Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #301213

Complaint Review: Wal Mart - Tewksbury Massachusetts

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Lowell Massachusetts
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Wal Mart 555 Main St. Tewksbury, Massachusetts U.S.A.

Wal Mart Falsly Accused of Shoplifing at Wal Mart - The Public Humiliation of It Tewksbury Massachusetts

*General Comment: Steve - from Bradenton just sounds like a jerk

*General Comment: Um. Okay. Wow.

*Consumer Suggestion: Analysis

*Consumer Suggestion: Analysis by a UK trainee barrister

*UPDATE Employee: Answers for Patrick.

*UPDATE Employee: FYI: FROM A GREETER

*Consumer Comment: Question for Josh the CSM

*Consumer Suggestion: So Let's recap

*Consumer Comment: The real issue here

*UPDATE Employee: Ugh...

*Consumer Suggestion: Sorry Steve will post the law here as well

*Consumer Comment: Josh

*Consumer Comment: I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

*Consumer Comment: I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

*Consumer Comment: I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

*Consumer Comment: I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

*Consumer Comment: I don't care what Corporate 'taught you' Josh, but you're wrong.

*Consumer Comment: Wal-Mart does not care if they humiliate you.

*UPDATE Employee: I posted this on one other complaint, but...

*UPDATE Employee: I posted this on one other complaint, but...

*Consumer Comment: Steve from Bradenton is NOT wrong

*Author of original report: Steve this is not about the receipt

*Consumer Comment: More for Steven in Jacksonville re the alleged law.

*Consumer Comment: WRONG ANSWER! Post that alleged law here. Do it now or shut up.

*Consumer Suggestion: As usual Steve in Bradenton shows his ignorance

*Consumer Comment: Steve is Wrong

*Consumer Comment: Not a ripoff

*Consumer Suggestion: Sue them...

*Consumer Suggestion: This is just another instance or illegal and rude behavior by Wal Mart retards!

*Author of original report: You are wrong

*UPDATE Employee: Ouch...

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

On 01/17/08 I went to a local Wal-Mart to purchase underwear for my son and ice melt. While I was in the store I checked out the women's football jerseys and other items on sale as well as walk around the store to browse.

During the time I was shopping I never once unbuttoned my winter coat, put my hands in my pockest or my purse. I placed the items that I chose to purchase in the cart with nothing on top of them. In other words I did not do anything that would have pinpointed me as a shoplifter.

I went to the self check out paid for my merchandise, took my receipt then put the bags of goods back in the cart. I moved out of the way so that the customer behind me could begin his transaction. I checked my coat pockets for my car keys and slowly put my gloves on. Then I proceeded to leave the store.

When I approached the door a store employee asked to see my receipt. I handed it over. Then she states to me "Where is your coat?" I looked at her with my jaw to floor absolutely dumbfounded. After I stare at her in dis belief she states "I need to see your coat." I continue to stand there and stare at her never speaking a word as I was shocked. Finally another female employee walks over and states to the other employee,"She's ok. She's not the one we are looking for." Then she says to me, "You may go." Then states to the other employee, "The one we are looking for has not come to the door yet." I never received an appology.

I left the store without speaking a word feeling absolutely humiliated. People were looking at me as they left the store and we all know that they were thinking I was shoplifting.

I understand that mistakes happen and people get falsely accused. But to handle the situation at the exit door where there are lots of people watching is embarassing. These people look and go on their way never knowing that I am innocent.

I feel that I should have been asked to step into a more private area to avoid the public humiliation.

I have already contacted the store. The store manager is not in until Monday. I have made my complaint to the way I was handled and stated that I do not want to see other innocent people go through the humiliation that I went through. Mistakes happen, I understand that. But there are ways to handle people so that they are not humiliated. I am waiting to hear back from the store next week. The woman I spoke with stated that she was going to talk to the employees, the manager, and contact the district manager regarding this incident.

I did get that appology from the woman at the store that handles theft. I told her it was a little late and from the wrong person.

At this point in time I will not go back to that store to shop again.

Susan
Lowell, Massachusetts
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/18/2008 08:46 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wal-mart/tewksbury-massachusetts-01850/wal-mart-falsly-accused-of-shoplifing-at-wal-mart-the-public-humiliation-of-it-tewksbury-301213. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
31Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#31 General Comment

Steve - from Bradenton just sounds like a jerk

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, December 26, 2009

I totally agree with the previous comment - So they made a mistake big deal. I agree that they could have said at least said Sorry for holding you up and thank you for shopping with us; granted that would have been the polite and professional thing to do.  The only time I have ever had Wal-Mart check my receipt is if I am walking out with something that is not able to fit into a bag and I just have it in my hands or in the cart.  Have some respect for those elderly people that work the front doors. I am sure the one rebellious jerk from Bradenton just likes being an instigator and has no respect for anyone else. I can imagine that whenever a store such as Wal-Mart has a Code Adam and secures a building until a lost or missing child is found, he would be like, you can't keep me indoors, you are infringing on my rights and this is kidnapping and I am going to sue.  I have done Loss Prevention before, except I worked in the camera room and under cover mainly posing as a shopper.  I think I would have just risked my job and threw his butt to the ground for refusing to show someone at the front door a receipt if requested, it would have been worth it.  Show some humanity dude toward other people and stop trying to be the bully everywhere you go.  I am sure he is the nightmare of every place where he goes to shops, eats, or anywhere else where he would be a customer.  Remember one thing Steve, every establishment has the right to refuse service and can ask you NOT to come back.  I know I would say that to you.  No telling how many people he has sued and won money on, just like the coffee woman in the drive through years ago.  Happy New Year everyone!!! - Ummm ok Happy to New Year to you to Steve, after all I am a human being, I can be civil.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#30 General Comment

Um. Okay. Wow.

AUTHOR: Cour_Sco1990 - (USA)

POSTED: Friday, December 25, 2009

Ok. Like, seriously, hun. Get over yourself. Boo-h*o. If that is the worse thing to ever happen in your lifetime then you are a lucky women.


People with this self-inflated feeling of self-worth just bugs me. 

The lady made a mistake. You make mistakes. They corrected it, didn't they? So what if they didn't apologize. Who are you? Hillary Clinton? Wal-Mart makes tons of money off of consumers every so I am sure your business doesn't really matter to them. 

Get over it and get over yourself. It will make your life a lot easier. They do not owe you an apology for doing their job.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#29 Consumer Suggestion

Analysis

AUTHOR: Keith - (United Kingdom)

POSTED: Friday, July 04, 2008

I am writing from the UK, in this country we have Walmart who trade as Asda. We also have very similar laws to the USA with exceptions, but then that is also true of the different states within the USA. Therefore much of what I have to say, and what others have said may not be entirely pertinent to every subtlety expressed.

However much of the following is pertinent, to both the law and civil rights. I will also address the point made by some people in the discussion that some states allow a legal stop on the activation of an alarm at the exit of, for example, a Walmart.

In the UK the largest UK supermarket, and the fourth largest in the world has written to the court, (a claim, which I won) a defence statement which states that when an alarm is activated at the exit of a store, it is always the assumption that the cashier did not remove the security tag. In this country we also, like you I suspect, have recently introduced checkouts where the customer serves themselves and then pays for the goods. The defence statement went on to state, or the assumption is that the customer has gone through a self-serve checkout and has not asked the store staff to remove the tag.

So there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth, that it can never be the assumption that an alarm activation is because of theft.

I also entered into a discussion with a security guard, when I refused to give up my receipt. I audio-recorded it, and he said that by that method they very rarely catch a thief. The two correspond. Furthermore I was a retail manager with two of the UK's largest supermarkets, and I know from experience that thieves are not caught by receipt checking in response to an alarm activation.

All of this is obvious. Obvious because if I was to steal, I would not steal the goods with tags on, I would go for the 95% of goods that do not have such tags on them. For example I might go for some fine steak. I have also noticed that some items that are tagged are not done so consistently. In other words, a tag might be placed on one high value item, but the staff have not yet bothered to tag the same product that sits next to it. Which would I steal; if I were a thief?

In this country, Tesco and Asda/Walmart, link some items to the checkouts. So for example, when a bottle of liquor is scanned the till jams, the age of the purchaser is checked before the purchase is allowed to continue. This can be done with other items such as ones that are tagged, Tesco do this but not Asda/Walmart. Something expensive goes through the till, and the till stops to alert the cashier that this item should have a tag on it. The cashier then removes the tag and this then should stop false activations. But this does not always happen, partly because of the introduction of these self-serve checkouts but partly because the store gets sloppy. For example, they might tag extra items, without adding them to the checkout data bank. The cashier does not look for the tag, because the till ignores that product, and so it makes its way to the exit, so that the guard can stop the innocent customer.

It is to the advantage of the store, they believe, when they over-ride the system in this way, because of two reasons. The first is, the guard's/greeter's job, just standing at the exit must be boring, and it gives them a sense that they are being pro-active in stamping out crime, and secondly it allows these supermarkets to demonstrate the 'power' of their anti-theft deterrence system to all those potential thieves who are watching the events unfold. The system forces a compliance for the customer, partly because, showing your receipt is easy to do, partly because some customers will do almost anything an authority figure tells them to do, and partly because of the public embarrassment that will surely follow if one doe not submit. But the finding of a tag in a large shopping basket could take several minutes, and if the is done in a store 10 or more times each day, then that will, in the case of Tesco, in the UK, amount to 42 years of false imprisonment they inflict on their customers each year, just to demonstrate the effectiveness of their anti-theft system. In Helen Keefe v Gimbel's the ciurt said:

Should a legitimate consumer have to assume a risk because there are others on the premises who may be a detriment to the vendor's [***11] business? Must they assume the risk now of being stopped, being physically "pushed around" to the accompaniment of bells and flashing lights, detention and possible arrest simply because the store and its employees are mindful only of the store's own interests? The law has long required a property owner, a storekeeper, etc., to keep the physical premises in a reasonably safe condition without hidden "traps". Is this any less a trap? Should a lesser degree of care be required, when it is within the total control of the financially benefited defendant, to prevent harm of this kind to the consumer? It is inconceivable that the Legislature enacted sections 217 and 218 of the General Business Law to confer a "sword" into the hands of negligent mercantile establishments, and it is significant that while the General Business Law enumerates the types of actions in which the defense may be raised, it does not include actions for negligence and/or gross negligence.

The system also forces compliance because of the fact that the stop is made in full view of friends and neighbours. To refuse and walk away would be tantamount to your neighbour believing you must have something to hide. Therefore everyone, or nearly everyone complies. In law you are allowed to be uncooperative by not answering questions, i.e. you have a right to silence, and furthermore you have a right not to have to produce papers or documents or a receipt just because someone tells you to. It is up to the store to prove that you are guilty, you do not have to prove innocence.

I shall give an example why you should not prove that you are innocent, or put it another way why you should not have to produce documentation. What would happen if the cashier accidentally missed an item, i.e. did not scan it. And for a second let us make things easier for the security guard, that item also was tagged. If you thought you had nothing to hide, but the receipt showed that the cashier had not scanned the product, or in the guards mind, you had not paid for it deliberately, will he arrest you? He very well might. But you have not done anything wrong, it was the cashier's fault. But you cannot prove it was her/his fault. Are you therefore guilty of an offence? You have now helped the store to believe in your guilt by handing over a receipt. All those who have said that an alarm activation gives the guard probable cause must now be saying, well of course you are guilty of theft it is obvious, but it is not obvious is it? But perhaps you have condemned yourself, especially if like-minded people are sitting on the jury.

There are two elements, usually, that the prosecution must prove to establish that a crime has been committed, so it is with theft. There is, the actual taking, that is known as the actus reus of the offence. The other element is the mens rea, or mental element. In the case of theft that means dishonesty. For example, if you were to complain to the store, and the duty manager gave you a box of chocolates as an inconvenience payment or to say sorry, and this security guard stopped you at the exit because you did not have a receipt, you would not have acted dishonestly and therefore should not be stopped for theft, or because the guard had probable cause. That would be negligent.

One of the answers given in this blog suggests that there are steps that a guard should go through before they stop a customer. The reason for some of them is to establish the dishonesty element of the taking of the product. Other elements to ensure that the taking is stealing, is to ensure that the tag or the goods actually came from the shelves of the store and that the customer has not paid.

Several retailers in the UK all use the same system, including, Next, WH Smith, Asda, Tesco, Bootes, Morisons. All these are very large retailers and are often located near to each other. Often the guard is busy, or is taking a walk or a powder-room break. Or the guard is on the sick and the store cannot get someone to cover the exit all through the day. Whatever the reason the door is unmanned or effectively unmanned if the greeter thinks for example that you are too mean looking to tackle (being mean looking is not illegal). A customer who has just purchased an item from one of the retailer then walks into another. But the guard does not react to the customer going in, he checks the customer exiting. But the customer exiting has not set off the alarm. But nevertheless is stopped and searched. And stopped for a greater time than had a tag been present. The inbound customer eventually exits setting the alarm off. But they have paid for product, and the product was never the property of the store, which is now doing the searching. Once again the search takes longer because the guard is looking for something he cannot find. Now two customers have been detained and asked to produce their receipt. Everything now seems in order, the guard is scratching his head wondering what has gone wrong. As the customer exits the store the alarm activates because of the tag attached the perfumed she had previously purchased from another retailer. Now the guard is very suspicious, the customer has got something hidden' in her coat? So she is arrested, and marched back though the store because the first retailer did not remove the tag. So much for an alarm activation giving rise to probable cause!

Another example of a lack of mens rea or the mental element is if the customer goes to the self-serve checkouts and is surrounded by distractions such as noisy children and accidentally does not scan an item, does that make her a thief. I suggest it does not. For a start, she has not been trained to be a cashier. She is not a paid up member of the Walmart staff. She has been distracted. Etc. etc.

If we were to reverse the situation, then that might make the problem, we have here, a little clearer. What if the cashier, who is paid to concentrate, has been trained, and could be considered an expert in checkout operations, what if she double charges a customer. The opposite of the missing an item. This cashier has now, what, stolen from the customer by double charging. Unless it can be proved that she was acting dishonestly, then there can not be a suggestion of theft. Yet when it happens in reverse, i.e. when the customer sets the alarm off, there is probable cause and if that item does not appear on the receipt; are Walmart suggesting, or is anyone suggesting, that a theft has taken place. That is why the supermarket should see the item selected from the shelf, to ensure that it is their product in the first instant, then they should see concealment, which demonstrates dishonesty, and then no attempt to pay. Once those elements are in place then that is when there is the right to interfere with your freedom. It is only in those circumstances that the law should stop the customer being able to sue (See Business law or Merchant's Statute). Whether or not your state allows it is another matter. In the UK we do not have such protection for the retailers. But our citizens are put off suing because the rewards are minimal, no punitive damages for example.

Of course there is nothing to stop the supermarkets from ignoring the above, and often they do. The reason that they are able to ignore the above is because so compelling is the compliance to the system, in other words, most (99.999%) people will show their receipt that they can take the gamble and stop anyone who does not cooperate. Firstly they can do so because most people do not understand the law and automatically comply. Secondly because it just not worth the hassle, etc. etc. So what we are left with is that almost the only person not to comply is going to be the thief. But occasionally someone will be in a bad mood, (that is not illegal), or in a rush (not illegal) or in a world of their own (not illegal), or just having a bad hair day in which she has been put upon just once to often as is in no mood to cooperate (not illegal), or might know their rights and be willing not to be pushed into compliance by another citizen dressed in a guard's costume to enhance his authority; but that person is automatically suspected of an offence, just because she or someone else has set the alarm off. Setting an alarm off cannot be probable cause by itself. Such is the random nature of these alarm activations that it could happen to a Supreme Court Justice. Just because he has set the alarm off does not mean he should be suspected of theft, Your Honour. (USA spelling Honor).

The reason the alarm activations are random is because any one of us can go out of a store with a tag attached. That does not mean we are all thieves, what is means is that the store has in affect, given to all customers a ticket on entering the store. All those customers, who where unluckily given a pink ticket, will be stopped by the guard on exiting the store. That is the nature of the correlation between the customer and the stop and search. There is no correlation between the stop and the chance of theft. It is purely random.

As I said, showing your receipt only takes a few minutes, and so why bother fighting it, why not just co-operate. That is what the large supermarkets take advantage of. Especially in the UK, the fine imposed on the supermarkets is not worth the effort of taking them to court. Our supreme court, The House of Lords has set guidelines as regards the level of compensation one is likely to receive in such cases. It amounts to roughly 500.00 ($1,000) for every hour that someone imprisons a person. In court people lie and cheat, and getting evidence of false imprisonment can be difficult. (For example the guards might say that you agreed to the stop). You might need a lawyer or a barrister (in the UK) to take on the might of these massive corporations. Will you win, is it worth the hassle or aggravation of months of uncertainty. Will you have to pay the lawyers in advance, before you receive you compensation, and will you compensation cover your costs and will the court award you them. There are many unknowns, yet the alternative is to just show your receipt; that is why the supermarkets get away with it. Very few assert their rights in the UK. And if you lose, that 500 you might have won will turn into 40,000 of costs you will have to pay both your counsel and the opposition's. It is not worth the risk, the law is weak and the supermarkets exploit that.

What do these supermarkets do with these tags after they have stopped you and detained you for a period of time? I expect that they take the tag from you, ask for your receipt and allow you to be on your way. But hang on a minute, that tag that they have just taken from you, and they take from customers many thousands and perhaps millions of times each year is actually the customer's tag. Yes, you went to the till, you said or implied that you wanted to buy the product you handed over to the cashier, and she/he scanned it into the checkout, and you paid for it. That tag is now your tag. It is as much your property as the product, and the packaging. You offered, she accepted the offer and you provided consideration for it, i.e. you paid. Yet the supermarkets are now pretending that they have a right to take the tag back after selling it to you. If we were to be dramatic for one minute they are stealing your property from you. The guard is not because he is not being dishonest, but someone in the organisation is. Because they are sloppy with their tag removal, or better still, they are sloppy on purpose so that they can stop and search very many people, should we put up with that?

The lack of catching thieves from the alarm activations is one of the many reasons why it is a system of deterrence, but as a thief catching system it is hopeless. It is an advert to stop potential thieves. The operators/supermarkets infringe citizen's rights to advertise the system.

Some people who have written in this blog state that it is alright for the supermarket staff to search you. But you should not or would not accept that from other people. And let's not forget the searching is really ineffective. I have read about clubs were you sign that you will be searched. I am certain that this cannot actually be enforced as such. If you refuse to be searched then they will be able, just as Walmart are able to ban you from entering the store again. That is the risk the customer who stands up for his rights runs. No one, not even from a shopping club where you are a member can force a search if you withdraw or do not consent to it.

Hundreds of people or more get stopped and searched to catch one thief, if the supermarkets get that lucky. If the supermarkets are losing so much stock, that in itself proves that the method they are employing is not economically sound. It is worse that a random search. This is a guess, but for every 1,000,000 customers they catch one thief by this method, (remember Tesco said that it is always the assumption that it is the stores fault when there is an alarm activation), or for every 1,500 stop and searches they catch one thief (I personally believe the odds are higher still)? Hardly an effective thief catching system! But surely if they are losing all this stock, at least 1 in every 50 customers must be stealing from them. They would be better off, just picking customers at random to search. And if it is worse than random, it cannot be that the searcher has probable cause, or as we say in this country, reasonable suspicion. If some states have allowed an alarm activation to equate to probable cause then that is bad law. I suspect that the large supermarkets have been successful at lobbying the lawmakers of such states, but that does not make it good law, just one-sided law. Indeed to get around this law, there is a NY case back in 1981, which a lady sued for negligence, because the store admitted that there were 20 false activations each day, and it was their negligence in running the system that caused her distress etc. She was awarded back in 1981, $100,000, with punitive damages running to $600,000 reduced to $70,000 on appeal.

Setting off an alarm cannot give rise to probable cause. But that is the deceit that the supermarkets wish people to believe. If there are laws, which allow supermarkets to pump up the number of false activations, then that is bad law. Supermarkets have the power to control the number of false activations, or if you like, stop and searches, at will. And that is precisely the effect of giving supermarkets this immunity from prosecution. Those states have got the balance wrong. And I'm sure that it must be unconstitutional.

There are problems with the request to show a receipt. This has not been tested in this country, the UK. An arrest whether it is the UK or the USA does not depend on the guard using the words, for example, you are under arrest. Arrest: "consists in the seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to his restraint; words may, however, amount to an arrest if, in the circumstances of the case, they are calculated to bring, and do bring, to a person's notice that he is under compulsion and he thereafter submits to the compulsion." And: Whether or not a person has been arrested depends not on the legality of the arrest but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases. So if a guard asks you for a receipt, and you feel compelled to submit to that request, for example if you could prove that your friend was arrested/jumped on etc previously, for refusing to show his receipt, then it might be proven that you felt compelled under the threat of violence. Therefore the asking of a receipt might amount to a false imprisonment?
The court from 1981 case, mentioned above, stated that people should not be subjected to being pushed around just because some people stole from the store. Feeling threatened by a guard into producing your receipt and giving up your right to silence or the right not to self-incriminate just because some people might be stealing is not lawful. This is precisely what the court said;
While "shoplifters" have admittedly proliferated in recent years, unwary legitimate shoppers have also been increasingly ensnared, not by the "reasonably stop" contemplated by section 218 of the General Business Law, but by the careless and cavalier negligence of store personnel, as illustrated by the within case. The special legislation enacted for the unique problems of retail establishments was never intended by the Legislature to confer a license to embarrass, humiliate and harm innocent business invitees and consumers.

The case was Helen Keefe v Gimbel's of 16th April 1984, in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County.

I have stated above that people in these situation lie. Therefore, every time you exit a Walmart store you should switch on a digital recorder, or start recording on your mobile/cell phone.

Yours truly,

Trainee Barrister, looking for a position in the USA.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#28 Consumer Suggestion

Analysis by a UK trainee barrister

AUTHOR: Keith - (United Kingdom)

POSTED: Wednesday, July 02, 2008

I am writing from the UK, in this country we have Walmart who trade as Asda. We also have very similar laws to the USA with exceptions, but then that is also true of the different states within the USA. Therefore much of what I have to say, and what others have said may not be entirely pertinent to every subtlety expressed.

However much of the following is pertinent, to both the law and civil rights. I will also address the point made by some people in the discussion that some states allow a legal stop on the activation of an alarm at the exit of, for example, a Walmart.

In the UK the largest UK supermarket, and the fourth largest in the world has written to the court, (a claim, which I won) a defence statement which states that when an alarm is activated at the exit of a store, it is always the assumption that the cashier did not remove the security tag. In this country we also, like you I suspect, have recently introduced checkouts where the customer serves themselves and then pays for the goods. The defence statement went on to state, or the assumption is that the customer has gone through a self-serve checkout and has not asked the store staff to remove the tag.

So there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth, that it can never be the assumption that an alarm activation is because of theft.

I also entered into a discussion with a security guard, when I refused to give up my receipt. I audio-recorded it, and he said that by that method they very rarely catch a thief. The two correspond. Furthermore I was a retail manager with two of the UK's largest supermarkets, and I know from experience that thieves are not caught by receipt checking in response to an alarm activation.

All of this is obvious. Obvious because if I was to steal, I would not steal the goods with tags on, I would go for the 95% of goods that do not have such tags on them. For example I might go for some fine steak. I have also noticed that some items that are tagged are not done so consistently. In other words, a tag might be placed on one high value item, but the staff have not yet bothered to tag the same product that sits next to it. Which would I steal. if I was a thief?

I this country, Tesco, but not Asda, link the tagged items to the checkouts. So for example, when a bottle of liquor is scanned the till jams, the age of the purchaser is checked before the purchase is allowed to continue. This can be done with other items such as ones that are tagged. So something expensive goes through the till, and the till stops to alert the cashier that this item should have a tag on it. The cashier then removes the tag and this then should stop false activations. But it does not, partly because of the introduction of these self-serve checkouts but partly because the store get's sloppy. For example, they might tag extra items, without adding them to the checkout list. The cashier does not look for the tag, and so it makes its way to the exit, so that the guard can stop the innocent customer.

It is to the advantage of the store, they believe, when they over-ride the system in this way, because of two reasons. The first is, the guard's/greeter's job, just standing at the exit must be boring, and it gives them a sense that they are being pro-active in stamping out crime, and secondly it allows these supermarkets to demonstrate the 'power' of their anti-theft deterrence system to all those potential customers who a watching the events unfold. The system forces a compliance for the customer, partly because, showing your receipt is easy to do, but the finding of a tag in a large shopping basket could take several minutes, and if the is done my the store 10 or more times each day, then that will in the case of Tesco in the UK amount to 42 years of false imprisonment on their customers each year, just to demonstrate the effectiveness of their anti-theft system.

The system also forces compliance because of the fact then the stop is made in full view of friends and neighbours. To refuse and walk would be tantamount to your neighbour believing you must have something to hide. Therefore everyone, or nearly everyone complies. In law you are allowed to be uncooperative by not answering questions, i.e. you have a right to silence, and furthermore you have a right not to have to produce papers or documents or a receipt just because someone tells you to. It is up to the store to prove that you are guilty, you do not have to prove innocence.

I shall give two similar examples why you should not prove that you are innocent, or put it another way why you should not have to produce documentation. What would happen if the cashier accidentally missed an item, i.e. did not scan it. And for a second let us make things easier for the security guard, that item also was tagged. If you thought you had nothing to hide, but the receipt showed that the cashier had not scanned the product, or in the guards mind, you had not paid for it, will he arrest you. He very well might. But you have not done anything wrong, it was the cashiers fault. But you cannot prove it was her/his fault. Are you therefore guilty of an offence. You have now helped the store to believe in your guilt by handing over a receipt. All those who have said that an alarm activation gives the guard probable cause must now be saying, well of course you are guilty of theft it is obvious, but it is not obvious is it? But perhaps you have condemn yourself, especially if like minded people are sitting on the jury.

There are two elements that the prosecution must prove to establish that a crime has been committed, so it is with theft. There is, the actual taking, that is known as the actus reus of the offence. The other element is the mens rea, or mental element. In the case of theft that means dishonesty. For example, if you were to complain to the store, and the duty manager gave you a box of chocolates as an inconvenience payment or to say sorry, and this security guard stopped you at the exit because you did not have a receipt. But what you do not know, is that the duty manager has been told by his boss that he cannot do that without giving you a handwritten receipt. What is the situation? Well you do not have a receipt, and you have taken the store's product without paying for it. But have you stolen the item. The answer is that you have not been dishonest, and therefore should not be stopped because the store has not followed their procedures properly. You have not been dishonest.

One of the answers above suggests that there are steps that a guard should go through before they stop a customer. The reason for some of them is to establish the dishonesty element of the taking. Other elements to ensure that the taking is stealing is to ensure that the tag or the goods actually came from the shelves of the store and that the customer has not paid.

Several retailers in the UK all use the same system, including, Next, WH Smith, Asda, Tesco, Bootes, Morisons. Often the guard is busy, or is taking a walk or a powder-room break. Or the guard is on the sick and the store cannot get someone to cover the exit all through the day. Whatever the reason the door is unmanned. A customer who has just purchased an item in one of the retailers then walks into another. But the guard does not react to the customer going in, he checks the customer exiting. But the customer exiting has not set off the alarm. But nevertheless is stopped. And stopped for a greater time than had a tag been present. The inbound customer eventually exits setting the alarm off. But they have paid for product, and the product was never the property of the store which is now doing the searching. Once again the search takes longer because the guard is looking for something he cannot find. Now two customers have been detained and asked to produce their receipt. Everything now seems in order, the guard is scratching his head wondering what has gone wrong. As the customer exits the store the alarm activates because of the tag attached the perfumed she had previously purchased from another retailer. Now the guard is very suspicious, the customer has got something hidden' in her coat? So she is arrested, and marched back though the store because the first retailer did not remove the tag. So much for an alarm activation giving rise to probable cause!

If the customer goes to the self-serve checkouts and is surrounded by distractions such as noisy children and accidentally does not scan an item, does that make her a thief. I suggest it does not. For a start, she has not been trained to be a cashier. She is not a paid up member of the Walmart staff. She has been distracted. Etc. etc.

If we were to reverse the situation, then that might make the problem, we have here, a little clearer. What if the cashier, who is paid to concentrate, has been trained, and could be considered an expert in checkout operations, what if she double charges a customer. The opposite of the missing an item. This cashier has now, what, stolen from the customer by double charging. Unless it can be proved that she was acting dishonestly, then there can be not suggestion of theft. Yet when it happens in reverse, i.e. when the customer sets the alarm off, there is probable cause and if that item does not appear on the receipt, are Walmart suggesting, or is anyone suggesting, that a theft has taken place. That is why the supermarket should see the item selected from the shelf, to ensure that it is their product in the first instant, then they should see concealment, which demonstrates dishonesty, and then no attempt to pay. Once those elements are in place then that is when there is the right to interfere with your freedom. It is only in those circumstances that the law should stop the customer being able to sue. Your Shopper's or Merchant's Statute or Business law. Whether or not your state allows it is another matter. In the UK we do not have such protection for the retailers. But our citizens are put off suing because the rewards are minimal, no punitive damages for example.

Of course there is nothing to stop the supermarkets from ignoring the above, and often they do. The reason that they are able to ignore the above is because so compelling is the compliance to the system, in other words, most (99.999%) people will show their receipt that they can take the gamble and stop anyone who does not cooperate. Firstly they can do so because most people do not understand the law and automatically comply. Secondly because it just not worth the hassle, etc. etc. So what we are left with is that almost the only person not to comply is going to be the thief. But occasionally someone will be in a bad mood, (that is not illegal), or in a rush (not illegal) or in a world of their own (not illegal), or just having a bad hair day in which she has been put upon just once to often as is in no mood to cooperate (not illegal), or might know their rights and be willing not to be pushed into compliance by another citizen dressed in a guard's costume to enhance his authority; but that person is automatically suspected of an offence, just because she or someone else has set the alarm off. Setting an alarm off cannot be probable cause by itself. Such is the random nature of these alarm activations that it could happen to a Supreme Court Justice. Just because he has set the alarm off does not mean he should be suspected of theft, Your Honour. (USA spelling Honor).

As I said showing your receipt only takes a few minutes, and so why bother fighting it, why not just co-operate. That is what the large supermarkets take advantage of. Especially in the UK, the fine imposed on the supermarkets is not worth the effort of taking them to court. Our supreme court, The House of Lords has set guidelines as regards the level of compensation one is likely to receive in such cases. It amounts to roughly 500.00 ($1,000) for every hour that someone imprisons a person. In court people lie and cheat, and getting evidence of false imprisonment can be difficult. (for example the guards might say that you agreed to the stop). You might need a lawyer or a barrister (in the UK) to take on the might of these massive corporations. Will you win, is it worth the hassle or aggravation of months of uncertainty. Will you have to pay the lawyers in advance, before you receive you compensation, and will you compensation cover your costs and will the court award you them. There are many unknowns, yet the alternative is to just show your receipt; that is why the supermarkets get away with it. Very few assert their rights in the UK. And if you lose, that 500 you might have won will turn into 40,000 of costs you will have to pay both your counsel and the opposition's.

What do these supermarkets do with these tags after they have stopped you and detained you for a period of time? I expect that they take the tag from you, ask for your receipt and allow you to be on your way. But hang on a minute, that tag that they have just taken from you, and they take from customers many thousands and perhaps millions of times each year is actually the customer's tag. Yes, you went to the till, you said or implied that you wanted to buy the product you handed over to the cashier, and she/he scanned it into the checkout, and you paid for it. That tag is now your tag. It is as much your property as the product, and the packaging. You offered, she accepted the offer and you provided consideration for it, i.e. you paid. Yet the supermarkets are now pretending that they have a right to take the tag back after selling it to you. If we were to be dramatic for one minute they are stealing your property from you. The guard is not because he is not being dishonest, but someone in the organisation is. Because they are sloppy with their tag removal, or better still, they are sloppy on purpose so that they can stop and search very many people, should we put up with that?

The lack of catching thieves from the alarm activations is one of the many reasons why it is a system of deterrence, but as a thief catching system it is hopeless. It is an advert to stop potential thieves. The operators/supermarkets infringe citizen's rights to advertise the system.

Some people who have written in this blog state that it is alright for the supermarket staff to search you. But you should not or would not accept that from other people. And let's not forget the searching is really ineffective. I have read about clubs were you sign that you will be searched. I am certain that this cannot actually be enforced as such. If you refuse to be searched then they will be able, just as Walmart are able to ban you from entering the store again. That is the risk the customer who stands up for his rights runs. One one, not even from a shopping club where you are a member can force a search if you withdraw or do not consent to it.

Hundreds of people or more get stopped and searched to catch one thief, if the supermarkets get that lucky. If the supermarkets are losing so much stock, that in itself proves that the method they are employing is not economically sound. It is worse that a random search. This is a guess, but for every 1,000,000 customers they catch one thief by this method, (remember Tesco said that it is always the assumption that it is the stores fault when there is an alarm activation), or for every 1,500 stop and searches they catch one thief (I personally believe the odds are higher still)? Hardly an effective thief catching system! But surely if they are losing all this stock, at least 1 in every 50 customers must be stealing from them. They would be better off, just picking customers at random to search. And if it is worse than random, it cannot be that the searcher has probable cause, or as we say in this country, reasonable suspicion. If some states have allowed an alarm activation to equate to probable cause then that is bad law. I suspect that the large supermarkets have been successful at lobbying the lawmakers of such states, but that does not make it good law, just one-sided law. Indeed to get around this law, there is a NY case back in 1981, which a lady sued for negligence, because the store admitted that there were 20 false activations each day, and it was their negligence in running the system that caused her distress etc. She was awarded back in 1981, $100,000, with punitive damages running to $600,000 reduced to $70,000 on appeal.

Setting off an alarm cannot give rise to probable cause. But that is the deceit that the supermarkets wish people to believe. If there are laws, which allow supermarkets to pump up the number of false activations, then that is bad law. Supermarkets have the power to control the number of false activations, or if you like, stop and searches, at will. And that is precisely the effect of giving supermarkets this immunity from prosecution. Those states have got the balance wrong. And I'm sure that it must be unconstitutional.

There are problems with the request to show a receipt. This has not been tested in this country, the UK. An arrest whether it is the UK or the USA does not depend on the guard using the words, for example, you are under arrest. Arrest: "consists in the seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to his restraint; words may, however, amount to an arrest if, in the circumstances of the case, they are calculated to bring, and do bring, to a person's notice that he is under compulsion and he thereafter submits to the compulsion." And: Whether or not a person has been arrested depends not on the legality of the arrest but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases. So if a guard asks you for a receipt, and you feel compelled to submit to that request, for example if you could prove that your friend was arrested/jumped on etc previously, for refusing to show his receipt, then it might be proven that you felt compelled under the threat of violence. Therefore the asking of a receipt might amount to a false imprisonment?
The court from 1981 case, mentioned above, stated that people should not be subjected to being pushed around just because some people stole from the store. Feeling threatened by a guard into producing your receipt and giving up your right to silence or the right not to self-incriminate just because some people might be stealing is not lawful. This is precisely what the court said;
While "shoplifters" have admittedly proliferated in recent years, unwary legitimate shoppers have also been increasingly ensnared, not by the "reasonably stop" contemplated by section 218 of the General Business Law, but by the careless and cavalier negligence of store personnel, as illustrated by the within case. The special legislation enacted for the unique problems of retail establishments was never intended by the Legislature to confer a license to embarrass, humiliate and harm innocent business invitees and consumers.

The case was Helen Keefe v Gimbel's of 16th April 1984, in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County.

Yours truly,

Trainee Barrister, looking for a position in the USA.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#27 UPDATE Employee

Answers for Patrick.

AUTHOR: CSM Josh - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, March 11, 2008

First of all, I'm glad you asked, since most people around here like to assume. And to the greeter, thanks as well for your response...

For large, bulky items with a low shrink potential, such as TP, Soda, anything that is NOT electronic, we do not stop them to check their receipt unless that is the only thing they have. If they have bags, we usually let them go. However, for electronics even with bags, they need to be checked due to high shrink potential.

As for detainment, if any of our greeters have a problem or need a second or third opinion, they radio to us, then if we don't know what to do or how to handle it, we radio for management. (Keep in mind, this is a customer NOT showing a receipt.) Most of the time when we radio for a member of management, they tend to produce a receipt and everyone leaves happy. But we do have instances where a police call is in order because the customer doesn't want to prove their innocence to us, so we figure law enforcement would be easier...

I saw a post somewhere else on ROR that said that cops are called to their WM everyday... That's not the case with us... usually about 3 or 4 times a year, if even that. It really depends on the competetence of your management team on how often authorities are called.

I'm gonna stop here, thanks for listening.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#26 UPDATE Employee

FYI: FROM A GREETER

AUTHOR: Jack - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, March 01, 2008

I've been a Greeter at Wal-Mart for 3 years.

In response to questions, I wanted to let you know that when the alarm sounds, we are instructed to ask the departing customer to show their receipt. We are supposed to do this in a polite and professional manner. "May I see your receipt please" is acceptable. We are also instucted to ask to see the recepit for very large items like stereos and televisions. If the customer refuses to show their receipt, we don't have the authority to detain them and I doubt that anyone working at $8.00 per hour would take that risk. The managers are always looking for a reason to fire us and getting into a confrontation with a customer would surely get us canned.

The only option would be to find a CSM or assistant manager and let them handle the situation.

The managers at least at the store where I work are reluctant to call the police. Many times,they will simply let a shoplifter go.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#25 Consumer Comment

Question for Josh the CSM

AUTHOR: Patrick - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Josh,

How are Door Greeters trained in your area for this scenario?

I am exiting the store, but did not set off the alarm. In my cart are large items (let's say 3 12-packs of Dr Pepper and a sack of potatoes) that are not bagged. Are they trained to:

A) Stop the customer and ask to see their receipt and check all their bags.

B) Stop the customer and ask to see their receipt and check for only the unbagged items.

C) Not stop the customer and allow them to continue on out the doors.

This question DOES NOT apply to such things as large electronic equipment or furniture. I'm talking about regular bulky items that can't be bagged normally (water softener salt, soda, TP, diapers, etc).


OK, next question. If the answer to the above is either A or B, and the customer refuses to show a receipt, are they trained to:

A) Allow the customer to continue out the doors unhindered.

B) Verbally warn them that failure to show a receipt will result in LP or LE being called.

C) Attempt to detain the customer.

Again, this assumes the alarm did not go off, and general mechandise unbagged.

I would be interested in your answers.

Thanks.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#24 Consumer Comment

The real issue here

AUTHOR: Sarah - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Let's all get back to the real issue at hand. There was nothing mentioned about the alarm going off or request for a receipt. The door greeter started harassing Susan and demanded to paw through personal belongings. No door greeter has any right to do that, and I don't buy the BS about them being "deputies" of loss prevention. The fact of the matter is that unless a member of loss prevention sees you conceal an item and try to leave without paying for it, the store cannot detain you. I can promise that if anyone tries to detain me and search my personal belongings, they would be on the floor bleeding. So now, let's forget all this nonsense about them having a right to check Susan's belongings because the alarm went off or she refused to show her receipt. The whole issue was that they treated her like a criminal without any right to do so (and it's highly unlikely that the door greeter saw the real shoplifter committing a crime) and to top it off, they didn't even issue an apology. I'd write a strongly worded letter to Wal-Mart corporate and copy the store manager at the very least. I'd sue them for harassment and unlawful detainment. If that ever happens again, pull out your cell phone and dial 911 and get the police there.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#23 Consumer Suggestion

So Let's recap

AUTHOR: Steven - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Susan you did a great job of describing what happened (alot of background).

Since I have a habit of reading things differently than others do this is what I perceive happened:

Party A - Susan the OP
Party B - First employee
Party C - Second employee
Party D - Unknown shoplifter

As party A was leaving the store party B approached her and asked for a receipt and stalled her until party C arrived and said wrong person you can let her go. They then continued their search (presumably) for party D. Who was still running around.

First off they did have the right to detain Susan since she matched the description of the shoplifter. After confirming that she wasn't the person in question she was released.

Second, Party B should have done so in a more discreet manner by taking her aside or asking her to come to a less visible area. Depending on the amount of time it took for Party C to arrive and say that is not who I am looking for this may not have been possible.

Since none of us was there but Susan we don't know about the time period involved or any circumstances that may have caused for the involved employees to properly apologize to Susan (not saying they not have wanted to but maybe they were in a hurry to catch Party D).

That being said Susan you are right to have expect at least an apology by Party B and/or the store manager for the problem. Personally speaking if I felt embarrassed or unduly harrassed I would have gone immediately to the manager or put my purchases in the car and go back in. This would have given you the ability to get a face to face apology from the manager as well as Party B (assuming they still weren't chasing around Party D).

I see that at the end of your post you are still waiting for phone calls, but if you already expressed to them that you do not intend to return to the store they have nothing to gain by calling you back.

Better luck at other places.

By the way for those of you who may want to know. Some large chains and department stores have started hiring off duty police officers to work with their prevention loss folks. I guess to break it down. The prevention folks spot shoplifters/suspects on the camera and send the off duty police to detain them. That way you can't claim that the person arresting you or detaining you cannot because they are not sworn law enforcement officer. This may have been going on for a while I noted it the other day when they were describing how a shoplifter was caught.

No doubt I will now be berated by Steve and Lee for this posting.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#22 UPDATE Employee

Ugh...

AUTHOR: CSM Josh - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 19, 2008

First of all, I do apoligize for making everyone upset, but it's just the job of the greeters. As expressed before, alarms are probable cause. The greeters are there to help prove your innocence. By not showing your receipt when the alarm goes off is putting you in a potential situation with the legal system, especially if you seem to be displaying suspicious behavior (CLEARLY DESCRIBED IN THE TRAINING MANUAL!!!)

Now, the way some of you talked, some of you were stopped when the alarm DIDN'T go off... This is wrong in all aspects of it, and I wouldn't be putting up with it. As a CSM, I have the authority to fire any greeter who decides to do something so stupid. In the locale which I work, random receipt checks ARE indeed against the law. So the only time a greeter needs to see a receipt is when the door alarm goes off.

I'm just gonna leave it at that. I think that is pretty much self explanatory. But I would like to remind Lee Ving that "Detainment upon Probable Cause" is legal, and the door alarm is "Probable Cause."

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#21 Consumer Comment

Josh

AUTHOR: Lee Ving - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

There is absolutely no way that WalMart would condone or advocate your behavior.

If you attempted to forcefully take away goods from a paying customer because they wouldn't show a receipt, you would be arrested for aggravated robbery and probably assault.

WalMart would let you rot in jail where you belong. There is no place in civilzed society for deluded, law breaking miscreants like you.

I hope you're kidding, or else the only thing I have to say to you is start collecting cigarrettes and don't bend over for the soap.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#20 Consumer Comment

I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Patrick is absolutely right.

This guy Josh is obviously a MORON! He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

I would own the store that Josh works at, and he would at very least no longer be working there or in any other retail environment. Guaranteed.

A clue for Josh.

Once I pay for my merchandise, It is MINE. It no longer belongs to anyone in the store. And, the reciept check was already done by the CASHIER when he/she handed it to me. MY purchase was at that time verified.

If the store chooses to put merchandise between the cashier and the door, that is thier BAD DECISION. Not mine.

I have more than once refused to show a reciept. My first question is: "Are you accusing me of theft"? At this point, any action on thier part will be a problem. It is a no win situation for them.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#19 Consumer Comment

I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Patrick is absolutely right.

This guy Josh is obviously a MORON! He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

I would own the store that Josh works at, and he would at very least no longer be working there or in any other retail environment. Guaranteed.

A clue for Josh.

Once I pay for my merchandise, It is MINE. It no longer belongs to anyone in the store. And, the reciept check was already done by the CASHIER when he/she handed it to me. MY purchase was at that time verified.

If the store chooses to put merchandise between the cashier and the door, that is thier BAD DECISION. Not mine.

I have more than once refused to show a reciept. My first question is: "Are you accusing me of theft"? At this point, any action on thier part will be a problem. It is a no win situation for them.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#18 Consumer Comment

I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Patrick is absolutely right.

This guy Josh is obviously a MORON! He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

I would own the store that Josh works at, and he would at very least no longer be working there or in any other retail environment. Guaranteed.

A clue for Josh.

Once I pay for my merchandise, It is MINE. It no longer belongs to anyone in the store. And, the reciept check was already done by the CASHIER when he/she handed it to me. MY purchase was at that time verified.

If the store chooses to put merchandise between the cashier and the door, that is thier BAD DECISION. Not mine.

I have more than once refused to show a reciept. My first question is: "Are you accusing me of theft"? At this point, any action on thier part will be a problem. It is a no win situation for them.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#17 Consumer Comment

I would love the opportunity to meet up with this "Josh" joker!!

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Patrick is absolutely right.

This guy Josh is obviously a MORON! He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

I would own the store that Josh works at, and he would at very least no longer be working there or in any other retail environment. Guaranteed.

A clue for Josh.

Once I pay for my merchandise, It is MINE. It no longer belongs to anyone in the store. And, the reciept check was already done by the CASHIER when he/she handed it to me. MY purchase was at that time verified.

If the store chooses to put merchandise between the cashier and the door, that is thier BAD DECISION. Not mine.

I have more than once refused to show a reciept. My first question is: "Are you accusing me of theft"? At this point, any action on thier part will be a problem. It is a no win situation for them.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#16 Consumer Suggestion

Sorry Steve will post the law here as well

AUTHOR: Steven - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Per your request Steve:

Florida State Statute 812.015(3)(a)

A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any
antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking
the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner
for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant,
merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after
the person has been taken into custody.


Here is Colorado info as well:


Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statute; dashes through the words
indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act.
HOUSE BILL 01-1221
BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) White, Dean, Jahn, Plant, Rippy, Romanoff,
Saliman, Stengel, and Weddig;
also SENATOR(S) Takis and Epps.
CONCERNING THEFT DETECTION DEVICES.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. 18-4-407, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to
read:
18-4-407. Questioning of person suspected of theft without
liability. If any person TRIGGERS AN ALARM OR A THEFT DETECTION DEVICE
AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-4-417 (2) OR conceals upon his person or otherwise carries away any unpurchased goods, wares, or merchandise held
or owned by any store or mercantile establishment, the merchant or any
employee thereof or any peace officer, acting in good faith and upon probable cause based upon reasonable grounds therefor, may detain and
question such person, in a reasonable manner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the person is guilty of theft. Such questioning of a
person by a merchant, merchant's employee, or peace or police officer does not render the merchant, merchant's employee, or peace officer civilly or criminally liable for slander, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious.

Also still waiting for you to provide proof that theft detectors going off are not probable cause. You know court cases being thrown out and such.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#15 Consumer Comment

I don't care what Corporate 'taught you' Josh, but you're wrong.

AUTHOR: Patrick - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Josh: Point blanc, in ALL STATES! Private business have a right to protect their assets, even if by detainment...

Pat: Yes, that much is true. But detainment can ONLY happen if the merchant has directly observed you shoplifting.

Josh: By not showing your receipt, you're proving your guilt and potentially breaking the law.

Pat: ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! By not showing my receipt, I am excercising my rights. If I have paid for my goods, then I have no reason to stop for a receipt check.

Josh: Trust me, if you came into my store and refused to show your receipt, you WILL BE FORCED to return the merchandise to the store and leave with nothing unless you comply.

Pat: Trust me, if I came into your store, purchased goods (which then become my personal property, even when I'm still inside your store, you do have my money after all), and then asked for my receipt upon exiting, you can bet I will keep going if I see fit. If for any reason I'm FORCED back into the store, YOU will be the one going to jail my friend. And guess what? Corporate probably won't back you up in court. So you better go back and read your training manual, because you WILL NOT be detaining me or trying to take away my personal property.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#14 Consumer Comment

Wal-Mart does not care if they humiliate you.

AUTHOR: Wendie - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Susan,

I feel your pain. I too was embarrassed by Wal-Mart recently. The incident that I am referring too also took place at the door with one of the greeters. I had paid for my items and had walked through the exit door when the alarm sounded.

Of course, I stopped and waited for the elder woman at the door to come over. She was very polite and asked to see my receipt so I gave it to her. I really could care less about being stopped since I paid for everything. However, she started rummaging through my bags. And she grabs out my pregnancy test, holds it up, and says loudly, "Maybe its your pregnancy test that is setting off the alarm." I about died of embarrassment. The place was packed and I saw several people laughing because she was rather loud.

To make matters worse, she walked over to one of the cashiers and swiped my pregnancy test over the device that de-arms the tags inside the items. I waited patiently until she came back. She told me to try walking through the door again, which I did. The alarm went off again. This time, she goes through my bag and grabs out a box of condoms. She to hold them up and says just as loudly "I bet its your condoms instead." By this time, I know I was blushing and extremely embarrassed. She walks over and scans them over the device. The alarm still went off, but she told me to go ahead and go. I didn't hesitate.

I never demanded an apology because I want to forget about the incident. However, I think Wal-Mart should probably train their greeters to be more discreet. There is no reason for them to make such a spectacle of checking items.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#13 UPDATE Employee

I posted this on one other complaint, but...

AUTHOR: Josh - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 11, 2008

Greeters are "Deputies" of the Loss Prevention. Loss Prevention is the official "Security" of the store. THEREFORE!!!! Greeters have the DIRECT AUTHORITY to stop you at the door if the alarm sounds, because that is reasonable cause. Based on your store's management, if you resist you have the choice to go free or be arrested.

Point blanc, in ALL STATES!!!! Private business have a right to protect their assets, even if by detainment... By not showing your receipt, you're proving your guilt and potentially breaking the law. Trust me, if you came into my store and refused to show your receipt, you WILL BE FORCED to return the merchandise to the store and leave with nothing unless you comply.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#12 UPDATE Employee

I posted this on one other complaint, but...

AUTHOR: Josh - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 11, 2008

Greeters are "Deputies" of the Loss Prevention. Loss Prevention is the official "Security" of the store. THEREFORE!!!! Greeters have the DIRECT AUTHORITY to stop you at the door if the alarm sounds, because that is reasonable cause. Based on your store's management, if you resist you have the choice to go free or be arrested.

Point blanc, in ALL STATES!!!! Private business have a right to protect their assets, even if by detainment... By not showing your receipt, you're proving your guilt and potentially breaking the law. Trust me, if you came into my store and refused to show your receipt, you WILL BE FORCED to return the merchandise to the store and leave with nothing unless you comply.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment

Steve from Bradenton is NOT wrong

AUTHOR: Lee Ving - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Steven,

You have made numerous preposterous, erroneous and unfounded postings regarding this topic. You actually stated that a WalMart security guard could search a car without cause.

A Walmart door greeter may not detain anyone without probable cause, and probable is the actual witnessing of the crime. And I doubt very much a door greeter would detain someone.

If I paid for my goods and some flunkie like yourself attempted to detain me, I guarantee that you would never detain another individual.

And you'd be going to jail following your release from the hospital.

So please post the law that was requested or go away.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Author of original report

Steve this is not about the receipt

AUTHOR: Susan - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Steve you do not understand my point. This for me is not about showing my receipt. As much as many people disagree with this practice I simply view as a minor inconvience.

What bothers me in this incident is that the Wal-Mart employee wanted to search my personal belongings right there at the exit door in front of anyone that was passing by. The fact of the matter is that they do not have any legal right to search my personal belonging or effects. They had no reason to be suspicious of my shoplifting. They were totally out of line by asking to search my coat.

I have not heard back from Wal-Mart as of this date. I have not persued this further with them to this date as I have been dealing with a family crisis. I am planning to contact them tomorrow to persue Wal-Mart's policy on handling possible shoplifters as I do not want to see other people suffer the embarassment that I have suffered.

I certainly have not been back to Wal-Mart and probably will not.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

More for Steven in Jacksonville re the alleged law.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Your theory does not fly. I just read that law you mentioned.

Aperson who is NOT law enforcement cannot detain you unless they have personally observed you engaging in a felony.

Therefore, just asking for a reciept is a no go.

Like I said, they would have had to observe me commit a FELONY before they could detain me as a civilian.

FYI..Petit theft is a MISDEMEANOR. Sorry, does not count under Florida law.

The merchant CAN use any force needed if I engaged in a felony such as ROBBERY, which would involve a weapon.

Therefore, you are wrong once again.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 Consumer Comment

WRONG ANSWER! Post that alleged law here. Do it now or shut up.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

WRONG ANSWER!! Once again, people need to learn HOW TO READ!

They can ask all they want, but if I refuse, the ONLY option they have is to call the police. [Destructo...They MUST first officially accuse me of stealing, then they have another problem if they are wrong].

You both need to post your alleged law here in its entirety. Do it now.

In FL, if I were to touch you against your will, I just engaged in a felony! That is the law.

And, if someone touches me in any way after i tell them to step off, they are going to get the hell beat out of them, and then when they get out of the hospital, they are going to jail. Fact. [This excludes any form of peace officer/law enforcement].

Before giving advice, or correcting someone else, it helps if you actually know what you are talking about. [I'm showing my ignorance?].

Post that alleged law now. This is a challenge. put up or shut up. DO IT NOW!!
[This is for Steven - Jacksonville].
Now you can prove your ignorance.

>>>>
Destructo
Stuarts Draft, Virginia
U.S.A.

Steve is Wrong
Steve,

They can legally read your reciept, as you're still in their PRIVATELY owned store. People seem to forget, although the store is open to the public, it's still privately owned.

If you're not stealing from them, why is it such a big deal?

Submitted: 1/31/2008 4:56:39 PM
Modified: 1/31/2008 5:59:38 PM Steven
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.

As usual Steve in Bradenton shows his ignorance
Hey Steve. Heard of a law for you to reference. Do a google search under resisting a merchant. Not sure about other states but Florida does have a statute pertaining to shoplifting or even suspicion. They don't have to be law enforcement..

Please remember all. Steve means well sometimes but has a very narrow point of view.

Steve. Sorry for the confrontational subject line but you should really refrain from advocating something just because you lack the accountability by not being a lawyer.

>>>>

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Suggestion

As usual Steve in Bradenton shows his ignorance

AUTHOR: Steven - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Hey Steve. Heard of a law for you to reference. Do a google search under resisting a merchant. Not sure about other states but Florida does have a statute pertaining to shoplifting or even suspicion. They don't have to be law enforcement..

Please remember all. Steve means well sometimes but has a very narrow point of view.

Steve. Sorry for the confrontational subject line but you should really refrain from advocating something just because you lack the accountability by not being a lawyer.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

Steve is Wrong

AUTHOR: Destructo - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Steve,

They can legally read your reciept, as you're still in their PRIVATELY owned store. People seem to forget, although the store is open to the public, it's still privately owned.

If you're not stealing from them, why is it such a big deal?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

Not a ripoff

AUTHOR: Jim - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Susan,

I agree that you were inconvenienced and embarassed. That is unfortunate. I do not think you were ripped off though. You did not claim this, however it is what the website is for. While I must agree with Steve in Fla. that the people at Walmart are retards and so are most of their policies, I believe they have the right to ask to see a receipt. I have been asked once before, and while I thought it was odd, I had nothing to hide and showed the greeter the receipt. He scanned it over, quickly looked in the cart full of items and said, "Thank you, have a nice day". The entire inconvenience required roughly twenty seconds of my time. About the same amount of time I waited to pull out of the parking space while waiting for other cars to go by. As far as the person acknowleding that you were the wrong person, that was a mistake. By not saying he was sorry, that is just rude. No more rude than the woman that does not say thank you after I held open the door for her while her hands were full. I do not think you need to tie up the court system by filing a law suit. Would you file a law suit against the police department if you were stopped and they stated they were looking for a fugitive driving the same make and model as your car? Even if the policeman did not say sorry after he realized you were not the suspect? You were not harmed, put in danger, or financially set back by Walmart. They suck, I would simply never shop there again.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Suggestion

Sue them...

AUTHOR: Pat S - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

for defimation of character at the very least. As the above poster stated, it is NOT common practice for anyone to search anyone else for any reason, anywhere, anytime. I would sue them and happily, quietly settle out of court. Have your attorney send a letter to the distrrict manager, mention the names of the employees involved and it will be closed in 7 days or less...

It is quite embarrassing to go through this, my brother did, and it wasn't pretty, but the outcome was. People need to pay for their actions. As much technology that's available today, especially at a Wal Mart, there is no excuse for their behavior and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone.

Good Luck!

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Suggestion

This is just another instance or illegal and rude behavior by Wal Mart retards!

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Susan,

You are under no legal obligation to show your reciept at the door. And, store employees cannot legally detain you. They are not law enforcement. If they so much as touch you, it is assault.

If this ever happens again, make sure that you are loud, but not disruptive, and ask that retard very clearly "are you accusing me of theft"?.

The next statement or action by the retard gets you paid.

This is a bad practice. People have sued and won.

If they have evidence that you stole something, they need to call the police [real law enforcement] and have them deal with it.

WalMart makes the choice to put merchandise past the checkout registers too which is a bad choice, and is most of the reason for this practice.

I NEVER show a reciept. NEVER.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

You are wrong

AUTHOR: Susan - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, January 30, 2008

It is not common practice anywhere to ask a customer upon exiting to see their personal belongings such as a coat in order to search it. Legally the only people that have the right to search a person's personal effects are the police and only if there is just cause.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 UPDATE Employee

Ouch...

AUTHOR: Josh - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

If your store is in a metro area, then this is perfectly routine. Although I do agree the Greeter should have been nice and say "Sorry about the inconveinience, have a good day," most of the time, Management has to call their role as AP deputies into play because all sorts of criminals come in from the outside world and attempt to HIDE in Wal-Mart, doing who-knows-what. The easiest things to do in a case like this is:

1. Don't single yourself out. You're not the only one that was stopped that day like that.

2. Forget about it. Most of the people exiting are people who you'll probably never see again. We'll say "You don't know them and they don't know you."

3. If someone you know did go by, such as a boss or something like that, I'm sure they'd be understanding enough to understand the lunacy that goes on and how you're not truly guilty.

And even though I'm not directly involved, I'm sorry for all you've been through.

-Josh

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now