Stop That Paying Customer! The Legality of Compulsory Receipt-Checking
Mar 12th, 2008 | Category: ArticlesWritten by: Steve Glista
Researched by: Matthew A. Schroettnig
Edited by: Lauren E. Trent
When Michael Righi heard someone running up behind him, he thought he knew what would come next. He expected a difficult conversation, maybe even some shouting or threats. He certainly didn’t expect to get handcuffed — but that’s exactly what happened after Righi walked out of a Circuit City in Cleveland, Ohio without
showing his receipt to the security guard at the exit. He’s not the only shopper in recent months who has experienced frustration or met with open hostility after refusing to show a receipt on the way out of a store. Customers like Righi claim that the Fourth Amendment protects them from unreasonable searches, that it’s wrong for stores to treat all customers as suspected criminals, and that stores have no right to demand a receipt or anything else from every customer. Since so many stores are checking receipts, it can’t be illegal…can it?
The American system of law values few things more highly than the freedom for people to come and go as they please. The idea that retailers may deny that freedom to paying customers over a simple matter such as refusing to show a receipt offends privacy advocates in a fundamental way. One of the beautiful things about the law is that it seldom identifies an offense without creating a corresponding legal remedy. When a person is wrongly held prisoner, the victim can seek redress against his captor in a civil suit for false imprisonment.
Why check receipts?
Before considering whether detained customers like Michael Righi have grounds to sue, it helps to understand what motivates retailers to risk such liability. Today, nearly every retail outlet from Wal*Mart to Neiman Marcus offers at least one pocket-sized digital toy worth several hundred dollars. The 32 GB iPod Touch for instance, which Apple has priced at $499, is smaller than a pack of cigarettes. Without loss-prevention measures, a store like Costco could not afford to display an open rack of iPods without exposing itself to daily risk of substantial theft.
One approach retailers take to combat shoplifting is to keep small but valuable products in a locked display case. This method has the disadvantage that it may reduce sales, as customers are forced to obtain assistance before they can purchase the product. Another common approach is to wrap small and valuable items in large, difficult-to-open packaging. Unfortunately, packages designed to prevent theft can also frustrate legitimate buyers. The tough plastic used has proven dangerous enough that inventors have created specialized tools to help people open their new possessions without injuring themselves.
Receipt-checking is an increasingly popular loss-prevention method which retailers use to stymie would-be thieves. The brief stop discourages shoplifting by forcing each person to face down a guard before exiting the store. Unlike the locked display case, it doesn’t interfere with the customer experience until after the purchase is complete. The drawback to aggressive receipt-checking programs is that unless they train their employees carefully, retailers can quickly find themselves on the receiving end of a civil complaint.
Just Keep Walking
The customer who objects to showing a receipt wonders, “I haven’t done anything wrong, so why is this store treating me (and everyone else who shops here) like a suspected thief?” Many shoppers have a vague sense that mandatory receipt checks intrude upon some kind of Constitutional right. While a general right to privacy may emerge from the “penumbras, formed by emanations” of the Bill of Rights, one Amendment is frequently cited as protecting citizens from compulsory searches. Many people believe that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution always requires agents of the U.S. Federal and State governments to obtain a warrant before making an arrest or searching personal property. However, the Supreme Court has found leeway for law enforcement officers to act without a warrant in some common-sense situations. For example, an officer can arrest and search a suspect without a warrant when there is “probable cause” for the officer to believe that the suspect is in the process of, or has just finished, committing a crime.
Since the Supreme Court’s 1967 Terry v. Ohio decision, police officers must merely identify “specific and articulable facts” which motivate them to apprehend a suspect. After an officer has made such a “Terry stop,” he may conduct a cursory search of the suspect, generally including a pat-down for weapons and an examination of any personal property not concealed in the suspect’s clothing. Searches incidental to Terry stops are justified on the grounds that police officers have a compelling interest in their own personal safety, and the failure to discover a weapon could present an unacceptable risk.
If the receipt-checker were a government officer the Fourth Amendment would generally allow customers to refuse to show a receipt, because presumably at least some customers visit Circuit City but don’t try to steal anything. If the officer detained every customer and conducted a search, a court would bar the use of any evidence obtained, unless the officer had probable cause to believe either that he was personally in danger or that a particular customer had taken a five-finger discount. In reality, the responsibility for checking receipts usually belongs to a store employee rather than a police officer. Consequently, the Fourth Amendment does not restrain those private citizens as it would agents of the government.
Some members-only discount stores require their customers to give consent to be searched by an employee as a condition of membership. For example, the Costco membership agreement contains an unconditional consent to search on page 29. Customers who sign such an agreement (as all Costco customers must) would seem to have no grounds to complain if they are later required to submit to a receipt-check.
You’re not going anywhere!
As all first-year torts scholars know, “false imprisonment” is a legal term that describes the act of unlawfully confining a person against their will. Unfortunately for retailers with a nationwide presence, the actual details of the law vary by state. In most states a plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to make out his case. The offender first must have the intent to confine the victim, and second, must take action to actually confine them. Third, the offender must act without a legal justification for doing so. Fourth, the victim must be aware of the confinement while it’s happening, or be harmed by it. Finally, there must be no reasonable means for the victim to escape (or at least no means that the victim is aware of). If the offender physically blocks the exit with his body and refuses to move, that may be enough of a confinement to satisfy a jury.
Even if an accused shoplifter can prove all the elements of a false imprisonment claim, the retailer might have an out: most American jurisdictions recognize a limited “shopkeeper’s privilege” exception to the false imprisonment tort. Many states have enacted the common-law privilege as positive law (for example, Oregon’s law is ORS 131.655). In either form, the shopkeeper’s privilege allows a retailer to detain suspected shoplifters and inspect their personal property for stolen items. Such a detention will not be punished as false imprisonment as long as it is limited to a reasonable (short) time, takes place in the store, if the force used to detain the suspect is reasonable, and if the retailer had the reasonable belief (often defined in this context as equivalent to probable cause) that the suspect was attempting to steal or had already stolen something from the store. In practice, this last condition generally means retailers must actually see someone take an item and exit the store without paying for it before they attempt to confront the suspected thief.
So where does this leave Mr. Righi and other potential plaintiffs? In Mr. Righi’s case, he actually made it into his car before the security guard accosted him. Once he was in the car, the guard told him he couldn’t leave the premises, which is evidence of the guard’s intent to restrain him. The guard prevented him from leaving the parking lot, which satisfies the second element. Mr. Righi was also aware that the Circuit City employees were physically preventing him from leaving (element three). Before the police handcuffed him, he might have been able to escape from the Circuit City parking lot without injury to himself or to the security guard, but if he believed that he was effectively restrained, that may be enough to prove the fourth element (no reasonable means of escape). Assuming Mr. Righi gave a true account of all of the facts, it would seem his situation meets all the necessary elements for a false imprisonment claim against Circuit City.
What of the shopkeeper’s privilege? Most of the circumstances satisfy the conditions necessary for Circuit City to claim the detention was privileged. The defense would turn on whether the guard had probable cause to detain and search Mr. Righi for stolen goods. However, Circuit City does not have the power to forcibly search all of its customers, and the only specific and articulable fact that brought Mr. Righi to the guard’s attention was that when offered the opportunity to submit to a search, Mr. Righi politely declined. It is circular reasoning to suggest that the refusal to submit to a voluntary search is itself justification for subjecting a customer to one that is compulsory.
Should you show? Or should you sue?
Even though typical customers who refuse receipt checks might have the law on their side, it seems odd that a consumer electronics store was the place where Michael Righi chose to draw a line in the sand. Picking a fight with a retail security guard over a $20 receipt seems quixotic at best. Righi’s resistance stands out because, for most customers, the injury suffered from such a minor intrusion just isn’t significant enough to incur the cost of failing to comply with the guard’s request. But how should a customer who refuses to show their receipt expect to be treated by the law?
Litigious customers facing off against the police or Costco might not have much luck. Police need probable cause to conduct a search, and Costco members have voluntarily agreed to submit to searches. The question of law is more interesting when a retailer like Circuit City attempts to implement a receipt-check policy without the benefit of a member agreement. In states where the shopkeeper’s privilege exists, stores like Circuit City may only claim the privilege to search customers when the store agent has a reasonable belief that a customer has engaged in unlawful activity. It seems implausible that store agents could honestly claim they need to check every receipt on the grounds that they have a reasonable belief that every one of their customers is a thief.
My policy is to wait no more than five seconds–if I’m still waiting for someone to check my receipt, I just walk out. More often than not, the person checking receipts doesn’t say a word.
I found the article a bit too long, and not too clear… I’m still not sure if I can sue or not…. I need a summary…
Interesting article, however it seems cut off. You touch upon “seeking redress”, several times, yet never state a clear conclusion. It is implied, but the lack of a true ending is awkward.
Lots of interesting links embedded, a ton of pertinent information, although I found the lack of court citations to be an unusual choice. It seems unreasonable to assume that there were no previous court cases dealing with the subject of false imprisonment, relating specifically to a retail store, yet there’s no mention of any precedents set.
Overall, I enjoyed it and found it to be education. Thanks for the article.
Thanks for the comments. Since we are law students, not attorneys, and we are certainly not YOUR attorney, much less attorneys for everyone on the internet, we are unable to offer specific legal advice. This is a constraint that applies to much legal writing on the internet, and unfortunately theLegality is no different. If you’re looking for a howto on suing Wal-Mart for checking your receipt, probably won’t be much help.
And, w/r/t case analysis, there are a number of state court cases which might apply in the state where they were decided. However, laws vary by state, and we were hesitant to point our readers (who come from all 50 US states and many countries around the world) to any one decision as an example of what is reasonable conduct by an agent of a retail store. We hesitated (and continue to hesitate) because we don’t even want to suggest that a particluar feature of Texas law should (or does) apply in Ohio or Oregon or anywhere else, because that might be construed as precisely the kind of advice we’re not allowed to give.
A case in Texas which discussed a false-imprisonment claim and the shopkeeper’s privilege defense in a retail setting was linked above, but I’ll call your attention to it again here: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d 539 (Sup. Ct., Tex., 1998).
Actually you have plenty of grounds to complain, just no grounds to refuse. It’s very important as a customer to let the business understand what you are unhappy about.
Actually, having just read the Costco agreement, it is NOT required that you be searched. You can check for yourself at
http://www.costco.com/Images/Content/Misc/PDF/WlcmeBro_021808.pdf
on page 29.
What bothers me is that people who don’t buy ANYTHING can walk in and out of the store without being subject to checking! Seems as if only patrons are being targeted. So if you have bought something you are considered a viable threat, but not the guy who spent 30 minutes browsing the electronics department and walks out like he just needed to be inside using the bathroom or getting out of the weather. This is what annoys me more than anything.
Howard: that’s a great point, and I think you’re absolutely correct.
George: the relevant lines are these:
So, Costco can search your backpack or anything else you carry in upon entry, and they will check your receipt on the way out.
I have done Loss Prevention work for years.
I will never stop someone unless I have valid PC.
Reciept checking is a disgusting practice. If you are not a member of some shopping club (Costco) You have zero obligation to prove you bought the item you are walking out of the store with.
The preponderance of evidence is on the storekeeper to prove that you stole that item.
I will not allow myself to be receipt checked. A familiar ringing goes through my ears each time I hear that phrase. I hear a voice in a German accent: (Youa Papaas are not in orda)—my attempt at a bad German accent.
I know I bought the items. There is an electronic record of my purchases, most stores have CCTV covering the check out lanes. If you think I stole something, prove it. If not, get out of my way, I want to take my recently purchased items and leave your place of business.
This is America, our constitution was written by a bunch of guys just like you and me. In the immortlal words of Zack de la Rocha “F*$# you, I won’t do what you tell me.”
The way I see it, retail stores have every right to ASK to see a receipt, and I have every right to refuse. It’s a voluntary process (even if you signed a contract you still have the right to refuse, though it may cost you your membership), but to attempt de facto spot searches of personal property or detain a private citizen upon refusal of a voluntary process is not only morally reprehensible but downright illegal.
I usually look the checker in the eyes and politely say “Only if you let me look at the money I just deposited in your cash registers.” This usually elicits a jaw-drop or a double take, but if you say it with a smile they usually don’t push it.
This article does a poor job of making some distinctions. The Fourth Amendment only requires the federal government to avoid unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourteenth Amendment extends that prohibition to state actors. Our Constitution has no effect, directly, on individuals. Thus, a private company (not state-run) is not bound by the search and seizure regulations. The entire Fourth Amendment discussion has nothing to do with your issue.
However, private individuals are still required to avoid tortious activities. False-imprisonment is a tort, not a constitutional violation. And, the “shopkeeper’s privilege” is actually a part of the old common law. It is quite ubiquitous these days. The privilege prevents false imprisonment
The Constitution works better if we actually just use it where it applies, rather than dragging it everywhere it does not belong. It seems the author was more interested in inflaming readers and inspiring litigation rather than actually dealing with law. Many people are angry after being confronted by a hostile or accusatory security person, and this article simply seeks fuel the rage.
If you don’t like showing your receipt, don’t shop there. People forget that the constitution is meant to prevent the GOVERNMENT from carrying out unreasonable searches. If you choose to shop at a store that has the policy of checking receipts, you are telling them they can check it just by shopping there.
Musashi: Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You baselessly accused us of distorting the terms of the dispute in order to inflame the passions of our readers. I will consider opposing viewpoints if they are expressed in a civil tone, but I won’t allow you to misrepresent my writing because you couldn’t be bothered to finish reading the article.
1. The only reason the Fourth Amendment makes it into this article is because, as we noted in the very first paragraph, many people claim it should protect them from these sorts of searches. I think we clearly debunked that argument by stating that the Fourth Amendment and all of the associated caselaw about Terry stops and probable cause apply only to government actors, not to the private agents of retail outlets.
2. You are correct, false imprisonment is a tort. That’s how we described it. We even linked to the classic elements. It’s in the very first sentence of the tenth paragraph.
3. Again, you are correct that the shopkeeper’s privilege used to be common law. However, it has increasingly been adopted as statutory law in many jurisdictions, including in our own State of Oregon, which we referenced above. That’s in the eleventh paragraph.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
If they demand to see my receipt, I will show them the receipt.
Then, when they are satisfied, I will take the receipt and the merchandise back into the store. There, I will present the receipt and the merchandise and demand my money back.
I will then tell them that, because of their implementation of their policy, my money and I are going elsewhere.
Then, I will drive/walk across the street to their competitor and buy my merchandise. As I pay for it, I will tell them why my money is now in their cash drawer.
Bogus argument. When you’re on private property, you play by their rules. Try getting out of my house with something stuffed under your shirt and see what I do to you.
We can;t live in a world where people can just walk into a store, steal all they want, and walk out with the knowledge that no one can search, detain, or identify them.
I have no problem with stores searching my purchase when some alarm goes off – happened many of times.
It’s just common sense.
@Dwindle – If someone stops you when a store alarm goes off, surely that gives them reason to believe you might have stolen something. Checking receipts doesn’t make that distinction. Besides, as someone else noted, it’s not even a logical practice – people who don’t buy anything aren’t subjected to any checks at all.
I assume you search all your house guests before they leave to make sure they haven’t stolen anything?
I understand where it could be offensive to check receipts but at the same time people should not just be mad at the store for the situation.People should be mad at the people who robbed the store to make them feel that such practices are necessary to ensure that they’re not robbed again.
This does not happen in the UK, and on the whole i think it is disgracefull. I say Americans stand up to this bullying. Stores should only have this privelige if they have recieved a high rate of burglaries.
America used to be the bastion of freedom, now it seems the individual is just not that free there anymore. Though of course i am not an expert on this, hence using the word seems.
Priscilla, we aren’t blaming the stores for the fact that people steal from them, we are blaming them for the specific policy that many of them have adopted, namely receipt checking. This isn’t the only way that stores can respond to shoplifters, and many people, myself included, believe that it is both an unnecessary burden on the vast majority of customers who are honest and of questionable legality (at least in cases where forcible detention is involved for no other reason than a refusal to comply). Saying that we should blame the thieves rather than the stores implies that the stores have no choice about how they respond to theft and manage theft prevention, which just isn’t true.
What about prescriptions? Law states that anyone can purchase prescriptions from Costco even without membership. So a non-member buying prescriptions has not signed any agreements whatsoever.
This only happens in one store that I know of in the UK – a ‘members only’ store called Macro, and it’s a cursory look at the receipt at best. In England and Wales a citizen can make a citizen’s arrest (the only way to detain someone else without consent legally) provided they have committed and offence or it is to prevent an ongoing or imminent breach of the peace. Probable cause is not enough – if it turns out no offence was committed by the detainee, the detention is unlawful. Many, if not most, security staff fail to understand this..
Jonathan: it’s interesting you mention the “cursory look.” I’ve shopped at Costco in several different states, in both very urban settings and in smaller towns. Here in Eugene, they don’t really look at your stuff at all, and there’s never a line on the way out. In the SF Bay area, the check was a bit more thorough, and there were often two or three checkers and longer lines at times when the store had heavy traffic.
The one time I bought stuff at the Costco on Maui, the checker went over our purchases pretty carefully, and checked each one off the receipt individually. There were several people in line behind us and it took at least a minute or two.
My only experience with receipt checks is Costco. But as I see it, the receipt is something the store has given us. If they want to do a quick check at the end to prevent shop-lifting, which raises everyone’s costs, I don’t have a problem with that.
You didn’t mention that Righi was already in his car until way at the end. That’s a different story from checking the receipts at the door. Looking through purses, pockets, and backpacks is also a different story. But looking at the receipt that is merely a listing of things I bought in their store doesn’t seem to deprive me of any information they don’t already have. Thus it doesn’t invade my privacy. I’m more concerned that they have a record in their computers of every product I bought connected to my name. THAT is an invasion of my privacy.
Now, if the wait becomes burdensome, that’s a different issue. Or if they are nasty about the search. Or if some people get searched differently from others because of what they look like. The searches at Costco, over the years, have gone from fairly thorough to cursory. That may raise questions of whether they are effective. If not it wastes Costco’s money as well.
I wonder about the people who get really insulted by this. What happened (or didn’t happen) in their lives that causes them to be insulted? I understand that they aren’t accusing me of theft, but that they are asking me to cooperate to help them keep their shoplifting bill low (and thus my shopping bill low). I’m willing to take an extra two or three minutes for them to look through the receipt.
As I say, the real violation of my privacy is their keeping a computer record with my name attached of everything I buy. That information connected to individual customers is not something they should have or any store should have. At other stores you can avoid that by paying cash or not using the store discount card. But not at Costco.
I work at a Sam’s Club myself, and I can assure you that receipt-checking at my store isn’t in place because the door greeters “assume you are a criminal.” Quite frankly, about half the issues that arise at the exit door consist of people being accidentally overcharged. Just about the rest of the incidents are certain items being missed at the checkout stand, due to the sheer volume of items purchased at any one time. Although the legal issue of it is interesting, consideration should be given to the fact that checking the receipt at the door often ends up helping the customers, too.
Since this seems to have degenerated into a discussion on if the practice is reasonable, here are my 2 cents.
1) If retailers claim that the checks are to protect you the customer, then they should accept that I paid attention when they rang it in and accept the charges. You don’t call security because a customer wouldn’t let you give them back the $5 that you overcharged.
2) I have never, ever seen a door checker pay enough attention to notice that someone was overcharged. Frankly part of my annoyance with the practice is that they pay so little attention, it is a waste of time.
3) If it is to check that your staff are entering things properly, install cameras and watch them as they enter things. I see no reason I have to stand around so you can pretend to check your own staff. Yes many of these stores hire morons, but that should not be my problem.
4) Regardless, if your staff screwed up, it does not justify stopping someone so that you can check.
My main annoyance with these checks comes from a couple things:
- I just waited in line and bought the item 10 feet away, and am now trying to leave. Now you want me to wait again? Do you really think that I stole something in those 10 feet?
- Do you really think that these quick searches of my bag would turn up anything if I did? You didn’t search my pockets…
- If you are concerned about theft, search everyone, not just the ones who tried to be honest and pay for things! The fact that the guy who stuffed something in his pocket and walked out is not searched suggests that they are actually targeting paying customers!
If I saw much point to this, I would not object, but these seem to be just more hassle for the customer with little reason.
In the case of Sam’s Club or Walmart or possibly some of the other retailers or “clubs” that ask for receipts and harass customers, the receipt checking seems to be more of a deterrent for employee theft. The checkers do nothing more than a cursory glance at the receipt and the items leaving the store, unless of course, the person leaving the store is a minority. Why should I, as a paying customer that has just gone through a check-out line, be subjected to more waiting to clear door to inhibit employee theft?
It works like this.
Door checking keeps compliant people a little more honest. It does not stop the pros, although they may simply go to easier targets. However, that small percentage of opportunists that would shoplift, think twice with door checks in place. Especially teens.
The fact is, once I have paid for an item, ownership transfers. I do not have to leave the property for the item to be mine. Therefore, checking anything in my bag is an invasion of my personal property.
Checking the receipt is double the stupidity. They fully know what is on the receipt, their computer just updated the restock files. However, this check may also prevent cashier/customer cooperatives from passing things unpaid for through the checkout lines.
Bottom line, if you stop me, you had better prove your probably cause because I could use some extra money today!
I don’t understand why people get so up-in-arms about showing their receipt. It takes five seconds and it is there to deter shoplifters. And shoplifting isn’t just that store’s problem; it drives up the cost of merchandise, especially in smaller stores. The store isn’t targeting you specifically and implying that you’re a criminal–it’s to send a message to people who enter the store with the intent to shoplift/ticketswitch that there are people there who may very well stop you.
I’ve worked loss prevention part-time for a couple of years.
I’ve recovered merchandise in hundreds of incidents now.
Approximately 9/10 of those incidents were receipt checks.
Approximately 9/10 of my receipt checks over the past year have yielded recovered merchandise.
Approximately 9/10 of those recoveries were quite clearly due to cashier error.
For the record, yes – I have caught overcharging on several occasions.
Receipt checks are primarily used to deter theft – and it works quite well – which explains the very limited number of professional theft incidents that have occurred while I was conducting receipt checks.
That was an unnecessarily long column. Bottom line: yes, it’s legal. No, you’re constitutionally guaranteed rights are not being violated by government. End of story.
your not you’re, dangit.
In portland oregon, Joan Wagar and Eric Carlson are in A Murder conspiracy together.
And Clackamas Walmart are acttively helping them by hideing Eric’s employment there from me and my family.
For over A year now Eric Carlson has been going by the name gashel, last name unknown by me, he dyed his hair black, and Walmart agreed to hide his Identity from my daughter, who also worked at that store.
Joan and Eric have friends in Authority protecting Joan and Eric from prosecution.
I have reported this repeatedly to the Authority’s and they are ignoring Joan and Eric’s CONSPIRACY.
I would be more than happy to Testify to this but the Authority’s are covering this up so my testimony would simply dissapear.
My name is Terry Wagar and Im backing up these charges.
Nomatter how many people Joan and Eric poisoned the Authority’s here in portland Oregon refuse to arrest them.
Im making these charges public because of the blatent coverup of these charges.
Today I (together with BJ’s Personel) discovered an additional question; I was held over 25min for my receipt to be checked.
Yes, I signed to voluntarily agree to be submitted to searches
Yes, They are allowed to check my receipt.
No, I do not mind showing it.
HOWEVER:
How long can they hold you in line to do so?
BJ’s helpline informed me that 20min is unacceptable and one can demand they take the items back and refund your money, or let you walk.
The question remains; how long can they hold you for search?
This is a terrible and in the majority irrelevant discussion other than the false imprisonment example. If Sams,Walmart etc detains you it is because they believe you have stolen something not because you did not allow them to check your receipt. They are also not going to claim your refusal to do so in itself constitutes reasonable suspicion that you have stolen something. What they will do is ask you not to shop there anymore which they have every right to do.
this is the point at which we have arrived, due to money and capitalism.
and now Circuit Shitty is closing something like 40% of their US stores because they’re hacks.
If I’m interpreting this correctly Costco legally cannot force anyone to show their receipt before exiting a store – however because members sign a contract agreeing to do so, they can have their membership revoked if they chose not to do so. In reality, since they Costco cannot legally detain anyone without probable cause – how on earth could they even invoke their right to cancel a person’s membership unless that person voluntarily surrenders it? If a Costco employee were to attempt to detain a person in order to ascertain that person’s identity without the probable cause necessary to invoke the shopkeepers privilege, then that Costco employee would be guilty and liable of false imprisonment. Of course, without detaining an individual member, Costco could always use their transactions records and CCTV to attempt to ascertain the identity of an individual member legally after they have left, but this seems like it would be cumbersome and time consuming, and in actuality if enough people stood up for themselves in this manner, Costco would likely have no choice but to amend this ridiculous policy. Wouldn’t it make sense for Costco to simply monitor its checkstands for individuals returning to the store and to concentrate its receipt checking attentions on those individuals who have already been checked out that have returned to the store? Would this not only be less intrusive and insulting to their loyal customers who do pay for their items, but also more efficient and likely to yield results in the way of maximizing their loss prevention efforts?
I’VE BEEN A RETAIL MANAGER FOR FORTY YEARS. I’M WELL AWARE OF INHOUSE LOSS PREVENTION PRACTICES. MOST OF THEM
RIDE A FINE LINE OF ABUSING THE CUSTOMER OR EVEN THEIR EMPLOYEES. WE NEVER STOPPED A CUSTOMER UNLESS WE KNEW WHAT THE PERSON HAD AND WHERE IT WAS ON THEIR PERSON. LOSS PREVENTION DOES NOT WANT TO INCURR TOO MANY LAW SUITS, IF THIS HAPPENS, I GUARANTEE THEY WILL BACKOFF. IF YOU INVOKE
A POLICY AND NOTHING HAPPENS, IT BECOMES STORE POLICY. THIS
MEASURE IS ALL ABOUT BOTTOM LINE. IF WAL-MART STARTS THE PRACTICE, EVERYONE ELSE DOES TOO. MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WAS THE PURCHASE OF A TV, WE WERE PROCESSED BY A CHECKER, GOT OUR RECIEPT, ON OUR WAY OUT THE DOOR, AND A LARGE LADY CAME RUNNING UP BEHIND ME, SIR, SIR, I NEED TO CHECK YOUR RECIEPT! IF MY WIFE HAD NOT BEEN WITH ME, I WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY ASK FOOR THE STORE MANAGER, AND TOLD HIM OR HER THAT I WAS DETAINED ON THE PREMISE OF SHOPLIFTING, AND ASK HIM TO CALL THE POLICE. REPORT ALL HAPPENING TO THE POLICE, YOU WANT A COMPLETE REPORT OF DETAILS TO ASSIST YOU IN YOUR LAWSUIT. ONCE YOU CAUSE THEM EMBARRASSMENT, OR A POSSIBLE LAWSUIT, THEY BACKOFF. ONCE THEY CHECK YOUR CONTENTS OF YOUR PUCHASE AGAINST YOUR RECIEPT, AND NO STOLEN MERCHANDISE IS FOUND, ITS FALSE ARREST. LOSS PREVENTION IS ALSO TAUGHT PROFILING, IF YOU ARE HANDICAPPED, PERSON OF COLOR, OR DRESSED SHABBILY, AS FAR I CAN SEE, LOSS PREVENTION ARE INHOUSE POLICE, WHETHER IN A SECURITY UNIFORM OR NOT, MOST LP DRESS IN STREET CLOTHES SO AS NOT TO DRAW ATTENTION. APPARENTLY ENOUGH OF US ARE UPSET ABOUT THIS, WE SHOULD SUE THEM, AND SET A PRECEDENT, CONTACT YOUR ACLU IN YOUR STATE.
I adamantly refuse to show my receipt at all stores except for Costco (where I understand I am bound by the membership agreement to show it). Typically, when I refuse politely, the receipt checker nods and sometimes tells me to “have a nice day.” The only time I ran into a problem was at a Fry’s Electronics in Manhattan Beach, California, when I refused to show my receipt, and the receipt checker (who I had never seen before) gripped my bag firmly and informed me that I would not be allowed to leave the store until I showed my receipt. I told him to call the police, and at this point, a more senior receipt checker (one who I’d seen before on prior shopping trips and recognized me by face) instructed the employee gripping my bag to let go. I immediately went to the manager’s office to discuss the incident, and the manager admitted that it should not have occurred, but one of the receipt checkers had called in sick that day, so the man who checked my receipt was pulled from his regular position and used as a receipt checker that day without having received any training. The manager assured me that it would not happen again, so I decided to accept the whole incident as a mistake/misunderstanding and not attempt to take any legal action.
Okay, there undue search and seizure part is a control on government, an entity which you have to deal with. When it comes to businesses we do have redress, mainly the tort action if is rises beyond a brief annoyance or the right to refuse to do business with them.
My solution if asked for a receipt I would ask if i was being detained, and if so under what law. From there I’d threaten to just goto the returns counter and never shop there again. If the practice becomes widespread it is only because people are comfortable trading lower prices for lower expectations of privacy.
Thankfully I just shop online, never leave the damn house (gas/time savings) and usually pay less while not having deal with store shenanigans, the customers, the offers, the surveys, the adverts and the employees. Oh and if you say the web has these things, firefox+adblock and a good blacklist.
First, Hello to all you Stumblers who continue visiting- if you like this article, please do give us a thumbs-up.
Second, I’d like to point out that Mr. Righi was able to bring his legal difficulties to a satisfactory conclusion, which he has detailed at his website here.
today Circuit City asked the bankruptcy court to end the chapter 11 protection and allow for chapter 7 liquidation.
Just common sense here. The 4th amendment doesn’t apply to private property and institutions. That is their rules. If the store was government owned and the workers paid for with government money, then you’d have a case. The reality is that the constitution has no grounds in the private sector, or even on the State level (that’s part of the reason why we have state constitutions). Constitutional law deals with what government and especially federal government can do, not private security guards. Bogus. Bull.
Let me start off by saying that i worked at a best buy where they also do reciept checks.They also search the employees jackets and bags (manditory embarasment 1 time a month for half of the emploees) They try to turn it around on the customers by saying many products look similar and the cashier may ring up the wrong item and charge too much. Why then would the wrong barcode be on the product?
Pete said, “The 4th amendment doesn’t apply to private property and institutions.”
It absolutely does. Private property owners and institutions do not have the right to physically detain you or forcibly search you unless they have probable cause that a crime has occurred. PERIOD. End of story.
As private property owners, they can make searches a condition of admission to the property or trespass you and deny you future re-entry if you refuse to consent to a search.
If they detain or forcibly search you in any way without probable cause, then you can sue for false arrest/imprisonment/detainment. Security personnel may face criminal penalties depending on the state.
The specific definitions of probable cause vary by state. In general, security/loss prevention needs to:
# See the suspect approach the merchandise
# See the suspect select the merchandise
# See the suspect conceal, carry away or convert the merchandise
# Must maintain continuous observation the suspect
# Must see the suspect fail to pay for the merchandise
@Pay Lay Ale: No, the 4th Amendment does not apply to private companies / individuals. Only government.
A company or a citizen can, however, detain an individual for the police provided s/he has probable cause that the detainee committed a crime.
In practice, anybody at all at anytime can ask you to submit to a search. And you can refuse, unless you are under arrest or already in jail/prison.
As far as the receipt checks go, they are entirely voluntary. Stores like Best Buy and Walmart can ask you for your receipt, and you can do what you want: comply, say “no thanks”, keep walking, sneer, etc. I never show a receipt, ever, unless I’m contractually obligated (Costco).
So if you are like me, and Mr. Righi, and do not like the implication that you are a criminal shoplifter just for buying something in a store, keep walking and don’t show the receipt to anyone. What you bought is now your property, including the receipt.
Walmart once had the police stop me on the road after leaving a store without showing a receipt, and the cops let me go. I got a $50 gift certificate out of it because I threatened to sue. Stop being treated like a criminal — just say no.
Greetings,
Decent article overall, but I’m wondering about the relationship between the shopkeeper’s privilege and citizen’s arrest (common law or statutory) — particularly since more and more stores like to dress their rent-a-cops in pseudo-police costume. (I’m always tempted to ask where the construction worker and the biker are.) Do you have any thoughts on this?
“A company or a citizen can, however, detain an individual for the police provided s/he has probable cause that the detainee committed a crime.”
In most, states yes. In this scenario, the citizen is acting as an agent for the government. If there was no probable cause, then that citizen has civil and possible criminal liability. A citizen or a police officer cannot detain a person unless there was probable cause that a crime was committed.
“As far as the receipt checks go, they are entirely voluntary. Stores like Best Buy and Walmart can ask you for your receipt, and you can do what you want: comply, say “no thanks”, keep walking, sneer, etc. I never show a receipt, ever, unless I’m contractually obligated (Costco).”
Membership or not, they cannot physically detain you unless they have probable cause that you committed a crime, namely shoplifting. You’re not contractually obligated at costco either. Their receipt check is a policy that is outlined in a brochure you receive after paying for a membership. They have every right to revoke your membership and/or trespass you, but they cannot physically detain you.
This kind of shenanigans is still going strong: Consumerist is running an article about a guy who got tackled for refusing to show his receipt on the way out of walmart.
Hooray for mob vigilante justice!
http://consumerist.com/5406007/reader-says-he-was-tackled-at-walmart-for-not-showing-receipt
I too get real hacked off that, as a shopper, I am treated like a common ‘hood thief. I did have a guy at the Walmart here in Nashville run over to me to check my receipt. He seemed annoyed that I did not pay heed. My receipt was in my left hand, clearly seen as he approached me from my left.
Walmart can kiss my butt for my money. And if more consumers would do likewise, this may abate.
You see, when I leave my money at the checkout, the title of the goods passes from the store, to me. They then become my property, and that receipt is the contract stating this. I never thought about it much until this time, but this will only get worse until the shopping public demands better. When I go to Sams, I do not get upset, as that is the way they operate, and by signing on, you agree to that up front.
My question on membership clubs / stores…
usually anywhere in a contract if they cancelled my membership for not showing my receipt I’d file another lawsuit..
Their agreements and contracts all have the little nugget – something to the effect of any part of the agreement that is not legal is not expected to be upheld. all contracts have this.
So even if agreed upon to save money … any part of the process that is illegal or grey would then be mute and if they cancelled a membership due to a grey area on the contract they lose a customer and possibly a civil claim as well.
A line to exit is stupid… a line to purchase and patronize is fine… but not to exit.. even if it is for one minute or less… that is forced detainment…
One of the reasons given for the receipt check is to help prevent the customer from being over/under charged. Does that mean that the checker has a photographic memory and know the price of every item in the store? If I purchase a $13 DVD but the price is actually $12, will the checker know that? Probably not.
It amuses me greatly.
Two years later, after we’re worried about being asked to show a simple receipt, we’ve been reduced to a choice of a nude scan or groping by armed guards before we’re allowed on an airline.
A right that the Government says you gave up “because you bought your ticket.”
The sign on the wall says the stores check receipts. You know this. You knew the policy you’re so proud to ignore. Your ‘rights’ are set aside because you chose to shop there. If a TSA agent can legally cup your balls checking for explosive underpants the clerk at Best Buy damn well has the right to make sure you paid for your DVD player.
The truth is, most of these exit receipt checkers just go through the motions to retain their $8 an hour job. I’ve never seen a single one of them stop anyone for “being over charged” or “finding a missed item that wasn’t paid for.” Walk out with a full cart load of maybe 50-60 paid for items, they take a peek, put a couple check marks on the reciept and with 5-10 seconds you’re on your way. They aren’t really checking anything. I would have to spend 10 minutes checking a receipt with that many items. They are on hidden camera. They do what they do to keep their job. It’s nothing but a psychological ploy to reduce shoplifting and a way to harasss paying customers while the real shoplifters have figured out other ways.
Real shoplifters have already figured a way around the exit receipt checker.
I live in Champaign, Illinois. My wife often shops at the local Wal-Mart. There is one particular employee who stops her at the exit to compare her receipt to her buggy contents EVERY SINGLE TIME she sees my wife. We have not seen her detain anyone else.
My wife is a retired teacher and does not look the least bit shady. It just seems that this woman has it in for my wife.
How much of this do we have to take? We don’t want to stop shopping at the store; they do have some things we can’t find elsewhere.
Thank you!
Real shoplifters don’t get their receipts checked, Because they don’t have one! Oh the irony!!!!!!!!!
Once you have offered money for merchandise, and the store has accepted your money, that money ceases to be yours, and the merchandise ceases to belong to the store. A store has just as much right to search, seize or inspect your private property, as you do to search, seize or inspect theirs. The store has just as much legal right, barring evidence of theft, to look in your bags as you have to look in their manager’s office. Of course, it all changes if the store actually can prove you stole from them (in some states, you need to be witnessed stealing, moving to the exit, and exiting, without loss of contact; In others, simply pocketing the item or putting it in a bag suffices to prove shoplifting, whether you intend to pay for the item or not (let this be a lesson to those of you who don’t bother with a shopping basket, and hate carrying stuff in your hands)).
I’m not a lawyer, but I have read the shopkeeper’s privilege laws that are available online for all of the west coast and pacific northwest states as well as a few others, and while my own research doesn’t get much into case law, it’s pretty clear, at least to this layman that in those states, if a store has sufficient evidence to invoke the privilege, then a receipt check is redundant to the point of absurdity. They wouldn’t need to check a receipt in that case, since they already know who the thief is; If they lack that level of evidence, they generally can’t lawfully compel a detention or search.
While The Legality has gone into tort law, there’s also a criminal law side of the matter. Exactly what a state calls a given offense varies by state, but in general, compelling a receipt check involves assault and/or menacing. Actually forcing a search adds battery to the list, and taking items from the customer constitutes robbery (theft is done by stealth or with the owner not present; Forcibly taking items from a person directly is unarmed robbery). Stopping someone from departing is indeed a tort, but in many states, false imprisonment is also a felony. There’s a limited defense against such charges under shopkeeper’s privilege laws, providing the store and its employees can prove they had adequate evidence under state law to invoke the privilege. But without such proof, the fact remains that crimes are committed in such a compulsory stop. This, by the by, is why many stores absolutely forbid anyone but a specially trained Loss Prevention Officer from stopping a customer for any reason — It’s far too easy to commit multiple felonies in this sort of situation.
Now, in many states, you aren’t limited to just a lawsuit after the fact. Most states have some form of citizen’s arrest law on the books. Some limit it to just felonies, others allow citizen’s arrest for misdemeanors as well. Shopkeeper’s privilege is essentially a citizen’s arrest, executed by the shopkeeper. Unlike a citizen’s arrest, a shopkeeper exercising the privilege may (depending on the state) be able to search as well as simply arrest. But if you’re the victim of a crime, you may well have the legal authority to arrest the criminal yourself; Generally this takes the form of notifying the person they are under arrest, then contacting the police (typically via dialing 911) to notify them that you have performed a citizen’s arrest and need an officer to take custody. It’s worth noting that fleeing or resisting a citizen’s arrest is almost as severe a crime as resisting or fleeing arrest by a police officer (though much less likely to result in a gunshot to the spine).
Bergman – Good post. I am amazed at how so many people are so willing to surrender rights so central to being an American. Our fourfathers gave their lives so that we would have these rights, we should be ashamed to submit so freely. I do understand the principle of picking one’s battles, and learning to fit in but I also see where once a social security number was “not to be used as ID” and now it is. Rights are won in battle and relinquished by submission. The other side just needs to wait for the old to die and the young to sleep………..
Circuit City went bankrupt.
They had a poor business model and didn’t ever get real control of their receipt flow. Fur shur the shoplifters ripped them off blind.
what about target? they made me stop and show receipt and wouldnt let me go if i didnt
The constitution I went to war for says I am innocent until proven guilty.
This blanket reciept check policy, smacks of guilty until proven inocent..
Maybe Wally World bought a new constitution from the chineese?
When I refuse to give my receipt the Walmart nazi puts me on blast with his Walki Talkie that Comes on the store intercom for all the customers to hear “we got one leaving no receipt”.
COSTCO just did it. After leaving their store, a number of them stopped and detained me for not showing my receipt. Can they do this for a breach of their contract or is it false imprisoment?
I left a post at:
http://www.costcoinsider.com/does-costco-have-the-right-to-check-your-receipt/
stating:
“Interesting, you say the policy has an unconditional consent to search? It states: “Costco reserves the right to inspect any container, backpack, briefcase, etc., upon entering or leaving the warehouse.” This statement is listing types of property (etc. infers any other type of property), NOT your person, nor does it mention detention. And, this states INSIDE the warehouse, not outside, as you state. Also, detention for a breach of contract (the COSTCO policy), not for a lack of probable cause, is considered false imprisonment in most states.”
..which was removed!
I disagree with the sentiment that a Costco member is oblidged to submit to a search. Costco has no more right to search it’s customers than any other retailer, infact, should I want to walk right past the reciept line I have every right to do so.
The difference between Costco and Walmart is that Costco can terminate membership at their discression and can use refusal to show receipts as reason to deny access on any future occasions, but they still cannot oblidge a search on shoppers.
Every retailer has the same right, they are able to deny access to their store. In essence this means they can block entry to their store at their discression, however they cannot block exit from their store. Costco’s legal standing on blocking entry is even stronger, because they have a a requirement for membership and signed agreements as a standard policy for granting of access to their store.
Quite obviously there is some legal precident for Shopkeeper’s privledge, however should someone skip the receipt line, this is not enough to offer reason to search a person’s bags or belongings.
Secondarily, even if they do suspect a person of stealing an item, physically restraining a person might not be sensible. They could be wrong, and thus open themselves to giant liability, far exceeding the value of the item they believe to be shoplifted, and even if they are right, expecting a young clerk that might be working 10 hours a week as a summer job to make the correct split second decisions when attempting to block exit to a store is dangerous in and of itself. You would be putting a great deal of expectation that the clerk will make the correct decisions in what is acceptable and unacceptable, and what is the appropriate reasonable level of force, and in this game the payoff might be the return of a $400 iPod (Which is probably only a cost of $300 to the store before markup) but at the same time the risk could be a civil suit in the tens of thousands of dollars. Obviously the will and means of the shoplifter to file a civil suit gives certain probabiltiies less than 100% but the risk/reward is still leveraged against the store owner.
So many idiot sheep. Never show your receipt even at Costco.
The more I read, the more I think it’s better to shop online. Sam’s Club: I went there with several friends and forgot my card, the greeter wasn’t going to let me in the store – I think the policy is you can only get 2 guests in with you on a single card. The greeter sent me to the customer service desk and said I would need to get a replacement card, but I just told them at the desk that I wanted to look around and see if I wanted a membership and they said to go ahead. I don’t get the point of it all because I’ve had a greeter let me in with an expired card before. Another time after I went in and went to put my card away, I realized in my haste I held up the wrong card, but still got in. Going out a couple was ahead of us, she went to sack the stuff while he went out to get the car and took the receipt with him since he paid. He walked right past the line and nobody tried to stop him. When she got her cart to the door, the checker wouldn’t let her leave because she didn’t have a receipt. The checker plainly told her she couldn’t take the stuff she just paid for a couple minutes ago out the door without a receipt. She finally had to ask someone to go out and get her husband to come back in the store with the receipt. The checker looked at the receipt, then looked at the cart full of stuff, marked the receipt and they went out. If you don’t think they are paying attention, try handing them the wrong receipt next time and see if they catch it. Hey, you’ve been to Target, Kmart, Bestbuy and ? and you had all the receipts in your pocket.
Sam’s club will argue you know you have to show your card when you go in the door, so you should have your card ready and you shouldn’t be so careless as to leave it at home. From the registers to the door is no more than 20 steps, there’s really no excuse not to have your receipt in your hand ready to show at the door. Since you know you will need to show it, there’s no excuse not to keep track of it for 5 minutes. Yet, some lady puts the receipt in her purse and has to dig through her purse for it while holding up the line or several times it’s ended up in a shopping bag. Others have tied their bags shut and had to untie them at the door so the checker can see what’s in them.
Here I’ve never seen them catch a mistake checking receipts, it’s more like you have a receipt and that looks like about the right number of items for the receipt. You have one person at the door and 15 people waiting each with about 100 items in their cart. I see lots of people pile their carts high or a couple might take 2 or more carts. They look at the receipt then in your bags. Now if someone has 50 cans of soup, they don’t have time to count each one, you could have 48 or 52 and they would never know.
Take your chances and say “No thank you” when they attempt to check receipts or inspect what is now your personal property. A good shoplifting stop requires at least 5 elements…the store must see the theft happen, the surveillance cannot be broken, the customer must clear the opportunities to buy, the merchandise must be on the person, and it must be identified as belonging to the store…a designer scarf might have come from any store—it must be marked some how…”we carry those” isn’t good enough.
I worked for a national retailer in Texas who lost a lawsuit for $500,000 for a bad stop…the key to the suit? The store could not identify the merchandise on the shoplifter (yeah, she did it) as theirs—there were no tags. she had pulled them off (no doubt when another element was missed—unbroken surveillance.
I am one of those $13.00 an hour employees in a ‘club’ warehouse. Our training and job descriptions are to search all incoming backpacks, briefcases and laptop cases. If there is merchandise similar to what the store carries we are to put a sticker identifying it came in and was inspected. The same courtesy on the way out is granted.
The most common mistakes of cashiers are items at the bottom of a basket/cart like bottled water, paper goods, and stamps. For example, a customer may pay for stamps at the register but its so busy the cashier does not hand over the stamps or a customer (so rushed glued to their cell phones) leaves it somewhere near the register. A check of the receipt and we ask “Do you have your stamps?” Some don’t and we make sure they are ‘reunited’ with the item they purchased.
For those who have not been charged for an item its not a matter of assuming ‘theft’ its a matter of not being charged. There is a special register with no waiting nearby for those corrections.
Generally the rule of thumb is to ‘count’ items and match it against the receipt. If there is an error the member should want to know about it and be refunded if over charged or know of an error if under charged. Any loss drives up the cost of services at some point.
Members also leave merchandise all too often somewhere between the cashiers lane and the exit. Generally in a food area, bathroom, or kiosk stand for something they just ‘had to see.’ We reunite them with those items as well.
In Club stores there are no RFIDs or security tags or security devices such as department stores. This too times 600+ stores is what drives up prices. To keep prices balanced checkers check items in the basket with the receipt.
In our chain there is NO profiling. In fact, the company goes to redundant extremes to make sure it does not occur. And we are technically NOT loss prevention. There are those who are in the store undercover but not the paid people working at the doors. Most of us are part time employees there for access to affordable health insurances we cannot get in our primary employers or as small business people. We moonlight for part time additional 2nd incomes and insurance. I can’t tell you how rude and obnoxious it is to have some jerk not show their receipt or make a ‘constitutional’ issue at the door with some poor retiree, kid there for college income, or professionals like myself in this economy just trying to survive. True, there are a limited amount of cameras pointed at us and we get only a few seconds to hopefully get the job correct both for the store and for the customer.
If you are stealing something we have no instructions to do anything than call a manager. Its the managers discretion to verify a receipt and merchandise. But people do the strangest things. Why would a woman buy $500 of products and steal a salmon inside her purse? Or a family buy the staples of food but hid a dozen blue ray DVDs under their baby in a stroller? We don’t stop those people to look. Loss Prevention has seem them personally in the store and waits till they leave the doors to detain them – and our PD in this city is PROMPT at arriving to make an arrest. We at the door have no idea what is going on and are not alerted to do anything other than verify receipts.
Another trick of real thieves is to take a receipt from another store that has not been verified with a florescent line through it and come back into another store for the same items and claim constitutional rights to make a scene with hourly paid employees when in fact the codes for the store do not match (receipt says store 4321 and they are trying to leave store 1234. Or the dates do not match. Those are the ones we sometimes catch if we can look at the receipt for longer than 3-5 seconds. Even so, we ask people to move to one side and have a supervisor check the receipt further. Its not our job to arrest or do anything other than alert management.
Those who just bull through and run over us with their carts are perpetrating a crime of assault and battery. I’m standing there wearing a urinary catheter. Run over me and YOU will be paying a higher crime for assault and battery or aggravated assault with a cart or flatbed. And I WILL press charges by calling the police and use the Camera security video at the exit door in court against you. Or the person you cause to have a diabetic response, heart condition or some other issue.
The problems you have are with the Store. Its not with an employee who is probably just like you and trying to survive with a lousy job just to have access to health insurance or pay their bills. There is no profiling. 99% of the time we’ll try to make conversation with you and thank you for shopping at the membership club where you’ve poked down annual fees to buy cheaper than other retail and a store experience less than the masses at WalMart where it gets really weird and full of nut jobs.
Most times it is hard to read a receipt. Someone bought 3 bottled waters but the receipt looks like 4 until pointed out the cashier caught the mistake, added a correction and it was take care of. And it saved you 20-30 minutes in the return line to find out instead on your way out the door. Or how about when we catch your produce has mold on it and call for someone to get one that is healthy or suggest you get a refund? Or the fact you bought one bag of bagels when in reality you paid for 2? LIttle things we catch to try to help a customer.
How about the employee who runs after you who brings an item you left behind somewhere like at the register. Or like your membership card or ATM card or credit card? Or the cart person who finds you left a full front seat top of the cart full of merchandise after you’ve loaded the larger section and are ready to drive off.
Some go nuts they have to show their card on the way in. Many assume their arrogance means nothing but it does hassle the persons paid to see and click you have entered. The click on the card and not the ten other families you brought with you to all shop on your card. That to provide half hour updates of how many have entered to management to keep the number of lanes open to accommodate those crowds. And to stop any who do no have cards from coming in to shoplift or fill a cart with everything and then choke up a register because they have no card to be processed. How would you like to be behind them while it takes forever to clear the conveyor and get them processed and voided out to ring up your valid membership card and purchases?
The discount clubs are not like being in a WalMart. And Thank God they aren’t. They are fast, a frenzy and sometimes gruff. But they do save you something that caused you to sign up, agree to the terms and conditions, and shop there often. And their return policies are so graceful contrasted to returning anything almost anywhere else. Especially if it really doesn’t work verses the ones who use the discount stores like free rental companies for TVs for the SuperBowl or just trash something till it stops working and wants to get another free one to replace what they did to theirs.
The only one you really screw is the one who is fired because you wouldn’t show your receipt on the way out a damned door as per your contract with the store for membership. Usually its some single mother trying to feed her family, have insurance and you somehow made cry because you assumed your arrogance was more important than complying with the store’s rules. We have words for people like you and hope that on your way home you just piss off the right person who does something about it.
And the loss of the good employee who goes above and beyond for the seniors, or the physically challenged, or those who leave something behind, or are overcharged, who went above and beyond are replaced by someone who really doesn’t give a damn doing the bare minimums to get by. Or they are the ones CPR certified and keeps you from choking on a hot dog for .99 cents in the food court because you are glued to your cell phone yelling at someone while trying to bulldoze your way out of the store without showing your receipt.
Just do what you agreed to do when you joined the club. And if you hate it so much why did you join in the first place? Quit. Go to Sam’s and find out how bad service really can be. If there’s anything worse than Sam’s its Fry’s. Try returning something there.
I work in a large retail store which I am one of the receipt checkers. If we didn’t check receipts, people would walk out with TV’s, Computers and anything else they could carry out. That is one way of saving the consumer money. The shoplifters is stealing from the customer. A customer should show respect and be an example for the shoplifter that might be watching them. Also we find customers that have been overcharged. They are very thanksful when we find that they have been charged twice for an item. For instance a lady bought several items and she had a box of diapers which was 19.77 and the girl had charged her twice for the diapers. Her bill was 82.00 and she didn’t realize it. I pointed it out to her and she went back to customer service and got a refund. It saved her a trip back to the store.
I’ve been reading both the RCW and Costco pdf linked regarding the policies. I find this amusing, while I do agree with bag searches into and out of the store (for facilitating item returns without thieving), and have been a cashier/door receipt checking greeter (walmart), I am aware that the UCC states that the items are mine when I buy them. I do not want to wait in that horrendous line.
Thanks to your article, which basically pointed me where to go (as it is not a definite conclusion, although I’m unsure if Kathy read that far even, or if she has any idea what logic is), I now know my rights… I think.
Basically, costco states that “To ensure… all receipts and merchandise will be…” This does
NOT SAY
1) I have to stop.
2) They have to inspect my physical goods. (The SQL Database and register contains both my receipt and what I purchased, this is in their possession)
3) That they inspect “my” goods, but they will inspect all of them somehow.
As stated above, to ensure the customer is not overcharged is bull, I may have gotten bored and decided to memorize all the prices I could at walmart, but even I couldn’t get all of them, and I doubt costco employees get that bored, much less push their brain because they have actual skills beyond retail.
They have both CCTV and SQL, a simple SELECT statement will let them inspect my goods. I was not detained, but guess what..
The policy doesn’t state you have to show your card upon entering.
It does not state who represents costco if they do say “give it up” to your card.
My state laws 4.24, 9A, and 65A are the other relevant ones, which basically say “You can’t stop me if you have absolutely no reason to suspect me of anything”
Now, my main point to drive home is do not take a stance “against” this idea. What if you owned a biz, how would you like to be able to protect your earnings? Do not hate costco, and do not drive “You’re being bad to me!” Instead, argue that you, and them, should both exercise your rights, and not allow others to step on them.
Take an intelligent stance either way, and put yourself on the other side of things. Even if it seems reasonable, eg. Kathy’s logic… she did not consider “What if I had to wait 25 minutes.” or “What if my son is sick” Also, final note to Kathy: THEY DO NOT USE THE MAIN EXIT IF THEY ARE DOING THAT!
I’ve seen a lot of empty packages, DVD’s and CD’s missing from packages left in automotive, baby food packages ripped stuffed between pet food, I’ve seen tons of _ethnic group_ just put on baseball gloves and walk out of the store. I’ve seen that same group also pay for things, I’m not biased, just observed this with my own eyes, although if you don’t know the difference between judgement and observation, you’ll think I’m racist. This somewhat irrelevant paragraph explains how people really steal stuff,…
Yes, they can shove it in a box and buy the box, but how is a “receipt check” going to spot that? We had a policy called Look Inside Always (lisa), but that stops theft at the register.
Long story short, if you have a receipt in hand and walk out of the store, clearly showing that you paid… then there is no reasonable cause to detain you.
I just stumbled here when searching, do not take anything I say as fact, as things may have changed or you may not be in my area.
Good article! Awesome comments, the CA police officer drove home an interesting idea, along with the “I thought you guys were in a free country” person
There is certainly a great deal to know about this. I can see you made nice points in the features as well.