When you enter a store, you are entering private property; you are a guest in the store. You behave yourself and play by the rules on someone else's property. If the rules state that you will show your receipt, then it is boorish not to do so. There is no civil liberties issue here at all.
You’re just siding with the man, trying to keep the little guy down!
I would think the Uniform Commercial Code probably suggests otherwise. 30 years ago, most people studying Business Law favored Blackstone’s perspectives. I’ve noticed that even lawyers in the last 20 years don’t agree upon the basics of Business Law when considering property rights.
The law would focus upon the transaction and if it had been completed in determining ownership of property being removed from the store.
Once completed, the property was now legitimately owned by a new owner.
The issue of being stopped in a public place, being forced to show proof of that ownership, is entirely separate from the purchase of the merchandise. Most stores, though, prefer to not encroach upon the privacy of their good customers, real or perceived (the customer is always right perspective). (Ever notice how the same stores inspecting your receipt prior to exit, tend to also be the same stores which accept merchandise returns even eithout a receipt? Not too consistent..)
If one attempts to argue for the store, claiming the transaction was stipulatively established, notifying the customer such a purchase wouldn’t be complete until exiting the premises, then the store exposes itself to charges of perhaps unlawful detainment, kidnapping or entrapment because the store designed the routes available for shoppers to exit their establishment.
If the store failed to respect the basics of a transaction by allowing honest shoppers a method of leaving the store unimpeded and respecting their personal privacy, then the store may be liable for even more civil infringements upon not only purchasers, but the public in general. (I believe Fry’s used to have 2 queues to route the public through,...one after the check-out line without search and a second one for those exiting the store without purchase, with search. This would appear more legitimate, although Fry’s also wouldn’t accept a private check, but would accept a credit card ..go figure.)
The argument that the customer is entering private property, therefore must abide by the local rules, also ignores the publicly acceptance of the UCC, not to mention a number of codes which the establishment was zoned under to attract public business (Circuit City isn’t a private club, it’s open to the public.)
IMHO, the emergence of receipt checkers has probably been a common sensical response by store managers to provide some sort of defense from cultural permissiveness in shoplifting. It fails to manage the store floor plan with the cultural elements understood to comprise the purchase transaction.
When the floor plan of the store is established by franchising agreements, then an even deeper pocket is condoning the behavior. A local store manager might implement the policy to control losses, even though he really doesn’t fully benefit from the complete store profits, so he’s only a cog in the machine.
Most managers with wherewithal, place more value on their client base which brings them business. Those stores which become more public, not reliant upon goodwill of a client base, are probably more prone to this type of infringement on good customers. Costco is a good example, where it also has a membership requirement.
IMHO, I find it interesting that the same large franchises, also happen to offer the least resistance to product returns without receipt, which also happens to encourage theft in the community while the store becomes the ‘fence’.