Customer refuses to show receipt when exiting Tigerdirect store

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112
Some of the Fry's stores in the Bay Area don't even check the receipt to see if it matches the merchandise in the bag. They just blindly mark the receipt with the pink hi-lighter. So stupid.

yeah teh sams club i hit is the same way. the guy looks at the car and runs a line through it.

 

[Phokus]

IANAL, but i worked for Microcenter for a couple years and we had to sit through training on shoplifting. Our security guys weren't allowed to detain anyone unless they had reasonable evidence of suspected shoplifting. I'm pretty sure detaining someone who 'doesn't show his/her receipt' without any reasonable suspicion of shoplifting is illegal.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112
Some of the Fry's stores in the Bay Area don't even check the receipt to see if it matches the merchandise in the bag. They just blindly mark the receipt with the pink hi-lighter. So stupid.

Actually that is one of the more usefull things they do, prevents receipt re-use.

 

[Syrch]

to those that say, "it amazes me how some give up their rights for convenience". Well let me say my peace on that. If you are really that disturbed by it give the guy the receipt and then call the companies headquarters. Why give th minimum wage door guy a hard time. All you are doing at that point is taking your "anger/frustration" out on him and he had no control over the store procedures. Stop being a a$$hat and deal with these things the right way. Making a scene in front of everyone in the store just makes yourself look like a moron. You have no idea how many times this has happened to me and it gets blown out of proportion and the customers behind him just nod their head and the customers stupidity.

Next you guys will be bitching that they write "returned" across the product description on the receipt when you return something.

 

[bsobel]

So while you certainly can hold out and refuse to show your receipt, they can at the same time legally detain you on suspicion of shoplifting until the police arrives to settle the matter.

Vic, refusing doesn't rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. Detaining you as such without that opens them up to criminal and civil penalties (but it would have to be a much more drastic case then the article talked about).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: bsobel

So the store's policy is perfectly legal.

There is nothing 'legal' or 'illegal' about the policy. But in practice they can not legally detain someone without a reasonable suspision of shoplifting. Refusing to show your receipt is not reach the level of reasonale suspicion under the law.

Basically the door checks (sans contractual obligationsin some stores) are voluntary. Since most people don't know that, they just do it.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have any links to laws regarding this that shows that not showing a receipt is not reasonable suspicion?

Of course he doesn't. AFAIK, there aren't any. And even supposing that there was, all security would have to do is make up some story about how they saw the customer stuffing something into their clothing and *poof* the issue becomes moot. And if the police find nothing in a search, then it's "oh, she must have realized we were on to her and ditched the items in some aisle before trying to leave the premises."

So while it might be fun to argue about on the internet, in the real world, "reasonable suspicion" is not exactly a lofty legal barrier.

 

[bsobel]

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have any links to laws regarding this that shows that not showing a receipt is not reasonable suspicion?

Sigh. How about this, show me a law that shows shoppers have to. Or better yet, take a criminal justice class and learn what reasonable suspicion and then probably cause actually mean. Then you will understand.

 

[JohnAn2112]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112
Some of the Fry's stores in the Bay Area don't even check the receipt to see if it matches the merchandise in the bag. They just blindly mark the receipt with the pink hi-lighter. So stupid.

Actually that is one of the more usefull things they do, prevents receipt re-use.

I would think that they'd look in the bag as well to make sure that it matches the receipt. The cashiers could have missed something or there could be something fishy such as employees (cashiers) hooking friends up, etc.

 

[iroast]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
I will only show them my receipt if there is no line. I will not stand in line to pay and then to get out the door. I go around them.

I take it that you don't shop at Costco, BJ's and Sam's Club?

 

[Strk]

I don't think people realize how frequently "customers" will just load crap on carts and walk out. You're not giving up any rights, you're just showing a proof of purchase.

 

[Syrch]

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112
Some of the Fry's stores in the Bay Area don't even check the receipt to see if it matches the merchandise in the bag. They just blindly mark the receipt with the pink hi-lighter. So stupid.

Actually that is one of the more usefull things they do, prevents receipt re-use.

I would think that they'd look in the bag as well to make sure that it matches the receipt. The cashiers could have missed something or there could be something fishy such as employees (cashiers) hooking friends up, etc.

Exactly. The store is trying to protect their profits and their margins. There were a few instances where something wasn't rung out and there were times when it was rung out twice. Once benefits the employee and the other benefits the consumer.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, people, but no right has been infringed here. Your 4th and 5th Amendment rights protect you from the government, NOT private entities (whether individuals or corporations). Any kid in high school should know that.
So the store's policy is perfectly legal. Perhaps more than a bit heavy-handed in this case (although keep in mind we're only hearing one side of the story), but legal.

Eh, what about the law of the land?

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112
Some of the Fry's stores in the Bay Area don't even check the receipt to see if it matches the merchandise in the bag. They just blindly mark the receipt with the pink hi-lighter. So stupid.

Actually that is one of the more usefull things they do, prevents receipt re-use.

Seriously tho,

All it takes is a reasonable POS system to take care of this too.

Unless otherwise marked on the reciept, you can't come back and get an item.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: Phokus
IANAL, but i worked for Microcenter for a couple years and we had to sit through training on shoplifting. Our security guys weren't allowed to detain anyone unless they had reasonable evidence of suspected shoplifting. I'm pretty sure detaining someone who 'doesn't show his/her receipt' without any reasonable suspicion of shoplifting is illegal.

Ok, lets say that it is illegal and they still stop you (as in the OPs link). The cops and AG aren't going to press charges so what is the point?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have any links to laws regarding this that shows that not showing a receipt is not reasonable suspicion?

Sigh. How about this, show me a law that shows shoppers have to. Or better yet, take a criminal justice class and learn what reasonable suspicion and then probably cause actually mean. Then you will understand.

Heh. IIRC, glutenberg is an attorney IRL.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Of course you are innocent until proven guilty, so you show your receipt and bam, no proof of guilt. Big f***in' deal. You guys are such huge nerds.

you try juggling a bag full of whatever with 2 young kids who are sick of standing in line and then having some jackass who watched you walk the 10 feet from the register to his guard post so he knows damn well you didn't put anything in your bag demand to see your receipt. it's a pain in the ass and it's ridiculous in 99% of the cases.

the point is that you can't detain a person anyway. you can ask all you want, but you can't physically stop a person from leaving the store because they won't show you their receipt.

 

[bsobel]

This site sums up the proceedures well:

"Are Door Bag Searches Legal?
Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary"

(Which is what I've stated all along, this is voluntary and you simply have to say no)

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: waggy
as it is they have someoen at the door checking it. As bsobel said they do not have that right. the transaction is over. the goods in the bag are now yours. you do not have to show anyone them.

Sorry, but this is wrong. First, it's not an issue of "rights," yours or the store's. Rights don't even belong in this discussion. Second, the transaction is not over as long as you're still on their property. So while you certainly can hold out and refuse to show your receipt, they can at the same time legally detain you on suspicion of shoplifting until the police arrives to settle the matter.

This isn't opinion here. This is the law. One thing I will note (because I'm not one-sided, I'm actually pro-consumer) is that you don't have to stop if you set off one of those door alarms. Some years back, the courts ruled those too unreliable to provide sufficient grounds for suspicion.

Have you actually ever worked in LP in retail? There is a VERY, VERY strict set of criteria that LP has to observe to be able to make stops and detainments. If they physically restrain you from leaving and they have not followed these procedures, your well within your rights to press illegal detainment (i.e. kidnapping) charges. And that store will be hit with a lawsuit.

Why do you think that it isn't common practice to detain all customers that don't show the receipt, especially on large ticket items?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steve

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, people, but no right has been infringed here. Your 4th and 5th Amendment rights protect you from the government, NOT private entities (whether individuals or corporations). Any kid in high school should know that.
So the store's policy is perfectly legal. Perhaps more than a bit heavy-handed in this case (although keep in mind we're only hearing one side of the story), but legal.

Eh, what about the law of the land?

I'm not following you. That is the law of the land.

Your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the government and the criminal courts, not private entities. Even the civil courts only require a preponderance of the evidence, essentially putting a relatively large burden on the defendant to defend themselves.
If you don't want to deal with receipt checking, then shop somewhere that doesn't require it. Or shop online. Or whatever.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: bsobel

So the store's policy is perfectly legal.

There is nothing 'legal' or 'illegal' about the policy. But in practice they can not legally detain someone without a reasonable suspision of shoplifting. Refusing to show your receipt is not reach the level of reasonale suspicion under the law.

Basically the door checks (sans contractual obligationsin some stores) are voluntary. Since most people don't know that, they just do it.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have any links to laws regarding this that shows that not showing a receipt is not reasonable suspicion?

Of course he doesn't. AFAIK, there aren't any. And even supposing that there was, all security would have to do is make up some story about how they saw the customer stuffing something into their clothing and *poof* the issue becomes moot. And if the police find nothing in a search, then it's "oh, she must have realized we were on to her and ditched the items in some aisle before trying to leave the premises."

So while it might be fun to argue about on the internet, in the real world, "reasonable suspicion" is not exactly a lofty legal barrier.

That false story better be a damn good one, because they typically have to meet the following before making a detainment:

-Witness them enter the area
-Witness them stealing the item
-Have the location of where they hid the item
-Not lose visual contact with the person (could've ditched it)
-See them try to leave without paying

Even if the lawsuit isn't successful, there's going to be a whole lot of bad PR.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steve

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, people, but no right has been infringed here. Your 4th and 5th Amendment rights protect you from the government, NOT private entities (whether individuals or corporations). Any kid in high school should know that.
So the store's policy is perfectly legal. Perhaps more than a bit heavy-handed in this case (although keep in mind we're only hearing one side of the story), but legal.

Eh, what about the law of the land?

I'm not following you. That is the law of the land.

Your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the government and the criminal courts, not private entities. Even the civil courts only require a preponderance of the evidence, essentially putting a relatively large burden on the defendant to defend themselves.
If you don't want to deal with receipt checking, then shop somewhere that doesn't require it. Or shop online. Or whatever.

the law of the land says if they try to detain you that you shoot your way out with your colts.

edit: on second thought maybe that's the law of the wild west.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Have you actually ever worked in LP in retail? There is a VERY, VERY strict set of criteria that LP has to observe to be able to make stops and detainments. If they physically restrain you from leaving and they have not followed these procedures, your well within your rights to press illegal detainment (i.e. kidnapping) charges. And that store will be hit with a lawsuit.

Why do you think that it isn't common practice to detain all customers that don't show the receipt, especially on large ticket items?

Good luck with this. With big ticket items, stores are more concerned about losing the customer for business reasons, not losing in the courts.

Like I keep saying, this is fun to argue about on the internet, but IRL "reasonable suspicion" is not a lofty legal barrier. For example, in this case, Tigerdirect's largest concern is gonna be the court of public opinion, not of law.

edit: doh, wrong store.

 

[randay]

lol @ the people who think its a violation of thier rights to show a receipt.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
Good. he's absolutely right, he didn't have to show them shit.

Exactly

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: bonkers325
what an idiot

Why even post if you are just going to thread crap