snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » Legal Affairs Archive » Best Buy Receipt Check (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Best Buy Receipt Check
The Dread Pirate Unwin
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Just so I'm clear, and I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but would I be within my rights to walk on the outside of the electromagnetic theft prevention devices (given that such a maneuver is possible)?

Also, what legal action could a store take against me if I sat outside the store with a sign informing customers that they don't need to submit to the receipt checks?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 600 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Dread Pirate Unwin:
Just so I'm clear, and I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but would I be within my rights to walk on the outside of the electromagnetic theft prevention devices (given that such a maneuver is possible)?

Very interesting question. The only thing I'm certain of is that you would have the right not to enter the store in the first place.

If you've passed through them once to get into the store, I think this would then qualify as assent and deny you any legal remedy you might claim.

I'm guessing such a case would probably be dismissed summarily based on the first paragraph.

Otherwise, I suspect it would be very interesting from an outsiders perspective, and a migrane for all concerned.

quote:

Also, what legal action could a store take against me if I sat outside the store with a sign informing customers that they don't need to submit to the receipt checks?

If you were on the sidewalk of a street (aka public property), none whatsoever.

If you were on a sidewalk in their parking lot, they could ask you to leave (and enforce it through a trespassing complaint.)

These rules have been tested in court, I think.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moose:
Very interesting question. The only thing I'm certain of is that you would have the right not to enter the store in the first place.

Exactly, and to amplify that:

It's a device that operates in a very specific manner, so it's not a physical search. Setting one off or attempting to evade one would constitute reasonable suspicion that shoplifting has occurred because a tagged product must be deactivated upon purchase, and since the checkout process is mandatory for anyone wishing to shop, there is evidence something has occurred that warrants further investigation.

As for a sign notifying people of their legal rights, it's never illegal to appraise someone of their rights-care must be taken that other laws aren't broken in the process.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lanston Fox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 96 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess I should clarify...

The examples that Summertime, and the livin' is easy gave are similar but not the same.

When you choose to enter someone else's property, and shop there, it is different then someone wanting to search your property.

As for speeding, I believe a cop CAN decide to search your trunk if you are pulled over for speeding if they have any suspicion about your behavior. I'm rather sure that’s how my cousin got busted for drug possession.

Think for a moment how easy is would be to buy an inexpensive video cable at a register in best buy, and then toss in an expensive item on your way through the store.

In stores that you can check out in the rear of the store it makes sense to double check bags. End of story, I agree though that people rang up in the front of the store should have the ability to opt out if they wish.

This is not an issue of privacy, it’s an issue of trying to catch thiefs, and stop mistakes. A person running through the security checks are acting irresponsibly, in the same way people who drive dangerously on the roads to shave 5 minutes off road time is acting irresponsibly.

Lanston

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
When you choose to enter someone else's property, and shop there, it is different then someone wanting to search your property.

a) The moment money exchanges hands, it becomes your property. Only law enforcement officials (the kind with badges and IDs: aka, bearing verifiable credentials) can legally conduct involuntary searches of somebody's personal belongings, and only under controlled circumstances.

b) A bag search as a mandatory requirement of initial entry to the store (by non-credentialled personnel) could be legally enforcable, I suspect, so long as the customer has the option to decline and leave unsearched.

Once inside the store, an involuntary bag search as a condition of leaving becomes detainment. And that opens the store to litigation.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
As for speeding, I believe a cop CAN decide to search your trunk if you are pulled over for speeding if they have any suspicion about your behavior. I'm rather sure that’s how my cousin got busted for drug possession.

I'm sure your cousin was acting so obviously stoned it would be a dereliction of duty for a cop not to pursue that angle.

Believe me, I have been pulled over dozens of times for speeding and the issue has never come up, not once has a cop asked to search my car.

quote:
Think for a moment how easy is would be to buy an inexpensive video cable at a register in best buy, and then toss in an expensive item on your way through the store.
In stores that you can check out in the rear of the store it makes sense to double check bags. End of story, I agree though that people rang up in the front of the store should have the ability to opt out if they wish.



Think how easy it would be not to hassle someone out of paranoia and poor store design. Just because you can doesn't mean you did, and if someone fails to differentiate between the two then the issue belongs to them, not the poor sap they try to put it on.

quote:
This is not an issue of privacy, it’s an issue of trying to catch thiefs, and stop mistakes. A person running through the security checks are acting irresponsibly, in the same way people who drive dangerously on the roads to shave 5 minutes off road time is acting irresponsibly. Lanston
My desire to catch thieves can't and shouldn't intrude upon and override your basic freedom to be free of unreasonable searches. It really is that simple.

If someone is low profile enough that they could slip a tv under their shirt without being observed, why would they turn around and be high profile on the exit? Just because someone is running out of the store doesn't mean anything. How do you know they didn't just realize they left their baby locked in the hot car with the windows up, or just got an emergency call from their spouse that the baby was just found face-down in the backyard pool, or just spilled hot coffee on their privates, or just saw their ride pull away?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 303 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
As for speeding, I believe a cop CAN decide to search your trunk if you are pulled over for speeding if they have any suspicion about your behavior. I'm rather sure that's how my cousin got busted for drug possession.

Uhm, no. A cop cannot search the trunk of your car simply because he pulled you over. He would need a warrant.

I'm amazed at the lack of knowledge of our rights. Let's read the Fourth Amendment.

quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seizeded.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding, he can certainly ask to search your car, and you can certainly refuse. If the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are a danger to him, he can do a pat-down search for weapons, and he could briefly detain you for questioning.

If he sees you are stoned or drunk, he can of course arrest you for driving under the influence, and search your body and nearby surroundings. But he would be hard pressed to argue that searching the trunk of your car would be a search incident to the arrest. A smart cop would seek to get a search warrant for your trunk, if he could show a judge probable cause that such a search would lead to discovery of evidence of a crime.

Well, let me back up. A cop can do anything he wants. But whether that search holds up in court is a different story.

quote:
Think for a moment how easy is would be to buy an inexpensive video cable at a register in best buy, and then toss in an expensive item on your way through the store.
You're making an assumption here that people are crooks. If that's the case, why can't an employee search anyone who enters or exits the store? The answer is they cannot, without a damn good reason. And they better be able to explain that reason if they want to be upheld in court.

quote:
In stores that you can check out in the rear of the store it makes sense to double check bags.
I've never heard of a store in which you check out in the back. What kind of stupid mind thought up that procedure?
quote:
End of story, I agree though that people rang up in the front of the store should have the ability to opt out if they wish.
So if a store is dumb enough to put its cash registers in the back, then you're saying it has free reign to stop and search everyone?

quote:
This is not an issue of privacy, it's an issue of trying to catch thiefs, and stop mistakes. A person running through the security checks are acting irresponsibly, in the same way people who drive dangerously on the roads to shave 5 minutes off road time is acting irresponsibly.

Lanston

Of course it's an issue of privacy. I don't give up my rights at Best Buy's door.

Reasonable security measures are fine. Forcing me to wait on line after I check out so some security guard can wave a magic wand over my receipt is not my idea of reasonable. A store assuming that I am a thief is not my idea of reasonable. A store assuming that its employees make mistakes often enough that it needs to inconvenience its customers to double check every sale is not reasonable.

I've never been in a store that makes me to this. I don't think I would ever go back to a store that does so. Perhaps this is why stores are losing business to catalogue and Internet shoppers at remarkable rates.

Pogue "search my ACLU card, buddy" Mahone

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
As for speeding, I believe a cop CAN decide to search your trunk if you are pulled over for speeding if they have any suspicion about your behavior. I'm rather sure that's how my cousin got busted for drug possession.

Uhm, no. A cop cannot search the trunk of your car simply because he pulled you over. He would need a warrant.

Pogue, you need to read this article.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Fed
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Mr. Fed   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Fed   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Moose is correct. Police can search your car if they have probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime may be present. They do not need a warrant. This rule is premised on (a) the lower expectation of privacy that one has in a car (in the opinion of the courts), and (b) the mobility of the car, which would allow the site of the evidence to be moved.

--------------------
With occasional, half-hearted, semi-literate blogging comes great responsibility.

Posts: 1621 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Incidentally, for those who don't believe in the slippery slope and/or who don't understand why protection against unreasonable searches is so important, please take a look at this page.

I'm the first to admit this is not an unbiased source, so take the politics with a grain of salt (or a bucket if you like), but I suspect the basic details are verifiable.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Fed
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Mr. Fed   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Fed   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I understand perfectly well why it is important to protect against unreasonable or illegal searches, Moose - - I represent people who experience harm from government violations, like being searched based on a crappy bare-bones warrant or as a pattern of government harassment. That does not mean my opinion about our Best Buy shopper is any more right or wrong than anyone else's, it simply means you can't dismiss my opinion on the grounds that I don't appreciate the significance of such rights.

You express the importance of personal privacy protections very eloquently, and I agree with you in spirit. I just disagree with you in application here. I don't think that excesses by private entities pose the same harms, qualitatively or quantitatively, as government excesses. I think that certain people (and I'm talking about the Best Buy shopper, not anyone here) spend their lives looking for offense, and naturally find it. I think that such people can indulge in self-aggrandizement when it comes to perceived violations of their rights, wrap themselves in the banner of their rights for the sake of their ego, and that this can diminish the credibility of all discussions of injustice.

But reasonable minds can disagree.

--------------------
With occasional, half-hearted, semi-literate blogging comes great responsibility.

Posts: 1621 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Fed:
...it simply means you can't dismiss my opinion on the grounds that I don't appreciate the significance of such rights.


Actually, you can. Questioning someone's motives for insisting on their rights or arguing that "attitude" has bearing on a discussion of civil liberties suggests a willingness to apply rights-based justice on the basis of who can prove they are most deserving of having their rights respected, as opposed to starting with the constitutionally-based notion that simply being alive in this particular country guarantees you certain inalienable rights.

Unless, of course, I'm misinterpreting the word "inalienable," and it really does mean "only for the unassuming."
quote:
I don't think that excesses by private entities pose the same harms, qualitatively or quantitatively, as government excesses.

If you mean "nobody ever lost their life over a Best Buy bag check," then sure, you're absolutely right. But to suggest it's not important all the same based on that once again strays from the notion that rights are inalienable.
quote:
I think that certain people (and I'm talking about the Best Buy shopper, not anyone here) spend their lives looking for offense, and naturally find it. I think that such people can indulge in self-aggrandizement when it comes to perceived violations of their rights, wrap themselves in the banner of their rights for the sake of their ego, and that this can diminish the credibility of all discussions of injustice.

But reasonable minds can disagree.

I'd suggest just the opposite, once you're willing to qualify defense of application of rights, and suggest rights can only rightly be applied in cases of "purity" of intent, then you've effectively turned the Constitution into a job performance evaluation form.

We ought not let the mists of time blind us to the fact that for all intents and purposes this country was founded by the orchestrations of tax-evaders.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Fed:
I don't think that excesses by private entities pose the same harms, qualitatively or quantitatively, as government excesses.

It matters little to me in application whether it's the government or a corporation violating my privacy if my privacy has been violated.

That said, your constitution protects you from unreasonable searches performed by government officials. Law enforcement is supposed to follow a strict procedure which is intended to protect everybody involved. (Obtain search warrant by judicial order based on evidence of sufficient cause.)

If law enforcement neglects due diligence, they open themselves up to civil liability.

What protects the consumer from an unreasonable search at the corporate level? Consumers may legally refuse a search at any time (and by any non-criminal means), and a corporation may not legally detain that consumer.

If they choose to do so anyway, they open themselves up to civil liability. Thus, they'd better be damned sure they can prove shoplifting by the detainee occurred.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sgt Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Oddly enough, I went to Best Buy yesterday to buy a video card.

The registers are right near the exit. There was an employee checking bags at the exit, who coincedentally or not, was the largest employee in the store.

The guy at the register closest to the exit got his bag checked, not more than 5 feet & 5 seconds from where he was rung up. Pretty silly. The bag check consisted of glancing at the receipt. It could have been a receipt from 2 days or 2 years ago.

It was pretty pointless.

I approached the exit with my bag, and the bag-checker guy made eye contact with me. We kept staring at each other until I was out the door, without getting my bag searched.

Sorry guys, I was hoping to be able to test this and see what legal statue they would try to cite to back-up involuntary personal searches without suspicion of theft.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 303 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, this has certainly been entertaining reading. Today is the first time I read this thread, and I must say, I am amazed at the level of detail-oriented quibbling that has gone on (from both "sides" of the discussion). It seems to be way out of proportion to the importance of this incident, IMO.

I don't personally see this as some grand test of civil rights. I see this as a urination competition between an individual who felt he had the right (which he probably did) to refuse a search, and a store's right (which they probably had) to protect themselves against loss of property.

The actual question of who is right and who is wrong is an issue for the courts to decide, on a case-by-case basis (that's why we have 'em! [Wink] ). If the individual who wrote the original piece REALLY FELT that he had been a victim of unlawful detention/arrest, he should have filed a law suit against the company. In fact, I would almost say he had an OBLIGATION to do so. Then both sides of the story would have been brought out, given full, fair consideration, and a decision based on fact would have been rendered. The fact that he chose merely to post his frustrations on a web page tells me that he believes, at some level, that his rights were not violated, but instead he was inconvenienced/embarrassed, and he really didn't have a case.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Incidently, most stores go out of their way to avoid lawsuits, that's why they use the oft-quoted six principals mentioned above. They aren't under any legal obligation to follow them, it's just good business sense.

I worked in retail security for a few years, and there were times that I knew damn well that shoplifters had ripped us off, but since I didn't have some element of proof, I was forced to let them go. It can be frustrating, to be certain. Conversely, I never had a "stop" I made result in a law-suit.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
...If the individual who wrote the original piece REALLY FELT that he had been a victim of unlawful detention/arrest, he should have filed a law suit against the company. In fact, I would almost say he had an OBLIGATION to do so. Then both sides of the story would have been brought out, given full, fair consideration, and a decision based on fact would have been rendered. The fact that he chose merely to post his frustrations on a web page tells me that he believes, at some level, that his rights were not violated, but instead he was inconvenienced/embarrassed, and he really didn't have a case.

Both issues were covered in the article itself.
quote:
"As for the lack of a mention of purchase verification in the Uniform Commercial Code, he is correct. Though I am certainly not a lawyer and have not retained one to research relevant statutes and case law for me, it is my belief that an item that I purchase becomes my property and therefore is mine to do with as I please as soon as I would be subjected to the store's return policy for it. This is the case when the cash register closes or the credit card transaction completes.

If this is true, then the only method available to legally prevent me from moving as I choose out of the store would be to detain me for shoplifting. I would've welcomed this, actually, as it would've been fun to sue Best Buy for false arrest...An employee failing to meet any one of these criteria is supposed to let the suspect go. A door guard will never meet these criteria, and therefore will never actually accuse anyone of shoplifting just for not letting him look through their belongings. He's there to create duress, giving the impression that you are not free to leave unless you let him search you.
I completely understand why a merchant would be interested in searching everyone leaving the store. It makes great financial sense. I just don't happen to let them, and they can't do much about it. As I am not particularly price sensitive, I prefer to pay slightly more and not be intimidated every time I shop. Thus I choose to not return to stores that are aggressively enforcing this particular policy."

The legal questions arose over various assertions that consumers have a blanket obligation to cooperate with bag searches.

quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
...I worked in retail security for a few years, and there were times that I knew damn well that shoplifters had ripped us off, but since I didn't have some element of proof, I was forced to let them go. It can be frustrating, to be certain. Conversely, I never had a "stop" I made result in a law-suit.

I'd suggest that without visual confirmation or any proof, then what you thought you "knew" was just as likely a great deal less than you realize. See this one and this one, too.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight:
Both issues were covered in the article itself.
quote:
"As for the lack of a mention of purchase verification in the Uniform Commercial Code, he is correct. Though I am certainly not a lawyer and have not retained one to research relevant statutes and case law for me....

Please understand me: I am not trying to re-enter your earlier "he said, she said" arguments, but I don't see in the original reading where he explains why he did not file suit. Would you be kind enough to quote it for me? Perhaps I'm just missing it.
quote:

quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
...I worked in retail security for a few years, and there were times that I knew damn well that shoplifters had ripped us off, but since I didn't have some element of proof, I was forced to let them go. It can be frustrating, to be certain. Conversely, I never had a "stop" I made result in a law-suit.

I'd suggest that without visual confirmation or any proof, then what you thought you "knew" was just as likely a great deal less than you realize.
We used closed circuit TV monitors, which were steerable. In some cases, you could see that a person was doing something, with his back to a camera, but did not actually see what was concealed or exactly where. After the individual would leave, you would go to the location where he had been, and find the packaging from the item that had been stolen. By then, unfortunately, he would be gone. So yes, I did "know" there had been a theft, had a reasonable belief who had done it, and still had to let them go, because I didn't have proof at the time when I could have made the stop. We were trained to err on the side of caution.

[edited to add:] On further reading, I see that he was in fact admitting he did not have enough evidence or was not legally wronged, hence did not sue. So my premise is this: if he didn't feel there was enough legal grounds for suit, and he was there, why should we? [/edit]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
...I don't see in the original reading where he explains why he did not file suit. Would you be kind enough to quote it for me? Perhaps I'm just missing it.



Must be:

quote:
...If this is true, then the only method available to legally prevent me from moving as I choose out of the store would be to detain me for shoplifting. I would've welcomed this, actually, as it would've been fun to sue Best Buy for false arrest....


He's saying himself he didn't yet have a case.

quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
...In some cases, you could see that a person was doing something, with his back to a camera, but did not actually see what was concealed or exactly where. After the individual would leave, you would go to the location where he had been, and find the packaging from the item that had been stolen. By then, unfortunately, he would be gone....

What prevents store personnel from approaching the customer while he's doing whatever he's doing and asking if assistance is required? The look on their face as they turn around with some piece of evidence hanging out of their shirt would be priceless. Otherwise, how do you know the crumpled packaging wasn't already on the scene before the person you saw in the camera was?

Waiting until someone leaves to investigate is hardly "forced to let them go."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight:
What prevents store personnel from approaching the customer while he's doing whatever he's doing and asking if assistance is required? The look on their face as they turn around with some piece of evidence hanging out of their shirt would be priceless. Otherwise, how do you know the crumpled packaging wasn't already on the scene before the person you saw in the camera was?

Waiting until someone leaves to investigate is hardly "forced to let them go."

Nothing prevents a clerk from walking up; in fact, if we had time to call a clerk in the area, or send another guard to the area to investigate, we would do so. Unfortunately, we didn't always have time.

When I say "forced to let them go", I mean that store policy was that I had to let him go. In many cases, I had what would probably have been legally defensible "reasonable suspicion" or even "probable cause" to detain him and search, on tape even, but the store policy stopped me from doing so.

And by the way, the look on someone's face when they were in the security office after having been detained, when you showed them the video tape of themselves caught in the act, WAS pretty fun...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
So my premise is this: if he didn't feel there was enough legal grounds for suit, and he was there, why should we?

We're not saying he should have sued. We're saying that they did not have the right to detain him as they attempted to do.

He had no obligation to comply with their request, and no obligation to be nice about it. He had no reason whatsoever to bend to their attempts to coerce him into doing something he was not required to do (and even less reason to be nice about resisting their coercion.)

They wrongly and repeatedly attempted to detain him. In each case, they blinked. He left. Had they actually detained him, he would have had a case.

As to why he might not have sued, well, lawsuits are expensive. Brutally expensive.

I'm currently owed 10 thousand dollars by an American client. A big one. Their debt is placing me in a difficult spot with my tax agency. The claim is approaching its second anniversary.

Even if I were to sue, win and successfully collect on the debt (not a sure thing, especially considering some mistakes I made with the paperwork), it would be so expensive (in time and money) to sue for it that it would make the exercise an extremely bad move.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moose:
We're not saying he should have sued. We're saying that they did not have the right to detain him as they attempted to do.


Well, I guess my point is that they may, in fact, have had the right to detain him, but without a court determination of whether they met legal standards, based on a fair reading of both sides of the story, we'll never know with legal certainty.

[edited to add disclaimer:] I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night..... [/disclaimer]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lanston Fox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 05 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by ZenKnight
*
I'm sure your cousin was acting so obviously stoned it would be a dereliction of duty for a cop not to pursue that angle.

Believe me, I have been pulled over dozens of times for speeding and the issue has never come up, not once has a cop asked to search my car.
*

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone
*
You're making an assumption here that people are crooks. If that's the case, why can't an employee search anyone who enters or exits the store? The answer is they cannot, without a damn good reason. And they better be able to explain that reason if they want to be upheld in court.
*

No, I’m making an assumption that a small MINORITY of people are crooks. Stores make a reasonable choice in what they can do to minimize theft, while also minimizing the inconvience of the MAJORITY of wonderful people in the store to shop.

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone
*
I've never heard of a store in which you check out in the back. What kind of stupid mind thought up that procedure?
*

Well some kinds of sales take longer than others; by having regesters in departments where the ring up portion of a sale is long and drawn out, it saves time having it rang up wherever that department is. So if you are buying a 3000 dollar TV, you don’t have to wait in line at the front of the store, and no one has to wait for you to deal with all the forms or sign ups or whatever else. (Just an example) I would say that connivance outweighs the 40 second bag check.

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone
*
So if a store is dumb enough to put its cash registers in the back, then you're saying it has free reign to stop and search everyone?
*

I guess I would not call, looking at your receipt and checking what is in your bag a search of a person. Its double checking the clerks who are working.

----

Yes, I’m 100 percent sure he was very out of it, but that is his normal state of being. He was neither drunk nor under the influence of pot, he just seemed like it.

I am most likely biased when it comes to this issue, having worked in retail for a very long time, and seeing every year thousands of dollars of things not only stolen, but mistakes on the registers.

I know from shopping at the local Best Buy here, they have a bank of registers in the front, and then a scattering of registers around the store. (The digital camera I own was rang in that department, as was the TV rang out in the TV department) With the camera I got a bag, traditional opaque plastic, that I could of tossed anything I would of wanted into. In addition the person who rang up my products could have double rang something, or missed something.

On leaving the store the person at the front glanced over my receipt. I saw nothing at all wrong with him doing this. He was friendly; I did not feel I was being wronged.

Now, if he had asked me to take off my jacket so he could pat it down... THAT is an invasion of my privacy. Him checking over a bag of stuff I just bought in that store is NOT an invasion of my privacy. I still feel its smart business.

I would assume though that the time the security takes with a person depends on what sort of stuff a person is walking out with. 50-dollar video card and a Walkman, 10 second glace at receipt to see 2 items on it, or no check. 700-dollar digital camera, camera case, memory for it, memory reader, kitchen sink, and little hula girl bobble head. 40 second check of recipe, and check of stuff in bag. =)

What can I say, I'm sympathetic to both the government and big business! I must be a republican!

As for the comment on cars being a moving

Lanny

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
Well some kinds of sales take longer than others; by having regesters in departments where the ring up portion of a sale is long and drawn out, it saves time having it rang up wherever that department is. So if you are buying a 3000 dollar TV, you don’t have to wait in line at the front of the store, and no one has to wait for you to deal with all the forms or sign ups or whatever else. (Just an example) I would say that connivance outweighs the 40 second bag check.

[snip]

I guess I would not call, looking at your receipt and checking what is in your bag a search of a person. Its double checking the clerks who are working.

[snip]

I am most likely biased when it comes to this issue, having worked in retail for a very long time, and seeing every year thousands of dollars of things not only stolen, but mistakes on the registers.

I know from shopping at the local Best Buy here, they have a bank of registers in the front, and then a scattering of registers around the store. (The digital camera I own was rang in that department, as was the TV rang out in the TV department) With the camera I got a bag, traditional opaque plastic, that I could of tossed anything I would of wanted into. In addition the person who rang up my products could have double rang something, or missed something.

On leaving the store the person at the front glanced over my receipt. I saw nothing at all wrong with him doing this. He was friendly; I did not feel I was being wronged.

Now, if he had asked me to take off my jacket so he could pat it down... THAT is an invasion of my privacy. Him checking over a bag of stuff I just bought in that store is NOT an invasion of my privacy. I still feel its smart business.

I would assume though that the time the security takes with a person depends on what sort of stuff a person is walking out with. 50-dollar video card and a Walkman, 10 second glace at receipt to see 2 items on it, or no check. 700-dollar digital camera, camera case, memory for it, memory reader, kitchen sink, and little hula girl bobble head. 40 second check of recipe, and check of stuff in bag. =)

[snip]

Lanny

No one has suggested it's unreasonable for a store to ask to check someone's bags, Aaron himself wrote in his article that he could see how it makes great financial sense. What we have been saying is that compliance with it is optional. If a store wishes to pursue it after permission has been denied, then they must have reasonable suspicion to suspect shoplifting has occurred to push the issue.

Use of registers placed within the store whether for convenience(I assume you meant that as opposed to "connivance" which means "tacit consent to an illegal act")or because the store has a policy that the customer must pay for their selection right then and there doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion shoplifting has occurred.

Regardless of what you would call it, a bag check is a search of your person because the particular piece of merchandise becomes your property the instant you purchase it, as opposed to becoming your property only after you purchase it and exit the store with it. The fact that they don't expand the search to include your pockets or coat is irrelevant.

Saying it's doublechecking their clerks is even less defensible, the implication there is that each customer has a requirement to act as uncompensated loss prevention personnel.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
Well, I guess my point is that they may, in fact, have had the right to detain him, but without a court determination of whether they met legal standards, based on a fair reading of both sides of the story, we'll never know with legal certainty.

We'll never know with "legal certainty" whether or not Aaron shoplifted in his particular case, true, but that's irrelevant to the discussion of bag checks in general.

The stipulation that someone has not shoplifted has been the basis for the discussion thus far.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lanston Fox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 05 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
A question then on the real usefullness of a bag search...

If any real thief is going to decline a bag search what use is it?

Lanny

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Houstoncopper
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 218 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Many of you make excellent points in your postings. The laws vary from state to state and I sure don't want to play net lawyer here but the bottom line is that if you find the policies of a store to be offensive, DON'T SHOP THERE! I've seen signs in stores that prominently displayed indicating that they "Reserved the right to check bags, backpacks, etc." and people fussed about it. I've also watched a few customers walk over and demand a refund when their bag was searched.

The most likely type of crook you're going to catch by checking the store issued bag is the one who is working with an employee. Considering that most theft is done by, or with, an employee, most stores have set up procedures to protect themselves from this. That's why we have to put up with those lengthy waits for a manager to over ride a price or price match something.

Anyway, if you have issues with a store checking a bag's contents with the receipt, shop online, send a friend, or buy from another source as this method, however weak at detecting most shrinkage, is here to stay.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Houstoncopper:
...but the bottom line is that if you find the policies of a store to be offensive, DON'T SHOP THERE!...Anyway, if you have issues with a store checking a bag's contents with the receipt, shop online, send a friend, or buy from another source as this method, however weak at detecting most shrinkage, is here to stay.

Gee, thanks Capt. Obvious, that's not at all condescending.

Welcome to the board newbie, now go back and reread the originating article and the posts, then come back and tell us: a) if you're offering something new and fresh not contained in the original article itself, and b) if that same advice hasn't nonetheless been offered at least a dozen times more already, and c) if the discussion did in fact center on whether or not a shopper has the right to decline a blanket bag check.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Maddog Bill Out in the Midway Sun
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 98 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight:
Gee, thanks Capt. Obvious, that's not at all condescending.

Welcome to the board newbie, now go back and reread the originating article and the posts, then come back and tell us...

Nice flame Zen! [Roll Eyes]

Midway "as Jah is my witness this thread shall never die!" Bill

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 600 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
ZK, I think you need to throttle it back a little. We're not here to newbie bash.

Besides, "Cpt Obvious" brought up something interesting to me that I'd either missed or misunderstood from the earlier thread.

Is it really the case that the majority (or at least a significant amount) of lossage occurs through staff collusion or intentional negligence? (Anyone have any decent cites to support such a claim?)

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Fed
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Mr. Fed   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Fed   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight:
[QUOTE]now go back and reread the originating article and the posts, then come back and tell us: a) if you're offering something new and

Edited and flame deleted: no point in this, you're going to act the way you're going to act.

--------------------
With occasional, half-hearted, semi-literate blogging comes great responsibility.

Posts: 1621 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Fed:
Edited and flame deleted: no point in this, you're going to act the way you're going to act.

I guess.

Anyway HC, in retrospect I guess that was a little harsh, no harm intended.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lanston Fox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 302 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
My personal feelings still are right along side Houstoncopper.

If you really really don't want a bag you've bought searched by a store, and that is the posted store policy. Go directly to the return counter, do not pass go, and return whatever the product is you bought.*

Lanny

*Personal feelings not backed by any law

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lanston Fox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moose:
ZK, I think you need to throttle it back a little. We're not here to newbie bash.

Besides, "Cpt Obvious" brought up something interesting to me that I'd either missed or misunderstood from the earlier thread.

Is it really the case that the majority (or at least a significant amount) of lossage occurs through staff collusion or intentional negligence? (Anyone have any decent cites to support such a claim?)

"The latest National Retail Security Survey reports that losses from employee theft have reached record levels and that total inventory shrinkage cost U.S. retailers $32.3 billion last year, up from $29 billion the year before.

According to University of Florida criminologist Richard C. Hollinger, Ph.D., who directs the National Retail Security Survey, the results indicate that in 2000, retailers lost 1.75 percent of their total annual sales to shrink, up from 1.69 percent the prior year. Hollinger said that the results of the survey should serve as a wake-up call to the retail industry that shrinkage continues to be a multi-billion dollar source of revenue loss."

As posted here http://retailindustry.about.com/library/weekly/01/aa011124a.htm

Lanny

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 304 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
A question then on the real usefullness of a bag search... If any real thief is going to decline a bag search what use is it?
Because not all thieves are "real thieves" -- they're pilferers who can easily be cowed or deterred from stealing through a bag check.

- snopes

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2