Posted on 03/11/2011 7:51:18 PM PST by Daffynition
“over a “principle” that doesn’t exist.”
Your ignorance is disturbing.
WalMart doesn’t care what you do with them ~ once you’re out of the store.
“I bet this guy wouldn’t refuse to show his CCW license to a cop who asked for it even if there was a state law that said he didn’t have to.”
So, if there was such a law why would the cop be asking for it if he wasn’t allowed to? Do you do everything anyone tells you to do because you’re a spineless jellyfish? Freedom takes guts. Too bad you’re a slave even to yourself.
The laws vary by state, but heres a good synopsis:
The stores have a right to ask, but they have NO RIGHT to force you to provide them with the receipt or detain you for not showing it. If they witnessed me pick up the item, and try to walk out without paying they could detain me on suspicion of shoplifting, however if I paid for my item, and them go to leave the store with it, the do NOT have a legal right to demand I show them a receipt or to detain me under shopkeeper exhemptions to the false imprisonment laws.
The key paragraph is the synopsis at the bottom:
Litigious customers facing off against the police or Costco might not have much luck. Police need probable cause to conduct a search, and Costco members have voluntarily agreed to submit to searches. The question of law is more interesting when a retailer like Circuit City attempts to implement a receipt-check policy without the benefit of a member agreement. In states where the shopkeeper’s privilege exists, stores like Circuit City may only claim the privilege to search customers when the store agent has a reasonable belief that a customer has engaged in unlawful activity. It seems implausible that store agents could honestly claim they need to check every receipt on the grounds that they have a reasonable belief that every one of their customers is a thief.
As I stated before, Wal Mart has a right to ask, and you have a right to obligue or not. However simply refusing to obligue the request is NOT eviden or justification for them to suspect you of being a theif in and of itself and detaining you for refusing would indeed put them in violation of false imprisonment statutes.
Now if they witnessed you not try to pay for the item and try to walk out with it they could detain you, but simply refusing to produce a receipt is NOT legal grounds that will meet the shopkeepers exceptions to unlawful imprisonment. Every state has varying laws, so double check, but in general the simple act of refusing to show a receipt does NOT give the store any right to detain you.
“My local grocery hands out blank plastic bags. They look neater as liners in the IKEA plastic trash containers I use in my bathrooms.”
Yeah, well my idiot state representative, Jason Atkinson, a Republican, is sponsoring a bill in the legislature to OUTLAW stores from giving out plastic bags! Another Republican loses sight of what freedom is all about and wants to deprive us of another legal product that they personally find offensive!
And on that, I’m sure all here will agree!
Ed
“Virginia CAN DETAIN YOU FOR ONE HOUR on suspicion of shoplifting”
I am sure you can cough up a legal reference for that.
So would you cede the point that is a person makes it out the door with the store’s receipt, upon which point ownership of said receipt transfers to him, that he is THEN free and clear to walk away and not show the receipt?
Ed
“The people constituting Wal-Mart are entitled to be secure against unreasonable seizures ~ like trying to waltz out the door without showing your receipt!”
You’ve got a rather STUPID view of unreasonable. Wal-Mart is the one that set up the cash register at the back of the store. Wal-Mart is the one that took a customer’s money for a purchase. Wal-Mart makes a customer walk through the store to the only doors available to customers at the front of the store. Wal-Mart then demands the customers prove they paid???
I don’t know what makes you so stupid, but it really works. I mean, it REALLY works.
Gotta go to work, all...see ya’ later!
It’s been fun!
Ed
No, They can only detain you if they suspect you of shoplifting, and the act of refusing to show them your receipt in and of itself is NOT reasonable cause for them to think you have stolen the item.
They are setting themselves up for a loss in court and being found guilty of false imprisonment and paying you money if they detain you for the simple act of not showing the checker your receipt.
The shopkeeper exhemptions do not give them cart blanche rights to detain you.. they must have a reasonable belief you have stolen or were trying to steal something. Simply refusing to dig out your receipt for the checker to look at is not in and of itself going to place them into exemptions to false imprisonment, and they will lose a law suit should the person detain decide to sue them.
It's like when you buy stuff at a postal auction ~ (which is not all that good an example but I think it makes the point) ~ you can only BUY an ownership as good as that of the person who sold you something. It's always good to keep the receipt on any serious purchase just in case the owner shows up and demands his stuff.
If there's the slightest bit of legitimacy to the buyer's claim, you may have to pay him to retrieve it.
As it turns out WalMart can actually create duplicates of the receipt they gave you at will!
I ran across that site in my search.
I was hoping for a statute or court decision, neither of which I have found.
Thanks anyway.
The law is called “False Imprisonment” and the shopkeeper exeptions.. the exemptions do vary from state to state but no state gives shops the rights to detain people carte blanche.
They must have a reasonable belief that you are stealing or trying to steal and item, and refusing to provide the checker with a receipt is NOT and does not constitute a reasonable belief in and of itself for them to be exempt from engaging in “false imprisonment”.
They detain you for nothing more than refusing to show your receipt, you are going to have a nice little tort suit against them that they will indeed lose. Pure and simple.
Talking about taking out someone at the knees is not humor.
If someone refuses to show their receipt then that would DEFINATELY be reasonable belief in my mind. It is NOT an infringement of any right to have to show your receipt on the way out... especially when one knows that this is the proceedure of the store in the first place.
Best Buy has a checker at the exit and I'm perfectly willing to let him check my receipts.
A friend of mine's wife is a "loss prevention" employee at a local Meijer store and she divides her day between watching surveilance cameras and roaming the store with a cart posing as a shopper. If anyone thinks that shoplifting is an infrequent minor problem, you should have the opportunity to hear her stories.
You could think up any possible way to steal any item from a major retail store such as these and she could tell you 20 more that you never would have thought of; one of them probably being the stunt this jackwagon just pulled that maybe, just maybe, might have put the store manager's job in jeopardy.......Risking pissing off the prick, she should have stuck with store policy and demanded his receipt with the threat of calling the local law enforcement or offered an immediate refund if he didn't like it. Either way, he would have had to provide the receipt...
If someone refuses to show their receipt then that would DEFINATELY be reasonable belief in my mind. It is NOT an infringement of any right to have to show your receipt on the way out... especially when one knows that this is the proceedure of the store in the first place.
You are dillusional.
Lets take this matter to court shall we?
I paid a representative of the company for my purchase.. lets show the video tape. Yep, there I am.
I am leaving the store with my purchase.. Yep there I am
I am detained by an employee of the same company I just paid for the item that has now refused to let me leave the premises.
Now, this secondary employee has ZERO cause to believe I have stolen this item, they have not witnessed me engage in theft nor have the been informed by another that they witnessed me attempt without paying for it. The only justification they have is that I didn’t respond the way they wanted me to when they asked me to show my receipt.
Sorry, that in and of itself is not probable or just cause to detain me, and they have now engaged in illegal imprisonment, and Wal Mart just had to pay out a check to me for it.
That's used by the corporation to gather sales data from all their stores. Your zip code sold "x" number of "green widgets" which is far less than the stores on the other side of your state. So when it comes to future product restocking, that store on the other side of your state will receive more "green widgets" because they sell more. So the next time you shop for it, don't be surprised if your store is out of stock........
Let's simplify if further: "XYZ" corporation buys 500,000 raincoats that have to be distributed to their stores throughout the United States. And since product distribution is based on zip code sales, which zip code do you think would have the most sales of raincoats and thus the most raincoats in stock? One in Oregon or one in Arizona?
If I was on any such jury I would agree that it is indeed reasonable to suspect theft if someone refuses to show their receipt. "Reasonable cause" is not the same thing as "proof of guilt", and I think that's where you're getting confused. If there is reasonable cause, then they CAN detain you until it is sorted out. If the customer wants to PREVENT it being sorted out by simply showing the receipt, then tough luck for him... that was HIS choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.