Payment is only one of the elements of a contract and all must be met before a sale is final.
I don't think you can be guilty of shoplifting if you pay for the merchandise.
I don't think you can be guilty of shoplifting if you pay for the merchandise.
Then the store should have told him to return the items for his money back.
This isn’t a Constitutional issue, it is basic contract law. The store has a right to set whatever terms and conditions it deems appropriate in the sale of its merchandise. They should have (and I suspect most do) signage indicating that all sales are subject to verification by receipt on exit. The potential customer can either accept the policy or go elsewhere. If they refuse the store’s conditions at the exit door then no contract has been formed and executed and the goods have been removed from the premises without authorization despite having been paid for.
Payment is only one of the elements of a contract and all must be met before a sale is final.
I do believe there was a Supreme Court ruling that I paraphrase which states that the store has to have probable cause to detain someone which was defined by the court as first hand knowledge that a theft has occured. This evidence can be a witnessed theft or a video tape/digital record that shows a possible theft has taken place. The store manager had no evidence of this occuring.
While this is interesting, like someone else said, this is not the hill top that I would choose to fight the war that occured.