I've never actually bought anything at Circuit City - but Sam's Club, Costco and Fry's Electronics all do the same thing around here.

You walk towards the door, and some ass is standing in front of the door behind a little podium and calls out "I need to see your receipt, sir!"

You hand them your receipt, and then hold open your bag. They look at the receipt then dig through your bag pushing things around to find that item, then check it off. Look at the next item, dig around some more and check that item off...etc...

They always manage to put the most illiterate retard out there for this duty as well it seems.

A few months ago, I went to Fry's and bought the HD-DVD Collector's edition of Forbidden Planet (the one in the giant red tin), a Rocky Road candy bar, and a 20oz bottle of coke.

Get to the door, hold my bag open and the guy starts having a look at my stuff. He looks up at me, gives me kind of a suspicious look...looks back at the receipt and points to Forbidden Planet on the receipt.

"I see Far boatin Planut on here - whut's that?"
"It's the giant red box that says Forbidden Planet."
"Oh...hmm...OK."


Apparently, he felt that I had made a purchase but tried to sneak it back onto the shelf before I left the store. Was a close one.

So once you buy and pay for something, it's not legally yours until when exactly?

Circuit City still holds the rights to that possession you just paid for when you're still in the store? How about in the parking lot? Can Santura come to your home and ask to search your home theater? I mean, the product was just in their store just a few miles down the road - it's not like that's your property now or anything...

This idea that an individual must forfeit all civil rights because they are walking on hallowed Circuit City grounds is the silliest idea in this thread.

It is legally yours but your expectation of privacy should still be low IMHO since everything was just on display during the check out process. If you don't like the policy stop shopping at stores that do this. If you want to argue whether or not these searches are effective that's another story. However, there is no loss of civil liberties/privacy by this search and I have yet to hear a convincing argument (aka not "it just is") to the contrary. If it was such an obvious thing there should be a succinct way of stating what liberty/privacy has been lost. This is not a slippery slope to strip searches or something more sinister (aka treating/singling you out as a thief, if you really feel this way I'd say you have more problems w/ your conscience than the person at the door).


-ohbfrank- It's these types of hyperbolic statements/arguments (and things like the strip searches) that really makes sticking up for <i>real</i> privacy issues a difficult thing to do. You do realize that by taking things to such extremes all the time it makes it easier to dismiss your argument/position entirely right?


Who said they are forfeiting ALL rights? Again it's a measure of expectations and what is reasonable.

...or stop consenting to illegal searches and walk right out the door.

Of course, then you run the risk of having the internet think you're a mean asshole.




I'm not taking anything to extremes - I'm asking you a question. You claim you can't expect any privacy to your personal property 2 minutes after purchasing an item and walking 10 feet to the door - so when can you expect that privacy? At what point does Circuit City lose the privilege to do whatever the fuck they want to do to you?

How far away from Circuit City do you personally feel you need to be before your civil liberties take effect again?

Once you get out of the door I would say your expectation of privacy grows. The further you get from the store the higher it gets. Once you're back on your property (aka your car or your house) it's back to the usual high standard people enjoy in that situation.

Your car.

Apparently not - according to Santura and the rest of the Circuit City crew.

He posted an update yesterday:

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/...ty-followup-1/

Not much in it other than the hearing is on September 20th and his legal defense fund is doing well.

Generally speaking.

In this circumstance, clearly not, since he was suspected of committing a crime.

If he was suspected of commiting a crime, why didnt they call the police?

I don't know, I'm not them.

Nice answer :)

I'm sure someone will borrow it.

As much as people want it to be, this isn't a civil rights issue. That's incredibly absurd. It is NOT a big deal for you to take ten seconds out of your precious time for this. It astounds me how much people are blowing this out of proportion. It's NOT a big deal, it's not an invasion of privacy...it's a matter of common sense. But you have some people who want to turn it into a personal crusade.

Asking for a receipt is NOT an illegal search.

I agree. It's not a big deal to show your receipt at the door. Nor is it a big deal to say "No thanks" and keep walking. That's where the whole thing should have ended - as no big deal.

It becomes a big deal when the employees prevent you from leaving.

Having a receipt and a shopping bag is reasonable cause to believe somebody has commited a crime? Seems like having a receipt is reason enough to believe they DIDN'T commit a crime - they obviously made a purchase.

They just asked to see his receipt. That isn't illegal at all. Righy wasn't concerned about privacy or anything like that. Everything on that receipt is also stored in Circuit City's computers. Righy either just wanted some publicity or he was having a bad day and wanted to take it out on some minimum wage security guard. CC and the officer aren't blameless in this mess, but you said Righy was blameless, and he clearly isn't. Maybe he didn't break any laws, but he clearly acted with absolutely no common sense or decency.

Actually, I don't see where it says anyone stood in front of his car with their arms stretched out either. Your exaggerations and hyperbole are ludicrous and just hurt whatever point you are trying to make. This isn't the Gestapo. This isn't some slippery slope issue that is going to lead to home searches or cavity searches.

I was under the impression that the guy refused to show his bag or receipt, which thus raised suspicions.

Under the shopkeeper's privilege, if someone you reasonable suspect has stolen is leaving your store, you can attempt to stop them even outside the store (i.e., curb, parking lot).

I wasn't trying to be a dick. I just honestly don't know why they did or did not do things.


Have the police or Circuit City issued any statements about the incident?

I gotta say, it seems REAL odd that this kid is blogging about the incident, yet at his attorney's advice, will not provide interviews.

I agree with your reasoning 100%, and I would agree that checking people who are clearly holding receipts probably doesn't turn up a whole lot of thieves. However, I don't necessarily agree that the system is broken. The very presence of a loss prevention person can be enough to deter would-be thieves.

For example, at my local Target, there is always a uniformed guard hanging around the front of the store. At first glance, it doesn't appear that he's doing anything. And who knows... maybe in the course of a day he really doesn't do anything. But I bet the simple fact that he's present makes some people think twice about stealing.

The example you gave is very logical, but let's face it... most thieves aren't rocket scientists. Their thought process probably doesn't go much farther than "Uh oh, there's a security guy watching the door. I better try a different store instead."

Don't forget he had a car waiting right outside the door for him too. Entirely innocent, but from the POV of the guy at the door it would add to the suspicion.

Nor is it illegal to refuse.

I see people do this all the time at Fry's - just walk on past when asked to stop at das inspection point.

I've just never seen an employee stupid enough to chase him through the parking lot and form a human barricade in front of his car.

How do you figure he was trying to cause trouble or trying get attention? He said "no thanks" and walked out of the store. it's not his fault that the douchebag manager decided to play make-believe cop and arrest the bad guy.



"I reopened the door to talk with Joe and at this point Joe positioned his body between the open car door and myself. (I was still seated in the Buick.) Joe placed his left hand on the roof of the car and his right hand on the open car door."

...


"I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands."

...


"I was speaking to my father this morning about what unfolded yesterday, and he told me something that I was not aware of until this point. While I was speaking to Joe Atha from the back seat of the car, Santura stood in front of my father’s vehicle with his hands out to the side as a way of preventing him from driving forward. My father would not have been able to drive forward because Santura stood in the way, and he would not have been able to drive backwards because the open door would have hit Joe who was leaning into the car."



Reading is FUNdamental!

One side of the story.

Ah, that was on one of the last updates, which I didn't read; it wasn't in the main story. The point still stands though... 1) Righi isn't blameless at all and 2) This isn't a slippery slope issue.

If the story is indeed accurate, if they 'asked' to see the receipt, 'no' would have been an acceptable answer. But this was more of a "show me your reciept or else" scenario.

Like I said, CC isn't blameless in this, however their request to see the receipt was not illegal, nor was it an invasion of privacy or a slippery slope issue. Thus common sense and decency says the thing to do would be to take five seconds to show them the receipt, and then everyone could have moved on with their lives. But Righi chose to not do this, and thus he is not blameless either.