Posted on 09/02/2002 3:02:49 PM PDT by Sparqi
Recently I was stopped on my way out of KMart by an employee asking to see my receipt and contents of my bags. I asked if I was suspected of doing something illegal to which he replied, "No, it's just our policy to match purchases against your receipt." I told him that unless he had reasonable cause to believe that I'd done something illegal there was no way I was going to let him inspect either one. To his credit, he did not press the issue and allowed me to leave.
The practice of door-checking seems to have started at either Fry's Electronics in California or perhaps at PriceClub/Costco. In the latter case they can enforce the inspection policy because there is actually a clause in the Costco membership agreement which specifically states that a condition of membership is granting them the right to inspect as you leave. (This is why I don't have a Costco membership.) Fry's has been doing inspections for some time, giving rise to the perjorative term "Door-Nazis". Many people such as myself simply walk by the checkpoint and refuse to stop, since Fry's is not a membership store. Essentially they take advantage of your good nature and ask you to voluntarily waive your freedom (and your dignity) to help them control their shrinkage.
Until recently the Fry's policy was really a local issue, confined to California and some western states; so I never really pursued any activism against them...aside from personally advocating to other people that the practice was an insult and explaining that while Fry's can of course *request* that you stop and allow inspection that they cannot *force* you to stop if they don't have probable cause. Now that KMart is doing this, I think it's national enough to warrant a Freep. Here's what I'm proposing:
1. Make it a point to not be cowed into consenting to the search. If they ask to inspect your purchases, ask them if they suspect you of doing anything illegal. This establishes that they do or don't have cause to stop you. Remember; once you've paid for your purchases and they've accepted the payment, you are carrying personal property and they have cannot search you unless they have probable cause such as evidence of shoplifting.
2. If they admit that they don't have cause, tell them you don't consent to being searched and leave. If they press the issue, remind them that the Fourth Amendment guarantees your right against illegal searches. (Sometimes this is hard to explain, because the checker is not an American citizen.) If they try to restrain you, don't fight them or put up a physical struggle. Ask to speak to the most senior manager of the store immediately. Point out to him or her the illegality of the situation and ask if they're prepared to defend their actions in a court of law.
3. Instruct your friends/family/co-workers on the issue. Make sure they understand that what KMart is doing is an insult and a violation of their basic rights.
...dtw
Its the same dam thing
Odd, neither my customers nor I ever considered people in my position a "door nazi."
I would never allow someone inside my home if the thought of having to check their bags even occurred to me.
Costco and Sam's make you sign an agreement that allows them to check your cart as you leave; if you refuse, they can cancel your membership and you can't shop at the store.
Sure. You probably won't want to do that to a friend you don't suspect of stealing stuff, and if you didn't have a good reason to suspect him, and you detain him against his will, you're in big trouble potentially.
FYI, you can also break into someone's house to search without a search warrant, and the evidence is admissible.
While I realize that these are rhetorical questions, I'll answer them for the benefit of those in Rio Linda. That's no, no, and no.
WFTR
Mostly afraid of your ignorance (of the 4th Amendment)
Bill
It's a pretty crappy place to live, isn't it?
Imagine, not being able to buy your camo without having to show a receipt for it!
What about stores which sometimes have a few objects for sale beyond the checkout lane? If I'm carrying a collection of items for purchase and I decide I want something that's past the checkouts, is there anything improper about me walking past the checkouts with my intended purchases, picking up the item past the checkout, and returning to the checkout to make my purchase?
I know that there'd not be the slightest chance of any sort of prosecution, but I'm curious whether I'm stepping outside the letter of the law there, or whether the placement of items for sale beyond the checkout extends the "legal area for unpurchased products"?
what does America have a 4th Amendment anymore?
Sure it is. How much is stolen from K-Mart every year? (Please keep your guess within a few hundred thousand dollars of the correct amount - OK?)
Who do you think pays for that?
If it ever begins to bother me, I'll quit shopping there.
It would seem a solution to this might be to use an enhanced "proximity card" reader system. Randomly put a prox card into a fraction of products (say, 1% of products $10-$100, 10% of products $100-$1000, and all products over $1000) and enter it into the inventory control system. Then include the prox card reader at each register, and at the exit.
Unlike the normal "security tags" which are deactivated by the register without regard for what product was rung up, the prox cards would not be deactivated but merely noted as having been purchased. If a prox card is detected at a register but a corresponding UPC is not rung up, and the same prox card is detected at the exit, that would strongly suggest that the employee at that register stole that tagged product.
As an alterative method, I wonder whether it would be possible to design a multi-tier anti-shoplifting tag system with e.g. three styles of tags, for sub-$100, $100-$1000, and over-$1000 products. The register would only deliver the types of jolts appropriate to deactivate the tags of products purchased. Does that seem feasible?
On a related note: if an employee catches a "shopper" tampering with the tag of an unpurchased product, may the employee take immediate action against the shopper for tampering with store property?
They prove MY point, rather than yours.
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.