You don’t have to show your retail receipt in Virginia? Hmmm. . .
Amin Eshaiker | Wikimedia Commons
You know those kindly and smiling retail employees who stand near the exit door and check your receipts to make sure you’re not stealing something?
They’ve demanded it of me at Kroger (Towers) and at Best Buy and it happens every time at Sam’s Club. They want you to prove you just bought the item that you now own, before they let you go.
It’s particularly nettlesome if you’re buying one or two items at Sam’s Club, which I do on occasion. Because not only do you have to line up and show your card to get into the joint, you have to line up to pay, and THEN you often have to line up to leave. With your own, recently purchased property.
And if you’re No. 9 in a line of people with loaded carts, who have bought dozens of items, and you’re carrying one, it’s particularly aggravating.
It never occurred to me, until I read this post on The Consumerist, which says there’s a Virginia law that says customers aren’t required to show a receipt for items they have purchased in order to get out of a retailer. It makes sense, though. You own the thing. Why should you have to prove that?
But that doesn’t stop the retailers from trying to get you to cough up the receipt.
If you feel the same way, you may want to read the tale of Rick (below) and his experience in a Virginia Wal-mart, after he had just purchased a TV and was trying to get out of the store.
After work I stopped by the Walmart to pick up a TV for my girlfriend. After circling the whole store in search of the bathroom before realizing it was right next to the entrance, I made my way back to the Electronics section and picked out a TV quickly. I wanted a midsize Vizio, so I chose the 37″ 1080p Eco model. I purchased the TV with my debit card at one of the rear registers about 20 feet away, and walked to the front of the store carrying the box in both hands.
I made it through the first set of doors into the front atrium of the store, but before reaching the outer doors I heard a man say “Sir?” I turned and faced Tony, the receipt checker.
Tony: May I see your receipt?
Me: No thanks!
Tony: Oh, ok.
I turned and continued walking towards to automatic doors. Tony called again, so I turned back.
Tony: No, I need to see your receipt.
Me: No thank you!
Tony: What do you mean?
Me: I mean no thanks; I’m walking to my car with my purchase.
Tony: Well, I need to see your receipt.
Read the rest of it here.
Here’s another. And yet another.
Great stuff!
August 22, 2012 - 1:00 PM
Good for him. I’d love to see those bag nazis at Best Buy challenged. Where on earth is it written that you give up your constitutional rights because you bought something in a store?
Have you folks heard of shrinkage??? We pay for it!!!! I have no problem with any efforts to stop shop lifting. Besides if you have paid for the products what do you have to hide? In the long run it saves everyone money, especially the poor people who pay a larger percentage of their income to purchase stuff at Sam’s. SO Dan are you against saving the less fortunate money because it inconveniences you a little.
Actually, the guy sort of sounds like a prick to me. Seems like there are better battles to fight.
gdad, I know what you mean. But it still POs me every time I have to line up at Sam’s Club to prove I bought the 1 or 2 items that I’ve already paid for.
I can’t wait to go to sams again.
“I have no problem with any efforts to stop shop lifting.”
Michael, you may have no problem with showing your receipt at the exit, but your statement is far, far broader than that.
Question: would you have a problem if, in an effort to stop shoplifting, stores did pat-down searches of every customer exiting? I’m betting you would.
Michael, what if they wanted to search your car? Or look under your baby in a car seat?
Shrinkage is a big problem, but as anyone who’s ever been in retain knows, the majority of “shrinkage” is an in-house problem.
Retain = Retail
You know what else is stupid about Sams, is that the cashiers are required to remove all the items from the cart and place them into another cart. so when I go in there and load up on dog and cat food cases (usually about 200 lbs of litter, 4 cases of cat food) They have to lift up every single piece into a new cart just to make sure there’s nothing hidden in there.
This unnecessary step added at least a couple minutes to my checkout time. I am glad to hear about the receipt check thing though, I’m just going to keep walking next time.
@4- Then don’t go there
#4 Sams can indeed be ridiculous, but even on busy days I can’t remember being delayed more than 30 seconds or so.
depends on what she looks like………I go to the airport hoping for a pat down
I’ve heard of this problem on several occasions. And not to make this about myself, but… what is it about me that makes them NOT check my purchases, then? The Wal-Mart people smile and nod and the Best Buy people tell me to have a nice day. Even when the sensors go off at Lowe’s or Home Depot, all I get is an, “I got it. Have a good day,” as they turn it off. Only once have any of them asked for a receipt from me (over ten years ago).
At 6’0″ – 170 lbs., it’s not like I intimidate anyone.
I did actually know about the law, though. It was brought up during the investigation into Terry Griffith’s shooting in the ’90′s.
I worked for Lowes for a good while. A common tactic of thieves was to load up a cart with items, then roll it out of the store like they had just bought it all. Receipt checks help to discourage that, though most places typically only do it with items that are too large to be bagged, like TV’s, appliances, large power tool sets, etc. Most places generally assume if it’s in a bag, it was probably paid for.
Shrink definitely impacts prices for everyone. Be it someone walking out with a 37″ TV, or someone tearing open the bags of plumbing parts and putting a bunch of brass fittings in their pocket…it causes the stores to have to build in a certain buffer to cover the theft losses, so it impacts sales prices to customers.
When I walk out of any store, I keep my receipt in hand, especially if I have a big ticket item. Aside from Sam’s, I don’t recall having to have more than a quick check of the receipt.
While the guy in the article is technically and factually correct, he went about it in a very dick-like way. Some battles are worth picking, others are not. This was not one of them.
Some time ago I purchased a couple items including a caller ID unit in the Bedford Walmart. Apparently the cashier did not run the unit over the demagnetizer at the register. As soon as I tried to exit the store the theft alarm went off and a 17 year old “cart boy” attempted to stop me and told me I had to go back inside. Knowing that I properly paid for all items I politely refused and kept walking towards the main doors. He then put his hands on me and tried to physically stop me. At that point I said to him “If you touch me one more time I will have you arrested for battery.” I said this at the top of my lungs: DO NOT TOUCH ME AGAIN. The manager appeared shortly and apologized and said he would give me a small gift for my inconvenience. He went to the courtesy desk and presented me with a gift card for $25. and said the young man acted outside the scope of his duties. I simply asked that he be informed that if I am ever physically touched by him or any store employee again that I would call the police and press charges. This is the USA not some third world hellhole. Citizens have rights and one of them is due process and another is the right not to be molested by store employees. Stick to gathering up shopping carts, son, and keep your hands off customers. It’s not my issue if an employee fails to disable the anti-theft device in something I NOW OWN. Don’t give in to these intrusive demands by store personnel. As long as you KNOW you are in the right you have the law on YOUR side. If they accuse you of stealing something you purchased, you may have civil remedies available for defamation if they made accusations in the presence of others. You don’t lose your civil rights by simply going shopping.
I have shopped in the Walmart in Salem for years and have NEVER had any employee ask if I need help finding anything. I rarely get a ‘hello’ from any of them. If I need help, I have to find an employee to assist me, who usually goes in search of the employee who is working the particular section I need help in, to help me. But on four separate occasions, I was asked to show my receipt for purchases I made at the registers located near the entrance/exit doors. I was told it was because my purchases were not in bags. (The checkout girl had told me they didn’t have bags large enough for the purchases.). Each time it happened, I called and complained. “It’s just our policy, ma’am” is the only reason I’m given. I hope it happens again. I will refuse to stop and show my receipt.
Walker, carry your stuff out in your hands. Then tell the person that the receipt is in your pocket and could they reach in and get it.
Somehow I would guess that a lot of people on this blog (and those commenting on the Consumerist) would scream, “BIG GOVERNMENT” if there was a bill being proposed that required people to show their receipt upon exiting a store, but they have no problem with people basically being forced to do the same thing with no legal basis!
So, although legally you don’t have to show a receipt, some folks say it’s necessary to review purchases in order to protect us from potential shoplifters…that seems very anti-freedom to me. It’s not on the scale of a transvaginal ultrasound, but still intrusive!
Kristen, Dan
Very different than checking a receipt at the door.
I can see the point of asking for a receipt at the door if someone is carrying an item or items out the door, without them being bagged.
One Walmart that I shop at used to have a person at the door who would ask nearly everyone for a receipt, even if they had only 1 bag, with all the items in the bag. It was ridiculous. That person is not there now as far as I can tell. Every once in a while they check my receipt on the way out at that store, generally only if I have something thats not in a bag. Lowe’s rarely asks me for a receipt, if ever, these days.
@17 – Ahaaa
Had one of these at the Valley View Wal-Mart once. I saw a pair of customers with full carts talking to what appeared to be a greeter. I walked around them, only to get the “Sir! SIR!” from the older lady in the smock. I turned around and got the evil-headmistress-of-doom glare, and finally figured out what was going on. I showed her my receipt, but she was still glaring at me the whole time.
Thing is, I usually shop at the Salem location, and I’ve never been asked for my receipt there or in any other Wal-Mart. As such, I had no reason to expect it there. I understand that she was doing the job she was tasked with, but the level of indigence she expressed really seemed over the top, given that there was no signage and it’s far from standard procedure in most stores.
as normal, you only heard the part you wanted to. Sam’s club and other clubs have membership contracts that you signed when joining. It states you will agree to show your recipt upon leaving the store. This fight was at Walmart, others were at Best Buy, public welcome stores.
“. . . the evil-headmistress-of-doom glare. . .”
Love it. Good stuff. Mark, I’m gonna use that phrase in a column some day.
Does anyone really think that the intention of having a receipt checker at the door of a large store checking receipts is to violate anyone’s constitutional rights? Good lord…
So what happens when someone just picks up an item in Sams or Best Buy, doesn’t pay for it, and just decides to not let the receipt checker at the door see their receipt (that they don’t have)? How does the receipt checker at the door know the difference?
The guy in the story with the TV sounds like a super prick. It sounds like he just wanted to give someone a hard time just because he found a technicality that allowed him to do so.
Another Bob,
I recall signing no such contract, but maybe I did. OTOH, I believe anybody can walk in Sam’s and pay 10 percent more without their card. Are you telling me that the exit checkers can differentiate them, and don’t ask to see their receipts?
Checking the receipt at the door is as much a check on the cashier as it is on the customer. They are checking that all items were rung up for your benefit and theirs. Last time I was in Sam’s the checker caught an error where the checker had rung up an item twice. The check catches mistakes and also catches where checkers let friends get out without paying for all items.
Dan, I have never been stopped in WalMart or Krogers, you must look like a crook Since Sam’s doesn’t bag things they have a right to be sure someone isn’t pushing a cart load of stuff out the door without paying. They have a right to protect the business that THEY built. And as for giving the employee a hard time, I thought you libs were all about the little man, these people are just trying to do their job, why do you want to give them a hard time? Dan, if you hate Sam’s so much why do you go there?
…oh, and I blame spell-check for turning “indignance” into “indigence”
If Virginia law does say you don’t have to show a receipt, would that override a buyer’s club contract that says you do? I really don’t know, so I’m just asking.
“Dan, I have never been stopped in WalMart or Krogers, you must look like a crook Since Sam’s doesn’t bag things they have a right to be sure someone isn’t pushing a cart load of stuff out the door without paying. They have a right to protect the business that THEY built.”
RM, under the law, they do not have any such “right.” No “right” exists. The law says the consumer has the “right” NOT to show them the receipt.
Are you lobbying for a change in the law? I bet you HATE regulations on business, but you LOVE regs on the “little guy.”
Arthur’s story sounds as bad as the one in the link about the 37″ TV. He knew that making a scene and shouting something about the police and pressing charges to a 17 year old child would scare the kid. It was nothing but a power move to look important and belittle a child when it wasn’t necessary. Why be that way to a 17 year old employee who’s only trying to do the right thing for his employer? Why not just show a little understanding? We’ve all had crappy jobs at some point. No need to make someone else’s day worse just because you want to be difficult.
#26 Dan, found this under conditions of membership for Sam’s. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t guess as to how legally binding it is.
“Receipts: To ensure that you are charged correctly for the merchandise you have selected, you will be requested to show your receipt when exiting.”
WOW! Look at the outrage and the spin. Have you ever done a column or a blog post on the TSA Dan? Where they really DO check babies diapers, and undress the elderly in public…if you did, I can’t recall it.
Sharon N, I did a column on that.
Michael A. Howdyshell:
“I have no problem with any efforts to stop shop lifting. Besides if you have paid for the products what do you have to hide?….are you against saving the less fortunate money because it inconveniences you a little.”
This is a perfect example of how I’m neither a conservative, nor a liberal, but instead a libertarian. Here conservative Michael A. Howdyshell practically trips all over himself to offer up his right to not have to show a receipt in the name of some particular greater good that he happens to agree with (and so do I, but that’s besides the point). I abhor stealing, but don’t stick up for one right while throwing another under the bus because someone else cares more for it than I do. The lefties offer up all kinds of rights in the name of political expediency too. This is how many from the left and right are just alike and why our rights get taken away over time. When the right doesn’t stick up for the rights important to the left and the left doesn’t stick up for the rights important to the right, whomever is in power takes advantage and the other side just gets it the next time around. The creep toward authoritarianism continues with BOTH parties.
This is directly akin to stop-and-ID being unlawful in Virginia. Stores should model their register areas to facilitate conforming to the law, not disregarding the law to suit their purposes.
No open thread today so I guess I’ll post this one here. It’s creepy. Having spent some time in Lake Michigan I can tell you the water is cold.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13417229-preserved-body-of-diver-missing-since-1999-recovered-from-lake-michigan?lite
12.”depends on what she looks like………I go to the airport hoping for a pat down”
“17.Walker, carry your stuff out in your hands. Then tell the person that the receipt is in your pocket and could they reach in and get it.”
I know where I’m sticking my receipt from now on. We’ll find out how bad she cares about “company policy”.
There is a clear definition of the line between state laws in public retailers and the private policies in membership-only retailers. While you can, under state law, refuse to show your receipt at Sam’s Club, they can also revoke your membership for it. If they forcibly prevent you from leaving the store, that is an actionable offense under state law. Again, your membership will likely be revoked as a result. You enter into a contract with Sam’s Club, but neither party shall be allowed to break state or federal law in order to fulfill that contract.
In the case of public retailers, they are still at-will businesses. They reserve the right to refuse service to you in the future if you refuse to produce a receipt. Of course, that’s not good business practice, but it remains a course of action for them should you happen to cause too big of a scene in your protest. Still, they also cannot break any laws in the execution of their store policies or it is actionable.
ANY store policy of having the retail Gestapo check you “papers” is ridiculous. The only time I don’t mind is when I give my receipt to the warehouse worker whose job it is to retrieve my purchase from the stockroom.
I can remember, when I was a member of Sam’s, seeing the receipt checker watch me check out one item then ask for my receipt at the door.
I guess as long as American’s want everything cheaper, we will continue our slide into totalitarianism.
I find this entire discussion fascinating. I posted it only because 1) I found the article interesting, and rather funny; 2) I’ve been peeved on more than one occasion waiting at the exit line at Sam’s; 3) I’ve been accosted at Kroger (and something less than that at Best Buy) and 4) I wanted to get away from politics.
To elaborate a bit on the last: this post is entirely nonpolitical, folks. Not one word of it is political. It’s interesting how some on here have tried to turn it into such. That’s on them.
re: “4) I wanted to get away from politics.”:
Thank you, sir.
Now I’m curious. Does anyone now whether in joining Sams you are consenting to showing your receipt simply because that’s something that’s listed in the “conditions”? Is there any way this could trump state law?
BTW, the attitude the guy in the link copped about showing the receipt is one of the tricks used by bold shoplifters. Bluster and act offended and keep on walking and often employees will back down. I wouldn’t be surprised if the employees are taught this.
Hokie25: Just FYI, the “child” in the Bedford Walmart scenario was, I came to learn from the ass’t. mgr., a high school football player who was every bit of 6 feet tall and a good 225 lbs. That “child” had facial hair and a deep voice that in no way indicated he was 17. There was no way to know he was under 18 when he tried to prevent my leaving the store. All I knew was that no one is supposed to put their hands on me. Luckily another employee got hold of the ass’t. mgr. on duty who intervened. Some of you are very quick to say this was all about making a scene or calling people names. It was, in my situation a desire not to be bullied into having to explain that a cashier made an error….NOT ME. I felt zero obligation to demonstrate that I paid for the items I was taking from the store. I was there. You weren’t. Care to question any more details? I’ll be happy to follow and respond. There is no reason to put a good customer on the defensive and “make a scene” in demanding that he return to the store. My saying loudly what I said was intended to draw the attention of others so that I would have witnesses if ever needed. It had nothing to do with bullying anyone. And again, just for YOUR information, the management stated clearly to me the young MAN was not following procedures. They are NEVER to PHYSICALLY TOUCH anyone. They are to take note of the situation and make a report if they feel it is warranted or call a manager. I doubt you would be amused if you or your spouse or child was physically manhandled or detained by a store employee. Especially if they/you had done NOTHING wrong. Unless an employee has personal knowledge of a theft, e.g., observed you steal something, he or she is not to assume you stole merchadise and then take action. They can ASK you for a receipt to help deter shoplifters. You can politely decline. That does not mean you are “a prick” as several people stated. It means you have the RIGHT to go about your business unmolested. That’s why stores employ undercover security who may observe an actual theft and act on that. Cart boys/men are not supposed to question customers, much less try to detain them. That’s right from the mouth of management. Just wanted to set the record straight.
Dan,
I agree with your 4:45 post…
What would be even more interesting is if you posited it in an opposite manner to see if some posters would flip sides. (of course not possible now)
Personally, I hate shopping and would show them most anything to get the hell out of the store…
Come on, do some of you really have a problem with clerks wanting to see the receipt of someone walking out of the store with a TV in their arms? If you’re going to do that, hold the receipt in your hand, against the box where they can see it. It’s not difficult.
As for places like Sam’s, as Richard Beason said, they need to check and make sure the clerk isn’t letting friends get by without paying for items.
Dan, (31) I hate unreasonable regulations on anyone, business or individual. Our government is becoming a regulating machine. In the case of this law saying you don’t have to show a receipt they are regulating the business and preventing the business from protecting themselves. how is that right? If you do not agree with the business then don’t go there.
As for comments 6 and 7, no one said anything about pat downs. This is about checking receipts, a reasonable safeguard.
If state law trumps the merchants rules, can someone with a concealed carry permit take their gun into an establishment or onto property that prohibits firearms?
“Personally, I hate shopping. . .”
We agree!
“As for comments 6 and 7, no one said anything about pat downs. This is about checking receipts, a reasonable safeguard.”
RM, Michael Howdyshell said he was in favor of any measures to reduced shoplifting. Pat downs could be one.
RM,
This isn’t a law regulating the business, because it isn’t a law.
My 4th amendment right prevents me from having to submit to unreasonable searches and seizures.
When I am at a store and I make a purchase, as soon as money exchanges hands and the transaction is completed, the goods are no longer the property of the business. I become an individual citizen carrying personal property and I can refuse to submit to an unreasonable search (by declining a request to show a receipt) and without probable cause, they must allow me to walk out the door and the refusal itself does not justify a probable cause argument.
The burden of proof is on the business to prove theft since they would be the ones pressing charges.
Excellent point John Wilburn #36! I had no idea it was against the law for them to ask to see your “proof of ownership”. I have always just meekly complied. Frankly, IMO, the stores should configure their check-outs and purchase proofs such that it is not necessary. S piece of bright ribbon, tape or simply taping the receipt to the box and asking the person to carry it out with the receipt showing should be enough.
As Kristen noted, a bigger percentage of “shrinkage” is still in their own systems moreso than shoplifters and being assumed to be criminal is not very customer friendly.
Who the hell believes that the “receipt checker” has a clue how to “ensure that you are charged correctly for the merchandise you have selected”? Pitiful. My Mom was charged 8 dollars for a head of cabbage once, years ago. If she had not noticed before she left the store…
Arthur, I’m with you, no one should put their hands on you. Employee training 101. I had a clerk forget to remove the block on a CD once and the alarm went off, the doors closed on me and scared me to death before I realized what was happening. The clerks (teens) all thought it was hilarious. I never went back and they oddly enough went out of business.
Blue John:
48.”If state law trumps the merchants rules, can someone with a concealed carry permit take their gun into an establishment or onto property that prohibits firearms?”
If it is private property, the merchant can forbid it. This doesn’t stop the actual act of taking a firearm in there; it just means they don’t want people to. The theatre that got shot up in Aurora Colorado prohibited guns too. The merchants can’t lawfully enforce rules that violate state law.
If the “establishment” that you’re referring to were to be a town or county government building, the answer would be yes; carry cannot be banned in those. There is state preemption of localities’ making laws concerning the carrying of firearms in public buildings. There is no such preemption for private buildings… yet.
Try shopping at locally owned and operated businesses that reflect the value system of our community. You won’t be hassled leaving a store, just thanked for shopping there.
Can someone post a link to this law? I’d be interested in reading the text of the entire citation. If this is actually the law, it seems like one of the most ill-conceived pieces of legislation ever thought of in this arena. If this is truly the case, what’s to stop anyone from simply loading a cart full of whatever they want and then walking out?
IMO, despite all the rationalizations and explanations offered, it still sounds like people are just looking for yet another way to act like a prick toward their fellow man. To those of you who say you are being “molested” or “accosted” by these store employees , really? Drama queen much?
You may have paid for the item you are leaving with, but it one of the reasons it costs as much as it does is because there are dishonest a–holes out there who will go to great lengths to steal that very same item. I can’t for the life of me figure out why you would want to make it easier for them and in so doing, increase costs for everyone else. There is also no small amount of self-importance and arrogance on display here. You’re too busy and too important to be bothered for ten seconds to show your receipt? Really? Where are you headed? Off to defuse a bomb or perform emergency surgery? If your that important or in that big of a hurry, what the hell were you doing at Wal-Mart in the first place?
A private business can ask you, and you can refuse, and they can ban you from the store, if any of the many employees even remember you.
This is much ado about nothing.
John Wilburn,
Thanks for the input.
not for nothing, but i think all of you who want to not show your receipt as you exit a store, well, just go ahead and and not show it. if i were offended as much as you all seem to be, i would choose not to patronize the stores about whom i am fussing about in this thread. just don’t shop there. end of problem. orrrr, just sue’em. thats what you lib folks like to do, so, just do it. and, when you macho-types stomp your foot and refuse to show your receipt, you will find out that, well, you’ll soon find out whose side the law is ultimately on.
…oh, now i get it, this what a little b_ _ _ _ session looks like. my bad. sorry.
Chuck, does the 4th amendment which protects us against unreasonable search and seizure ring a bell? It’s not a VA specific thing. It’s a Bill of Rights thing. If just carrying something out of a store constitutes “probable cause”, then maybe our entire shopping paradigm needs examining if everyone ends up looking like a putative thief.
Why people are so excited to surrender the protections afforded us by the Constitution, I don’t understand. How about this…maybe you don’t care about your privacy but I do.
Sandi, they rely on meek compliance. Those signs stores put up in which they “reserve the right to search all packages”? Horse manure. They can call the cops on you, but they cannot rifle through your personal effects.
Chuck:
56.”IMO, despite all the rationalizations and explanations offered, it still sounds like people are just looking for yet another way to act like a prick toward their fellow man.”
Hey Chuck there’s always plenty of room on the blazing altar to heap more of your freedom on. The lefties (and righties) will bring the marsmallows…except for Sandi, she gets it this time.
Just know that when this issue burns itself out, big brother will have his hand out for more.
Sandi:
“As Kristen noted, a bigger percentage of “shrinkage” is still in their own systems moreso than shoplifters and being assumed to be criminal is not very customer friendly.”
Sandi has a liberty-slanted thinking cap on tonight with that comment. This issue reminds me so much of places that ban guns with a system (postings or rules) that is honored only by the honorable that are not part of the problem, when the real problem is the crime of others. It would suck to be an honest employee that is punished with more regulation because his/her co-workers steal, but at least employees have contracts and a set of rules they agree to up-front. To take it out on the customers, especially with a rights violation, is ridiculous.
Anybody surprised that a self-styled conservative — that would be Frank — is the first person to suggest a lawsuit?
You can’t make this stuff up.
Yes John. You might as well be locked down on the eastern side of the Berlin Wall in 1960 because you have to show your receipt when you walk out of Best Buy. Wouldn’t those many freedoms you are espousing also include not shopping at Best Buy if you don’t like their policies?
Dano, still waiting for a cite on this supposed law.
Kristen:
61.”Chuck, does the 4th amendment which protects us against unreasonable search and seizure ring a bell? It’s not a VA specific thing. It’s a Bill of Rights thing….Why people are so excited to surrender the protections afforded us by the Constitution, I don’t understand. How about this…maybe you don’t care about your privacy but I do.”
How can Kristen be so spot-on with Amendment 4, yet totally off the mark on Amendment 2? I’m just glad to see progress, I guess… even if she is cherry-picking the Bill of Rights a bit.
Dan, Frank/matt’s uncle/whatever it is, is hilarious! It never fails to make me chuckle over a “self-styled conservative/Obama hater that says Obama doesn’t respect his or her liberty, then show no respect for his or her own and further never realize the complete disconnect. Again, it’s only what is important to them. The righties could clean them out “in the name of Jesus” and they’d help them carry their stolen rights to the truck to boot.
Kristen:
“Those signs stores put up in which they “reserve the right to search all packages”? Horse manure.”
Kristen, there is a particularly outrageous sign at Carroll County High School. It says something to the effect that merely coming onto their parking lot gives the staff of the school and/or police the right to search your vehicle!
Chuck:
“Wouldn’t those many freedoms you are espousing also include not shopping at Best Buy if you don’t like their policies?”
No business has the right to violate state law. Period. Giving ground to our rights being violated an inch here and there over time has come back to bite us. You have yet to see it. What’s more, forget the receipt checkers; imagine constantly having the burden of proof on your shoulders to prove your ownership of different things. There is a strong potential for abuse and theft for sure. This is in the “guilty until proven innocent” category for sure.
John, the 4th Amendment does sound vaguely familiar. Sadly it doesn’t seem to be familiar to you. The 4th, just like all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, apply to GOVERNMENT action, not the actions of private citizens. So unless you are governed by the greeter at Wal-Mart, your Constitutional argument is an epic fail. Similarly, the sales associate at Best Buy is NOT an agent of the government. Try again.
As for the disjuncture in Kristen’s constitutional analyses between this issue and 2A, there is none. She is consistent. She is wrong on both counts.
OR, how about this…
You buy a new coat in the morning, then wear it to the store that afternoon. They want to see your receipt before they let you out of the store and detain you like receipt checker Tony did in the article.
I guess Chuck is okay with that?
Chuck:
“The 4th, just like all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, apply to GOVERNMENT action, not the actions of private citizens. So unless you are governed by the greeter at Wal-Mart, your Constitutional argument is an epic fail.”
Chuck, I said the greeter/receipt checker/et al cannot violate state law. This is true. That is my argument.
Sorry John but that argument is BS and you know it. It is more like a ride on a rocket ship than a slippery slope to get from showing a receipt for merchandise while still in the store to “constantly having the burden of proof on your shoulders to prove your ownership of different things.”
I agree about store policy not superseding State law. At least you now acknowledge that we are not talking about Constitutional law. That is precisely why I am asking for a cite to this particular state law. Still waiting by the way. So far the only proof of its existence is that it has been referenced in two blogs.
I am also still waiting for your answer as to how the store is supposed to prevent Joe Shoplifter from just loading a big screen TV into his cart and heading out chanting all the while “you don’t have the right to ask if I bought this.”
Oh, for what it’s worth, the store has to have probable cause to detain a suspected shoplifter:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-105.1
Probable cause is the missing ingredient in all too many stop-and-ID/Terry stop abuses. Here, Tony the Wal Mart receipt checker was doing it instead of a police officer.
I’ve always felt insulted and intruded upon with those exit door stops. It is not my problem that a store cannot keep track of who has and has not paid for their purchase. If more people balked, this policy would end. In the meantime, if you refuse, and keep on going, you run the risk of being physically assaulted by some know-nothing. Would the street cop that gets called in know you were legally in the right? Who knows. This is just another reason to not shop in the store that “they built” on our submission.
Ed Wield, I know how you feel. The funny thing is I feel less insulted & intruded upon at Sam’s (even though I feel more annoyed there, because of the frickin LINE JUST TO GET OUT THE DOOR) than I have at Kroger or Best Buy. I reckon that’s because I’m more used to it at Sam’s and it applies to everyone.
My wife works in retail, and she has for more than 25 years, with large corporations and in small stores (though never for a bigbox retailer). Based on what she’s told me, stores in general are very careful to train their employees to avoid false-arrest situations. Enough of them over the years have been burned by false arrest lawsuits that most retailers have learned their lesson on that one. Cops are quite knowledgeable in these situations, too. They get LOTS of training on false arrest.
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect John Wilburn’s cite of the law is the one in question (thanks, John) and that, at some point, the question becomes one of illegal detention. Thus, while it’s not illegal for an exit checker to ASK to see your receipt, it most definitely is illegal for them to detain you simply for not producing one, absent any probable cause for that detention.
I am shocked and saddened to see you shop at Sam ‘s Club and I would guess WalMart. Each Walmart purchace helps send another American job overseas. Apparently your writing is pro middle class but your financial decisions are totally self centered. Kind of like the 1% right? If you talk the talk you need to walk the walk. MUCH lost respect.
Rodant,
I go to Sam’s once or twice a month for one specific brand product that I can’t find elsewhere.
Chuck:
“I am also still waiting for your answer as to how the store is supposed to prevent Joe Shoplifter from just loading a big screen TV into his cart and heading out chanting all the while “you don’t have the right to ask if I bought this.”
If the store is too stupid or unable to control their inventory before the cash registers, what makes them morally superior for demanding a remedy after?
So, Chuck, I put the ball back in your court: Are you okay with being required to produce a receipt in the event of the coat example I provided? To head off the inevitable, what if it was two days later and the receipt was long gone and you paid cash and the surveilance tapes have already been recorded over. In other words, neither you, nor them have any record. You’re just wearing a coat that looks new by all standards and is exactly from their inventory. Would Tony the receipt checker be okay in detaining you?
Chuck, all slippery slopes start somewhere.
And just think, Chuck’s a cop.
Is Chuck really a cop? If he disclosed that, I’d forgotten about it.
IIRC, he knew too much about radar.
Art Hill:
“79.And just think, Chuck’s a cop.”
I forgot. That explains the authoritarian BS.
John, it is quite simple. Point out the STATE law that governs this area. You are bouncing back and forth between Terry stops and probable cause, all of which are well and good. They are also CONSTITUTIONAL principles and the procedures associated with them have been developed through analysis of case law. This thread says there is a codified STATE law (that means a law that was passed by the legislature and is written in the code books) that says a merchant can’t require you to show a receipt. I’m asking you to show me where it is because I haven’t seen it.
You are correct that a store has to have PC to stop a shoplifter. But that is not because the 4th amendment says so. It’s because the statute you linked to says so. The 4th amendment is not controlling in cases of private action. What I am asking is for a similar link to the “no receipt” law. You all seem quite certain it is exists, so it shouldn’t be hard to find.
However, please don’t show me a link to the US Constitution. Once again the Constitution applies to government action, not private citizens. You may have a statutory safeguard against unlawfully being detained and you certainly can file a tort action for such behavior. However, you do not have a constitutional claim. I wish this were a Constitutional issue, but no matter how badly you wish it were so, it is not. If it were a Constitutional issue, it would be simply resolved and most likely, in the merchant’s favor. Again for the uninformed, 4A doesn’t prohibit search and seizure. It prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizure. The Court would have to decide if a minimally intrusive stop at the door to show a receipt is unreasonable when weighed against the merchant’s interest in preventing theft. The Court in the past has said that given the state’s interest in preventing unlicensed drivers and unsafe equipment on the highways, that roadblocks to check driver’s licenses are permissible and that is with NO particularized suspicion against an individual. Now ask yourself, which is more intrusive. Having to stop your car in mid-transit and get out your license from wherever you keep it to show the cops, or showing the Best Buy door employee the receipt the cashier just handed you a few seconds earlier. Given that the Court has established long ago that the car stop IS permissible, what on earth makes you think the receipt check isn’t? One last time, SHOW ME THE LAW. Hell, at this point I’d be good with a case that is somewhere close to on-point, but so far no one has shown anything other than mostly uninformed opinion.
I like your take on the stupidity of shop keepers not being able to outwit thieves. Tell me, do you share a similar “blame the victim” attitude toward domestic assault and rape victims?
As to your coat example, quite frankly it is a stupid example. It’s like saying you have proven that water is wet because the sky is blue. It is a completely different situation. But in order to prevent the inevitable accusation of not answering the question, no, the store keeper could not detain them two days later for wearing a new coat.
Dan, as for Art’s assertion, the only thing I think we can say with absolute certainty is that Art is no detective.
Chuck,
John W. cited a law. I don’t know about your equivalency between shoplifting and rape. It seems weird.
Chuck, Kristen brought up the 4th Amendment and it’s paralell’s not I. I just responded to the frey of all the children talking at once. TV…coat…both carried out…what’s the difference. Your comparison to rape is beyond comprehension???????
“Now ask yourself, which is more intrusive. Having to stop your car in mid-transit and get out your license from wherever you keep it to show the cops, or showing the Best Buy door employee the receipt the cashier just handed you a few seconds earlier.”
Since the traffic stop is a legal form of detention and was presumably made with probable cause, where the receipt check was not, my answer is the receipt check at Best Buy.
#77 Crab meat?
From the law John Wilburn linked to: Ҥ 18.2-105.1. Detention of suspected shoplifter.
A merchant, agent or employee of the merchant, who has probable cause to believe that a person has shoplifted in violation of § 18.2-95 or § 18.2-96 or § 18.2-103, on the premises of the merchant, may detain such person for a period not to exceed one hour pending arrival of a law-enforcement officer.
(1976, c. 515.)”
And since “The Fourth Amendment does not protect you from privacy invasions by people other than the government”
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/fourth-amendment
I cannot find any actual law that backs up the idea of refusing to show your receipt and since the burden of “probable cause” would be on the store personnel but certainly within their rights a a merchant, I cannot “justify” refusing to show a receipt or being belligerent in the face of some worker who is just trying to do their job. I will remain in meek compliance because I do understand all the forces at play here.
Probable cause is almost always going to inure to the benefit of the store, police officer or magistrate not the person being “invaded”. I agree it is a slippery slope, but it is one we traveled too long ago to fight now.
hey Chuck, by now you fully realize that nobody is going to produce any cite or specific link to the “law” they believe some retailers are “breaking”. Good job! by the way, they’ll just change the subject on you…
Frank, John Wilburn already cited the law. Requiring someone to produce a receipt in order to exit a retailer amounts to illegal detention.
Oops, again!
Sandi, there’s no specific language in the law that says, “it’s illegal for a store to ask for a shopper’s receipt,” (it’s not) or “shoppers don’t have to show a store receipt when exiting the store.”
Rather, it’s an interpretation of the law John W. cites, from which you can draw a logical inference that customers aren’t required to show a receipt for items they have purchased in order to get out of a retailer.
Because otherwise, you get into detention-without-probable-cause territory, which IS against the law. And that is something that’s drilled into many, many retail employees heads.
Sandi Saunders:
“Probable cause is almost always going to inure to the benefit of the store, police officer or magistrate not the person being “invaded”.”
No, the probable cause requirement is to the benefit of the customer who is innocent until proven guilty or, in this case, at least reasonably suspected of being guilty. Without the need for probable cause for a number of things, we’d live in a very different society.
dano, dano, dano, good ol’ john’s link takes you to “nothing” relative to showing a receipt. there is no law against such action as has been described above, unless they detain you “without probable cause”.
do i have that right, dano?
If you read up on this issue online John W, it sure looks like probable cause here is just like when the police stop you. You are seldom going to “win” and when you do, was it worth it? “Merchant’s privilege”.
http://business.yourdictionary.com/merchant-s-privilege
Frank, this should not be a strain on the mind even for you:
1. Virginia law says stores may detain customers only if they have probable cause to do so.
2. Failure to produce a receipt upon the request of the store employee is NOT probable cause.
3. So, the store may not detain customers who merely refuse to produce a receipt.
4. Ergo, the customer may leave.
Thus, under Virginia law, customers aren’t required to show a receipt for items they have purchased in order to get out of a retailer. Which is what the blog post said, btw.
Also Frank, just fyi, if you were ever arrested and charged with shoplifting, guess what? In court, you would NOT need to prove that you didn’t shoplift! Instead, the state would need to prove that you DID.
I hope that doesn’t strike you as anything revolutionary. Then again, the guys who set up out justice system that way WERE revolutionaries.
And if you’re a teen, you really better keep those receipts…here’s a post from last year on my daughter’s experience. Dan, you even commented on it
http://mselenaeousrants.blogspot.com/2011/02/targeting-teens.html
Yes, Elena, that was my experience outside Kroger at Towers!
One year at our annual block sale I saw a fellow walking away with one of our items, but not wanting to invade his rights or embarrass him, I didn’t stop him to ask if he had paid. By the time I asked my wife if he had paid her and found out he hadn’t, he was gone. I always ask now if I don’t know. To heck with state law or the Fourth Amendment.
gdad:
“I always ask now if I don’t know.”
Nothing wrong with that.
“To heck with state law or the Fourth Amendment.”
Nothing right with that.
dano, dano, dano, the store employee is well within his rights, and the store’s rights, to request that you show your receipt before you leave the store. That is breaking no law. the only law that might get broken is if you were to refuse to show the receipt, and they then tryed to physically detain you.
if you refused to show a receipt for the things you were leaving the store with, and then left the store, the store would be within their rights to record the incident, and turn the matter over to store security. at that point, store security would determine whether to pursue the matter, or not. what part of that is too difficult for you understand?
Dan, we are blessed to have a scholar such as Frank among us. He bolted together some semblance of the points we made and researched, fluffed them up a little, and now attempts to educate us with them. Give him a hand!
“dano, dano, dano, the store employee is well within his rights, and the store’s rights, to request that you show your receipt before you leave the store. That is breaking no law. the only law that might get broken is if you were to refuse to show the receipt, and they then tryed to physically detain you.
if you refused to show a receipt for the things you were leaving the store with, and then left the store, the store would be within their rights to record the incident, and turn the matter over to store security. at that point, store security would determine whether to pursue the matter, or not. what part of that is too difficult for you understand?”
Tell you what I’m not going to do in this comment, Frank. I’m NOT going to distort YOUR comment to attempt to make my point. That’s exactly what you did in your comment.
I never said any employee who asked a customer for a receipt was breaking the law. The original blog post didn’t say that either. Here’s what the original blog post says: “It never occurred to me, until I read this post on The Consumerist, which says there’s a Virginia law that says customers aren’t required to show a receipt for items they have purchased in order to get out of a retailer.”
Now, Frank, I probably could have phrased this better. But the meaning is still clear: no one may be required to produce a store receipt for the purpose of exiting a store. Under the law, they can’t stop you from leaving until you cough up the receipt.
But that doesn’t give you a right to intentionally distort what I said. I’m assuming you did that, Frank. The only other possibility is that your comprehension skills are horribly lacking. In other words, you’re being disingenuous or you’re dumb.
Which is it, Frank?
gee, dano, looks like you actually agree with me!
IMHO, the everyone-show-the-receipt practice is highly questionable at best.
However, here is a bit more information on “probable cause” under Virginia law.
http://tinyurl.com/cqyv2q4
**
§ 8.01-226.9. Exemption from civil liability in connection with arrest or detention of person suspected of shoplifting.
A merchant, agent or employee of the merchant, who causes the arrest or detention of any person pursuant to the provisions of §§ 18.2-95, 18.2-96 or § 18.2-103, shall not be held civilly liable for unlawful detention, if such detention does not exceed one hour, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest, or assault and battery of the person so arrested or detained, whether such arrest or detention takes place on the premises of the merchant, or after close pursuit from such premises by such merchant, his agent or employee, provided that, in causing the arrest or detention of such person, the merchant, agent or employee of the merchant, had at the time of such arrest or detention probable cause to believe that the person had shoplifted or committed willful concealment of goods or merchandise. The activation of an electronic article surveillance device as a result of a person exiting the premises or an area within the premises of a merchant where an electronic article surveillance device is located shall constitute probable cause for the detention of such person by such merchant, his agent or employee, provided such person is detained only in a reasonable manner and only for such time as is necessary for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device, and provided that clear and visible notice is posted at each exit and location within the premises where such a device is located indicating the presence of an antishoplifting or inventory control device. For purposes of this section, “electronic article surveillance device” means an electronic device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from the premises, or a protected area within such premises, of specially marked or tagged merchandise.
**
Went to Sam’s for a few things today. I considered screaming and yelling and causing a scene when they asked to see my receipt, or maybe just walking on by to see if somebody chased me into the parking lot, but since I still had it my hand I thought the more rational thing to do would be to just show it to them. Cost me at least 5 seconds, though.
Dave Hicks,
Thanks for the elaboration, but I don’t believe it clarifies the issue that much. Stores get to detain suspected shoplifter for an hour PROVIDED they have probable cause to believe a theft has been committed.
Activation of an electronic security devise IS probable case.
Seems to me it still remains that failing to produce a receipt upon request DOES NOT constitute probable cause.
#105 Is it probable cause if a security guy thinks he sees a shoplifter stuff something in his or her pocket and then walk otu? Can the security guard then ask said person for their receipt after they leave the store? Or does Virginia law trump this situation and the shoplifter just gets away scott free?
Comment #103 regarding probable cause was enlightning. What I learned was that setting off an electronic anti-theft alarm in a store IS probable cause to detain a shopper. That of course does not mean the person has to agree to being detained. It’s not the same as the police stopping you. It more like a citizen’s arrest (think Deputy Barney Fife.) However, it also states “provided that clear and visible notice is posted at each exit and location within the premises where such a device is located indicating the presence of an antishoplifting or inventory control device.” I do not recall ever seeing any such signs posted in WalMart stores. Perhaps I have simply never noticed any, since I am not going in to shoplift, but shop.
Another great distinction I learned from the posting is that a merchant may be free from *CIVIL* liability for arresting or detaining a customer. Sounds like he can run out of the store and beat the person senseless according to that section of law, and be CIVILLY free from a lawsuit. However, there is something called CRIMINAL LAW. If a store employee or security guard tries to stop someone physically in any manner, he could and should be arrested and charged with a crime. Innocent people still have rights in these United States.
“[The merchant or his agent] shall not be held civilly liable for unlawful detention, if such detention does not exceed one hour, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest, or assault and battery of the person so arrested or detained…”
Assault and battery! He can beat you up to try to detain you and not be held liable CIVILLY! Isn’t THAT reassuring! I just hope some security guard understands he can still be arrested and charged with ASSAULT AND BATTERY, unlawful imprisonment, and any other breaches of the criminal laws that would fit the situation. Civil and criminal law are two distinct animals. Most stores have a policy of no physical contact. They instead use CCTV and save everything on a computer for evidence. They will follow a suspect outside the store and note the description of the vehicle, tag, and direction of travel as well as other occupants. And with just about everyone having a cell phone with a camera feature, there should be dozens of photos available from “concerned” citizens who witness the drama. That makes a lot more sense than tackling a person to the ground and later discovering after you’re broken several of his teeth as he hits the ground that it was a case of mistaken identity. Or possibly someone taking something they owned out of their pocket to match a size or color, and then placing it back in their pocket. The possibilities for a wrongful stop or “bad grab” as security people call them are endless. Add to that a customer or employee telling a security person or manager that HE/SHE “STOLE SOMETHING” just as a person is exiting and you have the recipe for disaster.
Re: Comment by Dan Casey — August 23, 2012 @ 11:43 pm
and
Comment by gdad — August 24, 2012 @ 8:36 am
———
First, I an not a lawyer (IANAL) nor do I play one on TV or the internet. My opinions should not be taken as legal advice.
Second, 4A applies to government actions, not store employees, individuals, etc. As far as I know the store cannot search you, in Virginia (unless you voluntarily agreeing to submit to searches that as part of a membership contract, such as Costco members and I suspect SAMS Club). However, they can detain you up to an hour for the LOEs to search/arrest/etc. As seen in my earlier comment, if they had “probable cause” they cannot be sued. That’s where it gets tricky, IMHO.
—
Dan,
“Seems to me it still remains that failing to produce a receipt upon request DOES NOT constitute probable cause.”
IANAL, but I agree. In my earlier comment I said, “IMHO, the everyone-show-the-receipt practice is highly questionable at best.”
—
gdad,
“Is it probable cause if a security guy thinks he sees a shoplifter stuff something in his or her pocket…. [emphases added]”
Again, IANAL, but not in my humble opinion.
That said, the issue is what will the store employee actually say to the LEO and/or in court.
“I saw….” or “I thought….”????
—
All,
Note: that the wording is “probable cause.”
“It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)). [emphasis added]” — http://tinyurl.com/2wxoor5
Note: the wording a suspect not everyone leaving the store.
So what is Probable Cause and/or Reasonable Suspicion (needed for a Terry Stop)?
Check out: http://tinyurl.com/9bmplvz
Again, IANAL. However, how can it be reasonably inferred that there is a “fair probability” for a “prudent person” to believe that everyone leaving a store has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence?
However, see http://tinyurl.com/3ozuc7l
**
SNIP
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.
SNIP
**
and
Also, see: Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 477 S.E.2d 631, 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (finding that the challenged detention was reasonable under the state’s merchant’s privilege statute); Ashcroft v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, 588 N.E.2d 280 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) (finding probable cause to justify detention pursuant to the state’s merchant’s privilege statute); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. 1998) (finding a detention reasonable under the state’s “shopkeeper’s privilege” statute); Johnson v. K-Mart Enterprises, 297 N.W.2d 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980) (holding that a detention by a security guard reasonable and based upon probable cause); cf. Moore v. Pay-N Save Corp., 581 P.2d 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978) (reversing summary judgment for defendants where the evidence regarding the reasonableness of the detention had to be resolved at trial).
—
Folk who are really interested might want to check out the book The Law Of Arrest For Merchants And Private Security Personnel — John P. Gilroy
—
Bottom line: I bugs me. I many cases I suspect one could avoid conviction and in some cases win a false imprisonment claim. But is it rally worth all that hassle.
Duh!
********* TYPO / PROOFO ALERT **********
The last paragraph of my last should have been,
“Bottom line: It bugs me. In many cases, I suspect one could avoid conviction and in some cases win a false imprisonment claim. But is it rally worth all that hassle.”
Re: Comment by Perry Mason — August 24, 2012 @ 12:20 pm
Dan,
I can’t find the earlier thread on the security guard shooting at a fleeing suspect.
However, with your additional search tools you might want to find it and provide a link in this thread back to it.
‘
.
In my experience, if they have to call law enforcement, you are going to lose. Maybe resistance is futile.
“It never occurred to me, until I read this post on The Consumerist, which says there’s a Virginia law that says customers aren’t required to show a receipt for items they have purchased in order to get out of a retailer.”
I’ve got a sincere question. Without seeing the way that this law is written verbatim for myself, I’m going to go by the quote above. It says that you don’t have to show a receipt for any items that you have purchased in order to be allowed to leave a retailer.
If we’re really getting specific, this description above of the law says that you are free to leave a retailer without showing a receipt for your purchased items if that is your wish. But does the law say anything about whether or not you can take the purchased items with you when you leave without showing a receipt?
Is this law written in such a way that my question is covered? I’m not being a smart-aleck… I just see an opportunity for a loop hole and I’m wondering if it’s covered.
hokie24, I don’t understand the difference. Can you elaborate?
I’ll try.
The law says that a customer isn’t required to show a receipt for purchased items in order to leave a store.
Ok, so that covers the customer… they are free to go if they don’t show a receipt, right?
Does this mean that they can take their purchased items with them that they refused to show a receipt for?
I don’t see that mentioned in the description of the law. I only see specific language that the CUSTOMER can leave a retailer without showing a receipt. I don’t see anything saying that the purchased items can be removed without showing the receipt.
Does that help?
I realize that my question is nitpicking… but it could be an important clarification. From the descriptions of the law that I’ve read on this blog page, I don’t see the clarification between the customer being free to leave the retailer, and the customer’s purchased items being free to leave the retailer.
Could the law be interpretted this way below?
Sure, you’re free to leave without showing a receipt and a retailer can’t stop you, but if you expect to take the purchased items with you, then you’ll need to show a receipt.
hokie24, thanks for the elaboration.
I don’t know the answer to your question. I’m assuming that it means they can take the item with them. If they own it, they should be able to take it with them.
The whole receipt-at-the-door issue seems to be based on an interpretation of a law that doesn’t address this issue with specificity. It says that a customer cannot be detained without probable cause.Otherwise the store may incur civil liability(and the employee might incur criminal liabilty).
I reckon a store detective witnessing a customer trying to conceal merchandise, and watching the customer trying to leave the store without paying, would constitute probable cause. Or if the detective followed the customer through the store, and saw that they didn’t pay for an item they weren’t concealing, and were trying to get out the door, the same reasoning should apply, I’d think. The law specifically states that an alarm sounding constitutes probable cause for such a detention.
But the law also seems to suggest that the refusal to produce a receipt while exiting a store with an item does not in an of itself constitute probable cause. Therefore no detention may occur.
Re: Comment by hokie24 — August 24, 2012 @ 4:23 pm
hokie24,
I’m still waiting for someone to show me the Virginia law that says “customers aren’t required to show a receipt for items they have purchased in order to get out of a retailer.”
Regardless of the law or theft, it is not good business to confront customers who have done nothing wrong. The onus should be on the store. If a purchase is rung up in another section not near the exit, then the store should have a sticker or something on the package to signify it is paid for. Problem solved. This is more about arrogant stores putting the burden on the customer instead of changing their policies and practices IMO. They choose to have places you can pay that are far from the exit so they should solve the problem.
The idea of checking a cart or bag when you have just left the checkout cashier is harassment, plain and simple IMO. Slippery slopes are always like this.
Sandi Saunders:
111.”In my experience, if they have to call law enforcement, you are going to lose.”
My experience is just the opposite. I don’t want the cops hauling a truckload of drama to the unnecessary party either, but when you’re right, you’re right and hopefully the cops can set whoever is hassling you straight… if they know the law themselves that is.
Sandi Saunders:
“The onus should be on the store. If a purchase is rung up in another section not near the exit, then the store should have a sticker or something on the package to signify it is paid for. Problem solved.”
Sears does this and has never asked to see my receipt.
“This is more about arrogant stores putting the burden on the customer instead of changing their policies and practices IMO. They choose to have places you can pay that are far from the exit so they should solve the problem.”
Exactly
“The idea of checking a cart or bag when you have just left the checkout cashier is harassment, plain and simple IMO. Slippery slopes are always like this.”
This is surprising coming from Sandi, but I’ll take it. Right on.
@gdad: ““Receipts: To ensure that you are charged correctly for the merchandise you have selected, you will be requested to show your receipt when exiting.””
There you have it. They may request it, but there is nothing there indicating that you have agreed to show it.
@Dan Casey: “Seems to me it still remains that failing to produce a receipt upon request DOES NOT constitute probable cause.”
Exercising your right to not incriminate yourself never amounts to probable cause in and of itself. If you *did* take something that is not on your receipt, and you show them the receipt, you are incriminating yourself. Ergo, refusing to show the receipt (incriminate yourself) is not probable cause.