A bad day at Circuit City

[SUBMAN1]

This guy was within his rights. Seems he acted too quickly in signing a statement saying that he won't sue the city over it.

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

-S

[The Avon Lady]

I am ignorant of the nitty gritty facts but I would think it is perfectly legal for a store to demand to examine a receipt to verify a purchase.

The policeman's demand, however, seems to clearly contradict the law, which states that mentioning name, address and birthdate is all that's required.

[SUBMAN1]

I am ignorant of the nitty gritty facts but I would think it is perfectly legal for a store to demand to examine a receipt to verify a purchase.

The policeman's demand, however, seems to clearly contradict the law, which states that mentioning name, address and birthdate is all that's required.
The laws over here dictate that you must 'see' the perpetraitor physically take the item, and you can't do anything about it till they actually try to leave the store with it. THey can conceal it or do anything with it while in store, but you have no case till they try to leave.

Demanding a receipt? THink about it. How many times have you walked into a store and wanted to return something and forgot the receipt? That is a dangerous precident to think that you could be jailed over trying to return something, so I can understand why you would not want a law like this.

What is worse here is the requirement to submit to a search of your bag. That is no ones business but yours. That is what I have a major problem with here - stopping a man and demanding that they can search you before you are allowed to leave.

There are major problems with this case from Circuit City's side, and I bet Circuit City gets sued big time over it - and they deserve it too.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

Did a lot of googling and I cannot make heads or tails of differences between various states.

Personally, I would hope that it would be legal for a private business to be able to verify purchases and if someone doesn't like it, they shouldn't shop there.

[SUBMAN1]

Did a lot of googling and I cannot make heads or tails of differences between various states.

Personally, I would hope that it would be legal for a private business to be able to verify purchases and if someone doesn't like it, they shouldn't shop there.

Nope - they cannot. If they didn't see you take it, they can't do anything about it. This is in response to court cases in which case the store was wrong and used abusinve practices as seen in this circuit city blog to harrass innocent people. It falls under our illegal search and cesure portion of our Constitution. No one has the right to search you without just cause, and in the case of a store, this just cause would be physically seeing you try to leave with product that they watched you take.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

I would very simply assume that "loss prevention", in this day and age, would itself be considered "just cause", at least in cases where this occurs on private property, with the owner's posted policy notice.

Have a look at the 4th Ammendment. It originally referred to search and seizures within one's own private property. That is not the case here.

[The Avon Lady]

According to this Nolo Press article (https://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE/catId/268BB6A8-8884-4677-89869B6AD8A75ADA/104/143/127/ART/), the 4th Ammendment doesn't seem to apply here for a variety of reasons.

[SUBMAN1]

I would very simply assume that "loss prevention", in this day and age, would itself be considered "just cause", at least in cases where this occurs on private property, with the owner's posted policy notice.

Have a look at the 4th Ammendment. It originally referred to search and seizures within one's own private property. That is not the case here.

I did - and you are wrong. Your person and your possesions in this day and age are still your personal private property. It doesn't matter if you carry your house on your back, in your bag, or at a place of residence. You are reading it with too narrow a mindset when you interpret this to be your home only. I thought you were up and up more than this on American law? You know you don't have to submit to anything without just cause - not even open the trunk of your car to the cops over here. Ever heard of that? The 4th amendment does not simply state your place of residence.

Giving loss prevention this kind of power - that is a scary thought. It is also morally unacceptable.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

I would very simply assume that "loss prevention", in this day and age, would itself be considered "just cause", at least in cases where this occurs on private property, with the owner's posted policy notice.

Have a look at the 4th Ammendment. It originally referred to search and seizures within one's own private property. That is not the case here.

I did - and you are wrong. Your person and your possesions in this day and age are still your personal private property. It doesn't matter if you carry your house on your back, in your bag, or at a place of residence. You are reading it with too narrow a mindset when you interpret this to be your home only.
No. I'm reading it to be within your private realm, versus someone else's, when the other realm's owner at least forewarns of his reasonable rights to assure prevention of theft, as is "reasonable" in stores, especially in this day and age.
I thought you were up and up more than this on American law?
I've never studied law per se. :nope:
You know you don't have to submit to anything without just cause
There is a just cause over here.
not even open the trunk of your car to the cops over here.
Again, this is an invasion of your private realm - your car. And even this is required in cases of just or reasonable cause, no? Or is a warrant always required?
Ever heard of that?
Obviously so.
The 4th amendment does not simply state your place of residence.
But in this case we're talking about someone else's private residence or realm and they should be entitled to dictate such terms of agreement in advance.
Giving loss prevention this kind of power - that is a scary thought.
Nonsense. Receipt checking has been occurring for donkey's years and with exception of cases of outright discrimination, it has been a mostly quiet operation.
It is also morally unacceptable.
Quite the opposite. My property. My terms of sale. Don't like them? Don't buy from me.

Forcing me to risk financial losses when I operate from within my own private property and wishing to dictate reasonable terms of sale, applied without discrimination. I would find denial of such elementary rights to a propietor morally apprehensible!

[Letum]

*dies of quotations*


I know almost nothing about American law so I can't comment on that.
However, from a moral prespective I am totaly with Mr Righi and Subman. I don't want
to live in a country where my personal effects can be rummaged through by any one
employed by a shop.

[SUBMAN1]

No. I'm reading it to be within your private realm, versus someone else's, when the other realm's owner at least forewarns of his reasonable rights to assure prevention of theft, as is "reasonable" in stores, especially in this day and age.Oh thats smart - if you are in someone else's private rhealm, you give up your rights? Doesn't work like that in the US of A. If you want to practice business in the US of A, you and everyone else are granted certain rights - just like you can't search the mailman if he is delivering mail to you and happens to step in your home. You can put any sign you want - not that it will hold any salt. The only way that this would be considered OK is if I signed a declaration with my own signature prior to entering your premises.

There is a just cause over here.What? Assuming everyone is a thief? Not good enough. Assumptions hold no salt - its like opinions - and we all know what assume means - Ass U Me.
Again, this is an invasion of your private realm - your car. And even this is required in cases of just or reasonable cause, no? Or is a warrant always required? And how is your purse not held to the same manner? Reasonable cause is a tricky situation, but can be used to open your trunk, but that reasonable cause has to be something like drugs seen on the drivers seat.

But in this case we're talking about someone else's private residence or realm and they should be entitled to dictate such terms of agreement in advance.You can - but must be a signed legal document. SO you going to ask your customers to waive their rights simply for entering your store, and spend time reading what would probably amount to a 10 page small typed document of lawyers legal terms? I think not. SImply entering your store does not grant you the right to make me give up my rights.
Nonsense. Receipt checking has been occurring for donkey's years and with exception of cases of outright discrimination, it has been a mostly quiet operation. Maybe in Isreal, but in the US, no one has ever dared ask me for a receipt ever once in my life to prove what I am holding is mine.
Quite the opposite. My property. My terms of sale. Don't like them? Don't buy from me.

Forcing me to risk financial losses when I operate from within my own private property and wishing to dictate reasonable terms of sale, applied without discrimination. I would find denial of such elementary rights to a propietor morally apprehensible!Don't do business in the US of A then. To have a storefront or any business incures a certain degree of risk. This is just one of those risks. If you don't like someone though for any reason, you do have the right to refuse service to anyone. That is your only bargaining chip.

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The way I understand it is, say you walk into a shop and purchase a book. You pay for the book at the counter and take it out in a bag. Now I'm no expert on American law, but as I understand it, from the time money changed hands, that book became your property, and thus some jerk from the shop you bought it from has no authority over what happens to it. If you were shoplifting, would you really carry the stolen things in a shopping bag?

I always thought that the authorities (which, I do believe the Circuit City employee is not a member of) needed a warrant to search your belongings. You cant expect your mortgage provider to come around and demand to look through your house.

[Letum]

If you were shoplifting, would you really carry the stolen things in a shopping bag?

YES! That is just where I would carry it!
Think about it!


I always thought that the authorities (which, I do believe the Circuit City employee is not a member of) needed a warrant to search your belongings. You cant expect your mortgage provider to come around and demand to look through your house.


In the UK you need a warrent to search a house (with the exception of some police branches).
However you do not need a warrent or a reason for a body/baggage search.

Of course, that is the case for the police only and not shop staff.

[SUBMAN1]

In the UK you need a warrent to search a house (with the exception of some police branches).
However you do not need a warrent or a reason for a body/baggage search.

Of course, that is the case for the police only and not shop staff.
Same here. If you don't let the shop search you, then they may be a little harsher on whether or not to press charges as you wait for the police to get there. They still can't hold you or stop you unless they have reason to do so.

I have a friend that works for a large retailer that is intimate with the procedures - hence why I know a thing or two about it. If you've heard some of the crazy stories I have about thieves stealing merchandise in store, and then going up to the counter immediately demanding a refund without ever leaving the store - its crazy and the thiefs are both crazy and bold about it too! The store mentality is that they build a rap sheet on each one of them before going in for the take down since shoplifters never only shoplift once. That way there is no wiggle room for the thief to get out of it - they basically ignore them the first few times around before they have overwhelming evidence to prosecute them. The other mentality is that the store (this is a higher end store I am talking about) would rather not upset its customers and allow a theft than to cause a scene for its customers. The idea is keep things pleasant until something must be done. Anyway, there are very strict rules they must follow to avoid a lawsuit from the perpetraitor. Getting sued because of lack of evidence can hit you hard from more ways than one.

-S

[Letum]

The only shop in my village lives in a world of innocence compared to that.

It sells vegetables, newspapers and the like, but has no members of staff.
You just take what you want, weigh the vegetables then leave your money in a bowl
and take your change out of it.

There isn't so much as a security camera!

[SUBMAN1]

The only shop in my village lives in a world of innocence compared to that.

It sells vegetables, newspapers and the like, but has no members of staff.
You just take what you want, weigh the vegetables then leave your money in a bowl
and take your change out of it.

There isn't so much as a security camera!
That sounds like a Utopia to me if I ever heard of one. I value honesty and integrety and honor above all else, and that place sounds like it still has it.

-S

PS. Have we created are own problem though? I'll elaborate further in a bit.

[sunvalleyslim]

just another citizen wanting to make waves. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes right, some times wrong.........Just like Taser Boy.....the guy is looking for a reaction..............I suppose most people would just comply to make life a little easier for themselves. My take, If I haven't done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about...........you want to look, go ahead. I have more important things to do with my time here on earth..........:hmm:

[Letum]

just another citizen wanting to make waves. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes right, some times wrong.........Just like Taser Boy.....the guy is looking for a reaction..............I suppose most people would just comply to make life a little easier for themselves. My take, If I haven't done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about...........you want to look, go ahead. I have more important things to do with my time here on earth..........:hmm:

You can see why that could be a dangerous attitude to take right?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

just another citizen wanting to make waves. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes right, some times wrong.........Just like Taser Boy.....the guy is looking for a reaction..............I suppose most people would just comply to make life a little easier for themselves. My take, If I haven't done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about...........you want to look, go ahead. I have more important things to do with my time here on earth..........:hmm:


So by that logic, I must be doing illegal things because I refuse to let strangers into my house. Screw this Circuit City guy. I would've said:

"I'm driving away in 5 seconds, whether you're in or out of the door, and your buddy's infront of my hearse or not."

:p

[sunvalleyslim]

[quote=sunvalleyslim]just another citizen wanting to make waves. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes right, some times wrong.........Just like Taser Boy.....the guy is looking for a reaction..............I suppose most people would just comply to make life a little easier for themselves. My take, If I haven't done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about...........you want to look, go ahead. I have more important things to do with my time here on earth..........:hmm:

So by that logic, I must be doing illegal things because I refuse to let strangers into my house. Screw this Circuit City guy. I would've said:

"I'm driving away in 5 seconds, whether you're in or out of the door, and your buddy's infront of my hearse or not."

Well Kapitan Phillips.

Driving away in 5 seconds, whether they're in or out, and the guy in front would have constituted assault with a deadly weapon. To which case whether or not the detention was warranted or not, would have caused you arrest, bail, court, and large attorney fees. Which you would have won your case, but at what cost? Principal? That's a mighty high price to pay............

My logic is not to refuse entry into your house, that is your right, and so is not being searched without probable cause. This case is to trivial to demand so much. I do not believe as some say, if we don't stop here, they (the police) will abuse their authority......As with all things power can be abused.......however in this case its much too small in the context of life.....

[Letum]

Abuse of power does not happen suddenly. It happens when a culture of making unlawful
demands is allowed to propagate.

[sunvalleyslim]

just another citizen wanting to make waves. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes right, some times wrong.........Just like Taser Boy.....the guy is looking for a reaction..............I suppose most people would just comply to make life a little easier for themselves. My take, If I haven't done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about...........you want to look, go ahead. I have more important things to do with my time here on earth..........:hmm:
You can see why that could be a dangerous attitude to take right?

Letum,
So much in life has been said that we must stop authority from entering our lives. Remember the bumper sticker "Question Authority" We have all been told for so long that we need to curb anything that takes a way our liberty. And rightfully so. I believe that all men and women should live in liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However due to evil persons in our lives, we have to live by rules. Rules were not made for good people, they were made for evil people. If everyone was good, there would be no laws whatsoever. But we live with evil, which is forced on good people. And for some reason when rules or laws are applied good people are made to feel that something is taken away from them. That they shouldn't be subjected to those rules. Which I agree, they shouldn't. But in order to control evil some things have to be taken from good people. Such as Homeland Security after 9/11.
Now in no way do I say that this was a lawful detention or search of Circuit City Guy, but I don't see this as leading to future abuse. As Avon Lady said, If you don't like the rules, don't shop there...............

[The Avon Lady]

Warning to Letum: although you've resurrected, you will die again. :ping: :dead: :ping:
No. I'm reading it to be within your private realm, versus someone else's, when the other realm's owner at least forewarns of his reasonable rights to assure prevention of theft, as is "reasonable" in stores, especially in this day and age.
Oh thats smart - if you are in someone else's private rhealm, you give up your rights?
You're forcing the owner of that other private realm to give give his. No one is forcing you to enter another's private property.
Doesn't work like that in the US of A.
Yes, I'm still trying to understand why, not what, thought even the "what" is difficult to google for to get clear legal facts and the rationale behind them.
If you want to practice business in the US of A, you and everyone else are granted certain rights - just like you can't search the mailman if he is delivering mail to you and happens to step in your home.
Prove to me that it is illegal in the US to put up a sign on your private home's front door warning all people who enter that they are subject to search. If that should result in the inability for the mailman to deliver to such a residence, that will be the price such a citizen will pay for what should be his legitimate insistance. You and I might normally despise this but that question is why this person isn't within his rights.
You can put any sign you want - not that it will hold any salt.
Legal code proof, please.
The only way that this would be considered OK is if I signed a declaration with my own signature prior to entering your premises.
Which Constitutional ammendment says that?
There is a just cause over here.
What? Assuming everyone is a thief?
No. Dealing with the fact that theft and shoplifting causes billions of dollars of loses annually.
Not good enough. Assumptions hold no salt - its like opinions - and we all know what assume means - Ass U Me.
Again, I am asking for the legal code proof on why this is unconstitutional based on the 4th or any other ammendment.
Again, this is an invasion of your private realm - your car. And even this is required in cases of just or reasonable cause, no? Or is a warrant always required?
And how is your purse not held to the same manner?
Here's how it should work:
[indent]1. Stores post a written policy noting that they must confirm that what they claim to have purchased is confirmed by a receipt. Incidentally, I don't know if store should need to post this or if this can already be considered a reasonable assumption, given that this has been so common for a long time.

2. Person makes purchase and receives a receipt.

3. Security guard checks that what is being carried out is paid for. Now here, I am not advocating that the guard has the right to inspect your belongings, other than purchased items in the open or store bagged. However, if that was that stated/accepted policy, i.e., that bags are subject to search prior to leaving the store, I still question why this is not allowed, as per my notes above about the rights of the property owner. Again and again, if you don't like the policy, no one is forcing you to enter.
Reasonable cause is a tricky situation, but can be used to open your trunk, but that reasonable cause has to be something like drugs seen on the drivers seat.
Again you gave an example of a search within one's own private domain.

For example, if you visit a VIP's private home, are the guards at the door allowed to search you for weapons? I've never heard that this is illegal anywhere. If you don't like it, do not enter. A store is no different, other than thinking that commercial establishments and corporations have no such similar rights.
But in this case we're talking about someone else's private residence or realm and they should be entitled to dictate such terms of agreement in advance.
You can - but must be a signed legal document.
Again, based on what? There are lots of laws relating to behavior in someone else's private and commercial establishments. Why don't you have to sign to agree to all of those? What is the legal proof of such a signature requirement. Furthermore, can a signed statement wave a Constitutional Ammendment? I wonder.
SO you going to ask your customers to waive their rights simply for entering your store, and spend time reading what would probably amount to a 10 page small typed document of lawyers legal terms? I think not. SImply entering your store does not grant you the right to make me give up my rights.
Once again, proof requested.
Nonsense. Receipt checking has been occurring for donkey's years and with exception of cases of outright discrimination, it has been a mostly quiet operation. Maybe in Isreal
Um no, it's been done in this US way prior to here and is not as common here as in the US.

In fact, here it's 90% the opposite. Personal belongings are checked for weapons and explosives PRIOR to entering a store, a sad fact of life.
but in the US, no one has ever dared ask me for a receipt ever once in my life to prove what I am holding is mine.
I'm a big shopper. :yep: I've had receipts checked numerous times in the US.
Quite the opposite. My property. My terms of sale. Don't like them? Don't buy from me.

Forcing me to risk financial losses when I operate from within my own private property and wishing to dictate reasonable terms of sale, applied without discrimination. I would find denial of such elementary rights to a propietor morally apprehensible!
Don't do business in the US of A then.
What's with the antagoniostic tone, bud? :shifty:

I'm asking based on US law, not Guatamalen legal codes. :roll:
To have a storefront or any business incures a certain degree of risk. This is just one of those risks.
I'm asking what law prevents me from reducing these risks.
If you don't like someone though for any reason, you do have the right to refuse service to anyone. That is your only bargaining chip.
Actually, here you're very wrong. If you don't like someone and refuse to do business with them because of race creed or color, you'll be hauled into court faster than the blink of a CCTV frame.

And if you don't like it, don't do business in the US of A! :|\\








Arise, Letum!

[The Avon Lady]

Did a bit more gooling. Coming up mostly with non-professional opinions, like ours.

However, please see this article (http://www.criminalattorneysandiego.com/lawyer-attorney-DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE.html), for example, written by some attorney, that says pretty much what I've said.

Or maybe he, too, shouldn't do business in the US of A. :roll:

EDIT: Oops. This article is the same one I linked to yesterday from Nolo Press. I don't know if you're familiar with Nolo but they're a very reputable and successful US (yes US) company, publishing legal assistance for the masses. My questions still stand.

[The Avon Lady]

Another article indicating that it is a shop owner's right to ask to see a receipt, to confirm goods purchased and that this does not negate 4th Amendment rights of the consumer:

Consumer Rights and Loss Prevention Exit Stops (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/online/The-Latest-for-Security-Executives/Consumer-Rights-and-Loss-Prevention-Exit-Stops/1754SIW305).

The article originally appeared in the Charlotte (NC) Observer and is authored by an attorney.

I'm beginning to wonder, Subman, which of us two is in actuality defending the Consititutional laws of the United States. :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Did a bit more gooling. Coming up mostly with non-professional opinions, like ours.

However, please see this article (http://www.criminalattorneysandiego.com/lawyer-attorney-DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE.html), for example, written by some attorney, that says pretty much what I've said.

Or maybe he, too, shouldn't do business in the US of A. :roll:

EDIT: Oops. This article is the same one I linked to yesterday from Nolo Press. I don't know if you're familiar with Nolo but they're a very reputable and successful US (yes US) company, publishing legal assistance for the masses. My questions still stand.
You just answered your own question with exactly what I write above:

On the other hand, when the police find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (a subjective expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).

Also, if any mall employee touched me - they risk the threat of lawsuit so they never will.

[SUBMAN1]

Another article indicating that it is a shop owner's right to ask to see a receipt, to confirm goods purchased and that this does not negate 4th Amendment rights of the consumer:

Consumer Rights and Loss Prevention Exit Stops (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/online/The-Latest-for-Security-Executives/Consumer-Rights-and-Loss-Prevention-Exit-Stops/1754SIW305).

The article originally appeared in the Charlotte (NC) Observer and is authored by an attorney.

I'm beginning to wonder, Subman, which of us two is in actuality defending the Consititutional laws of the United States. :hmm:

THis is not a surprising thing from Kalifornia - the communist state. ALl states have their own laws on this in the US, so you just found an example of a state that permits it.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This is from Forbes - about sums up what will happen if you mess with one of these thugs:

Say you catch someone in the act. What to do? For small proprietors, McGoey suggests not getting the law involved, if only because most are not equipped to safely detain a thief.


The other reason: When it comes to vigilantism, the law may not be on your side. According to Frank Casco Jr., a civil litigator in California, retailers who aggressively defend their turf might invite civil charges of false imprisonment, assault, battery or emotional distress. "Unfortunately, crooks have more rights than the merchants," says McGoey.
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/entremgmt/2007/07/20/wal-mart-costco-ent-law-cx_ll_0720shoplift.html

[SUBMAN1]

This is what I am used to - Washington Law:

Citizens may arrest for misdemeanors if a breach of peace is committed in
their presence, or for any felony that has in fact been committed. If a citizen arrests a
person for a felony that the individual did not commit, the citizen can be sued.
Additionally, even though store personnel do not have the authority to arrest
shoplifters, Washington has criminal and civil statutes that provide a defense for store
owners who reasonably detain a person to investigate shoplifting where they have
probable cause.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:KsC9G5k5BLsJ:www.law.washington.edu/StreetLaw/supplement/Ch23.pdf+washington+law+on+stopping+shoplifters&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a

[StdDev]

Here in So. Kalifornia we have a retail chain by the name of Fry's Electronics.. it is an absolute candy store for those of us involved with computers. They have many bad qualities and many good qualities.. one of the bad ones is the receipt nazi on the way out..
One Day wifezilla and I went shopping at Fry's.. bought a sh&*t load of stuff.. and on the way out we were confronted by the receipt nazi... Wifezilla hands over the receipt and the guy is staring at it.. then looks in the bag... back at the receipt.. then he announces.. "the cashier made a mistake.. charged you for 10 candy bars instead of one" (they have candy bars on the exit lines). He then took it over to the cashier and got us a return of about $3.50 ! Not a big deal or an exorbitant amount of money.. but it goes to show that the recipt checker sole purpose is not just to inhibit theft!

[SUBMAN1]

And here is your answer on the rest of the United States except for Kalifornia (Notice with Costco - you waived your rights when you signed your membership):

Receipt Checks -- You Can Say 'No'

Over the past few months, I've received several e-mails about bad experiences people have had when they've been stopped by security to check their receipt as they're trying to leave a store. A lot of people find the exercise insulting and invasive, especially if they have to wait in long lines. After all, once you buy something, it's your property, right?
This is what reader Tamu Wright wrote recently: In general, I think it makes honest customers feel like the store is treating them like a criminal, and in my mind it is a very lazy way of trying to find shoplifters. Also, (I am an African-American woman), I have had friends/family members feel embarrassed or humiliated because their receipt was checked but not others who came through the exit before or after them. I have also noticed in the past (not sure if this is true now) that some stores (i.e. Target) has this receipt-checking policy in Prince George's county, but did not have one went I visited a suburban Va. store. Both of these issues, of course, speak to the issue of race/class profiling.Well, it turns out retailers are allowed to check your purchases and receipt as long as the search is voluntary and they don't do it in a discriminatory way. Some retailers, such as Costco, spell it out as a condition of membership.
According to a piece on this very issue that ran last fall in the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/11-27-2006/city_life/story/474820p-399409c.html):Retail loss experts explain that the purpose of the bag check is to make sure the cashier correctly charged for all items in the shopping bag or cart. Once this is done, the bag checker makes a distinctive mark on the receipt to indicate that it was checked.So theoretically, you don't have to submit to such checks unless you're at Costco and don't mind getting your membership revoked.
Many consumers may not realize this or figure it's just easier to hand over their receipt and open up their bag. One question is, do store clerks and security people respect this?
Are you a shopper who has asserted your right not to be searched? What happened when you did?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thecheckout/2007/03/checking_your_receipt_or_check.html

[SUBMAN1]

... but it goes to show that the recipt checker sole purpose is not just to inhibit theft!

Seems to me that he did inhibit theft - theft by the store in this case! :D

[FIREWALL]

Here in So. Kalifornia we have a retail chain by the name of Fry's Electronics.. it is an absolute candy store for those of us involved with computers. They have many bad qualities and many good qualities.. one of the bad ones is the receipt nazi on the way out..
One Day wifezilla and I went shopping at Fry's.. bought a sh&*t load of stuff.. and on the way out we were confronted by the receipt nazi... Wifezilla hands over the receipt and the guy is staring at it.. then looks in the bag... back at the receipt.. then he announces.. "the cashier made a mistake.. charged you for 10 candy bars instead of one" (they have candy bars on the exit lines). He then took it over to the cashier and got us a return of about $3.50 ! Not a big deal or an exorbitant amount of money.. but it goes to show that the recipt checker sole purpose is not just to inhibit theft!

You beat me to it StdDev :D K-Mart has them at exits also.

As I see it the asshat ruined his little sisters Birthday. :down:

[lesrae]

As I see it the asshat ruined his little sisters Birthday. :down:

Ditto, sounds like a jumped up PITA to me.

[bradclark1]

All I'll say is when my wife was a supervisor at JCPenny in 2005 that one store had $63,000 dollars in theft. Thats one store and for one year. If it's not on camera or the loss prevention person does not 'eyes on' the theft that person walks. A store clerk can't do anything. They have to notify loss prevention. Too many risks for lawsuits.
I'll just deal with it but some checkers attitudes do piss me off.

[Letum]

Warning to Letum: although you've resurrected, you will die again. :ping: :dead: :ping:

[...]

Arise, Letum!

Am I being thick?

I really dont understand what you mean at all.
Please explain.
:doh:

[The Avon Lady]

Warning to Letum: although you've resurrected, you will die again. :ping: :dead: :ping:

[...]

Arise, Letum!

Am I being thick?

I really dont understand what you mean at all.
Please explain.
:doh:
You previously said:
*dies of quotations*

:D

EDIT: Subman, I have no time right now and may not tomorrow. Quick note: inspecting receipts and bags is not equivalent to arrest.

[SUBMAN1]

EDIT: Subman, I have no time right now and may not tomorrow. Quick note: inspecting receipts and bags is not equivalent to arrest.

It is however detaining - and not legal in most states. My other articles should show you that it is a voluntary thing if you want to show a receipt. I never show them anything upon walking out of a store and there is nothing they can do to stop me either.

-S

[Sldghammer]

Ever shop at Costco?

They Mark I eyeball scan your items and your receipt before you leave the store.

And just about every store now scans your items. They do it inobtrousively
via rfd tags.

So you are already being searched electronically everywhere.

[SUBMAN1]

Yes - but with Costco, you waived that right when you signed for your membership. You could probably still walkout without them scanning your items, but you might lose your membership over it.

-S

[sunvalleyslim]

Well subman,
You're probably the same kind of guy that complains everytime you get a ticket. It's never your fault. And you've never commited a vilolation in your life. I think I might have actually stopped you before, or maybe it was your brother