Read some of my other posts, you will clearly see that I am no friend of big brother and am a firm believer that social conditioning is real.

That being said, you're talking about a receipt at the store. It's one thing if they simply stopped him and insisted they let him search his body/car/bags/whatever, it's another thing to say "here you go, all is on the up n up, here, thanks." and be on your way.

This is making a mountain out of a mole hill and is, in no way, on no level, the same as the government wiretapping your calls.

Also, the term "sheep" is so played out. You sound ridiculous.

Voyou_Charmant

I just had an experience in a local WalMart where I simply asked the checker why they needed to see my receipt. They immediately (and I mean before answering my question) called for a manager - which I actually appreciated. When I did get an answer, it was "because it is my job". Thankfully he wasn't told by management that his job was to bring a weapon and kill small asian customers ;-)

Anyway, it turned into quite a commotion and one that I didn't expect or desire. I calmly explained that they do not have a right to check any of my things, just as I don't have a right to ask them to empty their pockets. They threatened to write down my license plate number, which I encouraged.

I didn't get into the fact that they were unlawfully detaining me, which probbly would have cause a real mess. The end result was me leaving the store, receipt unchecked.

Honestly, it probably was more work than it was worth, but there are times when we should stand up for our rights... slippery slope and all that.

I do think that WalMart should provide better training to their receipt checkers (which I hope I was able to provide) as they clearly do not know why they are checking receipts nor the legal aspects of the act.

fb1903

If only Rosa Parks just sat where she was supposed to instead of inconveniencing everyone on the bus and then making a federal case out of it - how unthoughtful and inconsiderate of her.
What did she think the big deal was? All se had to do is sit in the back of the bus like she was supposed to. /sarcasm

By the way, what if "store policy" required you to empty all your pockets before leaving the store in order to prove you were not stealing anything - is shouldn't be a problem if you weren't stealing anything - there should be no reason to refuse, right?

what if one out of 100 (or 500, or 1000) had to totally disrobe to prove that they had not hidden anything under their clothes. That should not be a probelm unless you were really guilty. After all we all want to help stores keep their shoplifting and shrinkage costs down.
No one want to contribute to higher prices, do we?

Maybe we should just let the police enter our premises at will to prove that whe have not stolen anything.

Maybe we should let the police/authorities/government examine out computers at will so they can determine that there is nothing illegal contained therein? No problem, right? We're all honest citizens.

Maybe we should let the government get a list of all the books we've checked out ot the library or all the DVD we've rented/purchaed from the DVD store. After all, what have you got to hide?

So everyone that thinks the OP acted wrong or inappropriatly, tell me now, who are you to decide which one of my constitutionally protected rights is trivial enough for me to give up?

Who among you wants to throw out the Constitution?

mikeres

kenviro

girly

ndustire

Go with the flow, don't make waves. That's how I want to live my life.

I refer you to "First they came…" by Pastor Martin Niemöller.

Fairsfair

Your an odd individual who does not consider being outright accused of being a shop lifter to be a grievous offense. I am not talking about the abuse I am talking about the demand to see a receipt.

People have sued for a lot less (slander comes to mind)

In fact I consider a receipt check to be a public offense of slander and defamation even if they do it to everyone (is it no longer murder if I kill everyone?) Your not just calling me a thief your calling me a thief publicly in front of the world.

I will not show a receipt on exit of a store. I do not have memberships at sam's etc.. just for this reason.

Its not about how easy it is to show a receipt its about what is right and wrong and RIGHT is always worth fighting for no matter how small it may seem.

Nerys

"To me it always seemed more like they are checking on their own clerks than the customers ..."

THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT !!! The dishonest cashiers can let their friends pass without paying, or ringing up a $1 pencil when they're carrying out a $2000 TV.

Unfortunately, sometimes, the guards only checks for the presence of a receipt, and scratch a mark on it. Not even looking at what's on the receipt. Somebody should tell them exactly what is it they're actually supposed to be doing, not just the actions they have to go through.

danielkhoo

I think Hreshfull probably has made the most reasoned responses as to why this policy sticks in so many people's craws. I have no issue with a store having this policy. I have no problem refusing to show my receipt. I also have no problem living with the consequences, should they be proportionate, ie., banned from future visits to that establishment.
Personally, I only comply with the receipt check when it is in my best interest or convenient. If I am purchasing something that I may need to return, and know I will not be able to return it without their highlighter mark on the receipt, I will submit to the receipt check. If there is no line and I'm in a good mood and not encumbered by my recently acquired goods, I may submit. If there is a line for the receipt check, or I am carrying an awkward and unwieldy item or items, I will not submit. So far, this has worked quite well for me.

To those saying, "But what about having to show your ticket at the movie to get in?" or other similar things. This is not a similar situation. You exchange money for the ticket as promise of entry. You then exchange the ticket, either by turning it over to the proper employee or simply displaying it to said employee, in exchange for entry to the event or service. You might as well ask, "What about converting your money to Canadian money when you're going to go buy stuff in Canada? Why aren't you bothered by that?" It's the same situation. You are exchanging your federally backed currency for the private currency(the ticket) of the business with which you are transacting.

@Stockholder: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If the debate were about the OP's character, then that would be germane to mention. However, the issue at hand is the voluntary receipt check, and the OP's actions in other aspects of his life have no bearing on this particular instance.

markwm

The extension to the "As long as you live under my roof..." is the phrase "or you can leave." Which makes it a perfectly valid policy. However, if someone declines to follow the policy and you do not allow them to leave, that's the moment that the proprietor has violated the law and is now detaining the customer illegally.

Note that just because it's 'your' house or business doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Your actions must still be [legally] reasonable.

Hreshfull

It was NOT the customer, but the security guard who was the time waster.

Regardless of whether you think one *should* listen to any pseudo-authority figure no matter what the request is, the (undisputed) reality of the situation is that the customer was legally RIGHT, the security guard wrong. A store has no right to enforce a policy that conflicts with the law, even if the customer ultimately does have a choice whether or not to shop there.

If you can truly look at a legal conflict between two people and conclude that one should avoid said conflict by giving up his legal rights, I have a question for you:

Suppose the security guard instead asked to see the contents of your shopping bag. Still not a big deal? Your purse/pockets? Strip search? All of these things are illegal, and I'm sure you would object to some of them, but where do you draw the line? If you don't protect even your most minor rights, you will slowly begin to lose them and before you realize it, the government will be listening to your private telephone conversations and reading your e-mail. (Oh and probably asking you to empty your pockets, pass through a metal detector, etc when you leave your local retail giant).

In the end, if you want to show your receipt when you leave the store, by all means go ahead and do so. But please don't hurl insults at someone trying to defend their legal rights.

rajasika

Ridiculous. "

Perhaps because the store itself CHOSE to violate the law. Law trumps store policy.

NWSPMP

Company policy does not apply to customers. It applies only to those who are actively working on its behalf.

Let's have an illustrative example:

Most stores and restaurants have a company policy that they will deny me service if I do not wear a shirt and shoes while in their establishment.

The company policy defines a situation (inappropriately dressed customer) and then issues a response to it (ask the offender to leave the premises until the situation is resolved. Note that the policy affects the employees' reaction to a situation. A customer can enter without the appropriate attire all they want, but they will be refused service.

Now let's apply that to receipt-checking.

A store can have a policy that states they check receipts upon a customer's exit. That means that their agents or representatives would LIKE to check your receipt as you leave, but their policy is NOT binding upon the customer. They have no control over the individual.

If they wish to deny future service to you for refusing to comply with their desired search, that is also the store's prerogative, as may be dictated in their store policy.

But do you see the difference? Even if the store policy was plastered everywhere in the building, Shaneal purchasing items did not constitute acceptance of any arbitrary store policy.

Hreshfull

1. Don't pity the security guard. He broke the law and had no excuse. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's also illegal for employers to fire employees who refuse to break the law.

2. Don't bitch at the customer for "wasting the time of the police". The security guard is the one who decided to break the law. Police enforce laws. Police have been around for a while and I'm sure they know how to manage schedules and dispatch officers; no rapes will occur because a cop has another call.

3. Private companies don't get the break the law. At Costco you may sign a contract to waive some rights, but you don't waive them just by entering a Tiger Direct. What if their policy was to murder people who didn't show their receipt?

4. The main goal of a business is to make money. If they don't budget for better security that's their own damn fault. You can bitch about "higher prices" but if you want the best prices go shop online or at Sam's Club. You're the paying customer and a business should cater to you; not burden you with an extra wait or treat you as guilty until proven innocent.

5. Stop mindlessly defending the receipt checking system. People have the ability to forge priceless paintings, passports, and U.S. currency. Do you know how much work goes into developing currency that is hard to counterfeit? Yet some idiots are acting like white paper with black toner is the holy grail of security measures.

6. It still doesn't matter what events led up to this incident, fact of the matter is the security guard BROKE THE LAW. The customer wasn't petty for standing up for his rights, and this mess was the guard's fault for breaking the law, end of story.

g64

The OP did nothing illegal, so yes let's throw him in jail for it.

The Walking Eye

And, if I don't follow your rules, the worst you can do is kick me off your property. You are not allowed to use force against me. If you do use force against me, you've just broken the law.

I would have been happy if TD said "show your receipt or leave our store, and you are no longer welcome back." That isn't what happened. It was "show your receipt or you can't leave," which is illegal for many reasons. Basically, the only time one private citizen is allowed to use force against another is if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime. The TD guard had no grounds, and thus can't legally use force.

smanek

As a frequent shopper at this particular store, and as someone who has shown his receipt many times all I have to say is...Shaneal, you won't be missed. I'll be spending $1000 next week on a new laptop. I will be purchasing it from this store. I will be thanking them for practicing good theft protection.

Stockholder

smanek

There are NO privacy issues that allow you to ignore MY rules. My rules are posted. The rules are for the good of my business and to protect the interests of my customers. You have choosen to enter the store, therefore you have agreed to my rules.

The OP should be doing jail time.

StevieD

zendik

smanek

he was denided of freely leave the store, the first time. he came back even when was adviced by the officer not to return if was not willing to follow the unwritten but now known policy.

if the update is true and what the manager is saying is true, no judge will take this matter serious, because he recurrently and knowingly of the policy, came back for more.

This is a civil rights issue, and it seems, an abuse of his part as well.

dysthymia

phogasmic

malcolm melton said:

I DONT KNOW WHAT THE SITSUATION IS BUT I HOPE HULK HOGAN DOES GET DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND KIDS ARE FUCKING BITCHS AND WOULD HAVE NOTHING IF HULK HOGAN NEVER WERSTLED ALL THEY DO IS TALK SHIT ABOUT WERSTLEING WHEN WERSLING GAVE THEM ALL THEY HAVE KNOW
June 29th, 2007 @ 11:21 pm

at this point i have more pity for the security guard than the guy he illegally detained.

icewater

mhii

It's called Habeas Corpus. Unless the evidence of wrongdoing is presented, you have the right (yes, a right!) to walk away/out and if anyone restrains you without being able to produce the proof of legal justification for physical restraint, they've broken the law and you have a right to damages and penalties, civil and criminal.

Simply breaking a law, BTW, isn't justification for physical restraint unless there is a specific law defining how and when restraint is allowed - which is why police can do certain things that rent-a-cops and average citizens are not allowed to, like engaging in high-speed pursuits.

Habeas Corpus is the most basic part of common law dating back to 1306 (700 years old!). Common law is the basis of all US, UK and Commonwealth law.

TickedOff

That's pretty typical of Securitas to give you the cold shoulder like that supervisor did. They will not tell you anything that may be incriminating. They want to keep as neutral ground as possible.

Hope it all works out for you. I'd like to see Securitas go down. They are a no good company.

bleachlizard

BUT:
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (punctuation omitted). See this.

Whoa

Aboyd, it's because the vast majority of posters who have criticized the OP and explained why have said that they agree that the detainment was inexcusable. The policy of asking to see a receipt, however, is far from illegal. If you disagree, please cite whatever statute makes it so. And no, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not prevent a store from asking to see your receipt. If it was that simple law schools would not pay Con Law professors to teach.

Whoa

You ask, "Who says it's voluntary?"

The 4th amendment of the US Constitution gives us freedom from unreasonable searches:

[www.law.cornell.edu]

Some will say that only applies to the government, and others may detain at will. However, I don't buy that, first of all. But second of all, even if it's true, there are additional laws on the books, such as "false imprisonment" which specifically calls out using intimidation tactics to block someone's movement:

[www.answers.com]

If it were me, I would have done the same thing as this article describes (refused to give my receipt or allow a search of my shopping bags). However, I would have concluded my business differently. I would have turned around, gone back to the register, and told the cashier to issue a refund. I have no intention of contributing to the salary of an employee who calls me a thief.

aboyd

Are you kidding? You really wonder "Why are we expected to show sympathy to someone who CHOSE TO violate a store's policy?"

REALLY? Are you that dim?

What if the store's policy is that they require your driver's license to be shown, too? It's store policy, right? What if the policy is to fingerprint customers as they leave the store? It's a policy, so we should just go along with it? Even if it's illegal? Even if they're taking photos & posting them online? Even if they're insisting that only white people can shop there (ooohh -- actual historical example)? Even if the policy hurts us, slanders us, makes us late getting back from a work lunch break, and so on?

I would ask the opposite of your question: Why is anyone showing sympathy for a STORE that CHOSE to enact a store policy that violates the LAW?

aboyd

cde

bombaxstar

pinkbunnyslippers

In a really big store, employees really can't see where everyone is or what they're doing, and lots of things -do- get stolen; including particularly big, expensive items just wheeled out the door when nobody is looking. Do you promote that? Of course not. Can you come up with a better solution than making sure folks have receipts when leaving with a cartful of goods?

I think attitudes at the door need to change on both sides. Retailers should surely consider not pestering every single person who walks 5 feet from the register to the door with a receipt check. But you know what? If you get asked, maybe the guard didn't see you go through line with that air conditioner or big screen or whatever. Humor them. Ask for help if it's a big item you're holding and you don't have your receipt handy. Retailers are asking a favor of you - don't be a dick if you don't want them being a dick back.

As an aside, I'll admit to having waltzed past receipt checks before when the line was huge or the 90 year old wallyworld receipt person is taking their geritol-loving time.

(Also, I'm not a retailer or executive, nor do I have pecuniary interest in the matter whatsoever. just a consumer interested in rights, and not sure how i feel about situations like this yet.)

glater

"Am I the only one who noticed the tone of "entitlement" to the email? Maybe if the customer was a bit more corporative and a little less snotty, the situation wouldn't have gotten out of hand in the first place."

...best typo ever

Mockingbirdq

Good. Corporations need to wake up to the fact that we're not all pliant little sheep.

sifr

It's ALWAYS easier to go along with unreasonable intrusions than to fight them. So what?

When I was a boy, we were in a "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. One of the reasons given to kids in school for that "war" was that the Russians spied on their citizens; a country that didn't trust its own people was an EVIL country. We're rapidly turning into the same kind of nation.

My question: Why was it "evil" for the Soviet Union to act like that but RIGHT for US to do it?

My suggestion for this customer: Contact the ACLU to see if they will take the case.

crankymediaguy

- The nazis, too, were "just doing their jobs".

- Policy is overhead. Customer satisfaction is pure profit.

- A (movie, train, bus, plane, boat, theater, circus, meal) ticket is not a receipt, but proof of payment for goods/services TO BE received.

- Freedoms wears down only when you don't use them.

Jean Naimard

killavanilla

The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is the very foundation of our Western civilization!

Allowing a private entity (a store) to violate the basic principles of our civilization is totally unacceptable. The fact that many sheep will allow such raping of their unalienable rights is particularly worrysome, given that when civil rights are being eradicated, it's a litte bit by little bit.

Today, you have to have your receipt checked. Tomorrow, you'll have to be strip-searched whenever you leave a store, and god knows what will be demanded next week!!!!

Jean Naimard

Preventing someone from leaving is called detaining them.

Grabbing them is called "battery".

sifr

Please stop responding if you aren't going to read what the OP is saying in his comments. He says he has no problem being ASKED to show his receipt. He never said he didn't have a problem with showing his receipt. See the important word you keep dropping off? Being ASKED to show his receipt is the entire point. Stop distorting what has been said. Also, if you would have read the comments, the OP explains why he didn't want to show the receipt. On a previous visit, the security person in question was rude to the OP. Since the security person was rude before, the OP didn't feel like being nice to him on the visit in question.

rwakelan

That's a perfectly reasonable policy put in place for loss prevention purposes. Normally, honest customers wouldn't refuse something as quick and easy as allowing the security guard to verify that they actually bought the items that they're leaving with by taking a quick look over the receipt and said items.

You want to talk about rights? How are honest shopkeepers supposed to protect their property if they have charges pushed against them every time they take reasonable measures like these to make sure that shoplifters are caught and arrested? They should have the right to protect their inventory.

I'm glad that nobody was willing to take your case. Neither the security guard nor the company did anything wrong, and it would be an injustice if you managed to exploit the law to steal money from that company.

shadow_Hiei

Most people who steal are not going to hide it in the bag anyways.

The manager was wrong in the way he acted toward the customer. They didn't detain this person they just simply blocked the customers way of getting out. the customer should have tried to get out and let them then grab him and then it would be a case. Getting evidence will be hard. Did this person get phone numbers from witnesses? The video cameras, most of them only record a day or two of video and then record over that, so I bet there is no evidence of what happened. it'll be the customers word against the store employees word.

This person should have gone to the local newsstation and maybe they could have done a story on it. Most newsstations have a consumer help thing. Where they air the persons experience and they try to help out anyway they can.

jrdnjstn78

zippyglue

joulesm

you missed my point entirely. I was arguing AGAINST the "you should consent if you've got nothing to hide" position.

Perhaps you should read back through the discussion.

sifr

paying for gas and then receiving that gas is a far cry from paying for something and then being treated like a thief.

i guess you don't mind not being trusted. or maybe you are untrustworthy to begin with and had the experience of someone trusting you.

ikes

My PDA was stolen last year. You don't mind if I search you to see if you have it do you? Come on. Let's meet somewhere so I can search you and your car and house.... After all, you have nothing to hide. I'll bring the rubber gloves. BTW, I am going to search you every time something goes missing.

Get it now?

jwissick

Everyone, not just consumers, are entitled to these rights. And those rights may only be abridged in very specific circumstances. This wasn't one of them.

sifr

ViperX

But man oh man! The satisfaction index way off the chart. It's immediate, doesn't tie up the court system and you walk away with problem solved.

Next!

TheMadCow

I understand your rights as consumer, I also understand the stores policy against shoplifting. I even understand the frustration of both parts, you and the store people, and I bet nobody wanted to spend the time having all this happening that day. I bet the cop left the store thinking that could have something better to do than spending time on this issue.

it is a matter of consumer rights vs. policy implementation. If you have the time, money and health to deal with this, I applaud your effort and wish you luck. Hopefully the judge does not find this issue as ridiculous and a waste of time like the rest of us.

dysthymia

First of all, decided to make a purchase from a private company on private property. When making a purchase from a company you are creating a legal "this for that" contract. They agreed to provide you with a product for a price and under certain conditions often referred to as "Terms Of Service".

These "Terms of Service" are responsible for your ability to purchase or return a product. These are often not published on the door, and it is impossible to fit them on the back of a receipt. These policies often can be available at the request of the customer in some form or another expressed or implied.

You are not obligated to make a purchase, but making a purchase binds you as the consumer to these policies.

A receipt check is not so much to cause a problem for the customer, but a check and balance for the clerk. Most often clerks don't ring up all products for friends and family and without a receipt check a company would stand to lose millions.

What the manager and guard did was unreal and I would stand to be very upset. However, try to remove head from said ass and look at the big picture, not just what makes you happy at that very moment.

We don't do it to upset you, we do it to control the cost of doing business. Just show your receipt and move on. It's not like you were guilty of something... right?

ViperX

Remember to be calm, be polite, and be prepared to defend your choice with facts.

And take careful note of the disproportionate behavior you'll encounter. Also take careful note of how you're treated.

Remember: you've done nothing wrong, you've done nothing that constitutes reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You've just legally declined to consent to a voluntary search.

Then come back here and continue claiming that the OP isn't telling the whole story, or must be lying, or must have stolen something, or is just making it all up.

The thing about tinpot dictators, even when their realm only extends as far as the store exit, is that they get unreasonably lathered up when you refuse to submit to their every whim. And never forget the fact that it is indeed their whim, not the law, to which they're trying to force you to submit.

sifr

The reason the Securitas folks are hemming and hawing is because they know their guard screwed the pooch.

Real shoplifters will not hesitate to sue for $50k+ when some guard loses sight of them for a minute and cannot prove that the shoplift had actually happened.

An actual case of gigging an innocent person should cost them plenty.

kbarrett

If you choose not to show the receipt and the store finds fault with that it is THEIR right to ban you from their private property. Violating store policy is not the same thing as breaking the law but banning you from the premises is not violating your rights in any way. You do not have a right to shop there.

I offer this analogy: What if the store asked you to see your car keys before leaving the store? Obviously this is none of their business. Neither is the receipt, since it is not theirs and they have no right to read it. But if stores started banning customers for not flashing their car keys on the way out we could expect that store to fail, and quickly.

We can hope the same would happen to a receipt-requiring store, if only more people knew their rights.

Trykt

The Walking Eye

The main purpose for it was to make sure that everything leaving the store had been properly paid for. As anyone who has shopped with kids can attest, it is easy to get distracted and forget to place something on the checkout counter. So many times people would leave the register and walk out of the store with something they had not paid for. I realize they are not trying to conciously steal something from the store but the result is the same.

I hated doing receipt checks because I knew how much people hated being inconveinenced so I was always polite and never forced anyone to comply. But it did get results. If I found something that was in their cart that had not been purchased I would give them the option of paying for the item or leaving it with me. I also explained that we understood that these things happen and that I was in no way trying to accuse them of theft. If they decided to purchase it I would escort them to the nearest register with no line and have the cashier ring it up for them. We had to log all of these incidents and I personally "recovered" over a thousand dollars of merchandise in a year through receipt checks alone.

It sounds as though TigerDirects policy was different from ours since we would only check receipts for items that had not been bagged. Most of the things I would see would be items that had been placed under a cart that had then been honestly forgotten while the person was checking out. But there were exceptions to this. One guy, who was friends with a cashier, was buying a $2000 big screen TV when I asked for his receipt it showed that he had just purchased a $100 model. After checking video we saw that he had cut the UPC off the cheaper model and then handed that to his friend when he got to the register. Him and the cashier were charged and the cashier was of course fired.

In my store it was against policy to block or restrain a customer unless you had them dead to rights as a shoplifter. Meaning you had personally seen them take something from the shelf, conceal it, and then attempt to walk out of the store. If I had treated a customer like this guy did my manager would have fired me on the spot.

Finally, to those of you who are saying "just show the receipt if you have nothing to hide" I don't agree with this attitude either. The security guard has the right to make the request, and the customer has the right to tell them to stick it. At that point the guard can either be a jerk, or realize that they have been called out, suck it up and go about their day. Forcing the issue is childish.

dadelus

louballs

You fail. Showing ID is required by law.

Consenting to a voluntary search is not.

sifr

For some of you, there is no need to draw the line if you can get lower price (and corporation keep greater corporate profit?) . For some of us, the line stops at checking the receipt. The law is on our side, not yours.

This analogy can be taken further - why not just let the government listen in on your calls and check your mail and e-mail? You have nothing to hide right?

Interesting

STAPLE THE BAGS AT CHECKOUT.

Jeez.

soulbarn

It's like saying you shouldn't have to show your ID when buying alchohol "because they should trust that, because I am a paying customer, I have the right not to show that information. They should trust me!" (I won't even go into how you have more information on your driver's license than would be on that receipt, and you show that to any convenience store clerk or bouncer who asks to see it.) (Oh wait... I did go into that.)

The obvious solution, if you feel that your rights have been violated when someone dares to ask to see your receipt, is this:

1. Don't show them your receipt.
2. Stay in the store and return whatever you purchased.
3. Never shop there again.

I think that's pretty simple, don't you?

Me? I'll just show them the receipt.

AimeeGee

kareneliot

Most of the time, I just keep walking -- if they want to get in my way, I have no problem giving them a shoulder and putting their ass on the pavement.

SixFour350

sifr

[josebueno.blogspot.com]

JoseBueno

"I'm leaving this store, if you physically prevent me from doing so. I warn you that I will defend my rights not to be restrained or imprisoned unlawfully. If that means I have to grab you by the head and -throw- you from where you stand to the far side of this lobby, so ****ing help me, I will."

At this point, I would do so...

Now, its probably necessary to mention that I'm 6'4" and built like a russian circus bear. This wouldn't sound so hot coming from someone who's 5'10" and 140lbs.

Its also necessary to state that I'm up in Canada, and they treat your rights and freedoms very seriously up here. (I still remember a landmark case we learned about in law where a police officer decided to search someone's truck without permission or material reason, and after climbing into the back to go through the guy's things, he took a baseball bat to the backs of the knees, and toppled off the truck in a broken heap... Charges were pressed, then immediately dropped)...

But given all the crap I've seen in the US media with the government basically shoving the constitution up their own ass, I doubt you'd get away with tossing someone across the room while defending your rights against unlawful imprisonment...

It would make it a much more memorable story, but jail sucks...

KIRZEN2007

You do realize that drawing lines and evaluating situations on a case by case basis is the right way to live your life? You can say "I'm okay with paying $5 for a cheeseburger, but not $6!" Because that's the way reasonable adults are supposed to be.

I draw the line after receipt checks (because really, who cares? There's no slippery slope there, because they don't even look at the receipt) and before personal searches, because that would be an invasion of privacy.

To people saying asking for the receipt is accusing the customer of shoplifting, if they do it to everyone, or a random sample, or only if you set off the alarm, then you couldn't win a slander case in court with that. The behavior is not them saying you shoplifted. It's them saying "shoplifters watch out! See what we're doing to EVERYBODY?" So congrats, you're being declared a customer.

And lastly, do you know how many times retail employees and people who work in customer service hear "This is against my rights! This is illegal!" Almost every single time, the customer is in the wrong, what they're doing is not illegal, and nothing untoward is happening. The employees should have been nice to this guy, but they had no reason to believe a word he said, and their only fault and problem is that they were rude in response.

And I don't believe this account happened remotely as written. They never do.

Meiran

EdwardLund

louballs

How much crack do you smoke before posting?

sifr

djdanska

They do not have a legal right to stop, detain, or keep you from leaving the premises once you have bought their products.

I too refuse to stop and let them look at my receipt - and I too would have gone this far.

My advice to you though... you should have filed a police report there and then, as now you don't have much to prove upon the neglect of the store's loss prevention people with a case to your State Attorney General's office.

Stand up for your rights - or remain the lemmings you are.

Britblogger

EdwardLund

wcforeman

Keep fighting the good fight!

browse

chrispiss

Just doing your job requires verbal abuse and unlawful detainment? I think that job description needs to be modified.

And to comment on the story as a whole.

I don't have to show my receipt unless they have cause. What if the guard were telling the women to open their purses for inspection? What if he were telling you to empty your pockets? It's a private store and you have to abide by their policies? I have heard that most theft in stores comes from employees btw, not customers.

Tonguetied

But we'll still keep fighting to protect those rights, so the mouth-breathers can continue taking them for granted.

sifr

Michael

I'm sure you don't mind AT&T eavesdropping on all your conversations, and Comcast monitoring all your Internet traffic; after all, if you're innocent, surely you have nothing to hide! Your entire life should be a totally open book, so people who know what's best for you can make sure you're never doing anything that might be construed as illegal! We'd also modify the Miranda clause to say "You have the right to remain silent; however, such silence will be construed as a sign of guilt."

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't magically disappear when you've entered a store, and if you're willing to sacrifice that for a little convenience, you're a sheep and deserve the intrusive, patronizing, paranoid, closed-circuit-television world you'll get. And those of us who actually believe in outdated concepts like individual liberty will suffer for it.

gregly

Michael

No, his job is specifically to check the receipts. The store employs loss prevention specialists whose job it is to watch for shoplifting. If the act is not observed, or behavior observed that strongly suggests the act is taking place, they cannot detain you. They cannot search you.

sifr

SadSam

HeartBurnKid

Good for you, fight the power!

SadSam

What if I stopped someone randomly on the street and asked to see their wallet, to make sure they hadn't stolen my wallet? I have every right to make the request, and they have every right to refuse. Their refusal to comply doesn't constitute grounds for reasonable belief.

Again, I don't care about being asked, slandered, or even banned. The only thing that bothers me is that I was forcibly and unlawfully restrained. The only time a store is allowed to do that is if they have reasonable grounds to believe I broke the law. They had no such grounds, thus they are not allowed to use force against me.

To put it more formally:
1. A store can only legally detain a customer when they have reasonable grounds to suspect shoplifting.
2. The store did no have reasonable grounds to suspect shoplifting (may courts have agreed refusal to consent to a voluntary search does not constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion).
3. I was detained.
4. Therefore, that Detention/restraint was unlawful.
Q.e.d.

Hope that helps, and thanks for all the support,
Shaneal

smanek

Louballs,

No, I dont mind when the usher at a movie theater asks for my ticket on the way in.

Now, what if he asks for it on the way out and then wont let me leave the theater when I don't or cannot produce it for him?

cptpez

And, yes - that is what it is - it is a search. The store wants to search your bag or your cart.

The law in most states is clear. A store has a "shop-keepers" privilege allowing the store to reasonably detain a person they reasonably suspect of shoplifting until the police arrive.

Stores have unilaterally attempted to expand on this very limited right and now impose a search on every person leaving the store.

Can they ask you for the recipt? Sure - they can ask for anything.

The key question is - what can the store do if you refuse? The answer is nothing - unless they have some other reason to suspect that you shoplifted - your denial of their request is NOT a reasonable basis. The store simply cannot detain you and the moment they do - they are falsely imprisioning you.

Of course the store is free to bar you from entrance to the store in the future, but they cannot detain you.

I am amazed that the majority of posters think that the unreasonable person here is the original poster. You are all lambs, and the Store is counting on your docile nature.

What if the store decided that they wanted to look in your car trunk before you left the parking lot?

What if they wanted you to turn out your pockets?

What if they wanted to look in your purse?

I beleive you would all agree that that would be too much - but it is not that far removed from forcing (yes forcing) people to submit to a search of their cart or bag before being permitted to exit the store.

We are not talking about the government or the police searching you here - we are talking about another "citizen" stopping and searching you.

I say take them to court for false imprisonment and defamation - and represent yourself if necessary.

cptpez

louballs

bravo369

The reason I am so offended is that I was forcibly detained. I have no problem with being asked to show a receipt. I also have no problem with being told to leave and not come back if I refuse. Honestly, I don't particularly care about the slander either, i doubt more than 2-3 people heard it. My problem is that they used force against me for not following a store policy, even though I broke no law.

If I had shoplifted, or if they even had reasonable grounds to suspect I did, they can legally detain me. However, many courts have ruled that refusing to show a receipt does NOT constitute reasonable grounds to suspect shoplifting.

Also, as I stated before, I am an Indian Male (born in Illinois though) and the guard was white. I have no reason to believe this had anything to do with race though, since TigerDirect asks everyone to show a receipt (yet another reason I know they had no reasonable grounds to suspect shoplifting).

I also did not steal anything, I have both receipts for all three items. But think about it logically: The officer ordere