...or maybe most people understand that shoplifting is a problem that costs us all in higher prices and are nice enough to oblige when a store asks to see a receipt and check their bags upon exit.
I've conceded that yes, it's a small thing. I'm not going to deny that the guy was trying to test a limit. But is he right? Does he have legal grounds for his refusal to show the receipt in the first place?
Let's say I have a store in Ohio. One day I find out there's lots of shoplifting going on in my store. So I sit down and scratch my head and try to come up with ways to cut down on the losses.
Hey, I say to myself, I know. I can hire a big intimidating-looking dude to sit by the exit and check people's receipts and bags on the way out.
Next day I have a big intimidating-looking dude sitting by the exit, checking receipts and bags on the way out.
The only problem is, I haven't checked my state and local statutes to see what I can or cannot legally do to try to prevent shoplifting while respecting the civil rights of my customers.
The state (Ohio) law happens to say that "a merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may... detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity." OK, so how am I determining who's worthy of suspicion and possibly detention? Can I label anyone who walks into my store suspicious, or does that fly in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" and violate the civil rights of my patrons?
Then the Ohio law says that even if I do detain someone I suspect of shoplifting, I "shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained." So what's the definition of "property belonging to the person"? Does a receipt fall under the definition?
And as I said, maybe this seems like a small senseless thing to put up a fight about, but if the man's right he's right and NOBODY should be allowed to just make laws up as they go along. There's a formal procedure in this country for changing laws - that's where we vote and petition to get it to happen (or to not happen).
What's wrong with the store working within the confines of the law, or putting the lawyers to work looking for loopholes in the law, to practice effective loss prevention?