A bad day at Circuit City
 

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/...-circuit-city/

-S

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

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

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.

According to this Nolo Press article, the 4th Ammendment doesn't seem to apply here for a variety of reasons.

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

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've never studied law per se. :nope:
There is a just cause 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?
Obviously so.
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.
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.
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!

*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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
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

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.

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


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

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!