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

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.

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.

Ok, my mistake on who called the cops.

And they let him leave...the store. But that doesn't really matter when they still won't let him leave the parking lot.

It all boils down to whether or not you think CC had cause to believe that the kid was stealing simply because he failed to show his receipt when asked.

If they did have cause, then shopkeeper's privilege would allow CC to reasonably detain the kid until the police could be summoned to investigate further.

If they did not have cause, then CC couldn't do a thing about it.

A previous poster who worked at BBY said that the BBY policy manual advises NOT to pursue customers who refuse to show their receipts and that has been my experience here in California, as well, having seen a couple of these types of manuals myself.

It does matter because if they were going to detain him, the next step would have been for them to call the police to have the police search him. They didn't want to call the police. Therefore they were illegally detaining him (since they had no right to search him) with no obvious intention of calling the cops and getting the whole process over with. So he called their bluff...and got arrested.

Have you learned nothing from this thread? You don't call 911 for non-emergencies, you find out the non-emergency number for the police department in the applicable city.

And the police won't help anyway. I've already spoken with two different cops that have been in here shopping. Each of them asked me for ID before taking further action. Since I left my drivers license in the car I was afraid they would arrest me, so I hid behind the HD-DVD display, where no one would think of looking.

Alot of this thread has been committed to wether or not checking the reciept and the contents of the bag are legit enough for the "suspicion of stealing". Noone is arguing they cant detain on suspision, they are arguing if the suspicion held any merit. Also if CC had to break civil rights to obtain said suspicion.

I have the freedom to run up to the first person I see walking on the street and call him an ugly, snot-nosed ass. I haven't exercised that right, though. I'm oppressed.

Not oppressed enough to prevent snarky non sequiturs though.

This ignores some other factors that may have influenced the decision of the CC staff.

1. Refusal to show receipt.

2. I am willing to guess that such refusal was made with a sizable "I am better than you" attitude (given the nature of his online comments).

3. The fact that a car was waiting for him at the curb by the store exit (could suggest a big ticket item grab and flee plan).

4. Further attitude and actions outside the store.

While I have stated before that it is likely that CC went too far, as we only have the word/story of the guy who purposefully set up the situation (read his blog again - HE REFUSED KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THIS WOULD SET OFF and HE DID ON PURPOSE TO "PROVE A POINT"), I doubt how much I can rely on that perspective to be "unbiased" (or honest if you prefer ). I can easily foresee other circumstances/considerations that may support a rational and reasonable suspicion of retail theft warranting the detainment. Where CC went wrong was in not calling the cops sooner!

Some of you people just flat out refuse to use any common sense at all. The law clearly states that Circuit City cannot search a customer without that customer's consent under ANY circumstance. Yet you feel that refusing to consent to a search is reason enough for Circuit City to detain a customer and demand to search him? Brilliant.

So i'm wrong? This discussion isnt about "arguing if the suspicion held any merit."?

Geauxn commented on "swearing the law states...". I was commenting on the fact that if he would read through the thread, he would find we've been down that path. If he did so, he would have seen that some laws actually linked.

While I have commented on this a while back, my last post was more to assist Geauxn than it was to attempt to support one side of it.

1. ok. This is part of the arguement i was talking about. Is that a just "suspision"?

2. Can't "guess" as to what attitudes were. I could GUESS that the manager was 6'5", 300 LBS, had a tazer, and said "GIVE ME YOUR RECIEPT OR ELSE". So all guessing aside, the argement becomes "was it legal what they did".

3. This is part of the discussion as to if their suspicion was "legit". Again, part of the arguement i was talking about.

4. See #2.

Do they chase everyone out in the parking lot when they refuse to let them see a receipt? Do they chase everyone out in the parking lot when a car is at the curb? Only when its a combination of both?