[pierstroll]

The problem is that no one knows it was a legal purchase except the guy who's engaging in the suspicious behavior.

So the store should say, go ahead with our products because we haven't had time to run the tapes back for your entire visit to the store.

All that on each customer instead of you showing your receipt at the door. Let's drive the cost of security way up so we can't afford the product, but you won't be violated leaving the store. No dice.

Give us something that protects the rights of the store to not have you steal their product and we'll take a look at it.

[Quick1]

The problem is that no one knows it was a legal purchase except the guy who's engaging in the suspicious behavior.

No one knows the pants I'm wearing were a legal purchase, either. That still doesn't give you the right to search me and detain me.

Give us something that protects the rights of the store to not have you steal their product and we'll take a look at it.

How about handing the customer a tag for a TV, and they can hand that tag in at a loading dock, after they have paid for the TV? Much more effective, and much more space-effective, as well.

[Starwolf]

The problem is that no one knows it was a legal purchase except the guy who's engaging in the suspicious behavior.

So the store should say, go ahead with our products because we haven't had time to run the tapes back for your entire visit to the store.

Any competent Loss Prevention Specialist knows that probable cause is required to stop and detain some one and that refusing a post sales receipt check is not probable cause. To legitimately stop someone they need to observe the crime and the perp until they leave the store. If they don’t, they will not grab the person, since they know the legal ramifications if they are wrong. The problem is that few loss prevention types are pros.

The CC guys went well outside the law and will get hammered for it.

[nicmarlo]

Stores have no right to state ALL their customers are shoplifters. They must have a reasonable suspicion that a theft occurred to detain someone. They otherwise have no right to search.

This guy’s demeanor or motivation does not enter into whether or not he stole, which, he indeed, did not. They never stated they believed he stole anything...they only stated he refused to let them search him/his belongings...and they had no reason for doing so.