Having your receipt checked at the door: police involvement?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Been doing some reading at The Consumerist about customers' interactions at stores where they double-check your receipt as you're walking out the door. What I've gathered so far (applies only here in the US):

 

• There is no law that requires you to show your receipt at the door. Once you've paid for the item, it's yours, and you don't have to prove to anyone that you paid for it.
   
  
• Store personnel cannot legally detain you for simply refusing to show your receipt. They can only detain you if they have reasonable suspicion that you are shoplifting (i.e. they saw you take something, or you look pregnant now but didn't when you came in), and even then, they can only detain you until the police show up; they can't legally grill you in the back room for an hour without calling the police. If they don't have any reasonable suspicion that you stole something, and they grab your arm or block your egress simply because you are refusing to produce a receipt, they are inviting legal trouble for themselves.
   
  
• If you refuse to show your receipt, the store may ban you permanently from the premises if they so choose. (Whereas "race" or "religion" is a protected class, "ornery customers who refuse to show their receipt at the door" is not.)
   
  
• If it's a membership store (Sam's club, Costco, etc.), showing your receipt at the door may be a term of membership that you agreed to when you signed up, and that membership may be revoked if you refuse to comply.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm curious about what happens when law enforcement personnel insert themselves in this whole receipt-checking process, and what the consequences could be depending on how the customer responds to the situation. Here are two specific real-world cases.

 

Case #1:

A customer leaves Best Buy without showing a receipt at the door. A sheriff's deputy chases him down, and officially threatens to take him to jail if he doesn't go back and show his receipt at the door. After some tense discussion the deputy takes the receipt and goes back to the store with it. After returning the receipt to the customer, the officer refuses to ID himself to the customer.

 

Case #2:

Similar situation at Home Depot. A customer refused to show receipt at the exit door, and a police officer who happened to be right there stopped him and insisted that the customer follow store policy and show his receipt. Customer is fearful of the consequences of disobeying a direct order from a police officer and complies. Asks officer for clarification on the reason for all of this, and the officer simply walks away. Customer filed a formal complaint with the police department.

 

In my non-lawyerly opinion, the officers in both cases were exceeding their legal authority. However, given that they have tazers, guns, and handcuffs, and I wouldn't want to spend a night in jail (justly or unjustly), I probably would have complied, too. In the first case there was an explicit threat of arrest, but what could the charge have been? Likewise, could the Home Depot customer have been arrested for refusing to show a receipt?

 

What would you do in either situation?

[beemerman2k]

Way back in 2001, I almost got into a physical altercation with door security at the New York Motorcycle Show in the Javitz Center. I spent the day in the show, collecting all the freebie handouts and purchased goods into a big bag (tee-shirts, magazines, stickers, etc). As I left, security asked me for receits for everything in the bag that I had purchased. I told him that:

 

1) there ought to be signage so that people like me will know to put purchased goods in one bag, and freebies in another. This way, it would be trivial to meet the demand and

 

2) Given that I am totally unprepared to meet said request, I am not even going to bother trying

 

At that point, one of the guards, a huge approx 6'5" man, walked up to me as though ready to physically assult me. I warned him to stand down and that this would not turn out well for him (he might have won the fight, but he would have lost the war for sure). I noticed a man standing nearby who seemed to be a manager of some sort, so I called him over. He diffused the situation and moved the aggressive guard to a post where he wouldn't interact with people at the show.

 

People get real stupid when they get some rules and what appears to be a little bit of authority. They don't pause to ask themselves, "is what I am doing, presuming a person to be guilty until proven innocent, the right thing to do?", "would I appreciate the same treatment directed at me or my family?" People don't ask themselves such questions. They are just excited that they have been authorized to weild some authority over another. I suppose we often see this same phenomenon at work with LEO's and with airport security as well.

 

Kinda thought provoking if you ask me.

[randys]

It is an irritant, but mostly only when there is a line of people trying to get out, and one old grandma that cant see through her glasses trying to read the reciept.

 

It is another example of security theater really, after I have put all the stuff in boxes, they cant see 3/4ths of the stuff on the list anyway.

[motorman587]

Really?? Is this what you think about on your down time........lol

 

Show your receipt and drive on. What is the charge, nothing.........Good cops know this is house policy and can not be enforced.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Show your receipt and drive on. What is the charge, nothing.........Good cops know this is house policy and can not be enforced.

 

OK, so in the Best Buy case - where the officer made an explicit threat of arrest - was he just bluffing? Or was he mistaken about the extent of his authority in the matter? Can you be jailed for disobeying instructions from a police officer, even if those instructions are unconstitutional?

[pbharvey]

Not much bothers me, but when I go to a club store it always makes me feel like I'm guilty until proven innocent.

 

I don't understand the police officer involvement then un-involvement. Seems to me if they involve themselves in being the receipt police, then they should offer a reasonable explanation of the policy and its enforcement.

[motorman587]

 

OK, so in the Best Buy case - where the officer made an explicit threat of arrest - was he just bluffing? Or was he mistaken about the extent of his authority in the matter? Can you be jailed for disobeying instructions from a police officer, even if those instructions are unconstitutional?

 

Yup, we bluff all the time..........and yes you could go to jail, but would the charges stick......probably not.......

 

Just a thought, there is so much retail theft you guys/gals would not believe and who ends up paying for the theft, yup, we do, again.

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...and yes you could go to jail, but would the charges stick......probably not...

 

If a police officer arrests someone and charges them with some crime/misdemeanor/whatever, and the charges are later dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence, is the arresting officer later subjected to any formal discipline for exceeding his authority, or is a formal complaint from the arrestee required in order to make that happen?

[Selden]

Must be a quiet day in Ann Arbor...

[g_frey]

Yep happens more than we think.

[MT Wallet]

I find the whole thing irritating. If I've just cleared the register and I had some dunderhead then challenge me for a receipt my first reaction (depending on my mood) would be to probably give him a big "duh" and point out the obvious-"Just checked out 10' away" If he persisted and especially if a LEO unnessarily got involved I'd demand to see the manager and give him the business and ask him/her why a cop was involved and I was being inconvenienced. "Don't you appreciate my business? Is this intrusion going to be the norm here when I shop? etc."

 

When I'm ticked off I'm motivated. I'd have a letter to the corporate headquarters in the mail in an hour. Funny how they respond. Sometimes with just profuse apologies and other times with discount coupons! I agree with Beemerman2k, some people, sorry Motorman, even Leo's, let a little authority go to their heads when common sense ought to prevail. Most of the time I'd probably end up showing the receipt and just complain. Sometimes I can be irrationally (no not me) obstinate and hang tough, so.... if I got falsely arrested (emphasis on falsely) I'd be happy to take a settleement and add to my retirement fund. Mitch are they doing this in A2 these days?

[Twisties]

The only place I shop that has such a policy is Costco. I've never seen that our Home Depots or Best Buys. I've always assumed that my cooperation is voluntary. If they aren't keeping the line moving, I blast right on by. Did it last week in fact. I might have heard someone gasp, but I wasn't looking back to see who. I've never seen a LEO involved though, just store personnel.

 

I do still get my gasoline receipts though, just because of the possibility of a mistaken clerk calling in a gas drive off.

 

I think generally you are wise to comply with police orders, and save any challenges for later. You may however ask if it is an order, or a request, and if you are under detention or not.

[Twisties]

It is an irritant, but mostly only when there is a line of people trying to get out, and one old grandma that cant see through her glasses trying to read the reciept.

 

It is another example of security theater really, after I have put all the stuff in boxes, they cant see 3/4ths of the stuff on the list anyway.

 

At Costco I have always assumed they are just making sure you have the right cart, and that the cart has been paid for, not ticking off each item. They do check certain high dollar items explicitly though.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Mitch are they doing this in A2 these days?

 

Haven't encountered it here yet except at Costco - and again, the terms of membership there may require it.

 

Mostly I was just curious to understand exactly what my rights are in these situations, and what should/could happen if the police get involved for any reason. I would think most folks would want to know, regardless of whether or not they choose to show their receipt at the door.

[Selden]

Maybe we should start a "contemporary societal annoyances" thread. Receipt checking doesn't particularly bother me, since shoplifting increases business operating costs, which drives prices up.

 

Tip jars, on the other hand, annoy me to no end. One of the things I liked about Singapore and the Alaska ferry system is that tipping is prohibited in both.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Maybe we should start a "contemporary societal annoyances" thread. Receipt checking doesn't particularly bother me, since shoplifting increases business operating costs, which drives prices up.

 

That's fine that it doesn't bother you - there are certainly bigger things to worry about - but don't know want to know whether it's legally required or not, and what your options are when a store employee lays a hand on you, or a cop gets involved?

[Bob Palin]

I'd never given this subject much thought, now I'm annoyed about it and will almost certainly create a fuss the next time it happens. Thanks Mitch!

[Lawman]

I'd never given this subject much thought, now I'm annoyed about it and will almost certainly create a fuss the next time it happens. Thanks Mitch!

 

I love it! :rofl:

 

Mitch,

As a police supervisor for many years I can tell you I've seen more officers get themselves into trouble for filing on people for "contempt of cop" than than for any other act of misconduct.

Officers overstep their authority every single day but so does just about every other government enforcement agency I can think of..If it makes you feel any better I can tell you if I were called to such a scene I would be quick to tell store management the best thing they could do would be to apologize to the customer and hope he doesn't initiate some sort of legal agction against them and then have me deposed...

 

[Twisties]

Costco has a brochure and it has a section entitled Member Privileges and Conditions. A subsection called general policies states, in relevant part:

 

General Policies

• Costco reserves the right to inspect any container,

backpack, briefcase, etc., upon entering or leaving the

warehouse.

• To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the

merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise

will be inspected as you leave the warehouse.

 

I am completely in the dark as to whether this constitutes an agreement, or merely a statement of policy. I would say it is informational rather than an agreement, but I'd want to hear Costco's side of that before drawing any firm conclusions.

 

In any event, as you said, the worst they could do is revoke your membership.

 

As for a merchant's legal right to detain you and search you or call the police, it varies by jurisdiction. In Utah I think they generally do have the right to detain on reasonable suspicion, but I don't think they can apply that to everyone as a matter of policy. The merchant may have the right to detain, but there is some real question as to whether you have an obligation to be detained. Nothing in Utah law, IIRC goes to that issue. On the other hand, they may be authorized to use reasonable force to detain you. It's really a bit knarly.

 

 

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I am completely in the dark as to whether this constitutes an agreement, or merely a statement of policy.

 

I suspect it doesn't matter: whether it's a store's general policy or explicitly written into a signed membership agreement, I I think they have the legal right to ban you from the premises for not complying with store policies - but they cannot detain you, nor can you be arrested.

 

More background on being detained by store staff: Shopkeeper's Privilege

[tallman]

Shoplifting vs Employee theft

 

I don't like being asked when I just left the register.

I'm often tempted to ask the employee for ID proving they have a job there, who their supervisor is, and would they ask that person to come over.

Then the same drill for the supervisor asking who their boss is and call them over or get them on the phone.

In general getting my money's worth.

Then ask them why a sign isn't promonently displayed if this is store policy.

I'd ask for the name and contact info for the owner and the name of the store's attorney.

It is a poor system, IMO.

A good shoplifter has many ways to hide smaller items and some even buy an item, leave, return with the receipt and store bag and pick up a second one.

What can they say?

You have a receipt, the bag, and I've seen them go back through checkout telling the register clerk "I already bought this and went back for something else."

Then pay for a small item and ask the clerk to make sure the other item has no alarm device on it because when I just bought it I told the other clerk that I would be right back.

 

The other day I was in Wallyworld and an employee had left a price marker, complete with lables on a shelf.

I had purchase items at the sporting good register and was pushing a cart with bags and receipts.

If I was dishonest I could easily have put the price/label marker in my cart/bag and tried to leave with it or gone and remarked items.

I think the professional shoplifters and employee thiefers will get away more often than not.

We all pay for the cost but I wonder how insurance claims figure in the equation.

[marcopolo]

I have no idea how the law works here in Canada, but it does annoy me. At Costco I assume it's part of the deal. Another large, well-known Canadian retailer (Canadian Tire) recently instituted the practice of examining receipts upon exiting the store at their location near my place. What really annoyed me the first time it happened was that I was about ten feet from the security guard when I paid for the item as he stared at me the whole time. I asked him if he was planning to do that every time I came in. After he replied yes, I said I'd be shopping elsewhere as I had many other options. I didn't bother telling the manager that as I didn't want to waste any more of my time. I realize full well that shoplifting goes on all the time, but I resent a store treating all of its customers as if they're thieves.

 

This reminds me of the case locally several years ago when staff stopped a guy leaving a retail store on suspicion of shoplifting. They made quite a fuss about it and called police. Turns out they made two serious errors: 1) he was not stealing as he had paid for whatever merchandise he had; and, 2) they picked the wrong guy to embarrass. Turned out he was a senior lawyer with the federal Justice Department. He sued the retail chain, was successful in court and was awarded a rather tidy sum of money.

[upflying]

Legal or not, I don't mind getting stopped for a receipt check at Costco, Best Buy or Fry's. I am in their place of business and I will comply with their policy. It is with great appreciation that security is checking receipts too. It deters the shoplifters and keeps costs down for honest customers like me. Nothing burns me more than knowing I am financing shoplifting through higher costs of products. Everything we buy has a surcharge to cover the losses from theft.

[Twisties]

I am completely in the dark as to whether this constitutes an agreement, or merely a statement of policy.

 

I suspect it doesn't matter: whether it's a store's general policy or explicitly written into a signed membership agreement, I I think they have the legal right to ban you from the premises for not complying with store policies - but they cannot detain you, nor can you be arrested.

 

More background on being detained by store staff: Shopkeeper's Privilege

 

Utah code is here. Search "merchant detain" and you will get the three relevant sections of code. It basically says what Wikipedia says.

 

 

[motorman587]

...and yes you could go to jail, but would the charges stick......probably not...

 

If a police officer arrests someone and charges them with some crime/misdemeanor/whatever, and the charges are later dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence, is the arresting officer later subjected to any formal discipline for exceeding his authority, or is a formal complaint from the arrestee required in order to make that happen?

 

Sure officer's get sued all the time. That is why I love my in car camera........takes out the she/he said. There is no crime in no reciept showing..........Like Lawman stated, good departments have good supervisors and I hate when they call. lol

[motorman587]

Also, thought about this.......you could get a trespess warning issued for causing a distrubrance......

[ghaverkamp]

Also, thought about this.......you could get a trespess warning issued for causing a distrubrance......

 

That would be lovely. One enters the property with appropriate license to do so, is detained upon trying to exit the property, and as a result, is cited for trespass.

[ghaverkamp]

Maybe we should start a "contemporary societal annoyances" thread. Receipt checking doesn't particularly bother me, since shoplifting increases business operating costs, which drives prices up.

 

That's fine that it doesn't bother you - there are certainly bigger things to worry about - but don't know want to know whether it's legally required or not, and what your options are when a store employee lays a hand on you, or a cop gets involved?

 

The most important question is how much you're willing to fight after the fact to vindicate your rights.

 

You might be able to sue the store and get something out of it, but it's really going to come down to what the store's employee actually did to you. And if it's not enough, it's either going to cost you a fortune in legal fees, you're not going to find an attorney to represent you, or you'll be representing yourself.

 

If a cop violates your rights through either an unlawful search and/or seizure, and especially if you're unjustifiably arrested, you can sue the officers and maybe the city. However, the courts generally does a poor job of requiring police officers to actually know the law (see "qualified immunity"). Holding a municipality (i.e., the department) carries an even bigger burden. And so, you're stuck with maybe even a worse situation than above trying to find someone to represent you. Most of that applies to section 1983 claims under the federal civil rights act. There is the occasional state law that, depending on the circumstances, provides somewhat more favorable treatment to plaintiffs in police (mis)conduct cases.

[Twisties]

Maybe we should start a "contemporary societal annoyances" thread. Receipt checking doesn't particularly bother me, since shoplifting increases business operating costs, which drives prices up.

 

That's fine that it doesn't bother you - there are certainly bigger things to worry about - but don't know want to know whether it's legally required or not, and what your options are when a store employee lays a hand on you, or a cop gets involved?

 

The most important question is how much you're willing to fight after the fact to vindicate your rights.

 

You might be able to sue the store and get something out of it, but it's really going to come down to what the store's employee actually did to you. And if it's not enough, it's either going to cost you a fortune in legal fees, you're not going to find an attorney to represent you, or you'll be representing yourself.

 

If a cop violates your rights through either an unlawful search and/or seizure, and especially if you're unjustifiably arrested, you can sue the officers and maybe the city. However, the courts generally does a poor job of requiring police officers to actually know the law (see "qualified immunity"). Holding a municipality (i.e., the department) carries an even bigger burden. And so, you're stuck with maybe even a worse situation than above trying to find someone to represent you. Most of that applies to section 1983 claims under the federal civil rights act. There is the occasional state law that, depending on the circumstances, provides somewhat more favorable treatment to plaintiffs in police (mis)conduct cases.

 

The the extent I understand the Utah code, unlike a police stop, if a merchant attempts to detain you, you have no obligation to stop or to avoid resisting. The statute gives the merchant the right to detain you reasonably and waves his liability for doing so, if he is reasonable, but imposes no duty on you to comply.

 

So if you are injured, and jury says the merchant was reasonable... tough luck. On the other hand, it is completely unclear as to what your liability to the merchant might be if you injure him. Presumably normal rules apply.

 

But, the point being, if a LEO stops you you can be held criminally liable for resisting arrest if you don't stop. When a merchant stops you it is a civil matter only.

[ghaverkamp]

The the extent I understand the Utah code, unlike a police stop, if a merchant attempts to detain you, you have no obligation to stop or to avoid resisting. The statute gives the merchant the right to detain you reasonably and waves his liability for doing so, if he is reasonable, but imposes no duty on you to comply.

 

So if you are injured, and jury says the merchant was reasonable... tough luck. On the other hand, it is completely unclear as to what your liability to the merchant might be if you injure him. Presumably normal rules apply.

 

Where "reasonable" is a term of art.

 

But, the point being, if a LEO stops you you can be held criminally liable for resisting arrest if you don't stop. When a merchant stops you it is a civil matter only.

 

I think that depends on what "stops" means.

 

But yes. It's stupid to resist arrest. The way to vindicate those rights that are violated is through the courts. Unfortunately, the courts have made that very difficult to accomplish.

[Gary in Aus]

Not sure of the law in Australia regarding not showing your receipt if asked .

 

If some one asked me I would just show them .

 

Shoplifting impacts on so many businesses and if simply asking to see a receipt for goods purchased within a store before leaving can reduce this theft then whats the problem.

 

We the consumer are paying for this theft and additional security costs in the goods we purchase .

 

We should be helping our store owners in any way we can to help them catch these criminals and reduce their and therefore hopefully our costs of goods.

 

If you had a product from a store you were leaving ,you would have the receipt for that product , how easy is it to just show the person at the exit if asked?

 

I wouldn't be affronted ,actually I am more annoyed about poor service by staff.

 

[leikam]

From the store's perspective, is it more reasonable to suspect that any given person is stealing from a retail shop or trust that they're not stealing?

[Dave McReynolds]

I would assume that the great volume of shoplifting is people who just walk out the door without paying. True, a dedicated criminal will use more sophisticated means, but there is probably much less of an impact in overall monetary losses. Having someone at the door checking receipts probably deters a significant amount of theft. Imagine the trouble Lindsay Lohan could have avoided if there had just been someone checking receipts at that jewelry store....

[leikam]

Having someone at the door checking receipts probably deters a significant amount of theft.

 

How so? If somebody wants to steal a book, they'll put it in their pocket and walk out. Checking receipts or not is irrelevant because it only verifies what the customer presents.

[Dave McReynolds]

Having someone at the door checking receipts probably deters a significant amount of theft.

 

How so? If somebody wants to steal a book, they'll put it in their pocket and walk out. Checking receipts or not is irrelevant because it only verifies what the customer presents.

 

Logically, what you say is true. However, I'll bet that there are a significant number of people who, like Nixon, really don't think of themselves as "crooks" who would accidently take something out of a store without paying (euphemistically speaking) if nobody was watching, who might be more careful if there is someone at the door checking receipts. At least, some stores apparently think so.

[Selden]

Since not all stores engage in this practice, why not just stop shopping at stores that do, and if you feel really PO'ed, write them a (firm but polite) letter explaining your actions?

 

Sears Roebuck gave me some crap in 1985 about not having a sufficient credit record (I had recently returned from 5 years in Saudi Arabia, and had $60,000 in the bank at age 40, and no debt), so I wrote them a letter telling them I would never again buy anything from Sears. I haven't.

 

My favorite place for food in the Atlanta area is Your Dekalb Farmer's Market. Until recently, YDFM had a practice that infuriated me, insisting that all customers check shopping bags at the entrance, to be picked up when checking out. For a while they also had armed guards with pump-action shotguns in the checkout area. Both practices have stopped -- I suspect in response to customer complaints.

[Gary in Aus]

Question "From the store's perspective, is it more reasonable to suspect that any given person is stealing from a retail shop or trust that they're not stealing?"

 

Answer = Both or neither {if it were a black or white kind of world , good versus evil}

 

A receipt is a written acknowledgement that a specified artical or sum of money has been received as an exchange for goods or services {wikipedia example} . The receipt is issued to prove that you have received the goods or services. It's your proof not theirs.

 

"is it more reasonable to suspect that any given person is stealing from a retail shop"

 

Under cover store security , electronic security tags on products , security cameras , staff on exit checks, exit aisles for payment, secure exit "gates" , staff to assist in changerooms ,etc are in place because there is proof that people steal from stores.

 

How you determine "any given person" is a bit like how do you determine dishonest cops or pedeophiles ?

 

Apparently some specific groups such as youth and housewives account for a high percentage of shoplifting but how do you determine beforehand which ones?

 

 

 

The attached article suggests that prices may be 15% higher

 

http://money.ifas.ufl.edu/articles/2005/12/shoplifting.html

 

 

 

"or trust that they are not stealing from you"

 

This would be a good experiment to try.

 

To answer your question , see if you can find a local retail store to suspend all their security measures for a month and see what happens.

 

I am sure the response you receive from the stores will answer this.

 

Variations.

 

This will vary by circumstance.

 

I live in a smaller community {part of a larger city but dilineated by headlands and other geographical features} and have a relatively strong local structure.

At my local hardware store if I need something and am not exact on say size of a bolt , I will be given half a dozen different sizes and return the ones I don't use and then pay for the one that I did.

 

I can give many examples of this but in these circumstances {size of business, local knowledge and honesty and reputation of customer } it really only work in places such as this.

 

My father in law lives about 4 and 1/2 hours down the coast and I purchase his replacement cars from our local Holden dealer , I have been buying work and private vehicles from the same person for nearly 35 years and it is as simple as a telephone call to have a new vehicle ordered , registered in father in laws name , extras installed and the vehicle delivered to him down the coast and they pick up the payment on delivery and drive his trade in back. They know his trade in vehicle ,so do not need to see it and all I want is the changeover price .

 

This works for me at this dealer.

 

He trusts that I am not stealing from him.

[Alan D]

You have a right to vote with your wallet and go somewhere else. If enough people did that the store would change their policy. Looks like most people are willing to put up with it.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

From a store's perspective, their motivation is simple: get the maximum number of people in their store buying the maximum amount of stuff. I'm sure no store believes that any shopper enjoys having their receipt checked at the door, and they know that some shoppers, as evidenced in some of the preceding posts, are annoyed enough at having to do that that they might not shop there at all.

 

So, given that they hate to lose customers, they must have evidence that they would lose even more of their profits to shoplifting if they didn't instigate procedures to combat it.

[Twisties]

I respect the concept and am all for reasonable shoplifting controls. Normally Costco keeps the line moving, and waits are less than 30 seconds, often much less. Fine.

 

But when the line is ten carts long and the door agent is paying no attention, attending to something else, yakking with a customer, or otherwise not getting things moving, I reach my limit with what I view as a voluntary matter. I have paid, and am under no obligation to put up with their dithering. Keep in mind this inspection is applied to all customers, without specific suspicion. I don't object in principle, but in asking folk to voluntarily comply they need to make sure they keep it unobtrusive.

 

As for other stores, I don't believe I have ever been asked for a receipt, detained, or otherwise involved with the matter. If I were, my reaction would depend entirely on how they handled it and approached me. Certainly I have no problem responding to a polite request. If the manner is accusatory, brusque or rude, I may not be inclined to cooperate.

 

The question here, or point, as I see it, and others may certainly differ, is not that I find such intrusions or delays inherently annoying, or unacceptable, but rather this an exercise in knowing what my rights are and where the lines are drawn should a case arise in which I did not wish to cooperate.

[MotorinLA]

Mitch are they doing this in A2 these days?

 

Haven't encountered it here yet except at Costco - and again, the terms of membership there may require it.

 

Mostly I was just curious to understand exactly what my rights are in these situations, and what should/could happen if the police get involved for any reason. I would think most folks would want to know, regardless of whether or not they choose to show their receipt at the door.

 

Keep in mind that the responding police officers may not have all the information about what occurred prior to their arrival and may be acting on information indicating there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe a theft has occurred. In such a case, the officer has legal standing (case law - NOT UNconstitutional) to detain a subject. As the susbject being detained, you do not have the right to refuse to cooperate. Refusal to cooperate can be a crime, thus the threat to arrest. PC 148 in California - hindering, obstructing or delaying a police officer in the discharge of his official duties. A person does not have the right to resist arrest, even if an actual crime has not been committed, given that the police officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed at the time of the arrest.

 

Example:

 

1. You go to Best Buy. You buy several items. You pay for these items. The clerk places the items in a large Best Buy bag. You walk to the exit with your bag. The large land mammal at the door ask for your receipt. You refuse. A short argument ensues. The doorman blocks your way. In the heat of the moment you bump him out of the way and exit. The store personnel call the police.

 

2. The info provided to police dispatch: "Theft suspect fled store, fought with loss-prevention personnel to escape."

 

GUESS WHAT??? YOU ARE NOW A ROBBERY SUSPECT!!! Use of force during a petty theft is an Estes Robbery in California.

 

Responding police personnel will possibly approach you at gunpoint. Are they wrong? NO. Does it seem ridiculous from your perspective? YES. Could it all go VERY, VERY WRONG in a heart beat? ABSOLUTELY. Was it worth it, just so that you could exit the store without proving you paid for your goods? I don't think so.

 

If you feel that strongly about it, DON'T SHOP THERE! It's a (somewhat) free country, take your business somewhere else.

 

 

Whoopsie, almost took a spill there getting off my soap box...

[aterry1067]

If I am walking out and there is someone who is obviously checking receipts, such as at Costco or BestBuy, I will hand them mine. I will also usually keep it handy when walking past those RF scanners, because the cashier I seem to always choose will inevitably fail to deactivate the darn tag. So if it seems they are checking the receipt in a non-accusatory way, then I don't think much of it. That said, if the store seemed to be accusing me of theft and demanded to see my receipt, I would most likely show them and then walk straight to the customer service desk and return the item for a refund. I would also seek out the manager and let them know why I was returning the item, and why I wouldn't be back.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The question here, or point, as I see it, and others may certainly differ, is not that I find such intrusions or delays inherently annoying, or unacceptable, but rather this an exercise in knowing what my rights are and where the lines are drawn should a case arise in which I did not wish to cooperate.

 

Thanks; that pretty nicely sums up what my goal was for this thread. It's valuable to know what your legal rights really are, to occasionally assert those rights, and even attempt to exercise them now and then (up to whatever point you're willing to bear adverse consequences/costs if other people disagree with you and choose to violate your rights).

 

Meanwhile, here's another case, with full transcript (as reported by the customer) of not complying with a receipt checker.

Summary: Customer tried to exit Walmart carrying a 37" TV he had just purchased, and politely declined to show his receipt. He faced some physical obstruction from the receipt checker, but remained unfailingly polite and physically non-aggressive while verbally asserting his rights the entire time, even enduring a stream of verbal abuse from another customer. A second receipt-checker approaches to offer reinforcement to the first. Once a manager arrives on scene, the customer explains the situation, and the manager agrees with him that he is indeed free to leave without showing his receipt.

 

From the bottom of that page, Here's a link to a relevant MSN.com article:

Do Receipt Checks Violate Your Rights?

 

Hey Greg, thanks for the lawyerly input. Additional question for you:

I've seen the phrase "duty to mitigate" in reference to this issue. It seems to imply that even if the store employees and/or the police are clearly in the wrong the whole time, the aggrieved customer bears some legal responsbility for whatever consequences befall him if he refuses to perform the simple, low-cost action of showing his receipt. The idea is that if a lawsuit is filed against the store or the police, damages would be reduced, any damages awarded the customer/arrestee would be reduced if it could be shown that he did not meet his "duty to mitigate" the situation. Is this a relevant application of that legal concept, or does it have nothing to do with this?

[tallman]

The Rainbow Family is in our neck of the woods (literally).

They pick up discarded receipts, go in the store and take items to return desk for $$$.

The day before yesterday 4 of them were arrested at Walmart for shoplifting and a large group given trespass warnings.

The booty?

$288 worth of beer and $59 worth of aerosol computer cleaner.

Thgey also molested 19 cars in the parking lot.

When confronted upon exite it escalated into a physical confrontation with a manager who was then rescued by an off duty jailer who pulled a gun on the combative suspect and held him at gun point until the LEO's arrived.

Videos showed they group had been in the storre previously and shoplifted at that time also.

 

Shoplifting is a real expense to the retailer and consumer.

With a group like these folks they don't care if an arrest happens because they get a roof and 3 squares.

Now the burden gets passed from the retailer to Society (us'n).

 

Perhaps work crews made of these individuals would help defray the cost.

 

Still annoys me when I pay and walk 20 feet to the highly trained exit monitor who asks for the receipt.

[Quinn]

One day, in my mid twenties, I was shopping and suddenly thought, "Hey, there's no store detective following me. Maybe I've reached a new life stage." Kinda like when the bartender stops asking for ID.

 

----

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Still annoys me when I pay and walk 20 feet to the highly trained exit monitor who asks for the receipt.

 

or maybe not so highly trained?

[beemerman2k]

That said, if the store seemed to be accusing me of theft and demanded to see my receipt, I would most likely show them and then walk straight to the customer service desk and return the item for a refund. I would also seek out the manager and let them know why I was returning the item, and why I wouldn't be back.

 

This is exactly how I would handle it as well. The store is free to do what it wants, and so am I. The deal is off, gimmie a refund, I'm outta here.

 

I appreciate stores that let you know to have your receipt handy. I get really irritated when a store makes no mention of it until you are exiting. That is annoying as usually I have put the receit away and have no memory of where I put it! Hey, I'm an old man, what do they expect?

[Rocer]

I tend to agree with Mitch ie. know what your legal rights are and be prepared to test that once in a while. It may be the responsibility of the police to respond to a store's suspicion of shop lifting but if someone refuses to show a receipt just because it's store policy then, in my lay opinion, that is a civil issue not a police / criminal issue. If the store policy is obviously signed at the entrance then one could decide whether or not they wanted to abide by the policy and shop there. But, whether posted or not, I believe I have the right to refuse showing the receipt unless it has been stated directly that I'm suspected of shop lifting.

 

Putting another spin on this, I purchased a work coat in a chain store in one community and a few months later was in a store of the same chain in a neighbouring community. On exiting the electronic monitor sounded an alarm ie. a suspected shoplifting. When I made bail...just kidding.

 

As it turned out, the store where I purchased the coat didn't subscribe to the merchandise monitoring system of it's own chain. Therefore the store of purchase did not have the chip neutralizing equipment. Nor was I aware that there was a security chip embedded in the coat's lining. Of course being some months after the purchase I had no receipt.

 

I was able to sort the situation out with the aid of the store owner who happened to be a biker buddy. He realized from previous similar experiences what the problem was. I'm not sure how this would have turned out in a store where I didn't know the staff.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Mostly I was just curious to understand exactly what my rights are in these situations, and what should/could happen if the police get involved for any reason. I would think most folks would want to know, regardless of whether or not they choose to show their receipt at the door.

 

A more disturbing case here. This guy asserted his rights and made an informed decision to bear a substantial cost for doing so.

 

Summary: After leaving a Circuit City store with his purchase, a customer refuses to show his receipt to store personnel. Store manager and security guard block departure of customer's car, claiming they have a legal right to look through his bags. Customer calls 911, LEO arrives, and arrests customer for "Obstructing Official Business" when he refuses to present driver's license (customer was not driving the car).

 

The author wanted to be found not guilty in court, but ultimately decided he couldn't bear the legal costs and stress on his family that would come with pursuing that course of action. He agreed not to sue the city, and in exchange the charges were ultimately droppped (and the arrest expunged), but only after considerable soul-searching and $7500 in legal expenses.

 

I'm not too surprised or bothered that a Circuit City employee would be ill-informed about the limits of his legal authority, but the fact that a cop was not so well-informed is more troubling.

[ghaverkamp]

I've seen the phrase "duty to mitigate" in reference to this issue. It seems to imply that even if the store employees and/or the police are clearly in the wrong the whole time, the aggrieved customer bears some legal responsbility for whatever consequences befall him if he refuses to perform the simple, low-cost action of showing his receipt. The idea is that if a lawsuit is filed against the store or the police, damages would be reduced, any damages awarded the customer/arrestee would be reduced if it could be shown that he did not meet his "duty to mitigate" the situation. Is this a relevant application of that legal concept, or does it have nothing to do with this?

 

I may be overlooking some other application, but mitigation usually applies to damages. I imagine some circumstances could arise to require such mitigation, but they'd usually be after the unlawful detention. For example, maybe a store drops a gate at its parking lot onto your car as you try to leave. You would mitigate the damages by not trying to drive out from under the gate.

 

I can't think of how it would apply to actions before the tort. However, some actions might certainly be used to justify the tort.