbob says:

      There were no on duty officers there so the best they could do is a citizen’s arrest.

      THAT SAID!

      Citizen’s arrests are only valid if the arresting person personally witnessed the commission of a felony, in most states, but for instance in North Carolina there is no mandate allowing for a citizen’s arrest at all.

      Even if the off duty officer were on duty, there was still no crime committed, and refusing a search is never a legal justification for a search.

      • Difdi says:

        Washington state law allows for a citizen’s arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies, though the direct witness rule applies. Citizen’s arrest can’t be for hearsay or an assumption that a crime was committed, the arresting citizen must be a witness to the crime. But anything a cop can lawfully arrest someone for is a valid reason for a lawful citizen’s arrest in Washington state.

      • megafly says:

        Georgia doesn’t have any “off duty” police. They are a sworn law officer 24/7 and can arrest you 365.

  4. Doubts42 says:

    Here we go again.

  5. Sure I could agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong. says:

    If they did not let him leave, which is what it sounds like, then this is unlawful detainment.

    Unlawful detainment = LAWSUIT. And deservedly so.

  6. Thassodar says:

    I’m hate to do it, I hate the people who do it; unfortunately I’m about to be come one of them:

    If you make a hassle for YOURSELF, prepare to be hassled. He brought this on himself for a little bit on internet fame. I repeat: He brought this on HIMSELF. There is no body else to blame here but the man who is refusing a simple request, no matter if he is “required” to do so or not.

    • yaos says:

      Thassodar, I want to go through all of your stuff and make sure you don’t have anything of mine. If you refuse you are just brining whatever happens on yourself.

      • Crass says:

        Stop resisting!

      • Thassodar says:

        If I’m in your place of business or your home, sure why not? I may ask why you suspect me of stealing whatever you’re looking for, but I have no problem showing you my stuff. You know why? Because I know I’m innocent, and it is YOUR place of business and/or your home. I am a guest.

        If you tell me, beforehand, that you’re going to have to detain me if I don’t comply; or I KNOW from previous well-documented cases that you detain people, I have even more reason not to NOT comply.

        • nottodaymam says:

          Its easy to say its only a few seconds out of your time. But it really doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense to ask for a receipt, it shows that you bought something that day on it but not what may actually be in your bag or stuffed somewhere else. Costco which you agree to checks your items to see that you are charged for all your stuff and that you have it when you leave. You see to not care about a few seconds of your life being taken from you for something that doesn’t prove to benefit.
          So you would be fine with someone saying “stop I think you took some thing and we need you to verify that you didn’t take that candy bar, we don’t see it on you so we will do a cavity search to make sure you don’t have it “””And you would say “oh yeah let me just slip this off, cause I don’t want to cause any kind of hassle to your fine establishment””” You would be cool with that it would only take a few seconds, and you could be on your merry way.
          I bet you believe that a person who is seen different than others deserves to be hassled. Tormented. That gay kid one of many through time that got tied up and murdered cause he was gay, I guess he should have been like you and pretended to be straight. Like you say “If you make a hassle for YOURSELF, prepare to be hassled. He brought this on himself” thats out of context but its on the same lines even if its stretched out.

          Walmart, add a sensor that is given to all that buy stuff, that will allow us to pass without showing that I have a piece of paper with the date on it and some item. Like a good to go pass.

    • Shadowfax says:

      Fine. I’m requesting that you never post here again.

      Simple request right?

      What do you mean you don’t want to stop posting here?

      What do you mean I don’t have any legal grounds to request that?

      It doesn’t matter. It was a simple request, and by your logic, you’re “making a hassle” if you refuse to comply with it.

      Hint: If you respond to this, you prove me right.

      • Thassodar says:

        Your comment scenario is irrelevant. My point here is the OP was too lazy to get his receipt out of his pocket and show it. He knew they were going to give him shit, yet he still did it. He could have avoided a situation in which he was detained, yet he didn’t. I honestly think he was bored and wanted something to kill time and this was his solution; a way to get some attention and rile up all the people who are anti-coupon-showing shoppers.

        You poke a bee’s nest with a stick while carrying a open jar of honey, you’re going to get stung. In effect by posting my original comment I was ASKING for someone like YOU to come along and prove my point. If only for the sake of argument I wanted to play the other side. No, you don’t HAVE to show your receipt, BUT, as has been proven numerous times, if you DON’T you’re going to get shit from the company/business. It’s plain and simple. White and Black. Do X, knowing the consequence of doing X is going to be Y, expect Y. Don’t think the rules change for you.

        • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

          actually it seems to be you that think the rules change. The rule, AKA law, is that they CAN NOT DETAIN YOU unless they have a reasonable suspicion. Those resonable suspicions have been laid out in case law. A Wally can not change the rules and ignore the law just because they want to.

          • Thassodar says:

            They CAN NOT detain you, but they HAVE and WILL if you keep doing the same shit! It may be the law but damnit if you ain’t got shit to hide why not pull the damn thing out of your pocket and avoid shit! You’re causing trouble for yourself! They’re not SUPPOSED to do it, but they’ll make it hell for you when they do.

            • Pax says:

              [...] if you ain’t got shit to hide [...]

              … then why ever insist on a Warrant. Right?

              Except for that pesky little thing called the Fourth Amendment, of course.

              • Thassodar says:

                I knew someone was going to take it that direction, I was just waiting for it. That is concerning the government committing unreasonable search and seizure, a business is a private establishment. Therefore, in a way, the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to you on their property.

                Let’s say it’s well known that people steal from my house. If you are leaving my house and I’m pretty damn sure you took my spoon, I will ask to search your person for my spoon in my house. If I have the means, and the reason to, I will detain you and recover my spoon. If you don’t have my spoon, while it may make things awkward henceforth, awesome! Otherwise my suspicions were justified. If you had already left my house with my spoon though, fuck it I’m screwed. I should have taken action while you were still on my property.

                • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

                  FAIL. 2 points. One, it was a Deputy Sheriff detaining him. Or 2.. Whatever. Them not being in uniform does not relieve them of their Law enforcement duties or the law regardiing the 4th amendment. Their only abilities were to ask,and not require. 2, You could try and stop me, or try and search me, but the second you placed a finger on me, I would be in my right to defend myself against your assault (aka unwanted touching). Your proper course of action would be to call the police and have me arrested for theft.

                  • Thassodar says:

                    Ah but as I said if I had the means or the reason to I would search you, therefore if you’re extremely muscular, etc. I would not have the means. You have every right to defend yourself but buy your logic once the police get there to arrest you for theft they can’t search you for whatever item I said you were stealing. That’d be breaking the 4th amendment, eh? Deputy or not, I’m arguing that this guy brought this whole problem upon himself. Nothing more, nothing less. This situation could have COMPLETELY avoided if he showed his receipt.

                    • Johnny Rotten says:

                      Every situation where authority is being abused can be avoided by simply pissing yourself and doing what the abusive authority wants, no?

                      There won’t ever be any problems at all…

                      Completely the victims fault. Didn’t piss himself.

                    • Thassodar says:

                      It’s not ABUSE of ANYTHING people! They just want to see a RECEIPT! They aren’t stomping into your house, rifling through your belongings, calling your mom, and leaving. THEY’RE DOING THEIR JOB! You’re hindering their ability to complete a task because you FEEL that you’re being violated in some way. I don’t get why people don’t see that it’s NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.

                    • Thanatos says:

                      There is NOTHING that compels me to have to provide my receipt for them. They did not see me take anything without paying for it and their little theft detection system did not get set off. Legally they do not have a leg to stand on and it is NOT my duty to make them feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. When asked to show my receipt, I don’t say a word, I just continue walking to my vehicle. If a store employee makes the ill advised choice of touching me, then I sincerely hope that Wal-Mart pays their medical expenses that will be acquired when they reach that decision.. Touching me is considered assault and I WILL take action to assure that it is not repeated.

                      If you want to bow down to EVERYONE just because it makes your life a little easier, then please do. However, I will NOT bend over or jump through hoops just because a retail business decides that I should to convenience them! Hope it feels good to be one of the cattle.

                    • Thassodar says:

                      YOU make it a hoop damnit! It’s not bending over BACKWARDS to show a lip of paper, regardless if they saw you steal anything or not! YOU’RE MAKING A NON-ISSUE A ISSUE! How is this hard to understand?

                    • JJ! says:

                      There is literally no reason to stop and show the receipt, as everyone else has told you. If there is a line 50 strong to get to the receipt checker and get out, and you by-pass it, you’ve broken no laws. Unfortunately, their job being difficult is the fault of store policy, not consumer rights.

                    • Oddfool says:

                      Once I have paid for my stuff, I have been given a receipt by a representative of the company. (The Cashier) Once that transaction has been completed (they have my cash, I have my stuff) the store has no need to see my receipt. (And I am not legally required to show it.)

                    • sendmoney2me says:

                      and why are you given that receipt? to prove that you made the purchase. if you need to return the item you’ll need that receipt..they won’t just trust your word. usually if you just wave the receipt at them on the way out they wave you through with out even looking at it. its not that big of a deal. by the way, when walmart detains a shop lifter the first thing the police ask when you call them is…”where do you have them detained exactly?” the second thing they tell you to do is “hold them until we get there.” people run out of walmart with shopping carts full of stuff every day and do you know who ends up paying for those “free” items? WE do! i support fully their right to ask you to see your receipt on their private property as long as it saves me the added expense of people stealing their merchandise without paying for it

                    • jefeloco says:

                      Obvious troll is obvious, and very well fed. Good job Thassodar, good job.

                    • Thassodar says:

                      Call me a troll if you like, these are my actual feelings on the subject.

                    • JasonR says:

                      I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. Please post your personal information so I can reach you.

                • Decubitus says:

                  Your spoon analogy is laughable. If you want a comparable situation, it would be that you check everyone who visits your house for spoons when they leave, not just people you suspect to have taken your spoon.

                  Additionally, if you ask your visitors, “Hey, can I check your purse / coat for my spoons?” and they refuse (politely or indignantly), then your analogy would be that you demand to search the coat / purse and refuse to let your visitor leave until they comply.

                  The end result of your spoon-checking policy would be that you would lose your visitors (friends), some visitors will (strangely) see your spoon-checking policy as reasonable, and some will still visit you but complain about your retarded policy of treating every visitor like a thief.

                • Oddfool says:

                  Interesting analogy comparing “your house” with a retail store. Especially how it is “known” that people “steal”. (Majority of store shrinkage is not from shoplifting, but from paperwork, or employee theft. – this would be where a family member or room mate has either lost a spoon or has pawned it for fun and profit.)

                  So, using your spoon analogy, you have to know 100% that a spoon is being stolen at the time a guest is leaving. (as opposed to it dropped off the table, and gotten kicked behind the cabinet.) So you plan on turning out everyone’s pockets and frisking them? What if they happened to bring one of their own spoons with them? (They, of course had seen your pattern, and had bought a set for themselves elsewhere.) I walk into stores all the time carrying or wearing merchandise I have purchased previously.

                  And, while it may be “awkward” and inconvenient for you to have searched each and every guest, a retail store can not falsely accuse someone of theft (which is what you are doing by searching them, whether you have actually told them you suspect them or not)

                • spamtasticus says:

                  Not that I would ever enter your house, but if I did find myself there and you accused me falsely of taking your spoon I would still not let you search me. You are correct that the 4th amendment protection would not apply but the 9mm amendment would take over. It is a very little know amendment of the Parabelum doctrine of the Heckler and Koch constitutional text.

                • Pax says:

                  Let’s say it’s well known that people steal from my house. If you are leaving my house and I’m pretty damn sure you took my spoon, I will ask to search your person for my spoon in my house. If I have the means, and the reason to, I will detain you and recover my spoon.

                  And the moment you attempt to do so, you are guilty of a criminal act – Unlawful Detainment. An offense for which I would vigorously press charges, and subsequently, file a civil suit as well.

                  And you STILL wouldn’t be able to search me.

                  (And woe unto he who is dumb enough to lay hands on my person, and try to FORCE a search of my pockets and whatnot; I occasionally require a cane or walking stick at the end of a long day on my feet, and my current stick of choice is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvLNkFzblQ …)

            • BBP says:

              Valid point, but why do I need to prove to them that I didn’t steal something?

              It seems to me that the implication, at least by this standard, is that they’re checking my receipt to make sure I’m not pocketing free stuff… aka “stealing”…

              I’m under no obligation to prove that I’m not a thief and if this is why they want to check my receipt, the inference is that they believe I’m a possible shoplifter…

              • CreekDog says:

                Because if Wal Mart accidentally rang up your stuff wrong and they discover something was charged incorrectly or missing from the receipt, they are likely to try to nail you for shoplifting –heck they tried to nail a 74 year old guy for essentially a theft ring when he had nothing whatsoever to do with it, but they tried to have him prosecuted and basically ruined his life in the process.

                We all see how Wal Mart treats its employees, its communities, its customers, based on that, by politely declining the receipt thing, we’re showing more respect to Wal Mart and its staff than Wal Mart shows us or their staff themselves.

                So honestly? Fuck them. They aren’t angels, quite the opposite. I don’t treat bullies like they’re all that.

                • coren says:

                  The likelihood of a receipt checker being that familiar with Walmart’s entire store, let alone comparing the receipt against the cart, is so slim as to be not worth considering. IMO, of course.

            • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

              I guess I don’t understand your logic here. I PRAY for the trouble that I get in when I have audio of an officer of the law illegally detaining me under threat of force at the behest of an illegal/illogical order from a shopkeeper.

            • Oddfool says:

              The problem here is, they CAN NOT detain you, they are not legally allowed to, but because they HAVE and WILL keep doing this if we keep doing the same thing (which is stand up for our legal rights and politely refuse) we should just roll over and let them keep on doing this? And for this, WE are only causing trouble for ourselves?

              That’s like standing up to the playground bully, who is known for giving black eyes and bloody noses, and because we are standing up for ourselves, we are to blame?

            • spamtasticus says:

              I’ll tell you what. Once you get your job at WM. let us know the address and I will visit you there. When you ask me for my receipt I will politely tell you that I’m not interested in showing it to you and proceed on my way. If you stand in front of me to block me I will calmly walk around you. If you lay a hand on me I will grab your wrist and gently lay you on your back. If you insist on getting up and assaulting me again I will consider you a threat to my life and act accordingly.

        • BBP says:

          What about rights? I mean, Walmart has no legal right to check the guys receipt!

          While most people don’t care about this protocol, the fact of the matter is that Walmart cannot forcibly restrain a person who chooses NOT to show their receipt, regardless of that person’s rationale is for withholding the receipt.

          The fact that they detained him, however, has legal ramifications for the guy who chose not to show the receipt… as he was being detained against his will after objecting to a process that Walmart cannot enforce in the manner in which they did it.

          In short, Walmart is clearly at fault.

        • farlo666 says:

          im glad im not alone in thinking that around here.

          i dont see why people get so upset about showing their receipts, its a minor inconvience at most.

          • Kitten Mittens says:

            So are body scanners and TSA rub and tugs… Why not let them search you at Wal-Mart, too? I mean, it’s only a minor inconvenience.

          • Buckus says:

            I don’t see why people get so upset about a full body cavity search, strip searches and irradiating airport scanners? It’s a minor inconvenience.

          • spamtasticus says:

            I would like you to give me a call every time you buy something and give me the total and the store you bought it at. This is just a minor inconvenience and you should have no problem doing it. Hell, I’ll even set up an email address so you don’t have to call. minorinconvenience@hotmail.com

            What is that you say?
            None of my $%^$^& business.

            Welcome to the club man. I knew you would get it.

        • ovalseven says:

          First, I doubt “he knew they were going to give him shit”. Most places do not, but those instances aren’t newsworthy here. We only hear about it when it goes wrong.

          And, can’t your argument go both ways? Walmart could have avoided this situation just as easily, but they chose to “poke a bee’s nest with a stick” by not letting him go. If you’re gonna hassle your customers, expect to get hassled in return.

          • JennQPublic says:

            Of course he knew they were going to give him a hard time. Why else would he have been recording it?

            • ovalseven says:

              He recorded it because they were currently giving him a hard time, not because he knew in advance that they would be.

              The recording doesn’t begin with “may I see your receipt”.

    • Wrathernaut says:

      Who creates the hassle? I say “no thanks”, and continue walking. Any further action on their part creates the hassle.

      How is me walking out the door with my lawfully acquired property creating any hassle for anyone?

      • jogales says:

        I did exactly that, said “no thanks” in a friendly tone and kept walking. The greeter started yelling at me, then ran in front of my cart, blocking me from leaving the store. We went back and forth a few times, me telling her in a calm voice what she was doing was illegal, her asking for my receipt. She then said in a loud voice so everyone standing around could hear, “If you don’t show me your receipt I’m going to call the police” I wasn’t looking to cause a commotion at that point, so I showed her my receipt and went on my way. I guess it depends on the greeter and the store. I went to the manager later and she didn’t understand that it was an optional receipt check and didn’t do anything about it.

    • rdeebee says:

      Thassodar, You are so absolutley WRONG! This man did not bring a hassle upon himself, Walmart created the entire situation. By your reasoning, I’m assuming that you are willing to allow the police into your home at their leisure at any time, or willing to allow them to pull you over for no reason, just because? Walmart continues to do this because not enough people do what this man did. I have never shown my receipt on leaving a Walmart, and would love for them to have me arrested or detained for failing to do so.

      • Thassodar says:

        We are not talking about the government or the police though! We are talking about someone on private property not following through with a request! Plain and simple! He knows that other people have been detained, he knows that he’ll probably be detained (hence why he turned on the recorder), and he did it all to cause a fuss. They cannot FORCE you to show your receipt, but they can make it hell for you if you don’t ON THEIR PROPERTY. This is not a matter of the government! You can claim foul for “illegal detainment” all you want, but if I suspect you have unpaid for merchandise on your person I will pursue you while you are still in my presence until I am sure you do not have my merchandise. I

        • George4478 says:

          “if I suspect you have unpaid for merchandise on your person I will pursue you while you are still in my presence until I am sure you do not have my merchandise.”

          That simply makes you an ex-employee looking at a lawsuit.

        • sqlrob says:

          And the most they can do is ask him to leave their property, not detain him on it.

        • Putaro says:

          If you suspect I have unpaid for merchandise, you can say “I think you may have taken something”. The problem I have with receipt checking is that everyone gets stopped and annoyed without any reason. It’s a complete waste of time.

        • DovS says:

          Just because it’s private property doesn’t mean that they can violate your rights. The fact the shop is open to the public means that they are required to follow all laws regarding the rights of people in public spaces. They can no more detain you than they could steal you or beat you up just because you happen to be inside the store.

        • megafly says:

          If people like you weren’t such pushovers for whatever corporate fascists want, those of us who stand up wouldn’t get hassled as much.

        • ccooney says:

          So he knows that people have been hassled for not showing a receipt – are you claiming that Walmart has the right to detain you for not consenting to a request? I believe that’s the whole issue: WM can ask for a receipt, but if I don’t feel like playing, all they can do is say “don’t come back”. Instead, they’re violating the law, and you people are blaming the victim.

    • Phexerian says:

      Thassodar, your posts aren’t completely asinine but you are missing the point that people cannot be searched by a Walmart employee on their property. If such happens and a person is touched in any way shape or form with the intent to “search” them it would be construed as assault. (if it were me and I tried to leave and was stopped physically, I would fight back)

      You are correct that the 4th amendment does not apply however refer to the above statement you just read. State laws are in place for things such as this. Even with citizens arrest the citizen must personally witness the crime for it to be applicable.

      You sheepishness to comply with unwarranted search and seizure is idiotic. You state complying with unwarranted search just to not be hassled is the best thing to do? Perhaps in your opinion it is, however, I as well as many others here prefer to not have our rights abused and trampled on so easily.

      Your argument that we should just go ahead and submit to avoid a hassle is completely irrelevant to the point that Walmart has no right to illegally search/assault someone!

      • Thassodar says:

        Very well stated and I see both sides of the argument. I don’t see it as your rights being trampled on though, it’s a RECEIPT! They aren’t going through your personal effects, they are examining a sheet of paper! I think the people who do this are making much ado about nothing, to be quite honest. It’s a paper, they aren’t judging you, they’re doing their job. Your rights are just as intact as when you came in, they just request to see your proof of purchase before you leave. There should be no problem. People make a problem for themselves.

        • physics2010 says:

          You’re right. It’s just a receipt and I have the right to decline to show it. Why are these “receipt checkers” making such a big deal about it? It’s store policy to ask to see the receipt, it is not policy to unlawfully detain customers.

        • Phexerian says:

          And your words are correct, that is a “request” to ask for a receipt. When their request is refused that should be the end of it.

          And yes checking your receipt is searching your personal property as you own the merchandise and paperwork with it after the financial transaction.

        • LuisM111 says:

          I guess that means Rosa Parks should have just gone to the back of the bus to avoid bringing a hassle on herself. There are some people that feel strongly enough about their rights to stand up for them, to be ridiculed or imprisoned, and to fight for them.

          • Thassodar says:

            Waaaay off base there brother, this is a receipt, not a civil rights issue.

            • jwissick says:

              NO, this is a right issue. I have the right to not show a receipt if I choose.

              • Thassodar says:

                Then expect to be harassed. Plain and simple. It’s wrong but obviously it works because they’re still doing it and catching the slum (not YOU necessarily) who steal.

        • TheGary says:

          excuse me, but he bought it therefor it is now a part of his personal effects. What is on that receipt and in that bag is my business and no one elses, not even the person checking receipts on the way out the door.
          Brought this on himself for standing up for his rights? Regardless of how asinine you think that right to privacy is, it is still his right and anyone elses right to tell those nosy checkers to F-off on your way out the door.

    • dolemite says:

      Give me $5. Are you refusing a simple request? Prepare to be hassled. Oh, you don’t want to give me $5 because you are a fame whore!

      There is no law that says you have to show your receipt at Walmart. Just as you said, it is a request, and I have the right to refuse requests I don’t agree with, whether they are issued by some stranger on the sidewalk demanding $5, or an employee of Walmart asking for a receipt that I am not in any way, shape or form required to show them.

      I do pity them that they’ve been placed in a position by management to perform an action against the public for which they have no legal authority to do so, but…oh well.

    • Riroon13 says:

      Thass–

      I’m in the minority with you, and agree 100%.

      I’m wondering why those that feel some kind of constitutional rights are violated just don’t go the ‘vote with your wallet’ route instead of continuing to patronize the place just for some douchey internet blurb.

      You know Wal-Mart will check. Go to another store. Write your congressperson to strengthen laws. Leave the minimum-wage grannies alone. You’re so patriotic, bullying the (mostly) elderly greeters who still have the ethic or need to work, and would like to have a day without your B.S.

      • Thopter says:

        The last 4 times I went to my local WalMart, they did not check receipts. If they check on the 5th time I go, then that will be unexpected. It will be an unexpected request that will be denied.

    • ChangeOfFate says:

      @ Thass, although your passion on the issue is appreciated the bottom line is, a store cannot prevent you from leaving if you don’t show your receipt.

      If someone decides not to show it they are accepting the hassle that follows with it. However, in reality they have made the purchase with a cashier at the point of sale and the transaction is completed. The item was now paid for and belongs to the consumer. Usually when I am done with Wal-Mart I tuck my receipt in my wallet with my debit card. I’ve told checkers politely no thank you and have made my way out with no incident.

      I think there’s two ways of refusing, one is deliberately being an ass or being polite and saying thanks but no thanks.

  7. KlueBat says:

    This issue has gotten so much press how can WalMart not have their entire staff trained on it by now?

    • Commenter24 says:

      It’s been on this blog alot, but not on CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. There is only a small (though vocal) minority that is aware and up-in-arms about this issue. Most of the public simply doesn’t care (lemmings?), so Walmart has little incentive to try and train it’s ungodly number of employees not to do this. Plus, from Walmart’s perspective, the cost/benefit analysis probably works in favor of continuing to “ask” for receipts.

      • Thanatos says:

        Wal-Mart doesn’t bother training because of the amount of turn-over they have making it illogical to do so. The Wal-Mart here has actually had to hire back people they fired for being too verbally and physically aggressive (as just floor people, NOT loss prevention) because they have no one left to hire that hasn’t already worked for them or wants to work for them. I don’t think I’ve seen the same person in the store twice, except for long term people that won’t leave until retirement.

        I watched one manager physically shake the crap out of a 17 year old female employee because she was door greeting and didn’t jump a cart rail to check the receipt of a guy he thought was stealing cigarettes!! She was so shaken that she had to be driven home. I also watched that same manager lock all the doors in the store and not let customers out when the girl’s dad came to the store for him an hour later! He was reassigned to a small town Wal-Mart in the middle of no-where within 24 hours, but they wouldn’t fire him. I wanted to see her dad (who was 6’7″. 270lbs and mean as hell) rip him apart!!!

      • Sam McGee says:

        You don’t mean a bad story about Walmart during a news program supported by advertising from Walmart? All news is bias, unless it doesn’t take advertising. Even the boss-man here (CR) has some bias, but it cannot sway factors such as reliability.
        Anyway, news stories about this aren’t going to happen, ever.

      • jesusofcool says:

        Yes it hasn’t been on major news channels but I think it’s drawn more than it’s fair share of complaints over the last few years – Walmart and Best Buy bearing the brunt of receipt checking complaints. In light of that, I thought the Walmart spokesperson’s comment was just so completely asinine. Obviously, whether you mean to or not, it’s a policy that does inconvenience people, particularly if they’re in a hurry, have heavy bags, or are towing small children etc.
        More importantly, it’s the way the spokesperson treats it like it’s such a minor thing to ask – to ensure that people buying big ticket items are actually paying for what they’re walking out with by checking their receipts. Which would make sense if a) they only did it for true big ticket items, b) if they weren’t basing their store operations on the assumption that their customers are criminals or c) it was actually an effective policy for preventing stolen merchandise.

    • ill informed says:

      also, in this instance it’s not wal mart employees detaining him. it’s deputies who feel like they need to jump in.

  8. Skellbasher says:

    And now we get to see a couple hundred comments about why people should just give up their rights and show the receipt.

    Good on this guy for keeping calm and respectful the entire time. Made the Wal-Mart folks look like the fools that they are.

  9. mobilehavoc says:

    Just show the damn receipt. If this is such an issue for people don’t shop at places that do this. This pisses me off. What the hell is on that receipt that is such an issue. Stop being jackasses already.

    • MerlynNY says:

      Riddle me this… why should I have to prove ownership of the items that I just purchased between the cash register and the door? Walmart cannot enforce this, so why should I give up my rights to leave the establishment and not be detained or harassed for a receipt. Sorry buddy, but there’s more to it than just showing your receipt.

    • apple420 says:

      I’m only a jackass when someone who is three times my age starts chasing me down screaming at me cause I didn’t see him. It ain’t my fault the door is too big for one 70 year old to monitor.

    • PSUSkier says:

      I dunno… Maybe because the Constitution literally says we aren’t subject to unlawful searches and seizures? Yes it is somewhat of a waste of time, but it shouldn’t be. The conversation (assuming the alarms weren’t tripped) should simply be limited to “Can I see your receipt, sir?” “No.” “OK, have a good day.”

      Period.

      • Commenter24 says:

        A receipt check, generally, isn’t a constitutional search or seizure because it’s not being done by the government.

        • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

          Correct except in this case is was a pair of armed govt. employees detaining him due to lack of showing his receipt.

        • Doubts42 says:

          True, but unlawful detainment is illegal no matter who does it.

        • PSUSkier says:

          True, but when they happen to get one of the power tripping cops involved, it really does.

        • Pax says:

          Generally speaking, private citizens have no right or authority to conduct ANY non-consent search or seizure, period. To get someone’s bags searched without that person’s consent, you’d have to call in the police to do the search. At whichpoint, the Fourth immediately comes into play.

    • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

      I’m shocked that you get pissed when people stand up for their rights.

      • 99 1/2 Days says:

        It’s weird though. I never thought so many would be so angry and seemingly personally offended when others do things that don’t even directly affect them, but in fact, promote freedom for everyone. I think it says something about the human psyche to see this unwarranted hostility towards those who dare to disrespect “authority.”

    • Pax says:

      Jawhol, mein Hauptmann! Here are my papers! And I am dutifully wearing my yellow star, right here on my lapel, too!!

    • P41 says:

      And if a stranger comes to your house wanting to search for anything illegal,
      what will be your reason for not letting them?

      A) I haven’t done anything suspicious
      B) It’s my house and you don’t have the right
      C) You’re not even the police
      D) Other people have to let strangers without reasonable suspicion search, not me

      Uh huh.

      As for not shopping there, what the store is doing isn’t legal.
      What if their scales were rigged? Ok just don’t shop there, right? Just
      because there’s a government department specially to enforce those laws…
      Or what if a store had a whites-only policy. Let them violate the law
      because you should just shop somewhere else if you don’t like it, right?

      Or how about, stores that don’t have memberships can’t force you to show
      a receipt unless they’ve observed you steal the item. If this is such an
      issue, don’t post comments at sites like consumerist that support this.

    • zappo says:

      Walmart needs to post a prominent sign somewhere when you enter the store and/or at the checkout registers stating that your receipt may need to be checked when you leave the store, otherwise don’t enter the store or buy our stuff. Why they have not done this is a real mystery to me.

      • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

        Sry. Doesn’t pass muster. They could just as easily post a sign indicating they have a right to grab your breasts.

        A store can and does post signs that indicate what their rights are. Stores can NOT post signs stating that their perrogatives are rights that you have to obey. Well, I guess they could post them, but it places me under no such obligation to follow. The law is the law.

        Unfortunately there is a large percentage of Peace Officers in this country that have no clue as to the basic laws they are said to enforce. I was in an incident recently where my child was being kicked in the back and neck, and when my wife pulled the kid off of my child (by grabbing their hand) the cop said what my wife did was assault, but the person kicking my child was not. Most cops just don’t get it. and that is sad.

    • coren says:

      And when your only options for groceries (within reason) are stores that receipt check, do you suggest starvation as an alternative?

  10. MerlynNY says:

    Ok, so maybe the guy was a bit of a tool acting like an ass saying that he didn’t feel like pulling his receipt out of his pocket, when a simple “No thank you” would have sufficed when they asked him for his receipt, but the long and short of it is that yet again, folks are being harassed for their receipts. Walmart should really get with the times here and quit this crap. They don’t even do that at my local store and I’ve stopped shopping there just on principle.

    • erratapage says:

      He did say “No, thank you.” The store manager then asked him why he was refusing. He said he didn’t feel like digging into his pocket to find it. The answer to, “why are you refusing to show your receipt,” is not “no, thank you.” It is “because there is no legal requirement that I do so, and you have no reason to believe I have stolen merchandise.” But, “because I don’t feel like it,” is also a decent answer.

  11. qualityleashdog says:

    Damned Idiot!? Those are fighting words, and I hope the deputies will find themselves suspended for the holidays and ultimately fired. Petty thing for any involved to argue with, but the law is the law, and the deputies need re-educating since they obviously know nothing of the law.

  12. outshined says:

    I’m pretty non-confrontational on a personal level and as a Libertarian, I wish I had the stones to do this. I hail this man and his right to purchase something without suspicion that he’s a thief.

    • AustinTXProgrammer says:

      +1

    • JennQPublic says:

      I usually have the stones, but the other day, I was leaving Walmart with my mother and a little old lady at the door asked me for my receipt. I gave it to her.

      My mother would never forgive me for being rude to a little old lady, even for the sake of principles.

      Walmart has found my kryptonite.

      • GGV says:

        You don’t have to be rude to any one (little old lady or not) to stand up for your principles. Just politely decline, wish her Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas/whatever and be on your way. If she tries to stop you more aggressively, you can still very politely state your right to leave without showing your receipt. … see? There’s no need to choose between being treated like a potential thief or being polite and non-confrontational.

  13. Crass says:

    Wow that “cop” sounds like a complete thug.

    • plumbob says:

      I’m not convinced they are law enforcement of any sort… Most cops aren’t thugs but the ones that are are at least smart enough to do it when and where they won’t be witnessed… Like not inside a Wal-Mart.

      • spamtasticus says:

        Your experience has been completely the opposite of mine. The large majority of my encounters with police have been of an unprofessional and “thuggish” flavor. I must admit that the city where I live is and has been notorious for the type of people they hire to be cops but that should be no excuse. There are exceptions to this, but the norm, in my experience, has been that police departments attract egomaniacal bullies who’s only chance of holding any power over anyone else is a gun and a badge.

    • uber_mensch says:

      Thug was not the word that came to mind when I heard his voice.
      Throw him a banana next time.

  14. dcarrington01 says:

  15. AllanG54 says:

    Wasting 20 minutes to prove exactly what point. It’s not such a big deal and it’s done not only at Walmart but at the Home Depot I go to and I’ve never once gotten offended.

    • SabreDC says:

      To prove the point that a store can’t illegally search your belongings.

    • Megalomania says:

      To be fair, 20 minutes to get pretty solid evidence of false imprisonment is not much of a waste of time, though if it was Walmart doing the detaining the pockets would be a lot deeper (as far as I can make out, Walmart is clean and the two ‘off duty deputies’ are solely liable)

    • Peacock (Now In Extra Crispy) says:

      The Home Depot I go to does it, too. And I refuse every time. Once the receipt checker stood and watched me go through the check-out and then held out his hand for the receipt. I just looked at him and laughed. “If you weren’t watching me just now, then too bad for you”.

      The hell.

      Mr. Peacock doesn’t understand why I won’t show my receipts. He can, if he wants. I won’t.

  16. sendmoney2me says:

    I thought it was illegal to record audio of someone without their knowledge?

  17. Bog says:

    Don’t ask if you can leave. Just tell them you are leaving now and walk away.

  18. lstorm2003 says:

    Can someone just explain why its a big deal to show your receipt to the 85 year old guy on your way out? They don’t even read it! I’m open minded, so please explain to me how this hurts me that Wal Mart checks my receipt before I walk out of the store? I’m not being a jerk, I just truly don’t understand where you are coming from…

    • Skellbasher says:

      I’ve paid for the merchandise. The transaction is complete. I now own it. I don’t have to prove to anyone that it’s mine as a condition of leaving the store.

      The receipt check is a loss prevention tactic. I have no obligation to assist in that.

      • JMH says:

        This doesn’t answer the question. Yes, you have no OBLIGATION to assist in the store’s loss prevention efforts, and yes, the merchandise belongs to you, but how does it HURT YOU to show them your receipt? It takes like six seconds, and like the OP said they never even read it.

        • Skellbasher says:

          It ‘hurts’ because I’m subjecting myself to being treated like a criminal for no reason.

          I refuse to give up my rights to anyone just because it might be continent.

        • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

          Hurt? as in pain? Or hurt as in negatively affect? Obviously there is no physical pain involved, however who are you or anyone to determine what my time is worth? That “6 seconds” as you put it is MY TIME. Not yours, and not Wally Worlds. I will choose how to spend my time TYVM.

        • Pax says:

          It reduces my expectation of privacy, which in turn, enahnces the government’s authority and power to conduct warrantless searches of my person and effects.

          THAT is how it “hurts” me.

          Every time a mindless sheep submits to an intrusion of this sort, the overall expectation of privacy for everyone, including me, goes down by a teeny, tiny bit. And enough of those tiny bits may wind up allowing police or other government agents to say “show me what you have inside that _____”, and be able to detain you until you comply.

          “Turn out your pockets” is not a phrase I ever want a cop to be able to say to me, unless I’m under arrest, or he has a warrant.

          • spamtasticus says:

            Bingo! This is something people do not understand. Example: The fact that people are continually posting private information about themselves on Facebook is actually eroding their rights to privacy because it changes what can be considered an “Expectation of Privacy” this phenomenon has already been uses successfully in court.

        • RarianRakista says:

          Because when I have spent 3000 dollars on electronics at a store, if they want to get gruff with me I will simply shop online, where this problem is non-existent.

    • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

      Why not allow for a mandatory pat down when exiting also? It’s likely not offensive to everyone, and only takes a moment right? It is perfectly accepted to have a policy of asking to show a receipt. It is NOT legal to make it mandatory to exit the building.

      On another note, it’s completely useless to require receipt checks. Primarily for the reason you mentioned, that they don’t even look at it. Second, the majority of the theft is happening at the back entrance by the employees. Third, and I’ve seen this, thugs know how this works and 1 guy will buy a widget, decline the bag, and when the 90 year old greeter stops him, he shifts 90 degrees so the greeters back is to the exit, and his buddies walk right out the door with their new swag.

    • DeeJayQueue says:

      It’s because it impinges on our rights as citizens to go about our business without being treated like criminals, or accused of theft.

      It’s also rude to involve the average person in the Loss Prevention strategy of a company without their consent. If a store needs me to verify that I haven’t stolen anything, they’re doing something wrong.

      It’s also in the constitution, the 4th amendment.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Though smarter people than me have said that this only applies to government or police searches and seizures, it doesn’t say that explicitly. It also doesn’t define what “unreasonable” means. Lots of people find it unreasonable to be stopped at the door of a store and asked to prove that they paid for what’s in their bags/cart.

      Some people make a bigger deal of this than others, and I feel like it does a little bit of good, because the bigger they make their deal, the more likely a business will be to take notice of it and make changes to their policies.

    • SDJASON says:

      It isn’t about being inconvenient. God knows it really isn’t that big of a deal in terms of inconveniencing someone.

      Its about setting strict limits on what is allowed and what is not. We’ve used the “its no big deal” card over the years, and given the TSA the benefit of the doubt for years now, and now we have no recourse, they slap on a new requirement/mandate, and we must comply, because we always have. I’m waiting for the mandatory rectal exams, at this point all it will take is one person fresh out of prison stuffing something up thier butt and bang! rubber gloves at the TSA checkpoints!

      Regarding reciept checks, what if they wanted to “wand” you everytime you left the store, or inspect your wallet to be sure you didn’t have anything inside it, maybe check inside your purse? Would you be okay with that? because you definitely shouldn’t be. They should be checking that they rung you up correctly and all that at the register, and i don’t feel like submitting to an unreasonable search by that 85 year old “greeter” just because it “isn’t a big deal”. It’s a legal issue to me because they have no right to search my belongings (as of the register, the are now mine) and without probable cause (walking out a door is NOT probable cause).

      I’m not a lawyer, but i’m simply not interested in letting them look at the reciept, you said so yourself “they don’t even look at it” so even taking legality and ethics completely aside, what IS the point of glancing at the white rectangle piece of paper i have, really?

    • coren says:

      Can you explain why employees make a big deal when I don’t? (and if the answer is “their job” or “they were trained to” then rephrase except sub in Walmart)

  19. Mary13134 says:

    I would have walked right out…..

  20. brettb says:

    “I wish you would” put your hands on me? That makes it clear to me that guy has no business being a cop.

  21. SabreDC says:

    I’m surprised that after 2:00, the OP simply didn’t say “Yes, you can see my receipt as I take it to customer service to return this merchandise” followed by a trip to get his money back.

    The fight is not worth fighting unless you hurt them where it matters. They still sold you the merchandise. Do you think they care if you’re inconvenienced? Why do people insist on fighting this fight but they’ll roll over by giving Walmart the money anyway.

    • Ilovegnomes says:

      True but I am glad that he held his ground because being an experienced police officer, he knew exactly what to say when met with a hostile tone by a sherrif. I wouldn’t know how to react within my rights. If the sherrif went too far (which in my opinion he did), then this police officer is able to expose that and protect consumers from this abuse. So kudos to him.

    • PhilFR says:

      An excellent point.

    • Megalomania says:

      Well, if he can make sure those deputies lose their jobs, getting rid of two erstwhile cops who think the law doesn’t apply to them sounds like an EXCELLENT use of 20 minutes to me…

  22. ckspores says:

    For what it is worth, I visited my local Walmart yesterday to finish up some Christmas shopping and errands. I purchased my items and as I approached the exit they asked to see my receipt. I said “no” and the employee said “have a great holiday.”

    So, at least some of them have caught on, but I’m sure the poor employee would get in trouble if a manager found out he wasn’t checking receipts.

    • jason in boston says:

      This is the way it should be. I don’t mind people asking as long as they know that I can just say “no”.

  23. CookiePuss says:

    So what happened? Did the guy wind up showing his receipt or did the friendly police officer put him in a headlock and shoot his dog?

  24. ITDEFX says:

    Ok here is what I see where the problems started:

    -The guy purposely brought in and used a recorder inside of walmart.
    -His clear intention was to create a disturbance and get that recorded.
    -I don’t believe the guy was a cop for 20 years..if he was then he would have gone off on some law challenging their detainment of him.
    -He kept on asking them permission to leave….that right there was a big mistake. He should have said, “If I am not under arrest or you are not planning on charging me with anything then i am free to leave..”

    -If they continue to harass him then he could have said “You have not properly identified yourself as a law enforcement official and there for you are detaining me against my will without provocation…”

    Bottom line is that..
    -This guy is a fucking redneck out to cause a disturbance and see what he can get out of it (free gift cards walmart/?!?!?).
    -SHOW YOUR FUCKING RECEIPTS!!!

    • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

      The guy purposely brought in and used a recorder inside of walmart.

      What? Why does having a legal recording product being properly used represent a “Problem”?

      -His clear intention was to create a disturbance and get that recorded.

      What? I’m sure his intention was to obtain proof that Walmarts illegal actions were occuring

      don’t believe the guy was a cop for 20 years..if he was then he would have gone off on some law challenging their detainment of him.

      So you assume everyones a liar? Are you a greeter at walmart?

      Bottom line is that..
      -This guy is a fu…

      No, that’s your take on this based on your not caring for your rights. The legal take on it is somewhat slanted in a different direction.

      But thank you for playing. BTW, why does he have to be a redneck? Why not a Ni%%er? Or a White Interloper?

      Troll

      • ITDEFX says:

        Again, just show the damn receipt…5 seconds max of a delay and bam your out of there. They don’t even look at every item unless electronics are involved.

        • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

          Please refer to the 100 posts on why you can shove that receipt up your racist a$$

          • ITDEFX says:

            wow did I use the N* word? Nope. Last time I checked redneck was NOT a race….it’s a way of life :P

            Make sure you know what that means before you call someone racist.

            oh here is challenge for you…why don’t you start up a web site for lets say DEC 24th calling for everyone to go to wal-mart to buy a few items then refuse to show the receipt and still walk away or let them try to put their hands on you as you leave. The moment they touch you, it’s assault. Say they grab you on the way out and you fall on your ass, well guess who has to pay the medical bills ?

            But honestly becareful as the police CAN charge you with creating a disturbance , exampling not showing your receipt and making a scene infront of others. You can get yourself easily banned from a store like that for that sort of incident.

            Now if they still try to detain you after you show them the receipt, then you have every right to take action.

            • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

              Sry, I don’t feed trolls

            • CreekDog says:

              You are equating say “no thank you” with causing a scene and therefore an arrestable offense?

              So not agreeing to do what various people say means we get arrested? Or at least you think it’s appropriate that we do?

              Are you posting from Saudi Arabia?

        • Abradax says:

          And if they ask to strip search you, why not, its only a few minutes out of your day…. rights be damned, right?

        • spamtasticus says:

          Again.
          I don’t want to have to prove i’m not a criminal 10 times a week. BAM!

    • plumbob says:

      Yeah this whole thing is really dubious to me, neither party in this case sounds like law enforcement at all.

    • greggen says:

      Give away your rights if you want pottymouth, just shut your foul mouth about my rights!

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      So you think having a cell phone on your person constitutes premeditation? And then you extrapolate from there. What a maroon [bugs bunny voice]!

    • coren says:

      My cell phone records things. Can I not bring it in Walmart?

      If telling a receipt checker no is a sign he wanted to cause a disturbance, then is having people who ask for receipts also a sign Walmart wants to cause one? They know that some people will react poorly (as many of us know some greeters will react poorly). So clearly this is Walmart’s fault!

      You chastise him on not citing the law and just leaving, but at the time, request that he submit to an illegal search. Isn’t that just a bit inconsistent, don’t you think?

      Also, I’m not saying you’re a racist/that I agree with the person who called you one, but I’m pretty sure that dropping the N bomb isn’t the only or even the deciding criteria on that score.

  25. weedpindle says:

    All those people who think you should be required to show a receipt with no other reason to suspect shoplifting, please go put on your brown shirts and click your heels. The gas chambers are to your right.

  26. Costner says:

    My question is, in his state is it legal to record a conversation without the consent of the other party? If not, he was infringing upon the rights of someone else in order to protect his right to not show a receipt, which would seem to be somewhat counterproductive.

    I agree he doesn’t legally have to show his receipt, but I question the statements about not wanting to be inconvenienced by having to look for it yet still being able to turn on an audio recorder in preparation for what is about to occur. Sort of seems like he went out of his way to ensure this would happen perhaps due to his knowledge of the law and a potential settlement from Walmart due to unlawful detention.

    I know I’m supposed to say Bravo, but I just can’t bring myself to champion actions which trade one person’s rights for anothers. No matter how many times someone tries to use a slippery slope analogy to defend such actions, no this is not the same thing as allowing the police or some random government agency to search your home without a warrant or the same thing as being forced to file DNA samples and fingerprints with your local police department.

    It is a receipt check… from a store that is known to do receipt checks. Shop somewhere else if you don’t like it and let your wallet be your vote. I realize it might be mildly entertaining to cause controversy, but at the end of the day you have accomplished NOTHING. How do I know this? Because a few thousand Walmarts and Best Buys and countless other retail stores continue to do this no matter how many times we see a story on Consumerist whining about it. The general public is more than willing to accept these in order to attempt to keep costs down and deter shoplifting, and as such – even with the law on the side of the purchaser – these policies won’t change.

    • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

      What we don’t know from the story is that maybe he or his family has been repeatedly illegally detained in the past at this store. He happened to remember to turn on his recorder so that he would have actionable evidence to produce in court.

      Who am I trading rights with by not showing my receipt? Or were you referring to the recording?

      • Costner says:

        The recording… although if that is legal in his state then it is a moot point.

        Although true we may not know the history here, we just need to take this at face value and cannot make assumptions about anything outside of the story itself.

    • Decubitus says:

      I just say, “No, thank you” and walk out, because I refuse to participate in this foolishness. Receipt checking does not keep costs down or deter shoplifting. The majority of theft is from employees, usually out the back door.

      If you want to prevent a customer from putting a 32″ LCD TV on a cart and walking out the front door with it, just make sure *all* items too large to be bagged are generously marked with fluorescent green tape. There would be reasonable enough suspicion to detain anyone leaving the store without green tape on such an item.

      Bag and seal *all* other purchased items and then you can stop anyone who attempts to leave the store with an unbagged item, as it would be suspicious. Don’t put any items for sale between the check out and the exit, so a customer wouldn’t be able to unseal the bag and slip an item inside.

      These simple steps would allow stores to conduct normal business, at minimal extra cost, without having to verify that each customer is not a thief.

    • coren says:

      I think that in a public place you don’t have the expectation of privacy which would make it legal, but IANAL

    • bwcbwc says:

      Even in 2-party consent states like Maryland, that doesn’t apply in places where “there is no reasonable expectation of privacy”. I suppose Walmart could argue that the store is their private property, but I doubt it (IANAL).

  27. Press1forDialTone says:

    Black cop getting off on hassling a white guy.

  28. unimus says:

    Meanwhile, another “customer” stuffs 50 CD’s into his pants and walks right out.

  29. WickedCrispy says:

    Why don’t they just have the greeter turn 90 degrees so they can see the door as well as the checkout lanes? Then they can see who checked out as well as tell me hello the one time a year (if that) I go into their crappy store.

  30. Jason says:

    My aunt is a manager at a Wal Mart and she says they are instructed to higher off duty cops for security. They aren’t for receipt checking, just for having someone that knows what they should be looking for. The cops know a lot about the different robber gangs in the area hitting other stores, and that is what they are supposed to be used for. So this ‘off-duty cops overheard’ is complete BS. Our neighbor works for Safeway in loss prevention on his days off and also is a cop as his main job. I think this is normal for retailers to higher off-duty cops.

  31. Hotscot says:

    I don’t agree that you have to show your receipt.

    I don’t mind doing it to make things flow smoother.

    I think if WalMart obstruct you for no definable reason they should be fined.

    I think Consumerist should obtain a definitive statement from WalMart management.

  32. parv says:

    Speaking of recording audio, I suppose[0] Arizona is a “single party state” and recording laws might not be as asinine as those of Illinois & Maryland.

    [0] Too lazy to verify at this time.

    • parv says:

      Oh! I don’t know why I wrote Arizona; it was missing from the article & at least first page of comments at the time. Sorry for the useless contribution.

  33. stevied says:

    “As we’ve discussed on this site many a time before, stores cannot legally prevent you from leaving if you decide to not show your receipt.”

    Wrong/Right/Maybe.

    Failure to show receipt by itself is not sufficient to detain a person on suspicion of shoplifting, but can be used as furtherance of the suspicion of shoplifting when other actions may be causative.

    In other words, failure to show a receipt is going to strength the suspicion of shoplifting and allow the LP to engage and detain when such suspicion already existed.

    Why/How?

    In some States felony shoplifting charges require a large $ amount of goods, an overt act and the goods must leave the physical store versus the simple misdemeanor shoplifting charges.

    From a store’s perspective it is better to have felony charges to be filed (if possible) versus simple misdemeanor shoplifting charges. This means a stronger case must be developed.

    Since some customers might, honestly, use the pockets of their clothes to hold their purchases until they reach the checkout counter, the act of hiding goods may or may not be sufficient to demonstrate an overt act.

    However, the request of receipt and denial of such is a perfect overt act.

    The receipt checker is setup to serve to legal purposes. 1) as a formal point of exit to clarify the exit of the store rather than the multiple check out counters scattered throughout the store. 2) The Overt act of refusal of a receipt.

    Of course the person must be under suspicion of shoplifting to initiate this entire process.

    So, yes, failure to show a receipt can allow a store to detain a person….. BUT…. the underlying suspicion requirement must be met.

    The problem is stores go nutz-o with the concept of a receipt checker. It is a formality. That is all it needs to be. The guilty just need a chance to deny a receipt.

    Unfortunately the stores try to make the receipt checker as some great law enforcement or security officer….. which is far beyong the requirements of the position.

    Does being an internet/receipt bully protect your “rights”? Nope. Most receipt checkers are looking at the date and time on the receipt and maybe the item count. A1234568 item number, which happens to match the sku of the item, is totally meaningless to the receipt checker or just about anybody else.

    Do I show my receipt? Seldom if ever. That last time I remember showing my receipt I purchased goods in the back of the store (big arse box). As I approached the checker I stated “I got my receipt” and the receipt checker held the door open for me to exit. I don’t get checked at BB or Wally. Why? Because I carry the receipt in my hand. They see I have one and I keep walking. It is so farking easy and nobody’s rights got violated.

    • coren says:

      Right, but what you’re saying assumes that they already have cause to suspect you. 99 times out of 100, that simply isn’t true.

    • stevied says:

      Correct.

    • plumbob says:

      I would also point out that refusing a search is never justification for a search. The same goes for receipt checking, refusing to allow your purchases and receipt to be examined is not justification for them to be examined.

  34. FrugalFreak says:

    Disclipne EM! Bless this Cop for bringing light to this treatment. It shows the power abuse some law enforcement have. Good for You cop.

  35. Klay says:

    Where is this WalMart?

  36. daemonaquila says:

    Good job, tipster! I hope everyone else does the same.

  37. jacobs cows says:

    The answer is to not shop in Walmarts.

  38. zombie70433 says:

    Ugh!!! Show your stupid receipt and be done with it If there is a line forming, I’d have no problem ducking it & leaving. But if you’re in the doorway leaving, take a few seconds and flash them the receipt.

  39. cecilsaxon says:

    When confronted with the “may I see your receipt please” I always smile and say “no”. No muss, no fuss. Just say “no”.

    If it ever goes beyond the simple “no” I return the merchandise. Easy peasy-

  40. dilbert69 says:

    I don’t understand why he didn’t just leave. I know that in many states stores have the right to detain you if they suspect you of shoplifting, until the police arrive and arrest you, but I have a hard time understanding how they can put that right into effect without your cooperation. Just walk on out of there.

  41. homehome says:

    What I wonder is if ppl really had their own big businesses, would they be okay with letting stuff like this go when they lose millions in product every from consumers and employees?

    I would do it, if the consumer got mad I’d tell them to kick rocks. If the consumerist tried to email me about it, I’d tell them to kick more rocks.

    • plumbob says:

      All you can do is tell them they are barred from returning, you can’t search them or demand anything from them unless you’ve seen them doing something illegal and then all you can do is detain them and call the police. And, if that is the case you better be able to prove the committed a crime it or you have a lawsuit on your hands.

      Now if you have barred them and they come back, they are trespassing.

  42. Southern says:

    A few quotes I find relevant throughout history.

    Freedom is that instant between when someone tells you to do something and when you decide how to respond. ~Jeffrey Borenstein

    We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. ~William Faulkner

    I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

    Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves. ~D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922

    Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

    It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you. ~Author unknown, sometimes attributed to M. Grundler

    Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. ~Woodrow Wilson

    We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights. ~Felix Frankfurter

    And if you made it this far:

    “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” – Attribution debated between Winston Churchill & George Santayana.

    So I ask you, would you LIKE for the Federal government to pass an actual LAW that states that all persons leaving a retail establishment are required to show proof of purchase for all items being taken out of a store? Because that’s where we’re headed – they’re either going to eventually have to pass a law prohibiting it, or requiring it. Which would you prefer?

    Answer that, and we’ll know for sure which side of the Bill of Rights you stand on.

  43. demonicfinger says:

    best buy continues this tradition of checking receipts. can we also just waltz on out of bestbuy after they persistently ask for a receipt?

    • spamtasticus says:

      I bought a 42” LCD TV a couple of months ago at Best Buy and the guy at the door asked me to see a receipt. I told him no thank you. He told me it was store policy with items that big that we show receipt. I told him it was my policy to defend my person and my belongings from anyone and everyone. I made it to my car with no more issues.

  44. LBD "Nytetrayn" says:

    I see the “they cannot legally force you to show your receipt” bit put forth quite a bit on here, but I’m assuming that is generally referring to the U.S. I’m rather curious whether or not the same holds true in Canada.

  45. Phexerian says:

    If these stores are so worried about theft they should look internally instead of externally. Internal theft is much more common generally. I suppose one could argue receipt checking helps deter internal theft by a team of a buyer and a register clerk giving away free stuff by not scanning items. However, you could then argue that video cameras over the cash registers would work better (i.e. Las Vegas Casinos). Thoughts anyone?

    • wildgift says:

      I think that these receipt-checkers are looking for irregularities between the receipt and the stuff in the bag. That can happen if the checker charges for only some of the items in the cart – giving the customer a “discount”.

      The shoplifters aren’t putting their products in the cart.

  46. Papa Bear says:

    I rarely go to Wal-Mart, but every time I do, I feel violated by the receipt checkers. At the store I go to, they treat you like a thief. But since I just don’t have the time or inclination to deate the issue, I show them the receipt. One of these days, however, I think I’ll go prepared with my daughters and their cell-phone cameras.

    Back in ’95, I was working for Sears. After punching out and gong to my car, I went back in to make a purchase. I was stopped by loss-prevention and asked why I didn’t check my package at the customer service counter. I stated that I did not make the purchase during working hours so I did not have to do so. He then demanded a receipt and I told him no. As an employee, I was required to produce a receipt for purchases while I was on the time clock if I was asked. Since I was not punched in and it was a good 15 minutes after I punched out, I said no. I was detained. The police were called. They refused to get involved as there was no indication of shop lifting. I was fired and UC was denied. I appealed the UC.

    The ALJ stated in his ruling that he found absolutely nothing to even support Sears argument that as an employee I was obligated to produce a receipt any time I made a purchase regardless of whether I was working or not. Since I was off the clock and the purchase was made off the clock and was not going to be working, the employee rules did not apply.Sears threatened to asked for a judicial review, but one of their lawyers got smart and advised them to hire me back and offer me back pay. To which I politely said, I’ll take the money you take the job and stick it!

  47. Lucky225 says:
  48. fuceefacee says:

    Yawn!

    Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, I know my rights!

  49. Buddha says:

    Seriously, stop thinking your a badass and just show your receipt, it takes like 30 seconds. Idiots.

  50. livingthedreamrtw says:

    I haven’t had to deal with stupid receipt checkers just yet. I’d imagine that if I did, my main response would be “did you not just see me go through the cash register to pay for my items?” ‘Cause you know, I’m going to steal that $3 deodorant when I am spending $150 in groceries.

  51. wimom says:

    I want to thank this guy for standing up for all of us.

    Sure it is faster and easier to just show the receipt but that just lets the store win and we lose our liberties. We are losing them daily at the airport and now at Walmart. Prior to reading the Consumerist, I would have been a lamb and showed my receipt with a smile and a “have a nice day.” Now I would not. It is a small gesture but we have to stand up for what is right and for our rights. It seems small, but it is not. Thank you to all of you who have the courage to stand up for our freedoms—that is a great Christmas gift to us all. Happy holidays!

  52. markmark says:

    Bottom line…if you don’t like it..don’t go to Wal-Mart. Enough folks stop going, and maybe they’ll realize it isn’t good customer service. We used to spend $8k/year there, no more, we rarely go there.
    The other thing that bugs me is that they have now put all their razor refills in security packages. So, after you pay, you then have to wait in line for customer service to open them, ha.
    Of course, some of you don’t have a choice other than to go to Wal-Mart. So, you can live with it, or go back to supporting your local businesses and pay the extra .50 cents to a dollar for those items.

  53. lifeat24fps says:

    “…we do ask to ensure our merchandise is paid for…”

    Hmmm, that’s different. The standard response to these incidents always seems to be that receipt checking is done to ensure everything was bagged and the right price was charged or whatever.

  54. not-gonna-tell-ya says:

    I think people reading the comments know that I’m totally against the check, but I’m wondering if another way of protest would be to provide the receipt, but ensure that the greeter goes line by line checking the items in my bag and also verifying the prices I paid for them was accurate. A few people at each store would sufficiently suck ALL of the greeters time doing an actual check instead of a cursory useless check.

    I mean am I a dick if I ask them to actually do a check as they are required to do per their policy?

  55. PupJet says:

    I can see Walmart (or any other store) adding full body scanners next because people feel ‘harassed’ by showing a piece of paper. I’ve always shown my receipt and never had any reason not to. Why should I care if they see what I’ve bought?

    I can very much so understand it if you have a big ticket item that isn’t in a bag (such as a TV or the like). I had to do it when I worked for KMart (they made each associate stand at the door for an hour to do that, it sucked btw). But the difference is that unless it’s not in a bag (ie – comforter set, tv, and the like) then we had to check it. Most people were willing because it’s understandable.

    Also, they checkers do have a right to search when it sets off their alarm system. Generally it means 1 of 2 things:

    1. Item has been paid for but the tag not deactivated due to stupidity of the cashier (*sigh*)
    2. Shoplifting.

    Once that alarm system goes off, it’s an automatic right to search based on reasonable suspicion.

  56. spamtasticus says:

    In Florida you can record anyone that has no expectation of privacy. This lands squarely in that regards. What is unusual about recording in Florida is that if there is an expectation of privacy, both parties must know they are being recorded. Say in a phone conversation. In most states only one of the two parties has to know. In other words, you would be allowed to record all your own phone conversations even if the other person does not know you are doing so. A third person on the line that the others are now aware of could not, however, record the conversation.

  57. Rhinoguy says:

    Just go ahead and be a sissy and yield to the bullies! Didn’t they teach this LEO that the dork with authority is Always to be obeyed, especially when the authority is not justified? Come on now, twelve years of zero tolerance preaching in government schools didn’t teach him anything?
    Look up the word facetious.

  58. nocturnaljames says:

    This problem easily avoided by not shopping at Walmart.

  59. xmarc says:

    Best solution= Stay out of Walmart as I do.

  60. The Lone Gunman says:

    Every time I see this kind of story, I am reminded of a phrase that I came across a few years back: “Violate, then Litigate.”

    You can’t beat the violation you experience, and when you attempt legal redress, the ones with the deep pockets will keep the case going until you run out of money to pursue it.

    As to the deputies in this instance, he’s lucky they didn’t arrest him for either ‘disturbing the peace’ and/or ‘disorderly conduct’. While he may beat the rap, he won’t beat the ride.

  61. arizonaadam says:

    The “security” officer should be disarmed immediately and permanently. People who can’t control their emotions should not be cops.

  62. blink says:

    I don’t get it; not showing your receipt isn’t exactly a political statement. We don’t have WalMart where I live, but in other stores, I hold my receipt up as I’m walking out the door… never a hassle. I don’t feel inconvenienced or dissed because I’m doing it. Basically people who refuse to show their receipt are working hard to be a pain in the a*s and to make another working person’s life difficult.

  63. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    Surely someone in upper management at Walmart has seen what has been post after post after post about people being harassed about receipts from receipt checkers. They obviously know about the problem, yet they do nothing about it. This is the reason that I will never step foot in Walmart (or Best Buy) again. It’s sad that a company doesn’t care about losing customers and just keeps up illegal practices like allowing customers to be harassed and detained for refusing to show a receipt.

  64. Jeff C says:

    Over the years, I’ve seen a bunch of these stories about WalMart, but I’ve never seen any about Fry’s. Is there some difference between Fry’s and WalMart?

  65. Dollie says:

    Walmart could put an end to this by better store design: putting all of their merchandise and services on the other side of the register. They have too much product between the register and the door. Apparently they feel the need to check receipts in case you stole that 65lb bag of dog food in the 35 feet you walked to the door after checking out. If I venture out to Walmart anytime soon, I’ll probably find myself refusing to show my receipt as well.

  66. criticalmass says:

    Another receipt check at the door! Ok so people would rather defend their pride and not admit to any wrong doing. He’s focused on his rights, but doesn’t communicate other than he won’t present the reciept. He has been victimized in the past and has not yet learned to resolve his anger and has become the victimizer and is looking for a cause, and in this case has refused to show his receipt even though the alarm went off. He will leave Walmart and inevitably find yet another cause, maybe get a bit of road rage out his system, or tailgating with high beams on.

  67. cynthia K says:

    first of all, Walmart shouldn’t have done away with shopping bags. they added the reusable shopping bags as an additonal purchase to the already paid for merchandise bought. This is just another ploy for them to gain more money that goes into the owners/executive accounts and not as employee incentive on how many reusable bags an employee can sell.
    if their policy is for the consumer to show their purchase receipts, then set up a bulletin board near the first exit door and have someone stand there just like they do at Costco. i shop at my local Walmart since they are the closest to my home, i bring my own bags but they do not give me my 5 cents credit per bag (shame on you Walmart, other stores give credit for bring your own shopping bags) and I always have my receipt ready for their inspection. i just do not want to be hassled and shamed by their system. beat them at their own game, win win.

  68. Rhinoguy says:

    I have heard that receipt checking “stops shoplifting and thus keeps prices lower for all of us”. Well I just did a search of Google and Bing and couldn’t turn up any study that confirms that hypothesis! And the “common sense” argument is pretty meaningless here. Wally World is going to lower prices if shoplifting drops? More likely they will spread shareholder profits. Not saying that’s bad, just saying it’s likely true.
    In the real world retailers know pretty accurately how much stuff will be stolen each year and set prices accordingly. This includes employee theft.
    I suspect that if all retailers stopped every customer every time they left a store and checked every receipt it wouldn’t make a nickel’s worth of difference to their bottom line. The checkers are just to remind you who is boss in the big box. Security theater.

  69. stripedmonkey says:

    I really get sick of hearing this crap, about people bitching because they want to see your receipt. YOU CHOOSE TO SHOP THERE. If that is there policy (at some places, not all) then isn’t it some kind of “implied agreement” of you shopping there? here’s a thought, if you don’t like they’re policy then don’t shop there!!! people PAY to have memberships at places that do this very same thing! While it is wrong of them to detain you, give the poor guy at the door a break, if your going to shop there they have policies!

  70. jp7570-1 says:

    If Consumerist has not done so in the past, please post a downloadable PDF that we can print that has all the legal language necessary to state the receipt checking is not allowed. If necessary, the PDF can link to individual state sites for further customization.

    I would carry such a printout in my wallet or keep one in my car if I ever feel the need to shop at Walmart. (I feel that need less and less each time I read one of these stories.)

    As you probably know, other big box stores also have this practice, including Sam’s Club (Walmart’s sister store), competitor Costco, and Best Buy, for starters.

  71. edrebber says:

    Demand that Walmart produce a receipt for the merchandise they just sold you.

    “It’s not our goal to inconvenience Walmart, just under certain circumstances we do ask to ensure the merchandise we purchase is paid for and it shouldn’t take all that long.”