I don't know if this has been said yet, but since I noticed that the "private property" argument keeps coming up, it's important to mention that a customer entering a business is an invitee and subject to certain terms of the invitation. In the case of a big box store, and is posted, is that the store reserves the right to inspect all packages, of which this is one. By entering the premises, you are subject to the terms of the invitation. So whether it is private property or not is irrelevant - what is relevant is that you have expressly consented to the limited package inspection (pun not intended).

Whether or not CC had the right to inspect the bag should not be at issue. They did. Whether they had the right to detain is what everyone should be discussing.

This is not accurate on two fronts.

1) The store never, ever publishes that it has the right to inspect all packages. Find this posting in any CC or Best Buy. You can't, because it's not in their interest to do so. They rely on voluntary bag checks.

2) Even if they did, you have the right to revoke your permission to search your person at any time. The only recourse they have is to evict you from the premises.

You are not accurate on both fronts.

1) It's on the big friggin' sign on the front of BBY.

2) Once you possess a package, you have given up that right. What kind of silly post-facto nonsense would it for it to operate in the manner you speaking of?

Heres the real question.

Why are we still arguing? Seriously, you will be arguing for months because no one is going to suddenly see it your way. Everyone has their own opinions but the facts are that he got arrested and thats it. Let the judge figure it out.

1)I worked for BBY for 2 years during grad school. I'm familiar with their signage. It doesn't say they reserve the right to inspect packages.

2) Because, even if in some mythical world Best Buy claimed it has the right to inspect your packages, you do not consent to the terms under which such an inspection occurs. As a private citizen, you have the right to come and go as you please, without subjecting yourself to arbitrary package inspection/detention by another private citizen, regardless of the disclaimers they post on the wall. Under your arbitrary criteria, you give Best Buy etc. to search your person the moment your walk in the door. What do you consider a "package?" My wallet is small enough to hold some items BBY/CC sell - is that a package under your definition as well? Let's say, after buying a pair of headphones, I open the package at the register and plug them into my mp3 player as I walk out of the store - does BBY/CC reserve the right to pluck them off my head and check their serial number?

Even if a store posts a gigantic sign on the door - "We reserve the right to inspect your packages" - I can still decline a package search because such a disclaimer has no legal merit.

I suppose if a big box store handed me a pamphlet as I walked in stating that, by entering the store, I must consent to allow a LP employee to verify that the contents of my bag match the contents of my receipt, then you would have an argument.

But what would an employee do if I refused? Beat me up? Rip the bag out of my hand? Kick me out? Call the cops? If I haven't stolen, then the first two options are criminal, and the last two are asinine. So there is simply no compelling reason for a mandatory bag check to occur.

I really have no idea why people are arguing these silly points, because the law is well-established in this regard. The big box stores have formed very specific store policies so that their employees do not step beyond their legal boundaries when trying to engage in LP activities. Every single action taken by CC employees in this case violates CC store policy.

I don't think that sign is at the front of every Best Buy.

It may be on the large sign near customer service that lists all their return policies and such. But those signs are in no where posted so that people entering the store can read them.

I walk into BBs almost daily, there is no sign at the entrance about package searches.

If you refuse to show a receipt to the clerk as you leave the store, then what is the clerk supposed to assume?

You know you haven't stolen anything, but THEY DON'T. Hence, the showing of the receipt.

So, let me ask you and others with your opinion. How do you verify someone has purchased merchandise when they walk out the door? You obviously don't like the showing of a receipt, so what is your solution? I'd love to be a customer at your store. Shit, I'd just walk out with anything I wanted. I wouldn't even need a receipt.

Again, and I really don't understand why it's so difficult to understand, but I bear no responsibility to prove that I haven't stolen anything. It is the responsibility of the loss prevention person to prove that I have. There are any number of ways he can do this:

1) Employees walking throughout the store see me conceal merchandise; they follow me until I pass the last register, at which time I am detained.

2) Loss prevention personnel spot me acting suspiciously in the store over the surveillance system. They see me conceal an item, follow me using "eye in the sky" until I move past the last register, then detain me for shoplifting.

3) I am caught tampering with loss prevention technology in-store. I am approached by loss prevention personnel and asked to leave.

See how easy this is?

I refuse to walk through any store exit that has those automated security scanners at the door. Not only does it search my shopping bag but also my clothing and pockets. What happened to privacy? :mad:

Absolutely, 100% backwards.

The law states that the merchant has no right to search a customer without that customer's consent. The law also says that the merchant has the right to detain a customer, if they have probable cause to believe something was stolen.

Refusing consent is not probable cause.


That means that I could walk into a Circuit City right now - grab an iPod off the shelf - walk over to the store manager and inform him that I am stealing their iPod - stuff it in my pocket and walk out the door.

Circuit City would have the right to detain me - within reason - but they still wouldn't be able to make me empty my pockets, or take the iPod back. All they can do is try to keep me there until the police show up. If they can't keep me there, then they can get my license plate number and report it to the police. At no time does the store have the right to search anybody else's private property - no matter how many signs they have hanging up, or how many times they tell you they can.

Store policy is not law.

And they don't talk back!

"How wide, Mr. Red Shirt?"

4) Employees at the door ask customers for proof of receipts to reduce shoplifting.

How hard is that? :)

Loss Prevention doesn't have the capability to watch every single person, every single second. These stores are not Las Vegas casinos. Part of Loss Prevention, is asking for a receipt at the door. Makes sense to me. Makes sense to 99% of people buying from these stores.

You're assuming that employees and LP personnel have actually seen a person about to conceal merchandise, but what if they don't actually see it happen. Shoplifters are not entirely stupid. They find blindspots of the security cameras, they distract employees, etc., and make it very difficult to actually see the act. Do the employees not have a simple and logical right to ask you for a receipt before you exit the store? Most people agree they do and don't have a problem with it.

You see, I can also argue a few of your points as well. And I will.

1) Employees walking throughout the store see me conceal merchandise; they follow me until I pass the last register, at which time I am detained.

But what if an employee was mistaken and you were simply putting something in your pocket which looked like their merchandise (instead, it was your car keys)? Do they still have a right to detain you, even though they are mistaken? Obviously, they won't know it until they detain you.

2) Loss prevention personnel spot me acting suspiciously in the store over the surveillance system. They see me conceal an item, follow me using "eye in the sky" until I move past the last register, then detain me for shoplifting.

This happens a lot. As with the first response above, what if LP personnel mistakenly see you put something in your pocket and you go through the checkout line, purchasing something else? Do they still have a right to detain you at the door?

It seems requesting a receipt for EVERYONE leaving the store, is a way to not embarass a customer in some of these situations. Maybe that's why companies have done this in the first place.

Forget it....

Wow, I guess it's true.....

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

If you conceal something in your pocket, it's not going to show up on the receipt when you leave the store - nor is it going to be in the bag when they search it. So basically they are just hassling the honest customers who actually made a purchase.

They assume everybody that shops in their store is a crook, and you are 100% guilty until you prove your innocence. ...and everybody is just supposed to be OK with that, and show respect and be kind to the people calling you a thief - because it's the nice thing to do and no big deal.

None of the supposed rebuttals of my points address the fundamental issue: I do not have to prove my innocence. I just don't. The store has to prove that I am stealing. It's supposed to be difficult for them to do so.

I want to address one last point.

I do not assume. The law assumes it. This is the standard LP personnel must use in order to detain someone. Employees certainly have a right to ask me to show them my receipt, but my right to walk away trumps their right to see it. This is as black-letter as it gets.

Because there's always a couple of people who will try to make the other side see their point long after the other side has stopped listening. I stopped getting into these debates on the internet about 15 years ago since they are just a waste of time.

They are fun to read however. :D

You and Flair are entirely mixed up. You are confusing statements of law, and mixing up state and private actors with frivolity.

I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that everything you said above is correct, and then show you how you are wrong.

First, a customer gives consent to a limited INSPECTION (a "search" is a legal term not applicable to a private actor) of packages as terms of the invitation. By entering store, you have at least implicitly, and arguably explicitly, consented to the inspection.

Second, probable cause has zilch to do with a private agreement among parties. Again, you are confusing state and private actors.

Third, whether store policy is law or not is irrelevant. There's an invitee relationship with terms and conditions, implicitly or explicitly agreed to.

Fourth, you are kidding yourself if you think that under your scenario they cannot detain you. They absolutely can because such detention is reasonable under the circumstances. Detention of a person on store premises who you have a strong and reasonable belief to possess stolen merchandise until the authorities come to effectuate a lawful questioning and search runs afoul of no law.

The main faults in your positions is that search, probable cause, etc have nothing to do with anything here. Those apply to state actors, not private ones. Here we have a reasonable inspection based on the terms of invitation, or a reasonable detention based on actual knowledge. Both perfectly legal.

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true. A customer offers no such consent either explicitly or implicitly.

Agreed.
Such terms and conditions do not exist. I'm not sure from where you derive their existence. There are certainly stores/businesses that outline certain parameters for entry, i.e. you must show your personal effects to personnel before entering (bar, club, etc.). If you decline to do so, you leave. I know of no business that makes customers agree to a search before leaving the premises.
Different states define the standards for detention differently, but a strong and reasonable belief that stolen merchandise is possessed is reasonable, so that's fair for a working model. Simply choosing to leave the store without being searched does not, in my view (nor in the view of any of the big box stores, as outlined in their own policies) constitute a strong and reasonable belief that merchandise has been stolen. Further, it is then the responsibility of the merchant to call the police. If you recall, the merchant in this case actively refused to do so.
And again, I ask, what will they do, other than call the police, if I refuse such an inspection?

Flair, it's apparent that we disagree on much of this, and that's fine. Frankly, I'm amazed there's 17 pages worth of discussion over some dillbag like the one here.

Without continuing our circular discussion, my main disagreement with you is over the search / inspection dichotomy. There is no search. CC cannot perform a search. It's an inspection, and it's not the same thing at all. I maintain that the inspection of packages is part of the terms of the invitation. You say it doesn't exist. We will have to agree to disagree.

As for your last point (if you refuse inspection) they damn sure can't detain you if all they know is that you walked from the registered to the door with a bag and refuse. Can they confiscate the bag and return your money? Probably. Can they call the police with your description and plate number? Certainly. Can they run after you and prevent your car from leaving. Absolutely fucking not.

Remember, I'm not defending this store's actions. They were way, way out of line if it went down as described.

I went to Circuit City 3 weeks ago to pick up a DVD. After paying at the register I threw away my receipt. I have not been allowed to leave the store since.

Someone send help.

Read the law- don't assume.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041



The law doesn't cease to exist just because you happen to be standing in a Circuit City.

A Circuit City employee cannot search you without consent under ANY circumstances. Ever.

They can detain you if they have probable cause to believe that something was stolen - meaning they saw you take an item off the shelf, conceal the item, and leave without paying for the item. While you are being detained, they STILL can't search you.



So if Circuit City cannot search your property without your consent, how do you figure they have the right to detain you on the property until you do consent to be searched? It makes zero sense.

rotfl

This post was very much needed in this thread!

Under my scenario - I said they COULD detain me...

That law sounds like it is dealing with public institutions (libraries, museums). Am I mistaken?

Yup. Click the link and read the whole thing. Part A deals with merchants. Part B deals with employees of libraries, museums, etc. Part D deals with movie theaters. Part E says nobody in Part A, B or D has the right to search without consent.

Actually, the warehouse club stores like Costco have terms about checking your receipt in the membership agreement.

I doubt stores like Circuit City would have these terms, and if they did, I would think they would be obligated to post them on a sign a the entrance to the store.

I have 911 on hold; what's your location:question:

They sure do. And violating the terms of your agreement could result in the revocation of your membership.

Well, all I have to say is that personally, I have much more important things to worry about, than a minimum wage employee just doing their job and asking me for a receipt. For some reason, you're caught up in people labeling you a thief, which I have no comprehension of. I never knew I was a thief for simply being asked to show a receipt. In fact, I feel like the store has their act together when they do ask me.

But, nothing is going to be solved here. You will keep on being a pain in the ass to employees by refusing to show your receipt, and I will be passing you by, out the door in a few seconds, on my way home, enjoying my purchases.

It saddens me that even after all this, people are still so uneducated about the laws and their rights - and are actually arguing to have their own freedoms taken away by a minimum wage employee.

Ahh well, at least the internet won't think you're a big meany, and I guess that's the important thing. :shrug:

:rolleyes: It has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with freedom. It's simple courtesy from one human being to another, and it matters none. This whole idea that we're letting people run our lives just because we show a RECEIPT is ridiculous.

Again - if some of you people would actually take the time to read the thread, you would see that I agree that ASKING to see a receipt is no big deal at all. But when the store holds you hostage and demands that you consent to an illegal search before being allowed to leave the property...well, that has everything to do with freedoms and people running our lives.


...but we'll just conveniently ignore that part.

Just because they have a sign posted, it doesn't make it legal. Think about construction or dump trucks that have "stay back 500 feet. Not responsible for damage to windshields". Does that sign excuse them from liability if something unsecured gets ejected from their truck and damages someone's windshield. How about if someone has posted on their vehichle "not responsible for pedestrians I hit while driveing drunk". Would that allow them to escape liability if they killed someone just because it was posted for people to see?

so does that make every customer guilty until proven innocent?

Other than this being completely idiotic, I could've sworn federal business laws state that if you are under suspicion of stealing, they have the right to detain you for a reasonable amount of time until it is shown that you did not steal. Since you couldn't open up your bag for that ungodly amount of time, probably 15 seconds, they could not see that you didn't steal, so they did what any business would do. They called the cops.

People have rights and I guess businesses don't?

Patriot? More like pain in the ass.

What are you saying??? It's a SIGN! Of course that makes it legal. Everyone knows that signs trump the Constitution. Signs and the phrase "it's our policy...", you can't fight them.

You haven't read what actually happened, have you?

Yes, I have.

Show me where CC did anything wrong. Maybe the cop was wrong for arresting him, but CC did nothing wrong.

CC is allowed to detain him, AKA not let him leave, if he is under suspicion of stealing, which he was, because he was acting like someone who would've stole something. In a world full of logical people, which this obviously isn't, if someone asked to see a receipt, you'd show it to them because you know what they'd assume if you didn't.

And it's not that uncommon for stores to ask to see receipts. What kind of fit would he throw at Sam's Club?

Well your description of what happened in the previous post is incorrect. CC did not call the cops. The guy who was arrested did. And they did let him leave the store....but I guess you know that.