Wal-Mart Walmart Does Walmart policies violate customers rights Bryant Arkansas

Lee Ving You have no rights to put down people just because they show there receipt when asked
Just because someone does not have a problem showing there receipt that does not mean they are at a lower end of the intelligence spectrum and do not place value on their personal rights and a person also does not have to be on lower income spectrum to shop there.

To say that is very rude

I worked at the Benton, Arkansas store #0085 and the Bryant, Arkansas store #3230 Wal-Mart for a good amount of time. in Benton I was a cashier and at times asked to work as a door greeter, my instructions were to greet the customers, ask for a receipt if a customer was leaving the store with a large item (expensive) i.e. a TV. if the alarm went off i was told to ask for a receipt wright the numbers down and let the customer go i was also informed i was never in any way shape or form allowed to detain a person if the alarm went off and they had no merchandise...basically let them go. in the Bryant store i worked in automotive as a cashier and the only time we were ever required to check for a receipt was on "blits" day...huge sale the day after thanksgiving and that is simply because we had a good number of items that were usually in locked cases on the sales floor not in locked cases. Simply put unless you set of the alarm or are buying a very expensive item, just tell them no...and keep going

Brit: I realize it is an inconvience to be stopped at the door, but please bear in mind that we are only trying to cover ourselves.

Pat: I thought that's why they hired LP, to watch for theft.


Brit: If we didn't do this, we would lose tens of thousands of dollars a year, which would drive prices up for the honest folks like you who pay for those items.

Pat: Again, this is a job for LP.


Brit: As long as you have your receipt, you'll be fine.

Pat: What if I bring something into the store that already belongs to me? Let's use an umbrella for example. It's brand new because I just bought it yesterday from this very store. I'm carrying it around because the weather report calls for rain, even though it's not raining outside when I enter the store. Do I need to have my receipt for this? What about the new coat I just purchased yesterday as well? Do I need to keep that receipt too? Do you see how silly your statement is now?


Brit: Also many of us associates give the customer the benefit of the doubt. I'm a daytime cashier, and I occasionally door greet. I look for large unbagged items, such as soda, beer, paper towels, etc. because sometimes us cashiers get distracted and forget to ring them up.

Pat: Not my problem cashiers can't do their job properly.


Brit: One thing wal-mart teaches us in training is that we NEVER accuse a customer of a crime. We wont call the police over one item the cashier forgot to scan.

Pat: If only every store followed that policy.


Brit: Also sam's club and costco check all of the receipts as well.

Pat: This has been covered over and over. Sam's and Costco are membership stores. You have to sign up for a membership just to shop in there. Part of the membership agreement states that you will be subject to receipt checking upon exiting the store. This is a term you agree to when you sign up for the membership. The big difference with Wal-Mart (or any retailer for that matter) is that we don't agree to receipt checks when we shop there. And the law is on our side when it comes to detainment without suspicion of theft.

Brit: I realize it is an inconvience to be stopped at the door, but please bear in mind that we are only trying to cover ourselves.

Pat: I thought that's why they hired LP, to watch for theft.


Brit: If we didn't do this, we would lose tens of thousands of dollars a year, which would drive prices up for the honest folks like you who pay for those items.

Pat: Again, this is a job for LP.


Brit: As long as you have your receipt, you'll be fine.

Pat: What if I bring something into the store that already belongs to me? Let's use an umbrella for example. It's brand new because I just bought it yesterday from this very store. I'm carrying it around because the weather report calls for rain, even though it's not raining outside when I enter the store. Do I need to have my receipt for this? What about the new coat I just purchased yesterday as well? Do I need to keep that receipt too? Do you see how silly your statement is now?


Brit: Also many of us associates give the customer the benefit of the doubt. I'm a daytime cashier, and I occasionally door greet. I look for large unbagged items, such as soda, beer, paper towels, etc. because sometimes us cashiers get distracted and forget to ring them up.

Pat: Not my problem cashiers can't do their job properly.


Brit: One thing wal-mart teaches us in training is that we NEVER accuse a customer of a crime. We wont call the police over one item the cashier forgot to scan.

Pat: If only every store followed that policy.


Brit: Also sam's club and costco check all of the receipts as well.

Pat: This has been covered over and over. Sam's and Costco are membership stores. You have to sign up for a membership just to shop in there. Part of the membership agreement states that you will be subject to receipt checking upon exiting the store. This is a term you agree to when you sign up for the membership. The big difference with Wal-Mart (or any retailer for that matter) is that we don't agree to receipt checks when we shop there. And the law is on our side when it comes to detainment without suspicion of theft.

I realize it is an inconvience to be stopped at the door, but please bear in mind that we are only trying to cover ourselves. If we didn't do this, we would lose tens of thousands of dollars a year, which would drive prices up for the honest folks like you who pay for those items. As long as you have your receipt, you'll be fine. Also many of us associates give the customer the benefit of the doubt. I'm a daytime cashier, and I occasionally door greet. I look for large unbagged items, such as soda, beer, paper towels, etc. because sometimes us cashiers get distracted and forget to ring them up. One thing wal-mart teaches us in training is that we NEVER accuse a customer of a crime. We wont call the police over one item the cashier forgot to scan. Also sam's club and costco check all of the receipts as well.

There are two major problems here. First, it is a violation of Wal Mart's policy. Second, under Arkansas State Law, you can not be detained in this manner. Costco and Sam's are clubs that you purchase a membership in and thus you AGREE to certain rules. If a door greeter stops and detains a person at Wal Mart they are putting their job in jeopardy. And Wal Mart has been sued several times over this issue.

What does your and your wife's status as handicap and middle-aged have to do with anything?

Costco does the same thing when you leave their store. There is a person or persons standing by the exit that asks to see your sales receipt and checks off your items before you're allowed to leave. It doesn't bother me since they're only doing it to protect themselves from shoplifters. In the long run I believe the practice keeps the prices of the merchandise, they sell, down for everyone. If it bothers you, or makes you feel uncomfortable, then I would suggest that you might be happier shopping elsewhere.

This is what I have been saying! There is no legal obligation to show your your receipt. It is against Wal Mart policy to stop people and ask for the receipt UNLESS the alarm goes off. And that has to be documented in writing. And it is ILLEGAL for any store employee to detain a customer.

Many of you are getting off topic here, and are confusing the issues, and/or not reading or understanding what the original report stated.

The original report [below] clearly addressed the topic of being stopped at the door for a reciept check. Notice that there was no indication of being stopped as a result of any security device being activated, which is a totally different issue, legally.

A shopper has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to show a reciept at the door if there was no cause such as a security device being activated, etc.. Period.

Once you pay for your merchandise at the register, that mechandise no longer belongs to the store. A change of legal ownership of that property has taken place, and you were "checked out" at the register.

At this point, you have no legal obligation to show a reciept to anyone during a random reciept check. NONE.

I have tested this on numerous occasions, and have NEVER shown a reciept.
I simply refuse.
I immediately ask the idiot if I am being accused of theft. If they say no, we are done.
If they say yes, they are done!
Real simple.

I WILL NOT let WalMart bully me.
I can shop somewhere else.

If they want my money, they do it on my terms.

I use a debit card, so I immediately file my reciept in my wallet at the register so I don't lose it, so I can properly maintain my checkbook register. That is MY SYSTEM, and I refuse to let some degenerate minimum wage thug interfere with my system.

The bottom line here is, you are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to show a reciept during a random check where no other cause of action is present.

That's the law.

>>>>



>>>Here is the ORIGINAL POST>>
Report:
Wal-Mart Walmart Does Walmart policies violate customers rights Bryant Arkansas Wal-Mart

Category:
Department & Outlet Stores

Date Created:
12/12/2007 3:50:14 PM

Last Modified:
5/10/2009 9:42:05 PM

My wife and I believe that our rights are being violated when after paying for your items at Walmart you are stopped at the door and asked to prove that you payed for them. I do believe that after the transaction of paying those items are yours and you should not have to prove anything. If they believe you stole something you need to call the cops. The burden of proof is on them. I am shopping with them in good faith and I do not like to be accused. My wife and I are middle aged and handicapped. If they falsely call the police do I have a reason to sue. I also would like to know our rights here as customers because this is indignifying to both of us.

Alan
Little Rock, Arkansas
U.S.A.


>>>

yeah it may be a pain to stop for that extra second but if yo think of why..... if that person that checks you receipt at the door catches at least some of the shoplifters, and believe me there are alot more than you think, it saves you money in the long run. why? because when we stop loss we give it back in lower prices

Yes, PRIVATE parties are dealt with differently than government entities when it comes to the constitution. However, as a former law student and cop from the state that this occurred in, I know for a fact that store personnel CAN NOT detain any person. In Arkansas, where this occurred, detain means (not-exclusive) preventing a person from leaving OR placing them in a state of mind that they believe that they can't leave. The "acid test" that we were taught in the police academy and at law school was this: If the person asks if they can leave and they are told no, they are being detained.

On top of this and much more to the point, it is against Wal Mart policy to stop or detain a person. They can ASK to see the receipt and that is all. There are no "privately" owned Wal Mart stores. They are all owned by the cooperation and are bound by cooperate policy. Wal Mart loss prevention personnel can done nothing but observe and report. I know this because of the dozens of shoplifters that I have had to arrest at Wal Mart and because I am married to a CSM of the company.

So, as far as "rights" are concerned, well that is up to debate. But what is not debatable is whether or not company policy and the law is being violated because it is in both cases. I will not show my receipt unless the alarm goes off. Wal Mart is in the process of changing their policy on this receipt issue. The new policy completely prohibits the door greeter from asking to see a receipt. Also, Wal Mart will immediately terminate any employee that constantly violates company policy

So, in response to the title of the report it is no. Because what that particular store is doing is in violation of company policy, not rights. That door greeter CAN NOT, by policy and by state law stop you and ask for a receipt.

HOW SIMPLE IS THAT?

SHOP IN THE DOLLAR STORES, TARGET, BIG LOTS, GARAGE SALES, GOODWILL, DUMPSTER DIVE AROUND UNIVERSITY AREA APARTMENTS AT THE END OF THE FALL AND SPRING SEMESTERS ---RECYCLE AND SAVE MONEY TOO.

NOBODY GETS A GUN AND MAKES YOU GO INTO WAL-MART.

THEY ARE BECOMING TOO UPSCALE FOR ME ANYWAY.

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the perception, understanding, and application of the United States Constitution. What Wiggeljam posted is incorrect:

"There is a little document here in the United States called the Constitution that provides citizens rights against unlawful search and siezure."

The Fourth Amendment is what protects against unlawful (unreasonable) search and seizures...from the government and government actors ONLY. We are NOT protected through this Amendment from searches conducted by private citizens and private organizations (as long as they are not acting on behalf of the government), including unreasonable searches.

The Supreme Court decided in United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) that the Fourth Amendment applies only to protection from governmental action. The decision reads: "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

"If a individual is suspect of shoplifting then it is the business that has the responsibility to produce witness and evidence person is stealing."

Yes, and the business pursues the CIVIL side of retail theft. This boils down to individual state statutes which are easily located and read (and often boring to read). They may or not define key words such as "detain" and "detainment" and also outline how employees/agents/personnel operating for the retailer may detain someone and for how long. The other issue is they tend to use the word "reasonable" in these statutes and definitions and I have yet to see a usable, standard definition of the word. In fact, all of my professors and the attorneys I know and/or work for strongly advise against EVER attempting to define the word for legal use.

If you really have a question about this, call a legal group, don't try to find answers here on the net. Otherwise, be kind and either abide by their policies or don't shop there. Don't be an arrogant jerk to the person stopping you because your tender backside feels "violated", they are only doing what they are told to do so they can put food on the table for THEIR families. There is nothing wrong with someone trying to control their losses.

It is obvious that the commentors here that support Walmart's practice of treating every customer leaving their store as a common criminal and suspected thief must somehow work for Walmart. There is a little document here in the United States called the Constitution that provides citizens rights against unlawful search and siezure. If a individual is suspect of shoplifting then it is the business that has the responsibility to produce witness and evidence person is stealing. To treat every customer leaving your business as a thief is a insult to honest people. Most shoplifters are shady type individuals who act as though they have something to hide and usually are not leaving business with several hundred dollars in groceries bagged in a cart. The person above who says it is the individuals responsibility to prove everything they are leaving the store with is theirs has to be a store employee. Most women carry a purse with cosmetics, change purse, and other personal items that they may have at one time bought at Walmart or another business. I guess then the next step on Walmarts entrusion and insult of customers would be to have every female dump their purse before leaving the store and generate sales slips for every item in their purse along with their sales slip for bagged and buggied items, also people walk in wearing shirts, shoes, pants, jewelry etc. The commentors logic would have every customer carrying a book of sales slips proving where and when items were purchased. The real problem here is that Walmart has gotten so big as a corporation, that small local municipalities who usually have police officers that moonlight at Walmart as off duty security allow big corporate money to trample the rights of common citizens. It is time for honest people to stand up against Walmart and refuse to allow them to treat them in this mannor. What will happen if every honest customers refuses to show the door check their reciept for items they just purchsed??? Will Walmart ban every honest customer from re-entering their store??? If so then they will lose alot of business. Will local police departments arrest every honest local citizen, because they refuse to show the door check a reciept ??? I doubt it because at some point it would become a public outcry mayors and council people would be voted out.

As I said earlier, my wife works at Wal Mart. They DO in fact, train their personnel. But, the cashiers don't always do their job. And it is NOT the fault of the consumer. It is the fault of that employee's supervisor because it is their responsibility to make sure their employees are following company procedure.

As far as shoplifting goes, as one person posted, the laws in the state of Arkansas does still say that a store person can "reasonably detain" a person. That does not include laying hands one them or searching their car, etc. It means that they are asked to come to the office. I arrested several shoplifters during my five years as a cop. And I have seen judges throw out cases in which the person was physically detained by store personnel. Not even cops can physically detain people at will. And if that person was detained inside the store, it will never go to court because even a rookie cop would not be foolish enough to make that arrest.

And like I said before, a security officer, even a commissioned (armed) one has no more authority than a private citizen. I am only talking about the states of Arkansas and Texas. Also, Wal Mart is in the process of changing its policy about showing receipts. In many stores, the greeter can only ask to see the receipt IF the alarm goes off.

From being a regular shopper at Walmart, the only time you are asked to show your receipt is when you have an item that is not bagged, or if you have any items from the electronics department. If you do not want them looking at your receipt, have all of your items bagged. Far as electronics, they have to enter a code for inventory purposes. How do I know? Because I ask questions, especially when I noticed that sometimes I had to show my receipt and there were times that I had the receipt available to show, but was told to go ahead. It's really no big deal if you are innocent.

There are websites where you can find specific state laws. So stop arguing. In the two states in which I currently have homes, Texas and Arkansas, security guards have no more authority than a private citizen. They can not enter or search a vehicle. If one tries that with me, he will be held at gun point until the cops arrive. I have gotten one rent-a-cop fired from the Wal Mart where my wife works because he thought it would be wise to jerk my door open and cuss me for stopping in front of the store.

As far as the folks on the door at Wal Mart, I will not show my receipt unless something sets the buzzer off. They can not legally stop you. And it is fun to see them turn red faced.

also if you do not want to cooperate with the rules then they have the right to refuse to let you enter, think about this the next time you want to brush off the people at the door.

I also like the low prices.

I am sorry that some people feel violated because their purchases are checked at some Wal Mart doors. It is a loss prevention policy to verify receipts at the door in some stores. You would be surprised to see all the things people try when stealing. Unfortunately, the honest people are the ones feeling the hurt. Over $85,000 was stolen from one department last year at my store. Please blame the dishonest theives in this world and don't take it out on the lowest paid people greeters. We are only doing our job.

You obviously like typing in all caps, too. That is considered yelling on the internet.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO A STORE AND HAVE A RELATIVELY SECURE AND SAFE PLACE TO PARK YOUR VEHICLE OR BE ABLE TO TAKE THE BUS.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INSIDE AND SELECT MERCHANDISE THAT IS AS FREE FROM DEFECTS AS CAN BE EXPECTED BY A REASONABLE PERSON.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY FOR THE MERCHANDISE OR GO TO ANOTHER STORE AND FIND IT FOR A CHEAPER PRICE IF YOU CAN.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOP IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SAFE, SANITARY AND WELL-LIGHTED TO THE BEST OF THE STORE'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THIS ENVIRONMENT.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU BUY AND NOT BE SHORTCHANGED OR CHEATED BY THE CASHIER.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE PAID FOR YOUR MERCHANDISE WHEN YOU LEAVE THE STORE...

AND IF FOR SOME REASON YOU HAVE A RECEIPT FOR THE MERCHANDISE AND ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE PAID FOR ACTIVATES THE SHOPLIFTER ALARM, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN APOLOGY AND TO GO ON ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS... THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU AT THAT POINT...

IF YOUR MERCHANDISE IS DEFECTIVE AND YOU CAN PROVE YOU BOUGHT IT THERE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE YOUR RECEIPT THERE AND GET MONEY BACK OR AN EXCHANGE FOR ANOTHER PRODUCT LIKE THE ONE THAT WAS DEFECTIVE.

THAT IS ALL I EXPECT WHEN I GOT SHOPPING.

I LIKE LOW PRICES.

Alright, for anyone who does not know Wal-Mart policy here it is. Wal-Mart cannot stop you for any reason EXCEPT IF a member of managment (assistant, co & store) actually SEEs the theft. IF another associate sees the THEFT they MUST contact a member of managment and STILL keep a continuous eye on them.

And to everyone who "thinks" that the burden of proof is up to the shopper YOU ARE WRONG. You go to court whose burden is it to prove that the defendant is guilty. The Plaintiff. If this situation I would have asked Wal-Mart to call the cops and ARREST me, sue me for what they thought I stole and have them PROVE that I stole it (if indeed you did, which in this case you didnt).

Do you know this WILL NEVER happen. Un-officially Wal-Marts policy is not to press charges on anything under $1000, why? Because it will cost them more in Attorny fees.

Although refusing to show receipt is a little foolsih (I would only refuse if Wal-Mart was being an a*s about it such as yelling "thief thief" or some sh*t) it is the right of the consumer to not comply.

If I bought a Patriots sport jacket (which I did, $69.00) 2 months ago and I come to buy some groceries (Supercenter only) would I have to keep the receipt from 2 months ago in my pocket just in case a rent-a-cop stopped me, no, not at all.

I could care less if they stop me and want to go through my bags and I wonder why anybody else would unless, perhaps, they had a case of Life Style condoms, three cases of Summer's Eve, a Plumber's friend and 20 pairs of dishwashing gloves,etc.

Seriously, I dont' care. I shop late at night to give them plenty of time to see what I have in my shopping bag. I have thought about some creative additions to the bag but these guys USED to be human and who knows what desparate circumstances forced them to work at Wal-Mart and that someday I might be forced to take a job at Wal-Mart so I had better treat them WITH COURTESY AND RESPECT like any other HUMAN BEING!

It does seem like a stupid rule since most boosters I know would push down the dottering, exhuasted Wal-mart person and sprint out the door with their stolen stuff.

But I shop there because I do like the lowe prices and can't afford to shop anypalce with my wages which geniunely have put me in the poverty line...

SO BE NICE TO THE POOR PERSON THERE. IF THIS ECONOMY DOWNTURNS, IT COULD BE YOU STANDING THERE!

I could care less if they stop me and want to go through my bags and I wonder why anybody else would unless, perhaps, they had a case of Life Style condoms, three cases of Summer's Eve, a Plumber's friend and 20 pairs of dishwashing gloves,etc.

Seriously, I dont' care. I shop late at night to give them plenty of time to see what I have in my shopping bag. I have thought about some creative additions to the bag but these guys USED to be human and who knows what desparate circumstances forced them to work at Wal-Mart and that someday I might be forced to take a job at Wal-Mart so I had better treat them WITH COURTESY AND RESPECT like any other HUMAN BEING!

It does seem like a stupid rule since most boosters I know would push down the dottering, exhuasted Wal-mart person and sprint out the door with their stolen stuff.

But I shop there because I do like the lowe prices and can't afford to shop anypalce with my wages which geniunely have put me in the poverty line...

SO BE NICE TO THE POOR PERSON THERE. IF THIS ECONOMY DOWNTURNS, IT COULD BE YOU STANDING THERE!

I could care less if they stop me and want to go through my bags and I wonder why anybody else would unless, perhaps, they had a case of Life Style condoms, three cases of Summer's Eve, a Plumber's friend and 20 pairs of dishwashing gloves,etc.

Seriously, I dont' care. I shop late at night to give them plenty of time to see what I have in my shopping bag. I have thought about some creative additions to the bag but these guys USED to be human and who knows what desparate circumstances forced them to work at Wal-Mart and that someday I might be forced to take a job at Wal-Mart so I had better treat them WITH COURTESY AND RESPECT like any other HUMAN BEING!

It does seem like a stupid rule since most boosters I know would push down the dottering, exhuasted Wal-mart person and sprint out the door with their stolen stuff.

But I shop there because I do like the lowe prices and can't afford to shop anypalce with my wages which geniunely have put me in the poverty line...

SO BE NICE TO THE POOR PERSON THERE. IF THIS ECONOMY DOWNTURNS, IT COULD BE YOU STANDING THERE!

I could care less if they stop me and want to go through my bags and I wonder why anybody else would unless, perhaps, they had a case of Life Style condoms, three cases of Summer's Eve, a Plumber's friend and 20 pairs of dishwashing gloves,etc.

Seriously, I dont' care. I shop late at night to give them plenty of time to see what I have in my shopping bag. I have thought about some creative additions to the bag but these guys USED to be human and who knows what desparate circumstances forced them to work at Wal-Mart and that someday I might be forced to take a job at Wal-Mart so I had better treat them WITH COURTESY AND RESPECT like any other HUMAN BEING!

It does seem like a stupid rule since most boosters I know would push down the dottering, exhuasted Wal-mart person and sprint out the door with their stolen stuff.

But I shop there because I do like the lowe prices and can't afford to shop anypalce with my wages which geniunely have put me in the poverty line...

SO BE NICE TO THE POOR PERSON THERE. IF THIS ECONOMY DOWNTURNS, IT COULD BE YOU STANDING THERE!

You shop at walmart because it is cheap. In order to keep prices low, walmart needs to ensure merchandise is paid for. If you care about keeping the prices of things you buy low, then go along with the VERY MINOR issue of showing your receipt.

Also, don't you think Wal-Mart has enough lawyers on pay roll who go over every possible law suit that could be file with a fine tooth comb. If it was a violation of your rights, it would have been stopped a long time ago.

My responses point by point:

1 - Wal-Mart does not employ the means to deactivate ALL security tags.

Meg - Okay, first of all, this goes hand in hand with credit cards, debit cards, etc, setting off the alarms. We can't deactivate ALL the security tags because they contain the same magnetic devices as credit cards, debit cards, cell phones, watches (my watch and belt set off the alarms ocassionally). They could potentially deactivate your cerdit card, erase your debit information from your cards, ruin cell phones and other electronics by deactivating the security tags. Which would you rather have happen, your means of transaction permanently erased or the door beep on your way out?

Pat - First of all, this item was in response to your comment of 'we don't have the handheld deactivators for large items with tags'. In other words, Wal-Mart should supply its employees with the means to deactivate ATDs in large items. However, your response still has nothing to do with responsibility on the consumers part. If Wal-Mart employs a detection device that will sound an alarm because of credit/debit cards, belts and watches, then Wal-mart needs to find a better system. By the way, what do you do with shoppers where their credit/debit card sets off the alarm? Are they strip searched because they can't produce an item or receipt? I can certainly tell you that I am NOT handing my credit/debit card or valuables over to the DG so they can check to see if they set off the alarm.


2 - Wal-Mart cannot properly train the Door Greeters on LP.

Meg - Its a matter of liability.

Pat - Seems to me it's in Wal-Mart's best interest to train DGs on what they legally can and cannot do. Take Tony on the other report for example. He should have been trained to know not to yell "Stop thief!" when someone refused to show a receipt after sounding the alarm.


3 - Wal-Mart cannot train its 'dumb a*s' cashiers to check our carts to see if anything was left on there without being rung up (isn't that part of LP?).

Meg - Cashiers ARE trained to do that. Doesn't mean they do.

Pat - Still not the consumers fault if they fail to do their job.


4 - Wal-Mart cannot do daily checks of all the tag deactivators at the registers to ensure they're working properly.

Meg - Depends on the store, and they could potentially fail at any moment.

Pat - Again, this is not the consumers problem. Wal-Mart should employ a better sysytem.


5 - Wal-Mart cannot train its 'dumb a*s' cashiers on how to properly deactivate security tags.

Meg - They DO train them to do that, but it doesn't mean all cashiers follow the rules. Which is why its based on a system of checks and balances.

Pat - See my response in #3. The consumers should not be responsible for Wal-Mart's system of checks and balances.


6 - Wal-Mart does not know which products contain security tags.

Meg - Unless its softlines, Wal-Mart doesn't physically put the security tags on the merchandise. Blame the suppliers, not the retailer.

Pat - But using your logic, Wal-Mart wants to punidsh the consumer for this. Not counting softlines, how hard is it for Wal-Mart to check one piece of any new stock to see whether or not it contains an ATD? And then note the barcode in the computer if it does? This could then be tied to the register system to alert the cashier any time a barcode is scanned for an item known to have an ATD? This is very simple programming.


7 - Wal-Mart cannot hire and train their LP staff to look for the real criminals (mostly other employees and their friends and families).

Meg - We DO have that kind of training. Associates at my store must have their bags checked and receipts marked regardless if its in a bag or set off the alarm. Associates are scrutinized more than the regular consumer.

Pat - As well they should be.

To Patrick:

1 - Wal-Mart does not employ the means to deactivate ALL security tags.
Okay, first of all, this goes hand in hand with credit cards, debit cards, etc, setting off the alarms. We can't deactivate ALL the security tags because they contain the same magnetic devices as credit cards, debit cards, cell phones, watches (my watch and belt set off the alarms ocassionally). They could potentially deactivate your cerdit card, erase your debit information from your cards, ruin cell phones and other electronics by deactivating the security tags. Which would you rather have happen, your means of transaction permanently erased or the door beep on your way out?

2 - Wal-Mart cannot properly train the Door Greeters on LP.

Its a matter of liability.

3 - Wal-Mart cannot train its 'dumb ***' cashiers to check our carts to see if anything was left on there without being rung up (isn't that part of LP?).

Cashiers ARE trained to do that. Doesn't mean they do.

4 - Wal-Mart cannot do daily checks of all the tag deactivators at the registers to ensure they're working properly.

Depends on the store, and they could potentially fail at any moment.

5 - Wal-Mart cannot train its 'dumb a*s' cashiers on how to properly deactivate security tags.

They DO train them to do that, but it doesn't mean all cashiers follow the rules. Which is why its based on a system of checks and balances.

6 - Wal-Mart does not know which products contain security tags.

Unless its softlines, Wal-Mart doesn't physically put the security tags on the merchandise. Blame the suppliers, not the retailer.

7 - Wal-Mart cannot hire and train their LP staff to look for the real criminals (mostly other employees and their friends and families).

We DO have that kind of training. Associates at my store must have their bags checked and receipts marked regardless if its in a bag or set off the alarm. Associates are scrutinized more than the regular consumer.

Steven,

Once again, I need to ask you to pay attention, and/or learn how to read, especially before jumping on someone.

Let me double space this and use short word and short sentences so you don't get confused.

Still with me?

I NEVER had a problem with a person being stopped for reciept check or even detained in response to a security device being activated. I have made that clear on several occasions, and agree with the practice. I have no problem with this.
Do you understand?

**Now, what I DO have a problem with, is random reciept checks between the checkout register and the door, WITHOUT any security device being activated. These I politely refuse and keep walking. At this point under Florida law, I cannot be detained, as no one has indicated that they have suspicion that I have unpaid goods. That is the requirement of the law to be detained. And, they better be right.

Still with me? Or do I need to break out the learning ebonics CD for you??

So, now that we have that straight, be sure before you beat any more dead horses, you have the right horse. Or you may beat one that kicks back.


Now, for all of the people who don't see a problem with this practice, here is my MAIN problem with it. I only use a debit card at WalMart, which means I need to safeguard my reciept so I be sure to deduct it from my CHECKBOOK REGISTER to avoid NSF fees as many people on here complain about as they do not know what one is.

Keeping my reciept out until I get out the door puts me at risk of losing my reciept, and forces me to get my wallet out while walking which leaves me open to be a victim of another crime.

I use common sense and secure my belongings and pay attention to my surroundings. I do not need un needed distractions, or risk.

That is the problem.

SOLUTION: Have a straight line from the cash registers to the door, and doo not put merchandise between the checkout register and the door. Use the eye in the sky to watch whats going on, especially the cashiers.

FYI...Refusing to show reciept does not show guilt at all. What am I guilty of??
I have not stolen anything. I am not a thief.


Are you still with me? Can you comprehend this or do I need shorter words and triple spacing? I can do that if you like. Let me know.
>>>
Submitted: 2/19/2008 3:44:14 PM
Modified: 2/19/2008 4:33:09 PM Steven
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.

Steve (in Bradenton) - Found proof you wanted for probable cause
Just cause I love to beat dead horses and I found my proof for Steve in Bradenton. Who is of course welcome to review the law.

Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 812
812.015 Retail and farm theft.....etc

3.(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control
device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting
by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice
has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding the activation of the device.


Thanks.
>>>>

As a consumer, it's not my fault that:

1 - Wal-Mart does not employ the means to deactivate ALL security tags.

2 - Wal-Mart cannot properly train the Door Greeters on LP.

3 - Wal-Mart cannot train its 'dumb ***' cashiers to check our carts to see if anything was left on there without being rung up (isn't that part of LP?).

4 - Wal-Mart cannot do daily checks of all the tag deactivators at the registers to ensure they're working properly.

5 - Wal-Mart cannot train its 'dumb a*s' cashiers on how to properly deactivate security tags.

6 - Wal-Mart does not know which products contain security tags.

7 - Wal-Mart cannot hire and train their LP staff to look for the real criminals (mostly other employees and their friends and families).


Everything you listed in your report is not my responsibility. So why should I have to put up with the hassle and inconvenience of showing my receipt for merchandise that I own? Craig had it right above, LP or any agent of the merchant must witness me taking the merchandise in order to stop me for shoplifting. All this rhetoric about checking to make sure your items were rung up correctly is just that, rhetoric.

What's next? Maybe the DG wants to see my receipt for the shoes I bought there yesterday? What about my sunglasses? Baseball cap? Jeans? Do I need to keep every reciept I ever get for the items I have in my possession every time I enter a Wal-Mart? Do you see how ridiculous this could get if 'We the Sheeple' continue to roll over to Wal-Mart's policies?

I mean, how hard is it for the stockroom to run one item through a scanner to see if the product contains a tag? And then how hard is it to program the register to alert the cashier that a barcode was just scanned for an item known to have a tag?

Oh, and by the way. I have had my receipt checked a few times by the DG on my way out with unbagged merchandise (before I stopped becoming a Sheeple of course). And guess what? NOT ONCE was my receipt ever marked in any way. This 'marking of the receipt' has ONLY happened at Sam's and Costco (and I accept having to show a receipt there as I agreed to that when I signed up for the club membership).

I work at Wal-Mart as a cashier. I know how to use the tag remover and the deactivator on the counter. We DON'T have the handheld deactivator for larger items that we can't pass over the counter. So if it beeps at the door, SO SORRY.

The receipt has other information on there which we have to log as a door greeter (cashiers double as door greeters at my store), such as the cashier who conducted your transaction (OP# on the receipt), which register it came from (TE#), and UPC numbers of the item. We're not accusing you of stealing nor asking for proof of your purchase when we ask for your receipt at the buzzer. We're trying to figure which cashier goofed up your merchandise, which register may have a faulty deactivator, and which items have electronic sensors that need deactivating.

As far as shoplifting goes, it does happen. We ask for receipts for items not in bags to make sure your cashier wasn't a dumb a*s and forget to ring it up. We mark your receipt so people can't come back with the receipt, get the same items, skip the check out, and walk out with receipt in hand. And it does happen. My mother's room mate does that. She also walks around the store with wal-mart bags in her purse and a cart, puts items in her bags (items that don't need to be deactivated), puts them in her cart, smiles and waves to the door greeter and walks out, unpaid merchandise in hand.

We check receipts to make sure WE'RE doing our job, not to humiliate you, and its not to "prove that you paid for your stuff."

While this may not be followed at all stores it is Wal-marts policy to only detain a person if they are seen selecting and concealing an item and leaving the store. Whoever saw the selection can not lose ey contact on that person from the time of selection to the time they leave the store. Only then are they allowed to make the stop. This is to ensure that they are following the laws in the strictest state they have a store. So in short, you can keep walking past the buzzer if you have paid for all your items without penalty. But keep in mind i said not all stores follow that policy to the T and many employees are incredibly unclear about the policies. But why? Is it really that big of a hassle to hold on to your receipt until you exit the store. It takes all of 10 seconds.

In response to some of the comments made about Wal-mart totally unrelated this original posting.

1.Wal-Mart hired illegal immigrants to build their stores-Due to the fact that Wal-Mart does not hire people to do their construction they hire a contractor who supplies the people, the illegals building those stores were not employed by Wal-mart so they had no reason to check their citizenship.

2.Wal-Mart can only attract poor people with little education- I know plenty of people who have graduated college and post grad schools who shop at Wal-Mart. The truth of the matter is that the key demographic for Wal-Mart is the low-income family. They keep their prices low to help these families save money. They are not trying to cater to prideful people who like to brag about how much everything they own costs.

..it puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again!

I just happened upon this site tonight while research online universities and felt I had to respond to this report because Walmart's receipt-n**i's (as my sister and I call them) annoy me to no end! I don't mind if they ask to see the receipt when the buzzer goes off. I figure that is probable cause (even though we all know that those buzzers go off if you even look at them the wrong way). I don't even mind if they ask to see the receipt when I have an unbagged item if I only have a few other items. It only takes a second or two to show them.

But what I absolutely refuse to do is stand there for 15 minutes why some old bitty who can barely see straight checks through 100 items on the receipt 3 times in search of the one unbagged 24-pack toilet paper (or 20 lb dog food, or case of soda, etc). Obviously I have been through the checkout because I have a cart full of bagged items. The item is NOT under the cart where it could easily have been forgotten (I never put things under the cart). It is in the main part of the cart where it was in full view of the cashier and PAID FOR when I went through the line. I did not just spend $200 in groceries so I can steal a $10 pack of toilet paper!

I have made it a game to hide the unbagged item under all the other bagged items. No so hard to do when I have a full cart, but just for fun, I have taken to also doing it when I only have one or two bagged items to hide it with. Alot more of a challenge! If I get "caught" and they ask to see my receipt, I just pretend like I don't hear them and keep walking. I don't know what the laws are in California, but I figure the old bitty has NO CHANCE IN HE** of chasing me down.

""By refusing to have your receipt checked for such a circumstance, you're actually proving your guilt. It's people like You and Lee that are making prices skyrocket for our company.""

Nonsense. Not showing a receipt doesn't PROVE a thing, let alone prove someone didn't pay for something.

It's the folks that are stealing and adding and abetting others in theft that cause shrinkage as well as shoplifters. Many thefts at retail stores are accomplished with the aid of a family member or friend who just happens to be a cashier.

Ever hear of a cashier who "forgot" to scan a few items? Ever hear of a cashier who manually enters a price instead of scanning the item?

So you're saying you have a problem with a store trying to protect what's theirs? In a store with my layout, the greeters can't really see any of the cash registers... and our policy is that on any bulky electronics that cannot be put in a bag, a receipt must be checked. By refusing to have your receipt checked for such a circumstance, you're actually proving your guilt. It's people like You and Lee that are making prices skyrocket for our company. Remember, every runaway is recorded, shrink levels increase, and prices increase per shrink percentage.

Think about it... if you're so worried about freedom, wouldn't you want your merchandise to be CLOSER TO FREE rather than paying "2 billion dollars" for a regular size candy bar? keep that in mind the next time. It probably won't happen, but with high theft rates these days, you never know.

Let us know when you end up in court. You will lose, bank on it. The store is on private property and can be run anyway they see fit according to local, state, and federal laws.

Don't you know electronics is the most common stolen item out there? That being said, the greeter shouldn't have yelled "thief".

Hi Allen,
I read with great interest your concerns that Walmart is causing you to prove that you paid for your items before you leave the store. I did not have time to read all of the responses generated by other readers and I quite certain my advice will contradict many, however, here goes.

I recently posted "Walmart - Guilty until proven innocent" on this web site. I have concerns similar to yours Alan. My remedy was do simply pay for my merchandise and leave. When the greeter asks for my receipt I simply say "NO" and continue walking. This worked fine for me until last Sunday when Tony the greeter chased me into the parking lot screaming "THIEF, THIEF" and "Stop, you have electronics!"

I will continue to refuse to produce a receipt and in the meantime I will continue to search for an attorney to take them to task for their absolutley insane policy. It's simply goes against what Americans are all about, or, should be all about. I am getting BLASTED by the court of public opinion on this web site. Most people, unlike you and I Alan, simply hang their heads and show their receipt. That type of compliance is dangerous to any society and it's becomeing more and more pervasive in ours, unfortunately.

Hang in there Alan and the next time the greeter asks you for your receipt tell him politely, "No!"

Yours,
RJ

Just cause I love to beat dead horses and I found my proof for Steve in Bradenton. Who is of course welcome to review the law.

Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 812
812.015 Retail and farm theft.....etc

3.(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control
device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting
by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice
has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding the activation of the device.


Thanks.

it's just that you and your posts are not part of it Lee. While I and others have posted the laws of different staes to back up our points, all you have done is continue with your "I know it all and can't be educated" attitude. Oh well your loss.


Ladies and gentlemen, like Elvis, lee has left the building

Yes Sarah, I've decided to no longer debate any of the pro-receipt checking individuals, as it is futile and extremely disheartening that people place more value on commodities than freedom and rights.

As inviting as the software post may be, I believe I'll pass on that.

I'm afraid you're beating a dead horse trying to make people see reason. However, I did find another thread y'all should go visit...a customer tried to return opened computer software to a store and was "ripped off" when they wouldn't give him a refund.

I answered quickly and did not see thta the last rebuttal to my post was from Steve and not Lee. However, the main body of the post is correct.

These are the words of a post a few spaces above. I have been in the security business for over 12 years and am now a salaried employee and not in a uniform anymore, however We have security protecting clients all day and all night. just recently one as you put it Rent-a-cop found a propane leake that could have been a threat to the little community if gone undetected. was the guard a joke then, at a contruction site there is a gas leak in the middle of the night, guard might have saved lives then, was he a joke. Employee of client needed medical attention, guard has been trained in cpr and first aid, was he a joke then?

A simple employee works till after dark asked our guard to walk them out so they don't get raped or robbed. Is the guard a joke then? Hurricane Katrina, security protected generators and other items valued on the street at that time, were they a joke then? Who is the first person a person looks for when they have been robbed or had their cars broken into. A security guard. I realize these words will fall on deaf ears, however it seems to me guards are only jokes when people like the above need to abuse or belittle someone to make their own life more important in their eyes. Seems to me rent-a-cops are only not a joke when people need them.

First of all the OP does not talk of being detained, only about having the receipt asked for. Additionally when I first posted about the alarm I stated that it was off the OP topic and in response to people sayint that Walmart or any store could not stop you without probable cause. It has now been posted that in three states the alarm going off is probable cause for stopping/detaining the individual. Gee, someone with your self proclaimed intellectual superiority should be able to read and follow posts.

Lee Ving, I'm tired of all the law breaking that you are alleging. ONCE AGAIN, THE DOOR ALARM IS PROBABLE CAUSE!!! Even though you may not be shoplifting, the alarm is simply a signifying factor that something may have been incorrectly scanned at the register... All the greeter is trying to do is verify that it was scanned and payed for.

Just think of it from the Store Manager's point of view. These Runaways are reported to management every night. Every runaway affects our shrink level. High shrink levels lead to higher prices for the customers, and the removal of our much needed yearly bonus.

Do you understand that level of logic, Lee Ving? YOU'RE MAKING YOUR STORE RAISE THE PRICES ON YOU EVERYTIME YOU WALK OUT WHEN THE DOOR ALARM GOES OFF WITHOUT SHOWING YOUR RECEIPT! If this keeps up, eventually the store you fail to comply with will have to start raising prices off the scale, and you'll only have yourself to thank! It's people like you who are making the economy fail!

Lee Ving, I'm tired of all the law breaking that you are alleging. ONCE AGAIN, THE DOOR ALARM IS PROBABLE CAUSE!!! Even though you may not be shoplifting, the alarm is simply a signifying factor that something may have been incorrectly scanned at the register... All the greeter is trying to do is verify that it was scanned and payed for.

Just think of it from the Store Manager's point of view. These Runaways are reported to management every night. Every runaway affects our shrink level. High shrink levels lead to higher prices for the customers, and the removal of our much needed yearly bonus.

Do you understand that level of logic, Lee Ving? YOU'RE MAKING YOUR STORE RAISE THE PRICES ON YOU EVERYTIME YOU WALK OUT WHEN THE DOOR ALARM GOES OFF WITHOUT SHOWING YOUR RECEIPT! If this keeps up, eventually the store you fail to comply with will have to start raising prices off the scale, and you'll only have yourself to thank! It's people like you who are making the economy fail!

Lee Ving, I'm tired of all the law breaking that you are alleging. ONCE AGAIN, THE DOOR ALARM IS PROBABLE CAUSE!!! Even though you may not be shoplifting, the alarm is simply a signifying factor that something may have been incorrectly scanned at the register... All the greeter is trying to do is verify that it was scanned and payed for.

Just think of it from the Store Manager's point of view. These Runaways are reported to management every night. Every runaway affects our shrink level. High shrink levels lead to higher prices for the customers, and the removal of our much needed yearly bonus.

Do you understand that level of logic, Lee Ving? YOU'RE MAKING YOUR STORE RAISE THE PRICES ON YOU EVERYTIME YOU WALK OUT WHEN THE DOOR ALARM GOES OFF WITHOUT SHOWING YOUR RECEIPT! If this keeps up, eventually the store you fail to comply with will have to start raising prices off the scale, and you'll only have yourself to thank! It's people like you who are making the economy fail!

Lee Ving, I'm tired of all the law breaking that you are alleging. ONCE AGAIN, THE DOOR ALARM IS PROBABLE CAUSE!!! Even though you may not be shoplifting, the alarm is simply a signifying factor that something may have been incorrectly scanned at the register... All the greeter is trying to do is verify that it was scanned and payed for.

Just think of it from the Store Manager's point of view. These Runaways are reported to management every night. Every runaway affects our shrink level. High shrink levels lead to higher prices for the customers, and the removal of our much needed yearly bonus.

Do you understand that level of logic, Lee Ving? YOU'RE MAKING YOUR STORE RAISE THE PRICES ON YOU EVERYTIME YOU WALK OUT WHEN THE DOOR ALARM GOES OFF WITHOUT SHOWING YOUR RECEIPT! If this keeps up, eventually the store you fail to comply with will have to start raising prices off the scale, and you'll only have yourself to thank! It's people like you who are making the economy fail!

"Striderq",

READ the OP.

Nobody said anything about an actual shoplifter or someone setting a buzzer off.

You are assuming an actual shoplifting offense has been committed, or some act that would give suspicion.

The OP was simply identifying the unethical and illegal act of detaining someone to check a reciept. Thats it. Nothing more.

Here is the OP:

Report:
Wal-Mart Walmart Does Walmart policies violate customers rights Bryant Arkansas Wal-Mart

Category:
Department & Outlet Stores

Date Created:
12/12/2007 3:50:14 PM

Last Modified:
2/9/2008 9:21:43 AM

My wife and I believe that our rights are being violated when after paying for your items at Walmart you are stopped at the door and asked to prove that you payed for them. I do believe that after the transaction of paying those items are yours and you should not have to prove anything. If they believe you stole something you need to call the cops. The burden of proof is on them. I am shopping with them in good faith and I do not like to be accused. My wife and I are middle aged and handicapped. If they falsely call the police do I have a reason to sue. I also would like to know our rights here as customers because this is indignifying to both of us.

Alan
Little Rock, Arkansas
U.S.A.

There's proof in the state laws that if the buzzer goes off, it's probable cause to stop that person. So how can you say the law is not right? You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it is the law so it is right.

Even if the buzzer law posted was correct, which it is not, do any of you really believe some $8.00 and hour Door Greeter would actually attempt to apprehend someone that refused to stop for a buzzer?

I think not.

I would find it hard to believe that an employee that is not LP would be expected to detain 'potential' shoplifters. The majority of the Door Greeters at WalMart are really old and frail. I can't see Granny running after a 6'2"" 200 pound man and tackling him the parking lot for the team.

It isn't going to happen. If the buzzer goes off, and they KNOW you stole something, LP will apprehend you at the door. And even they will be very careful, ensuring that they don't verbally or physically abuse you, and that the detainment is aligned with the crime. You can't throw someone down on the ground and start beating their head on the pavement because they stole a pack of gum.

A lot of you people are really scary and should find yourselves a nice police state to live in, and leave the rest of who value freedom and civil rights, over some piddly commodities.

Maybe you all read up on what WWII was about.

Think about this Lee Ving. If you go to Safeway and buy 10 boxes of Mac and Cheese, let's say 1 dollar each. Then, you go to Sam's Club, buy the same thing, except it is packaged that way, and pay 6 bucks. That is 4 dollars saved. If you comparsion shop enough items and add up the savings, you justify your membership fees. That is what you are paying for. You can even use coupons at BJ's and Sams Club, saving even more money. The club makes money off the membership fees and discounts their merchandise to their members (not everything, but I would say 80% of it). At the BJ's where I live, I have seen many times a cop standing next to the person checking receipts. Are you suggesting Wal-Mart does the same thing?

An alarm going off is probable cause. I pulled that definition from a website (I was curious what Maryland's laws were). I can't imagine that many people have sued Wal-Mart over checking a receipt. Let me ask you this, do you think the people in the yellow shirts at Best Buy have a right to detain you if fhey suspect shoplifting? I would imagine Wal-Mart has cameras all over the place. Granted, I have never seen someone with a walkie talkie which is surprising since Target employees have them.

Mike
Waldorf, MD

Think about this Lee Ving. If you go to Safeway and buy 10 boxes of Mac and Cheese, let's say 1 dollar each. Then, you go to Sam's Club, buy the same thing, except it is packaged that way, and pay 6 bucks. That is 4 dollars saved. If you comparsion shop enough items and add up the savings, you justify your membership fees. That is what you are paying for. You can even use coupons at BJ's and Sams Club, saving even more money. The club makes money off the membership fees and discounts their merchandise to their members (not everything, but I would say 80% of it). At the BJ's where I live, I have seen many times a cop standing next to the person checking receipts. Are you suggesting Wal-Mart does the same thing?

An alarm going off is probable cause. I pulled that definition from a website (I was curious what Maryland's laws were). I can't imagine that many people have sued Wal-Mart over checking a receipt. Let me ask you this, do you think the people in the yellow shirts at Best Buy have a right to detain you if fhey suspect shoplifting? I would imagine Wal-Mart has cameras all over the place. Granted, I have never seen someone with a walkie talkie which is surprising since Target employees have them.

Mike
Waldorf, MD

Think about this Lee Ving. If you go to Safeway and buy 10 boxes of Mac and Cheese, let's say 1 dollar each. Then, you go to Sam's Club, buy the same thing, except it is packaged that way, and pay 6 bucks. That is 4 dollars saved. If you comparsion shop enough items and add up the savings, you justify your membership fees. That is what you are paying for. You can even use coupons at BJ's and Sams Club, saving even more money. The club makes money off the membership fees and discounts their merchandise to their members (not everything, but I would say 80% of it). At the BJ's where I live, I have seen many times a cop standing next to the person checking receipts. Are you suggesting Wal-Mart does the same thing?

An alarm going off is probable cause. I pulled that definition from a website (I was curious what Maryland's laws were). I can't imagine that many people have sued Wal-Mart over checking a receipt. Let me ask you this, do you think the people in the yellow shirts at Best Buy have a right to detain you if fhey suspect shoplifting? I would imagine Wal-Mart has cameras all over the place. Granted, I have never seen someone with a walkie talkie which is surprising since Target employees have them.

Mike
Waldorf, MD

Think about this Lee Ving. If you go to Safeway and buy 10 boxes of Mac and Cheese, let's say 1 dollar each. Then, you go to Sam's Club, buy the same thing, except it is packaged that way, and pay 6 bucks. That is 4 dollars saved. If you comparsion shop enough items and add up the savings, you justify your membership fees. That is what you are paying for. You can even use coupons at BJ's and Sams Club, saving even more money. The club makes money off the membership fees and discounts their merchandise to their members (not everything, but I would say 80% of it). At the BJ's where I live, I have seen many times a cop standing next to the person checking receipts. Are you suggesting Wal-Mart does the same thing?

An alarm going off is probable cause. I pulled that definition from a website (I was curious what Maryland's laws were). I can't imagine that many people have sued Wal-Mart over checking a receipt. Let me ask you this, do you think the people in the yellow shirts at Best Buy have a right to detain you if fhey suspect shoplifting? I would imagine Wal-Mart has cameras all over the place. Granted, I have never seen someone with a walkie talkie which is surprising since Target employees have them.

Mike
Waldorf, MD

There's quite a difference between a golf club and a warehouse store. You're comparison is laughable and irrelevant. Costco charges to shop there and checks the receipts because there are enough nitwits out there that actually believe paying a fee saves you money, and someone pawing through your bags cuts down on theft. Sadly, the majority of the population is brainwashed in this fashion. You people make it difficult for the more independent and logical thinkers who value their rights. It's too bad that so many people think that a perceived lower price on commodities is worth a strip search.

I'm not an economics expert, but I don't see how paying a fee to shop somewhere could generate savings beyond the fee itself.

Can you explain to me how $100 in membership fees would generate savings of say $200 for EACH member?

Also, I'm a bit confused by your statement:

Secondly, if you set an alarm off, you can get detained, otherwise, why would alarms exist?

But then you go on and accurately define Shoplifting and probable cause and perfectly corroborate MY definition of probable cause "Probable cause is defined under shoplifting laws as: having direct knowledge of an offender''s approach, selection, concealment, movement, and/or modification of an item, and his/her failure to pay before attempting to exit the store."

Ding! Ding! Ding!, give this man a prize, he is indeed correct!

BUT this conflicts with your lead statement on shoplifting, so I don't get it.

"And to the genius that suggested we shouldn't shop there, Sams Club stipulates it up front and their customers agree. And I guess it figures, anyone stupid enough to actually PAY a store to shop there is probably not bright enough to realize how humiliating it is to go through a receipt check of paid for goods. And unfortunately, there are obviously millions upon millions of people dumb enough to pay a membership fee to shop at store. This is beyond comprehension to anyone with an IQ above 80. What next, a day pass to Safeway for $5.00?"

If you want to say that about Sam's Club, then you think paying to get into amusement and not riding anything is stupid? The reason Sam's and BJ's exist is because they sell 3/4's of their merchandise in bulk, and therefore the prices are lower in most cases. There are membership fees to join a golf club, but there are some golf courses where you pay to play. So, your point is invalid.

Secondly, if you set an alarm off, you can get detained, otherwise, why would alarms exist?

I found this on doing a general search about shoplifting:

What is shoplifting?

Shoplifting is generally defined as taking an item without paying for it or intentionally paying less than the retail price. Shoplifting involves carrying, concealing, or otherwise manipulating any merchandise out of the store with the intent of stealing it. Shoplifting laws also consider it illegal to modify price tags, commit refund fraud, remove a shopping cart or any other commercial property from a store location, or intentionally using an illegal form of payment. Individuals can be prosecuted for acting with intent to shoplift even if the shoplifting was never fully carried out .

Shoplifting and the law

Under most state shoplifting laws, a business owner or employee has the legal right to detain a suspect if they have probable cause . Probable cause is defined under shoplifting laws as: having direct knowledge of an offender''s approach, selection, concealment, movement, and/or modification of an item, and his/her failure to pay before attempting to exit the store. When a person is caught shoplifting, they will be required to return the items, will be prohibited from returning to the store for a period of time, and may be prosecuted through shoplifting laws.

Shoplifting is considered a misdemeanor petty theft if the value of the stolen goods totals less than $300 to $500. In some cases, first time offenders may be charged with a less serious crime such as disorderly conduct so as not to face the consequences imposed by shoplifting laws.

If an offender has a history of shoplifting or the value of the stolen goods exceeds $500, shoplifting laws often yield harsher penalties. An offender can be charged with grand theft or larceny , both of which are felony crimes. Under shoplifting laws, a person who is convicted of this crime may receive a sentence that includes jail or prison time, punitive fines, community service, and/or other penalties.

Mike
Waldorf, MD

The laws from three different states have been posted that say the alarm going off when someone walks through is probable cause to suspect that person of shoplifting. The laws further state that that person can be detained by store employees and that said store employees can not be held criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment or unlawful detention.
So your Universal Definition is crap. The laws of these three states, and probably others, say if the alarm goes off when you walk through you can be stopped for suspicion of shoplifting. Gee, it's really not too hard to understand if you just read it instead of thinking you know everything.
So you can continue your rants, I know you will, as you're not a man of your word. But's that's okay Lee, we all like laughing at your ridiculous, uninformed opinions. And gee, for not being worth your wjile to respond to, I notice you seem to be a fan of mine since you can tell other posts I've responded to.
Best of luck to your six year old, they need it with your know-it-all-attitude.

You just don't understand what you're posting. I don't think there is any question a Shoplifter can be stopped. But no we're not talking about shoplifters in this post. We're talking about paying customers.

You've obviously not read much of the post or you would have cited an applicable law, not something you've obviously pulled from your butt.

The below statement from you is absurd:
But if you walk through the detectors and they go off, you can be stopped and held for shoplifting.

Hardly, if I haven't stolen anything, anyone who tries to detain me will be rebuffed and arrested for assault and illegal detainment. Why not add some charges of homicide and indecent exposure. They didn't see that either.

I've walked past buzzers many times at many establsihments, I've never been detained. The reason is because of the risk the merchant runs. If they haven't witnessed theft and they decide to detain me and they're wrong, they're screwed.

The word reasonable is sprinkled liberally throughout these laws.

Even if they witness someone shoplifting a Snickers Bar, physically detaining the shoplifter could be construed as unreasonable.

So it's 100% unreasonable to detain someone who didn't steal anything. now isn't it?

If a buzzer went off while you were walking past the doors of a merchant and you had not commited a theft and they requested you empty your pockets to prove your innocence, would you?

I could go on and on, but in conclusion, you have posted nothing of merit.

And I'm finsihed debating a mental llightweight the likes of you. My six year old has more powerful logical skills, So I'm not even going to waste anymore time responding to your silly little posts.

But I guess you can go and harrass Super Genius and d**k. I hear them calling.


And to the genius that suggested we shouldn't shop there, Sams Club stipulates it up front and their customers agree. And I guess it figures, anyone stupid enough to actually PAY a store to shop there is probably not bright enough to realize how humiliating it is to go through a receipt check of paid for goods. And unfortunately, there are obviously millions upon millions of people dumb enough to pay a membership fee to shop at store. This is beyond comprehension to anyone with an IQ above 80. What next, a day pass to Safeway for $5.00?

WalMart on the other hand is not a club, and the receipt check is optional, they however are not forthright in telling you it's optional, and thus should be eliminated.

The laws posted say that the tag alarm going off is probable casue to allow store employees to stop someone. Your list of six items that must occur is wrong as you are on this subject. Yes, if someone is seen to be shoplifting they can be stopped. But if you walk through the detectors and they go off, you can be stopped and held for shoplifting.

I found this site as I was searching something about Walgreens. I just have some information for the people that are upset because Wal-Mart is infringing on their rights. You have the right NOT to shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Clubs. That would stop all of the trouble you are going through. Did you ever consider this as one of your rights? I don't believe I have ever seen anyone being held hostage and MADE to shop at Wal-Mart. If I don't like a store, I don't go there. And this is what most citizens of this great, free country do. But then, you wouldn't have anything to gripe about and try to make yourself look really smart and independent, now would you?

Steven from Jacksonville and Striderq are just cutting and pasting laws that they don't bother to read or don't understand, or both.

Steven, every law you have posted involves shoplifting. Where is the law you keep quoting that allows for random search and seizure without probable cause. You've mentioned it countless times but keep producing laws that involve shoplifters.

It's really time for you to put up or shut up.

That goes for you too Striderq, put up laws that don't involve shoplifting, but the random violation of civil rights you so dearly embrace. nfortunate

Here's a little scenario for you to consider, and why checking receipts without probable cause can get Wal-Mart in big trouble.

My wife goes to Wal-Mart one day and purchases several items. Of those items is the latest Danielle Steele book in paperback. My wife has a habit of carrying books around in her purse wherever she goes. My wife gets home and puts everything away (including placing the book in her purse). She also takes her receipt out and puts it on the desk for me to enter the transaction into our account register on the computer.

Upon putting everything away she discovers that she forgot a few things and heads back to the store. One of the things she forgot was toilet paper. We get the big 24 roll packs that never fit into a bag. After she pays, she goes to exit the store. An overzealous Door Greeter decides she needs to be stopeed and have her receipt checked, and for some odd reason they want to check my wife's purse. She opens her purse, they see the book in there (looking brand new with the tag still on it) and decide she's a shoplifter and detain her. (We then sue Wal-mart for everything we can get out of them and win).



Now, how likely is this scenario? Not very. Can it happen? Absoutely! And I'd be willing to bet it happens more often than most people think.

Someone a few posts back asked me which civil liberties of mine were being violated by asking me for my receipt. Well, if we all cave in to Wal-Mart's policy (and it is just a policy and not a law on any state books that I have been able to find) instead of excercising our rights, what happens next? Does Wal-Mart then think it can institute a policy to have all receipts checked all the time (like Sam's Club)? Does it then go to being searched as we exit the store? Where will it stop?

Like I said before, they can ask for my receipt all they want. If I refuse to show it, I should be allowed to continue on my way. If I'm detained and accused of shoplifting, let's just say it will not go well for Wal-Mart.

I used to work for Wal-Mart, had to quit when my husband got a new job and hours didn't co-incide. Walmart has a HUGE theft prolem. In my month of working there I saw probably 3-4 people a week getting busted for theft and in my isle I found COUNTLESS pieces of merchandise opened with the product taken out and being stolen with the packaging discarded behind a box or this or that.

You should NOT take this personally. The truth is the dishonest theifs make it harder on everyone and we have to pay the price of being falsely accused sometimes. You should in NO way take this personally. They are perfectlly within their legal right to have you checked out if the even THINK you look suspicious. It's call "loss prevention". Annoying....maybe so, but still legal and legitimate.

They are just looking out for number 1, which ALL businesses will do. Being handicapped has nothing to do with anything when it comes to loss prevention. I'm sorry for the handicap, and sensitive to the looks and stares you may recieve because of it. (I also used to work taking care of handicapped and disabled people and loved my job. So I know how insensitive people can be towards hanicapped, but I assure you it had nothing to do with your handicap. All people can be theives and that what you have to realize. They aren't biased they just don't want anything stolen from them, so if anyone looks suspicious they will check into it.

Usually cops aren't called unless you HAVE stolen something, it's unfortunate if they were called on you and you didn't steal anything, that really sucks, but it is within their rights, Please don't take it personally. Just know they ARE within their rights and are just trying to do their jobs. All theft gets taken out of quartley bonuses that employees recieve so when people steal they are actually stealing from the store and the employees. Who wouldn't want to stop that from happenning? They are just being careful, don't take it personally. I do see how you can be upset though, but I would just let it go and move on. You are not the only one who's been falsley accused I'm sure. I'm sorry for the embarassment you had to go through.

Steven,

All of your assumptions and the alleged proof you posted is based on an actual shoplifting incident.

I do not shoplift, therefore they have no cause to detain me. They have no legal right to detain me to see my reciept unless they have observed me shoplifting.

You have not shown me anything to refute what I am saying.

The point was, that they do not have the right to detain someone SOLEY because they refuse to show a reciept.

And, for people paying in the dept instead of the front registers, this does not apply to me, as I ONLY pay at the front registers. AND, they eye in the sky knows this.

Therefore, that theory does not fly either.

Lee and Steve (in Bradenton). This has been a great discussion. I have supplied actual laws and legislation to prove my point now please prove yours (since I can assume that you are both the know it all types and feel that others can never provide enough proof to you).

Please show me proof. Not all these neat Wikipedia definitions or something you got from some law theory class. Show me an appellate or Supreme court ruling that overthrew a guilty verdict based on convictions for shoplifting that say that setting off the alarm was the sole reason for the suspect being stopped, searched, and ultimately convicted of shoplifting or other offense that says setting off the deterrent device was not probable cause to stop, search, and arrest the suspect.

All I ask is that you do that and I will admit to your reasoning.

Thanks

The Walmarts by me are all mega ones. You can purchase items in any department such as DVD's, outdoors equipment, etc... I can see your point to some degree if your supposition is that you took your item to the front of the store and pay for it there. But with the option of getting an item and paying for it at the back leaves the opportunity to pick up some more items from the back and head out towards the door without going by the cash registers. As I have said before I have only seen folks stopped that have the alarm go off.

If you trip off the alarm and elect not to stop then I guess that is your choice. But now you cannot claim ignorance of the law if you elect to "resist the merchant" and walk out or resist their efforts to detain you. Seems to me there wouldn't be a felony law for resisting a merchant if they feel that tripping the alarm is probable cause. I would assume by the law that they have already informed law enforcement. Once they get there I guess you can tell them why you saw no reason to stop since you didn't want to be inconvienced. I guess from there it depends on the officer. If they feel that the store was abusive they can have you press charges or they can tack on a few others if you convey your attitude towards them as well. Don't know about Bradenton Walmart but some of the ones around here have police break areas and there are always quite a few hanging around the store that can come up and talk to you.

But enough about me and my proof. Where is yours as to what does and does not count as probable cause. By your own admissions you are not a lawyer nor or you a judge. So I guess your opinion counts about as much as mine. The only opinion that matters is the courts.

With the laws of three states posted all saying the alarm going off is probable cause, you still stick to your guns saying it doesn't matter. Well if anything, you are persistant, wrong but persistant.

Steven-Jacksonville,

You still need to post the FL law that says a merchant can detain me for refusing to show my reciept.

I need to see this.

FYI...My position is that the clerk at the checkout register verified my items as being paid for. That clerk is a representative of the merchant. Therefore, the verification of payment thing has been satisfied.

If I go directly from the checkout register to the exit door, there should never be a reason to ask me for my reciept.

I suggest Wal Mart discontinue the practice of having merchandise between the register and the exit door. This is a bad practice, and I will not be responsible because they CHOOSE to engage in a poor practice. That is thier choice, and they can change it anytime.

However, I CHOOSE to not be inconvenienced, or insulted by it.

That is my choice.

And, I can make the choice to shop somewhere else who does not have this stupid policy.

Probable Cause Steps
To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should be follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

Step 1:
You must see a shoplifter enter your store or approach a display and see that the customer does not have any merchandise in their hand or that they haven't retrieved a item from their own purse, bag, or pocket. This step prevents a common mistake that occurs when a customer brings an item back to the store for a return and does not check in at the return desk first. If you detain someone after seeing them replace their own merchandise into their pocket or bag, you could be subject to a false arrest claim even though it is a seemingly honest mistake. Many false arrest claims are filed because retailers missed this important, but basic, first step.

Step 2:
You must see the shoplifter select the merchandise. Store employees can misunderstand when they see a customer innocently put an item into their pocket or purse and not realize that the customer had brought the item into the store with them for comparison purposes. If you can positively and honestly state that you saw the shoplifter remove your merchandise from your display prior to concealing it, then you have a strong foundation for proof of shoplifting.

Step 3:
You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away, or convert your merchandise. This includes concealment in bags, strollers, or on a person. Shoplifting can occur by wearing articles in plain view once the tags are removed. Shoplifting can occur by conversion, for example, when consuming food prior to being purchased. An exception to the observation rule is inside a fitting room where observation is impossible. Once inside a fitting room store merchandise can be concealed almost anywhere. The important factor is to know what items go into the fitting room and what items don't come out in plain view. Of course, the fitting room must be checked beforehand to see if it is clear of merchandise and after the suspected theft exits to see that the missing items were not simply discarded.

Step 4:
You must maintain continuous surveillance of the shoplifter. If your store policy is to detain and apprehend all shoplifters, then you must adhere strictly to this step. Experienced shoplifters will try to dump the concealed merchandise, without your knowledge, if they believe they have been observed. Many states have adopted merchant statutes to protect the retailer against this trick. If you followed steps 1-3 and then lost sight of the shoplifter for several minutes you may be surprised when you detain them and they are no longer holding your merchandise.

The best approach, if you lose sight of a shoplifter, is to make your presence know to the shoplifter and give them a chance to dump your merchandise and leave your store without a word being said. Sometimes, loss prevention personnel will walk nearby and turn up their mobile radios to alert the shoplifter that they are plain-clothes security. Another technique is to make a storewide P.A. announcement for security to come to the Children's department, for example, which is where the shoplifter happens to be standing. They will usually dump your merchandise immediately and hopefully never return.

Step 5:
You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for your merchandise. Typically, a shoplifter will walk out of your store, past all cash registers, without making any attempt to pay for the concealed merchandise. This is an important element to prove "intent" later in court, if necessary. Sometimes, shoplifters will go through the checkout line and pay for other items but not for the concealed item. It is important to observe that the concealed item is not retrieved and paid for at the checkout. It is also important to verbally confirm with the cashier that the concealed item was not paid for either. For example, a shoplifter may get a change of heart and tell the cashier that they consumed a candy bar worth .75 cents and the cashier rings it up.

If you don't inquire first, you could detain the shoplifter and have some exposure to litigation. Another example is when you observe a customer removing garment tags and dressing their child in new clothes and place the old clothes into a large bag. When the suspected shoplifter proceeds to the cashier, and without you knowledge, they present all the price tags and pay in full. Another example is when a customer at a grocery store tells the cashier to charge for a carton of cigarettes or a newspaper. After the transaction, the customer leaves the check stand a selects the cigarettes or newspaper from the stand in the lobby and exits, seemingly without paying.

Sometimes there is a reasonable explanation for removing merchandise, seemingly without paying, so you must be aware of the practices within various retail settings that would allow this to occur. Remember, some shoplifters are clever and will purchase an item, obtain a receipt, and dump it in their car. Next they return to the store to steal the exact same item. If stopped they can produce a receipt and even get the cashier to swear the item was purchased. I've seen the same item stolen five times using this technique until we busted him.

Step 6:
You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store. Although not technically necessary, following this step eliminates all possibility that the shoplifter still intends to pay for the stolen product. A few courts have held that detaining someone for shoplifting inside a retail store does not establish the criminal intent of theft. However, in several states shoplifters can be detained once they have concealed the merchandise. When approaching a shoplifter outside of the store always have a least one trained employee as a back up and witness.

There is safety in numbers and most shoplifters will cooperate if they believe fighting or running is futile. Always have at least one more loss prevention officer present than the number of shoplifters. When you approach a shoplifter outside it is important to identify yourself clearly and your authority for stopping them. Plain-clothes loss prevention agents carry badges or official looking ID cards so the shoplifter has no doubt who they are. Most shoplifter apprehensions should be accomplished with no force or if necessary, minimal force like touching or guiding. Professional loss prevention agents sometimes will use handcuffs to take someone into custody, if they are first trained how and when to legally apply them properly.

If you follow these six steps, you should have no problem with proving criminal intent to shoplift and be able to establish probable cause to detain a shoplifter. You should also be well insulated from civil liability if you followed these six steps correctly. Remember, the steps recommended in this article exceed most state laws and are not always required for successfully prosecuting a shoplifter. However, the steps are designed to provide consistency in procedures and training for loss prevention professionals and reduce civil liability for the retailer.

Looks like the lack of a receipt or the activation of a buzzer probably aren't very useful on their own.

Did a search for theft detection devices and probable cause and found the following Colorado state legislation amendment:

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
NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signature of the appropriate
legislative officers and the Governor. To determine whether the
Governor has signed the bill or taken other action on it, please consult
the legislative status sheet, the legislative history, or the Session Laws.

How can legislation be prepared if the courts say that setting off the theft deterrent alarms is not probable cause.

I found this cool Florida law that has been on the books. Says that store folks can detain you. Does not list what the stores can list as probable cause whether it is failure to comply with showing a receipt or tripping off the alarm. Probably gives them some coverage as far as holding a person that was actually shoplifting.

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.

Just some food for thought.

Exactly what civil liberty are you losing by showing youe receipt?

For Lexxa..If you're being paid by the hour shile shopping at Walmart, maybe you should shop on your own time and not the companies. I have never seen a line of poeple waiting to have their receipts checked.

People Greeters, by policy, are a branch of and directly commissioned as LP and AP Associates. Those books they have to fill out when you go through the door and set off the alarm? Loss Prevention Log Books. What is their purpose? To align the offenses with the timestamp on the camera.

How the system works? There is a camera above the automatic doors pointing toward the inventory control mechanism. When the alarm goes off, a visual "blip" happens on the tape. All runaways are recorded in the logbook, and if the "RAW" is an employee, they are instantly terminated. Reasonable Cause? DEFINATELY, even for a customer!!!

Another policy states, and is strictly monitored, that employees are only permitted to enter and exit using the customer doors. The only remaining doors are Fire Doors, Truck Bay Garage Doors, and DSD Garage Doors, which are all monitored heavily for use. There are no "Back Doors" specially made for employees.

How do I know all this information? I have been a CSM for 5 years running, and many times we have had arrests, simply because a customer didn't HAVE a receipt. Reasonable Cause??? HECK YES! They cannot prove that they paid for their merchandise, so they should be punished as such. Which brings me back to:

1. Keep your receipts at all costs! If your purchase is legitimate and something is wrong with your merchandise, you'll need it to return/exchange your item.

2. If you are not stealing, you really shouldn't have a problem in taking PRIDE in the fact that you are NOT a lowly shoplifter!

Susan,

First of all, the only reason for my initial response to you was to outline the difference between Wal-Mart and Sam's Club (whereas Sam's Club does have the right to ask for your receipt).

It's hard to determine which side of the fence you're on based on your last response, so I will break down each sentance individually:


Susan: I have been in stores such as Best Buy, mall stores and others and have personally been asked to show my receipt and seen other asked to show their receipt. Many stores do this today it is not uncommon.

Pat: Just because it's a common practice, it does not mean it's legal. People buy controlled substances everyday. Still ain't legal though.


Susan: The plain fact of the matter is 'GET OVER IT'. It does not hurt anybody and is not necessaryily an accusitition of theft.

Pat: "Get over it"? My civil liberties are being violated, but I should just "get over it"? Hmm, I don't think so. And them asking to see my receipt IS EXACTLY an accusation of theft. Why else would they want to look at my receipt? And the "just checking to make sure you were not overcharged" line won't fly here.


Susan: I have been accused of theft at the exit of a WalMart only to have the store securtity come over and tell the person who detained me I was not the person they were after. This is after being asked to search my coat at the door. That is humiliating as people walk by and look at you.

Pat: You should have sued them. I would have. It is not the responsibility of the door greeter to detain anyone suspected of theft, only LP can do that, and only if they personally witnessed the theft. Any attempt of the door greeter to detain you is an illegal act. I sure hope that greeter is no longer working there.


Susan: For all of you interested in knowing store employees do not have the right to search your person or personal effects. Only the police do.

Pat: That is correct. The only exception may be LP if they personally witnessed a theft take place. But this is a grey area in most states.


Susan: The store is only trying to proctect itself by random checks of receipts.

Pat: And in the process, they are taking away your civil liberties. Are we going to continue to allow businesses to dictate to us what our legal rights are? I'm not.

My time is worth money. I get paid by the hour. Walmart has no right to make me queue up to have my receipt checked. When I do shop at Walmart (not often) it's bad enough that I have to deal with their idiot cashiers chatting and taking their sweet time. They do not have the right to make me stand in yet another line to let some senior citizen paw through my bags.

Whenever I am in a non-club store and there is a line of sheep waiting to be told they are good little boys and girls, I just step to the side and go on by. If they have the cojones to say they would like to check my receipt, I politely say "no, thank you" and keep on going. I say kudos to the guy who got 10k for being man-handled.

If more people stood their ground, maybe Walmart would look at the real culprits and fire the employees who are the problem and replace them with decently paid people who don't have to steal to get by.

I have been in stores such as Best Buy, mall stores and others and have personally been asked to show my receipt and seen other asked to show their receipt. Many stores do this today it is not uncommon.

The plain fact of the matter is "GET OVER IT". It does not hurt anybody and is not necessaryily an accusitition of theft.

I have been accused of theft at the exit of a WalMart only to have the store securtity come over and tell the person who detained me I was not the person they were after. This is after being asked to search my coat at the door. That is humiliating as people walk by and look at you.

For all of you interested in knowing store employees do not have the right to search your person or personal effects. Only the police do.

The store is only trying to proctect itself by random checks of receipts.

Unfortunately, the individuals that believe that receipt checks are perfectly acceptable are hurting society in general. A large part of this country's judicial system is based on "innocent until proven guilty."

What next, the door greeters wearing latex gloves, and asking "Would you mind if I strip search you and perfom a body cavity search?, we've been having a lot of problems with people stealing hot dogs?"

Of course you'd look at them kind of funny, but heck, it's WalMart, and what if they ban you and your cash for not dropping trou, bending over and letting granny have a quick look with her probe to make sure you paid for all of your bananas?

Or ensure that someone hasn't strategically positioned some canteloupes or grapefruits.

It will only take a second, and besides, it will help maintain those low, low prices.

And as long as they ask and you consent it's A-OK.

Unfortunately, the individuals that believe that receipt checks are perfectly acceptable are hurting society in general. A large part of this country's judicial system is based on "innocent until proven guilty."

What next, the door greeters wearing latex gloves, and asking "Would you mind if I strip search you and perfom a body cavity search?, we've been having a lot of problems with people stealing hot dogs?"

Of course you'd look at them kind of funny, but heck, it's WalMart, and what if they ban you and your cash for not dropping trou, bending over and letting granny have a quick look with her probe to make sure you paid for all of your bananas?

Or ensure that someone hasn't strategically positioned some canteloupes or grapefruits.

It will only take a second, and besides, it will help maintain those low, low prices.

And as long as they ask and you consent it's A-OK.

Unfortunately, the individuals that believe that receipt checks are perfectly acceptable are hurting society in general. A large part of this country's judicial system is based on "innocent until proven guilty."

What next, the door greeters wearing latex gloves, and asking "Would you mind if I strip search you and perfom a body cavity search?, we've been having a lot of problems with people stealing hot dogs?"

Of course you'd look at them kind of funny, but heck, it's WalMart, and what if they ban you and your cash for not dropping trou, bending over and letting granny have a quick look with her probe to make sure you paid for all of your bananas?

Or ensure that someone hasn't strategically positioned some canteloupes or grapefruits.

It will only take a second, and besides, it will help maintain those low, low prices.

And as long as they ask and you consent it's A-OK.

Unfortunately, the individuals that believe that receipt checks are perfectly acceptable are hurting society in general. A large part of this country's judicial system is based on "innocent until proven guilty."

What next, the door greeters wearing latex gloves, and asking "Would you mind if I strip search you and perfom a body cavity search?, we've been having a lot of problems with people stealing hot dogs?"

Of course you'd look at them kind of funny, but heck, it's WalMart, and what if they ban you and your cash for not dropping trou, bending over and letting granny have a quick look with her probe to make sure you paid for all of your bananas?

Or ensure that someone hasn't strategically positioned some canteloupes or grapefruits.

It will only take a second, and besides, it will help maintain those low, low prices.

And as long as they ask and you consent it's A-OK.

I don't post on here much, but some of you people are unbelievable. Here's my thougths on the whole checking the bags thing.

As I have stated before, there is no "probable cause" for checking someone's purchases if the loss prevention person does not see it. You can go stick a whole ham up your shirt in front of the guy stocking the meat case, but unless someone from loss prevention sees you acting like such a complete idiot, the store personnel can't do anything. No store has a right to allow strangers to search your person or personal property unless their loss prevention sees a crime committed and even then, it is wiser to wait for the police to come and do the search themselves. Those of you that want to live in a police state where everything we do is watched and all our personal property is searched, go find another thread to haunt.

Personally, I find it offensive to have some complete stranger pawing through my bags. People that shoplift will not likely stick extra stuff in their bags. They'll generally carry it out on their person. How will the door greeter manage that? Maybe they should start doing strip searches at the front door. That might bring people to the store in droves. Getting back to the point, if I run in to Walmart for a box of tampons, why should some stranger be prying into my personal business by searching my bag?

On to the security guards forcing entry into a car to search it. I put all my shopping purses into the boot of my car. If I saw some guy, even one in a "uniform," trying to get into my trunk as I was putting my buggy away, I wouldn't hesitate to dial 911 to report someone breaking into my car. Likewise, if the same jerk tried to get into my car after I'd gotten into it....well, I'd definately have to agree with Steve in Bradenton here.....lethal force should be used. Criminals have been known to dress up as and impersonate police, security, ect. How do I know that this guy is actually working for Walmart? What if he's a serial rapist disguising himself as a security guard. If I had a gun, I'd definatly shoot him. It is my right to protect myself. Since I don't have a gun or even pepper spray (something I might should invest in), I would certainly use whatever brute force I could muster to knock said security guard or loss prevention gorilla or whatever on his butt while I called police.

Steve, I can't wait to hear about you suing Walmart because they tried to detain you and you had to shoot somebody. I'd send you card to congratulate you. Again, people, no private citizen (which is what loss prevention gorillas and security guards are) can lay a hand on you or detain you without having seen you commit a crime. If someone ever lays a hand on me, I'll knock him on his butt and then file charges against him. All you left-wing commies can go whine about how the offender's rights were violated, but leave us normal Americans out of it.

Hi Susan,

I just needed to make a minor correction to this statement:

'Wal Mart and Sam's Club are not the only stores that occassionally, or always for that matter, ask to look at your reciept when you exit the store. It has become a common practice that I believe that most people don't think anything of it.'

There is a big difference between Wal-Mart (or any other normal retailer) and Sam's Club (and Costco for that matter). In order to shop at Sam's Club, you must be a club member. In order to become a club member, you must sign a membership agreement. In that membership agreement, you grant consent for Sam's Club to check your receipt each and every time you leave the store. In fact, good luck getting out of there without showing your receipt.

I fully agree with the answers Lee provided as well.

Steven, you need to stay on the topic of this report (can Wal-Mart door greeter force you to show a receipt for purchases) and stop throwing out all these wild 'what if' scenarios.

Bottom line is, unless Wal-Mart LP has reasonable suspicion of you shoplifting something (unbagged items in cart does not qualify as 'reasonable susicion'), you are not required by any law to show your receipt after paying for your merchandise. It's that simple.

And finally, a comment on this comment from you:

'Why harass some person doing there (sic) job when you should be taking action against the company. I have yet to read about anyone boycotting Walmart for two or three weeks (I mean take out an ad and ask no one to go there). That way you are at least showing that you feel some of their policies suck.'

If the door greeters do their job properly (assuming they were trained properly as well), then they should know that customers are NOT required to show a receipt if asked for one. If the customer says "no", then they should politely allow them to continue on unhindered. How is this harrassing the door greeter?

Wal Mart and Sam's Club are not the only stores that occassionally, or always for that matter, ask to look at your reciept when you exit the store. It has become a common practice that I believe that most people don't think anything of it.

It is when the store employee takes the next step and asks you to remove your coat or to look into your purse, or anyohter more invasive inquiry that it becomes an issue. This is especially embarassing when they stop you at the exit door and aks these inquiries in front of the general public as they exit the store.

It is this policy that needs to be put into question. To protect the innocent we need to be asked to do these things and more intrusive questions in a more private area than in front of many other people. It is extremely humiliating.

To ask to show your receipt is no longer an embarassing thing as it has become so common.

My answers:

You walk out of Walmart after door person attempts to stop you. Security in parking lot parks behind you so you cannot leave while police are in route. You did not pay for something and police arrest you for shoplifting - what legal recourse do you have. Can you sue Walmart then???

(If I was shoplifting, the answers are none and no, shoplifting is a crime and the merchant may use reasonable means of detention. I don't think this point was ever in contention)


Okay lets change it a bit. Say Lee goes to Lowes (his other favorite store) and purchases say boxes of floor tiles and some lawn equipment. He can't fit it all in his trunk so ties it down before heading home. He stops off at Walmart (not likely but just follow along here) and goes in the store. A few minutes later some folks park adjacent to him in the parking lot cut the lines from where he tied down his trunk and start putting all his stuff in their truck. Security comes around and notices this activity. Now here is multiple choice question.

a. Should he stop behind the car and call into police and get description of truck and people but let them go after I get info.

b. Get out and ask for ID or confront the men and continue to block them in.

c. Just ignore the situation and keep going.

Possible outcomes??:

A. Lee comes out outraged that security person let people get away with his stuff if police don't arrive in time. Accuses security of being part of a theft ring. Attempts to sue Walmart because they did not safeguard the items in the trunk even though it was not properly closed. But hopefully Lee got it on his credit card
so he can file a police report and get items refunded (If the credit card companies still do that).

B. Two against one. Confrontation not a good idea anyway.

C. Lee comes out and find trunk empty. Has no recourse because he has no real proof items were there to begin with. Police may not bother to take report since Lee can't prove anything happened. Lee can't get credit from credit card company since he can't prove theft took place.

Just some food for thought. Things others do come around and bite others in the butt in the end especially if you make the option of not doing anything the best option available.

Lesson learned: Just because you can be a jerk doesn't necessarily mean you should be. Try exercising courtesy before being obnoxious.

Why harass some person doing there job when you should be taking action against the company. I have yet to read about anyone boycotting Walmart for two or three weeks (I mean take out an ad and ask no one to go there). That way you are at least showing that you feel some of their policies suck.

(The answer is it's breaking into a car. At most, the expectation would be they would call the police, but I certainly wouldn't want someone to risk their life for my personal property, as I would not do this either.)

Those are my answers, but the relevance of these questions are lost on me.

Sorry I was getting off track there. I gave you examples and you say not relevant even though I just dispelled your observe and report only stance. Your right different circumstances. I never said Walmart rent a cops could search cars. You failed to notice I was trying to give an analogy. I should have probably pointed that out since you guys are so literal. Sorry.

Here is another circumstance:

You walk out of Walmart after door person attempts to stop you. Security in parking lot parks behind you so you cannot leave while police are in route. You did not pay for something and police arrest you for shoplifting - what legal recourse do you have. Can you sue Walmart then???

Okay lets change it a bit. Say Lee goes to Lowes (his other favorite store) and purchases say boxes of floor tiles and some lawn equipment. He can't fit it all in his trunk so ties it down before heading home. He stops off at Walmart (not likely but just follow along here) and goes in the store. A few minutes later some folks park adjacent to him in the parking lot cut the lines from where he tied down his trunk and start putting all his stuff in their truck. Security comes around and notices this activity. Now here is multiple choice question.

a. Should he stop behind the car and call into police and get description of truck and people but let them go after I get info.

b. Get out and ask for ID or confront the men and continue to block them in.

c. Just ignore the situation and keep going.

Possible outcomes??:

A. Lee comes out outraged that security person let people get away with his stuff if police don't arrive in time. Accuses security of being part of a theft ring. Attempts to sue Walmart because they did not safeguard the items in the trunk even though it was not properly closed. But hopefully Lee got it on his credit card
so he can file a police report and get items refunded (If the credit card companies still do that).

B. Two against one. Confrontation not a good idea anyway.

C. Lee comes out and find trunk empty. Has no recourse because he has no real proof items were there to begin with. Police may not bother to take report since Lee can't prove anything happened. Lee can't get credit from credit card company since he can't prove theft took place.

Just some food for thought. Things others do come around and bite others in the butt in the end especially if you make the option of not doing anything the best option available.

Lesson learned: Just because you can be a jerk doesn't necessarily mean you should be. Try exercising courtesy before being obnoxious.

Why harass some person doing there job when you should be taking action against the company. I have yet to read about anyone boycotting Walmart for two or three weeks (I mean take out an ad and ask no one to go there). That way you are at least showing that you feel some of their policies suck.

Lee said if it could be proved the store had the right to check that he would accept it and stop posting. I provided the law and all he did was say it was wrong and kept up his attacks. Oh well... typical Class A personality.

Did you even read what I wrote? "Unless you work for Wal-Mart, or are legally representing them PLEASE STOP IT! " Obviously you didn't because you seem pissed. It's funny that I was able to get a reaction that soon after my post; again, VERY ARGUMENTATIVE which just proved my point. You need to take some sort of medication, I hear Xanax is good to mellow people out. Don't be angry because I called you out on your bull, just face it. You are what you are! Anyhoo, thanks for giving me my daily laugh, it was priceless.

You think I work for WalMart or am representing them?

You're either insane or you can't read. I've done nothing but slam them throughout this entire post you freakin' mental defective.

And by the way, you added nothing new or of value yourself, if you're so interested in ending this, then why did YOU keep it going. It would have been done had you not added your worthless and witless 2 cents.

Now piss off, Bart, mommy's calling you.

I have been reading this report for about 20 mins now about Wal-Mart and their anti-theft policy; Lee, you are truly one argumentative person. You seem like the kind of person who will keep an issue going long after it's been resolved just like on this report. Unless you work for Wal-Mart, or are legally representing them PLEASE STOP IT! It's annoying. I don't even know you and I can't stand you!

To the original poster; a company that houses varieties of products including grocery, jewelry, clothing, and electronics is probably susceptible to a lot of fraud and theft. Items that can't be bagged or sit at the bottom of the cart may be overlooked by the cashiers so checking the receipt is kind of just assuring that those items have been scanned. Don't take it personal, as everyone else has said, just show the receipt and keep it moving. If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart I would do it too. Some people will do anything to get over on large companies and it's not fair that good customers have to suffer but that's life.

To the person who won the $10,000.00 settlement, it was a brilliant idea but hopefully your karma will come back around and bite you in the butt. Hopefully it will cost you $10,000.00 in taxes on your home one year because you're really no better than the people who actually steal from Wal-Mart.

Steven,

You are mixing up the issues here. We were talking about rent-a-cops doing FORCIBLE searches, not voluntary. BIG DIFFERENCE!

A customer leaving a WalMart and having a rent-a-cop forcibly search a car is what we were talking about here.

A contractor or employee of a contractor entering or leaving a private property already consented to the search when they contracted the services performed, and that would be a commercial/company vehicle. That employee driving that company/commercial vehicle has no expectation of privacy.

That employee has the right to find another job if he/she does not like it, and the contractor has the choice to discontinue services to that property.

Here is the twist. Your power is out on that private property and the FPL repair person comes to fix it. You tell him/her that you need to search the vehicle on the way in and way out. He/she refuses. You turn him/her away, and do not get your power resored.

You just lost your job.
>>>
Steven
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.

Well let me put it this way
I have worked at a gated community in the past. At one time there was a problem with theft and we were asked to check cars going out that did not belong to residents and to check visitors coming in, if a visitor did not avail themselves to this no problem they just were allowed in. I was lucky for the most part I never had any problems. I would explain situation and leave it up to them. If they did not want to show ID or other give info I asked for then they didn't come in. Gave them the card of a number to call with any questions, gripes, or complaints. The few that gave me crap the first time never did a second time if they came thru when I was around. Just doing what was asked. No need for gang busters. I am aware of some vendors that lost contracts or had to fire some folks because their crews were beligerent when asked but then again thats their problem. They were told in advance what was going on.

See the same thing at company where I work. Security typed up memo for management approval. Says security can spot check peoples bags when they are leaving and search cleaning crew prior to them departing the premises.

When I went to company property in Tampa they had to check my bags prior to entry and again when I left. Once again if you object no problem you either aren't allowed to enter or leave until your manager arrives to supervise. If you don't like it then go (resign or be fired).

Despite all this banter about laws, in the end it just depends on who is in the right at the end of the day. I have heard about prevention staff detaining people against their will. In the cases that I have heard about the state attorney will not prosecute these cases. If the parties wished to pursue civil actions they could since they require only a preponderance as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not heard of Walmart being sued or criminially prosecuted around here (or any other retailer for that matter). I would think with the scrutiny that Walmart is constantly under that I would hear something. What CRIMINAL charges have been leveled against Walmart(or any other retailer) or their employees in response to physically detaining a shoplifter or suspect do you know of.


Thanks,
>>>>

Steven,

You are mixing up the issues here. We were talking about rent-a-cops doing FORCIBLE searches, not voluntary. BIG DIFFERENCE!

A customer leaving a WalMart and having a rent-a-cop forcibly search a car is what we were talking about here.

A contractor or employee of a contractor entering or leaving a private property already consented to the search when they contracted the services performed, and that would be a commercial/company vehicle. That employee driving that company/commercial vehicle has no expectation of privacy.

That employee has the right to find another job if he/she does not like it, and the contractor has the choice to discontinue services to that property.

Here is the twist. Your power is out on that private property and the FPL repair person comes to fix it. You tell him/her that you need to search the vehicle on the way in and way out. He/she refuses. You turn him/her away, and do not get your power resored.

You just lost your job.
>>>
Steven
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.

Well let me put it this way
I have worked at a gated community in the past. At one time there was a problem with theft and we were asked to check cars going out that did not belong to residents and to check visitors coming in, if a visitor did not avail themselves to this no problem they just were allowed in. I was lucky for the most part I never had any problems. I would explain situation and leave it up to them. If they did not want to show ID or other give info I asked for then they didn't come in. Gave them the card of a number to call with any questions, gripes, or complaints. The few that gave me crap the first time never did a second time if they came thru when I was around. Just doing what was asked. No need for gang busters. I am aware of some vendors that lost contracts or had to fire some folks because their crews were beligerent when asked but then again thats their problem. They were told in advance what was going on.

See the same thing at company where I work. Security typed up memo for management approval. Says security can spot check peoples bags when they are leaving and search cleaning crew prior to them departing the premises.

When I went to company property in Tampa they had to check my bags prior to entry and again when I left. Once again if you object no problem you either aren't allowed to enter or leave until your manager arrives to supervise. If you don't like it then go (resign or be fired).

Despite all this banter about laws, in the end it just depends on who is in the right at the end of the day. I have heard about prevention staff detaining people against their will. In the cases that I have heard about the state attorney will not prosecute these cases. If the parties wished to pursue civil actions they could since they require only a preponderance as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not heard of Walmart being sued or criminially prosecuted around here (or any other retailer for that matter). I would think with the scrutiny that Walmart is constantly under that I would hear something. What CRIMINAL charges have been leveled against Walmart(or any other retailer) or their employees in response to physically detaining a shoplifter or suspect do you know of.


Thanks,
>>>>

Steven,

You are mixing up the issues here. We were talking about rent-a-cops doing FORCIBLE searches, not voluntary. BIG DIFFERENCE!

A customer leaving a WalMart and having a rent-a-cop forcibly search a car is what we were talking about here.

A contractor or employee of a contractor entering or leaving a private property already consented to the search when they contracted the services performed, and that would be a commercial/company vehicle. That employee driving that company/commercial vehicle has no expectation of privacy.

That employee has the right to find another job if he/she does not like it, and the contractor has the choice to discontinue services to that property.

Here is the twist. Your power is out on that private property and the FPL repair person comes to fix it. You tell him/her that you need to search the vehicle on the way in and way out. He/she refuses. You turn him/her away, and do not get your power resored.

You just lost your job.
>>>
Steven
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.

Well let me put it this way
I have worked at a gated community in the past. At one time there was a problem with theft and we were asked to check cars going out that did not belong to residents and to check visitors coming in, if a visitor did not avail themselves to this no problem they just were allowed in. I was lucky for the most part I never had any problems. I would explain situation and leave it up to them. If they did not want to show ID or other give info I asked for then they didn't come in. Gave them the card of a number to call with any questions, gripes, or complaints. The few that gave me crap the first time never did a second time if they came thru when I was around. Just doing what was asked. No need for gang busters. I am aware of some vendors that lost contracts or had to fire some folks because their crews were beligerent when asked but then again thats their problem. They were told in advance what was going on.

See the same thing at company where I work. Security typed up memo for management approval. Says security can spot check peoples bags when they are leaving and search cleaning crew prior to them departing the premises.

When I went to company property in Tampa they had to check my bags prior to entry and again when I left. Once again if you object no problem you either aren't allowed to enter or leave until your manager arrives to supervise. If you don't like it then go (resign or be fired).

Despite all this banter about laws, in the end it just depends on who is in the right at the end of the day. I have heard about prevention staff detaining people against their will. In the cases that I have heard about the state attorney will not prosecute these cases. If the parties wished to pursue civil actions they could since they require only a preponderance as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not heard of Walmart being sued or criminially prosecuted around here (or any other retailer for that matter). I would think with the scrutiny that Walmart is constantly under that I would hear something. What CRIMINAL charges have been leveled against Walmart(or any other retailer) or their employees in response to physically detaining a shoplifter or suspect do you know of.


Thanks,
>>>>

I have worked at a gated community in the past. At one time there was a problem with theft and we were asked to check cars going out that did not belong to residents and to check visitors coming in, if a visitor did not avail themselves to this no problem they just were allowed in. I was lucky for the most part I never had any problems. I would explain situation and leave it up to them. If they did not want to show ID or other give info I asked for then they didn't come in. Gave them the card of a number to call with any questions, gripes, or complaints. The few that gave me crap the first time never did a second time if they came thru when I was around. Just doing what was asked. No need for gang busters. I am aware of some vendors that lost contracts or had to fire some folks because their crews were beligerent when asked but then again thats their problem. They were told in advance what was going on.

See the same thing at company where I work. Security typed up memo for management approval. Says security can spot check peoples bags when they are leaving and search cleaning crew prior to them departing the premises.

When I went to company property in Tampa they had to check my bags prior to entry and again when I left. Once again if you object no problem you either aren't allowed to enter or leave until your manager arrives to supervise. If you don't like it then go (resign or be fired).

Despite all this banter about laws, in the end it just depends on who is in the right at the end of the day. I have heard about prevention staff detaining people against their will. In the cases that I have heard about the state attorney will not prosecute these cases. If the parties wished to pursue civil actions they could since they require only a preponderance as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not heard of Walmart being sued or criminially prosecuted around here (or any other retailer for that matter). I would think with the scrutiny that Walmart is constantly under that I would hear something. What CRIMINAL charges have been leveled against Walmart(or any other retailer) or their employees in response to physically detaining a shoplifter or suspect do you know of.


Thanks,

Steven of JAX has given some VERY bad advice on this car search thing by rent-a-cops.

First of all, let me reiterate that a rent-a-cop has absolutely no more legal authority than any other citizen. They are NOT law enforcemnt of ANY kind. They are CIVILIANS. They are a JOKE!

Now, let me explain FLORIDA law to everyone. The old 'castle doctrine" of FL has been revised and now no longer requires the victim to attempt to retreat. AND, that protection extends to my car where ever in FL I may be. I do not need any other reason, and there doesn't even have to be a weapon involved, or other fear for my life requirement.

As soon as anyone in the State of FL even attempts to forcibly enter MY car, the use of deadly force is AUTOMATICALLY engaged in.
No questions asked. Nothing but paperwork.

This equals 1 dead rent-a-cop as soon as he/she decides to be a hero.
Is that 8 bucks an hour worth dying for? Think about it.

And, FYI..MANY other states have enacted similar laws, and there is a FEDERAL LAW against carjacking where deadly force can be used. Car Jacking is defined as anyone forcibly attempting to enter your vehicle while you are in it. With or without a weapon.

Food for thought.


>>>
Lee Ving
San Fransciso, California
U.S.A.

A question for Steven of Jacksonville
Help me understand.

I get in my car at my local WalMart, and a rent-a-cop can force his way into my car to search it? For no reason. Your exact wording is (Security guards don't need probable cause to search a car on the properties they are guarding (at least in Florida) and criminal attorneys can not toss out evidence revealed by a security guard to police (sometimes that's why they like having them around).

I'm sure there are laws regarding personal space in Florida, typically within 18 inches of a person against there will can be construed as assault (a victim of assault need only be scared that battery is about to occur) and the victim may use reasonable force to rebuff the assailant. ie, if he shoves his way into your vehicle to check a bag without a weapon, then you can beat the crap out of him in a reasonable manner.

I find it absolutely preposterous to think that rent-a-cops given super powers that cops don't have.

I know these rent-a-cops aren't the brightest, but consider a random search of a vehicle without probable cause would probably translate into a lot beatings to rent-a-cops. And the people doing the beating would be off the hook because THEY are assault victims.

Possibly, you're just rent-a-cop dreaming of the day you can make that big toilet paper bust and get promoted to Senior Rent-A-Cop. Oh, I mean Loss Prevention Specialist.

>>

This is your exact wording on car searches by rent a cops:

I guess dependent on state laws probable cause is limited to police officers. Security guards don't need probable cause to search a car on the properties they are guarding (at least in Florida)

that if there is no sign in place that says they will spot check every (fill in number here)th cart, that patrons would be perfectly within their right to not show a receipt when demanded?

After all, it's not the customer's problem that the store trains its employees to check receipts. And hopefully during their training, they are being told the following:

'If a customer is exiting the store with unbagged merchandise, politely ask if you may check their receipt. If they refuse, allow them to continue on their way unhindered as we can't force them to show it.'

If not, they could find themselves on the wrong side of a lawsuit.

that if there is no sign in place that says they will spot check every (fill in number here)th cart, that patrons would be perfectly within their right to not show a receipt when demanded?

After all, it's not the customer's problem that the store trains its employees to check receipts. And hopefully during their training, they are being told the following:

'If a customer is exiting the store with unbagged merchandise, politely ask if you may check their receipt. If they refuse, allow them to continue on their way unhindered as we can't force them to show it.'

If not, they could find themselves on the wrong side of a lawsuit.

Wasn't saying anything about driving cars into Walmart and having them searched. Was just saying that if police can set up checkpoints and search every 5th or 10th car then there is no reason why Walmart can't set up a sign saying that they have the right to search every 10th cart leaving the store unless an alarm goes off otherwise. Patron's have been advised and have the right to walk out of the store if they don't want to be subject to this search.

It's been years since I've been a rent a cop. I work in IT now and have been for a while.

Maybe these folks wouldn't have a problem if they had showed common courtesy to the Walmart employees that are tasked with checking receipts. I am sure that they don't enjoy the hassle some of these jerks have given them for just doing what they were asked by their employer to do.

Agree that any physical contact is out of the question unless they are attacked or treated aggressively. I personally don't see physical action as a necessity.

Help me understand.

I get in my car at my local WalMart, and a rent-a-cop can force his way into my car to search it? For no reason. Your exact wording is (Security guards don't need probable cause to search a car on the properties they are guarding (at least in Florida) and criminal attorneys can not toss out evidence revealed by a security guard to police (sometimes that's why they like having them around).

I'm sure there are laws regarding personal space in Florida, typically within 18 inches of a person against there will can be construed as assault (a victim of assault need only be scared that battery is about to occur) and the victim may use reasonable force to rebuff the assailant. ie, if he shoves his way into your vehicle to check a bag without a weapon, then you can beat the crap out of him in a reasonable manner.

I find it absolutely preposterous to think that rent-a-cops given super powers that cops don't have.

I know these rent-a-cops aren't the brightest, but consider a random search of a vehicle without probable cause would probably translate into a lot beatings to rent-a-cops. And the people doing the beating would be off the hook because THEY are assault victims.

Possibly, you're just rent-a-cop dreaming of the day you can make that big toilet paper bust and get promoted to Senior Rent-A-Cop. Oh, I mean Loss Prevention Specialist.

I have no problems with any law enforcement officer. I will give them every courtesy I can as I would not want that job.

However, I DO, have a BIG problem with RENT-A-Cops [security guards]. They have absolutely no legal authority that the average citizen has. NONE.

They cannot [forcibly] search your car.

They cannot detain you unless you pose a real threat to someone elses personal safety. I can do the same thing as they can. No rent-a-cop badge required.

Fact. No Wally Mart security thug will ever forcibly detain me, search my bag, or my car. GUARANTEED. Any attempt will be a 1 time deal. GUARANTEED.

"probable cause" laws were designed to protect the citizen from overzealous public "servants." in some cases,they can also be used to protect citizens from each other,if need be. however, i bet lee wouldn't dare drive past a "spot-check" operation looking for dui's. i was once stopped by co. sheriff because i was driving a dark color van(albeit noticeably different color) that could be mistaken for a reported thiefs van if the witness was almost blind(it was at night,after all.). the deputy was apologizing at 1/2 van length walking up to me & explained he was "just being certain." i guess i was too old, not the right color, too many people in the van, etc. he did not scrutinize me, my family, or van. the only reason he walked up to me was to apoligize for lighting me up & stopping me!

was he within his lawful powers to stop me? no! were my rights violated? somewhat! did i sue? no! why? because he made what i felt was a reasonabe mistake while perfoming his constitutional duties. i take particular offense to many "law enforcement" & "judicial" types who overstep their lawful(notice, i didn't say "legal?" there is difference!)boundaries. this deputy was very apologetic & polite to a fault,& i believe very sincere. I am more concerned with our public servants who fervently cloak themselves in officialdom than i am a fellow sovereign citizen l.p. employed by walmart or other retailer, although they can and sometimes do trample on our individual rights--but our gov't at all levels do it in secret under color of law. thank you for reading this dissertation.:)

From the "For what it's worth" department:

I went into Wal-Mart the other night. As I entered, I purposefully looked for any signage regarding anti-shoplifting devices in use. In the upper right-hand corner at the second set of double doors leading into the store was a closed-circuit TV monitor that had a small sign hanging from it that said something like:

"To our valued customers:

For your protection and to help keep our prices low, this store uses closed-circuit television and anti-theft devices."

I think this is sufficient notice regarding the anti-theft tags. So if the alarm goes off as you exit, that should be considered probable cause.

In this particular situation, I have no problem stopping and having my bag checked. The Arizona statutes are not real clear on what defines "probable cause" (see Titel 13, Statute 13-1805), so I won't take my chances there.

However, I still have every right to continue on my way unhindered if no alarm goes off and they simply ask to see my receipt. On this night we purchased a toy for my daughter that did not fit in a bag (too tall). On the way out, the greeter was busy doing something else and did not stop me and ask for my receipt, so I did not get to "flex my civil rights muscle" on this trip.

You forget of course that there are ways around probable cause to do car searches or even cart searches if desired. Quite simply set up a plan to search say every 10th cart and stick to it (unless something happens that another cart may set off an alarm). The police and law enforcement have been doing this for years setting up road blocks for "safety searches" or "DUI checkpoints". In the Coast Guard we used them for boardings. This is a way around "profiling" as well.

You forget of course that there are ways around probable cause to do car searches or even cart searches if desired. Quite simply set up a plan to search say every 10th cart and stick to it (unless something happens that another cart may set off an alarm). The police and law enforcement have been doing this for years setting up road blocks for "safety searches" or "DUI checkpoints". In the Coast Guard we used them for boardings. This is a way around "profiling" as well.

You forget of course that there are ways around probable cause to do car searches or even cart searches if desired. Quite simply set up a plan to search say every 10th cart and stick to it (unless something happens that another cart may set off an alarm). The police and law enforcement have been doing this for years setting up road blocks for "safety searches" or "DUI checkpoints". In the Coast Guard we used them for boardings. This is a way around "profiling" as well.

You forget of course that there are ways around probable cause to do car searches or even cart searches if desired. Quite simply set up a plan to search say every 10th cart and stick to it (unless something happens that another cart may set off an alarm). The police and law enforcement have been doing this for years setting up road blocks for "safety searches" or "DUI checkpoints". In the Coast Guard we used them for boardings. This is a way around "profiling" as well.

First, Walmart security or Doorpersons, etc. cannot detain you because you refuse to show a reciept. They cannot touch you at all. If they do, it is a felony assault. Then he goes to jail after he gets out of the hospital, and Wally mart gets sued.

The store must have REASONABLE suspicion that you have stolen merchandise in your possession to even think about detaining you. And, keep in mind that as soon as that rent-a-cop touches me, I can defend myself and beat the living hell out of him. A rent-a-cop does not have the authority or the protections under the law as a law enforcement officer does.

As far as a rent-a-cop searching my vehicle, etc. It simply will not happen. They DO NOT have this legal right. A cop cannot even search it without probable cause and/or a warrant. They can post whatever they like on that private property, but when it comes right down to it, I can refuse, and they have no recourse but to walk away. I have already been down this road with the rent-a-cop thing.

A rent-a-cop has no more authority or rights than any other civilian.

I guess dependent on state laws probable cause is limited to police officers. Security guards don't need probable cause to search a car on the properties they are guarding (at least in Florida) and criminal attorneys can not toss out evidence revealed by a security guard to police (sometimes that's why they like having them around). So this "probable cause" talk is a bunch of smoke by armchair detectives and self study lawyers. A person would be well served by reviewing the laws in their states before walking into Walmart (or anywhere else) and then refusing to show a receipt for purchases if asked. But then again since I don't steal I don't mind if someone asks though they usually don't. The only time I have ever personally observed anyone being stopped was if the alarm went off when they walked by. This is quickly resolved by double-checking the receipt.

I decline all the time when they want to see my reciept, but usually nothing is done.

This is just plain inconvenient for me, as I pay with a debit card, and file the reciept in my wallet as soon as I make the purchase so it gets deducted from my checkbook register. Keeping it out just to show some moron at the door puts my finances at risk.

I am just waiting for someone to grab me in any way, or for the "security" thugs to show up. I can put these fools on the ground and still get paid!

Thats a 2 for 1!

Remember, the ONLY reason this is being done, is because WalMart CHOOSES to put merchandise past the registers. That is their choice and I will not be inconvenienced because they made a bad CHOICE.

La71009 you taught them a lesson. I am proud of you. People like you deserve a medal. Better yet......I will vote for you if you run for office. You are a rebel and we need more Americans like you.

As for the rest of the Right Wing Stalinists Republicans. Pack up your bags and move to a dictatorship country. Where you get asked by every plainclothes for papers.....Your papers.....Where are you going.......

This is America....StalinMart lost my Christmas money to the tune of 500.00. So it may not hurt there bottomline much but I have the satisfaction knowing that StalinMart did not get it.

Boycott StalinMart.

You were irritated and then got upset at the greeter for doing their job? Not a rip off. A MINOR inconvenience, one easily solved by showing the receipt. No violation of "rights".

This has nothing to do with a buzzer but that is an interesting point. The door people watched my wife and I check out less than forty feet. I feel very strongly about my personal rights and privacy. Wal Mart asks you to trust them but they do not their customers. In many places around the US Wal marts are the only place to shop and if you want something better you may have to travel farther. I was not in the best of moods when this happened. Most of the time we shop late at night. Wal mart turns the air off and I have to move stuff out of the way all through the shopping trip. My wife and I are both handicapped and have a hard time getting around. After sweating my a*s off, moving crap out of our way for a few hours you would think that they could treat you better. Thanks for all the responses

just as I thought. even though he said that if I posted the law and he was wrong that he would admit it, he just continues to rationalize and complain. That's okay Lee, that's exactly what I thought you would do. You can have your own opinion, that's what America is about. But if you say something you should follow through.
But then again, Lee says this is done so I gues Lee has left the building.

How about telling customers the truth Jim, like they are NOT required to show a receipt? That WalMart has no right to ask for a receipt unless they caught you?

Why not put up a sign stating that the receipt check is optional?

Because they want you to think they can do it, that's why. If you walk by them, they can't do a thing. But I believe 90% of the people asked by the greeter show the receipt, and of that 90%, the percent shoplifting is probably close to 0. The majority of the stolen goods are going out the back door. Then they raise the prices to offset the theft by their own employees.

Do you like paying extra for goods because the merchant is going after the wrong target?

Don't you think it would be more effective to catch the real crooks instead of some geriatric who probably can't read anyway check the receipt?


Sounds like a rip-off to me?

I still do not see how this is a case of being ripped off. This is a case of being inconvenienced. We are all inconvenienced in some way or another every day, however this site is not for that, it is to let the public know about companies that are not delivering on services or merchandise after being paid.
As to Lee, you are certainly entitled to you opinion, and I respect that, however I am disappointed that you had to suggest I am an idiot because I too have an opinion.

I believe this is what I've been saying all along. The ONLY probable cause is the actual witnessing of the theft.

I, Lee Ving am 100% correct in all of my statements.

I now consider this matter closed.

Thank You

I worked in retail for many years and have even worked for Wal-Mart, and I have learned plenty about shoplifters and suspected shoplifters. If you work at a store and are not part of Loss Prevention, you do not have the authority to detain a customer you suspect of shoplifting. Loss Prevention staff are the only ones that have the authority to do that. Even if you as a regular Wal-Mart employee see someone nick something, you can't stop them. For Loss Prevention to detain a shoplifter/suspected shoplifter, they have to have seen (with their own eyes) the individual take the item. They cannot detain a suspected shoplifter or even an actual shoplifter unless they witness the crime themselves.

On a (very slight) tangent about the shoplifting, I have this story from personal experience. When I was in my freshman year of college, I took to carrying around my backpack just about everywhere but to church. One day, I went to Wal-Mart (it was just about the only place to shop in that small town) and was looking at cosmetics because I had need of face powder. There I was wearing my backpack and looking at makeup when an employee comes over to me and asks me if I needed help. I politely said no. Now, had I been that employee, I would have walked away after finding the customer did not need help. Instead, this employee hangs around not doing much of anything except watch me to make sure I didn't nick anything. Don't these people have more things to do than to harass a college kid (and I went to a Christian college) that's looking for the particular type of makeup she wants?

It is true what was said in an earlier rebuttal. Employees do indeed steal more than customers. I am guilty of showing my receipt at Wal-Mart, but that's only because I'm too nice to say no.

The law you cited is extremely loose and highly interpretable.

How do you really know who set the buzzer off?

What if numerous people are exiting the store at the same time, and the buzzer goes off, how do you know which one set it off? Do you detain everyone? It's not often that only one person is exiting at a time.

If you did, then you would be illegally detaining the others who did not set off the buzzer. It's the merchants reponsibility to know who set the buzzer off well in advance of it being set off. The law does state the person that set the buzzer off.

Are you telling me that the store would be justified in illegally detaining everyone in the vicinity to determine who set the buzzer off. From what I conclude, it would be illegal detainement if you didn't set the buzzer off. What if no one set the buzzer off. It would appear foolish to try to stop someone who refuses to stop for a buzzer, unless you had proof they stole the merchandise. It's too risky on the part of the merchant as they would have to prove that the customer actually set the buzzer off.

What about someone who didn't make a purchase, but is exiting as the buzzer goes off, can they be detained?

The law you cited appears to pretty worthless to a merchant.

It's not my job to be excluded as a shoplifter for a merchant. It's the merchants reponsibility to identify the theives as they are commiting the crimes.

I don't shoplift, never have and never will. So I don't know how I contribute to shrinkage, and if a court of law determined that a battery was committed by a WalMart employee against a customer, that employee should be punished.

Do you think that WalMart employees are above the law?

I also don't need to shop at WalMart like you do, and I don't. I shop at establishments that engage in legal practices.

It's a fact that WalMart's core customer base is low income individuals. Low income most often translates to low education which translates to a tolerance of illegal policies such as WalMart engages in.

As a matter of fact, WalMart has failed disasterously at trying to attract upper income customers like Target did.

There were 2 reasons for this:

1. WalMart's core audience couldn't afford the upper end items.
2. Upper income customers wouldn't purchase an upper end item even it were cheaper at WalMart.

I recently purchased some higher end Sony electronics that were a bit cheaper at WalMart. Well, there was no way I was going in their to spend $1000, only to have to prove I paid for the items to save $30. Many people I know feel the same way.

WalMart got bagged for hiring illiegal immigrants to construct stores in PA. So they check honest, law abiding customer's receipts, but don't check the work papers of the people building their stores? I've worked for numerous large companies, and proving your legal work status as either a contractor or regular employees is absolutely mandatory, and very serious.


Striderq, that's nice, however, it also states that the information needs to posted, which in my visits to a WalMart in CA, that's not the case. I don't know about AK.

As far as the CA law goes, what are you telling me? It states that there must be reasonable cause, which I agree. And that reasonable cause needs to be the actual witnessing of the theft.

The SIMPLE solution would be to have NO MERCHANDISE past the checkout register.

The other solution would be to tag big items that do not fit in a bag as paid.

It is not my fault that WalMart puts merchandise past the checkout registers.

I never show a reciept. It is principle. If they have suspicion that I stole something, they can call the police.

And, it is inconvenient as I use my debit card, and my reciept goes immediately in my wallet at checkout so I don't lose it before deducting the purchase from my checkbook register.

The SIMPLE solution would be to have NO MERCHANDISE past the checkout register.

The other solution would be to tag big items that do not fit in a bag as paid.

It is not my fault that WalMart puts merchandise past the checkout registers.

I never show a reciept. It is principle. If they have suspicion that I stole something, they can call the police.

And, it is inconvenient as I use my debit card, and my reciept goes immediately in my wallet at checkout so I don't lose it before deducting the purchase from my checkbook register.

The SIMPLE solution would be to have NO MERCHANDISE past the checkout register.

The other solution would be to tag big items that do not fit in a bag as paid.

It is not my fault that WalMart puts merchandise past the checkout registers.

I never show a reciept. It is principle. If they have suspicion that I stole something, they can call the police.

And, it is inconvenient as I use my debit card, and my reciept goes immediately in my wallet at checkout so I don't lose it before deducting the purchase from my checkbook register.

The SIMPLE solution would be to have NO MERCHANDISE past the checkout register.

The other solution would be to tag big items that do not fit in a bag as paid.

It is not my fault that WalMart puts merchandise past the checkout registers.

I never show a reciept. It is principle. If they have suspicion that I stole something, they can call the police.

And, it is inconvenient as I use my debit card, and my reciept goes immediately in my wallet at checkout so I don't lose it before deducting the purchase from my checkbook register.

Even with the law right in front of you, you still want to deny it. The buzzer can get you stopped. And please reread the part of the person who stopped you not being "rendered liable". which means if their doing their job and do it in a reasonable manner you have no grounds to sue.

"t's really no wonder that WalMart has the highest shrinkage rate in the business.

It's because they're wasting their time checking receipts of honest, law-abiding customers and letting the real crooks and their employees rip them off. It doesn't seem to prudent to me to concentrate efforts on paying customers."

-no it's because of people like you and La71009. It's people like you guys who abuse the system for your own selfish gain. Your probably on welfare, am I wrong?

Do you REALLY believe what you are saying? Me thinks you don't (mostly because none of it is true) and you just had a bad experience with Wal-Mart.

The actual crime must be witnessed by the merchant. A buzzer going off is not probable cause, since there are so many other reasons that the buzzer could set off.

The buzzer is only a deterrent, and not a very good one. It can't stand on it's own as probable cause.

If WalMart were to detain a paying customer and call the police, just because THEY didn't properly use THEIR system, they'd be screwed.

It's really no wonder that WalMart has the highest shrinkage rate in the business.

It's because they're wasting their time checking receipts of honest, law-abiding customers and letting the real crooks and their employees rip them off. It doesn't seem to prudent to me to concentrate efforts on paying customers.

Here's the wording of Arkansas Satte Law and California Penal Code. As you can see, the buzzer is probable casue, at least in Arkansas. And in California, the merchant can search anything in plain sight or in your immediate area, except NOT the clothes you're wearing. So I guess your mints are safe. As long as they don't have you on tape sticking them in your pocket.


Arkansas State law
5-36-116. Shoplifting.
(a) (1) A person engaging in conduct giving rise to a presumption under 5-36-102(c) may be detained in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time by a law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee in order that recovery of a good may be effected.

(2) The detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee does not render the law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

(b) (1) If sufficient notice has been posted to advise patrons that an antishoplifting or inventory control device is being utilized, the activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person's exiting an establishment or a protected area within the establishment constitutes reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator.

(2) Any detention under subdivision (b)(1) of this section shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the antishoplifting or inventory control device or for the recovery of a good.

(3) A detention under subdivision (b)(1) of this section by a law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee does not render the law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

(c) As used in this section, antishoplifting or inventory control device means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure or from a protected area within a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure.

(d) (1) Upon probable cause for believing a suspect has committed the offense of shoplifting, a law enforcement officer may arrest the person without a warrant.

(2) The law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee who has observed the person accused of committing the offense of shoplifting shall provide a written statement that serves as probable cause to justify the arrest.

(3) The accused person shall be brought immediately before a magistrate and afforded an opportunity to make a bond or recognizance as in other criminal cases.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 490.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

490.5. (f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.
(2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to prevent escape of the person detained or the loss
of tangible or intangible property.
(3) During the period of detention any items which a merchant or theater owner, or any items which a person employed by a library facility has probable cause to believe are unlawfully taken from the premises of the merchant or library facility, or
recorded on theater premises, and which are in plain view may be examined by the merchant, theater owner, or person employed by a library facility for the purposes of ascertaining the ownership thereof.
(4) A merchant, theater owner, a person employed by a library facility, or an agent thereof, having probable cause to believe the person detained was attempting to unlawfully take or has taken any item from the premises, or was attempting to operate a video recording device within the premises of a motion picture theater without the authority of the owner of the theater, may
request the person detained to voluntarily surrender the item or recording. Should the person detained refuse to surrender the recording or item of which there is probable cause to believe has been recorded on or unlawfully taken from the premises, or attempted to be recorded or unlawfully taken from the premises,
a limited and reasonable search may be conducted by those authorized to make the detention in order to recover the item. Only packages, shopping bags, handbags or other property in the immediate possession of the person detained, but not including any clothing worn by the person, may be searched pursuant to
this subdivision. Upon surrender or discovery of the item, the person detained may also be requested, but may not be required, to provide adequate proof of his or her true identity.
(7) In any civil action brought by any person resulting from a detention or arrest by a merchant, it shall be a defense to such action that the merchant detaining or arresting such person had probable cause to believe that the person had stolen or attempted to steal merchandise and that the merchant acted
reasonably under all the circumstances.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) "Merchandise" means any personal property, capable of manual delivery, displayed, held or offered for retail sale by a merchant.
(2) "Merchant" means an owner or operator, and the agent, consignee, employee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any personal property capable of manual delivery.
(3) "Theater owner" means an owner or operator, and the agent, employee, consignee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises used for the exhibition or performance of motion pictures to the general public.
(4) The terms "book or other library materials" include any book, plate, picture, photograph, engraving, painting, drawing, map, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, broadside, manuscript, document, letter, public record, microform, sound recording,
audiovisual material in any format, magnetic or other tape, electronic data-processing record, artifact, or other documentary, written or printed material regardless of physical form or characteristics, or any part thereof, belonging to, on
loan to, or otherwise in the custody of a library facility.

So there you have it folks, most states probably have laws very similar to these two. Guess that means you can play hardball and not show your receipt and then wait around until the police come and show them or you can take 10 seconds to show the greeter. I know these facts will not change anyone's mind on this issue, but it does show a few people were wrong in their postings.

The buzzer goes off when something still has the inventory tag attached to it - if the inventory tag is still on the item, the buzzer's sound represents the item was not properly checked out of the store. If it was not checked out of the store properly - it means one of two things:

1. The clerk failed to remove the tag
2. The customer exited the store without paying for the item.

Either way, the store has the right to determine in such a situation why the buzzer went off by investigating the matter. The investigation concludes when the greeter removes the item from the bag. If the customer proves the item was purchased, then the inventory tag is removed and the customer can leave. In other words, the buzzer IS sufficient probable cause in this and every other country, regardless of the type of government. The only difference is whether you are let go when shown innocent, or strip searched and cattleprodded for sheer entertainment value.

WalMart got off the hook pretty cheap. There should have been two more 0's added to the figure.

The WalMart employee committed battery, and LA71009 was harmed and humiliated.

I think 10K, was sweet deal for WalMart.

It's a good thing there are people like La71009 who stick up for our rights.

As stated before, I have reviewed Arkansas State law 5-36-116. It is not specific to shoplifting. It is the general criminal procedures of Arkansas which include shoplifting. Again, I have found no mention of a buzzer or a inventory control devices. And even if this were true, WalMart does not post this information visibly anywhere in their store, so your point is moot.

Why can't you just post the text as previously requested, or guide me to the section that stipulates this.

So I'm asking you again, substantiate your posting, and I will admit you are right.

Otherwise, please "Buzz" off Bozo.

You must not have read that law very closely. It specifically states that if the store uses antishoplifting or inventory control tags and the buzzer sounds whent a custoner walks out that it IS probable cause to suspect shoplifting. So either you didn't read the law or you just want to be argumentative. Either way, sorry, in Arkansas the buzzer is probable cause and it is probably that way in other states.

I can't believe that! You basically stole $10k from Walmart, and you were responsible for someone losing their job. All because an employee asked you to look at your receipt, and for some strange reason you felt like being an a**. You seem so very proud of this. Is there any decency left in the human race? You could have avoided this whole thing by just saying, "sure no problem" and showing them your receipt. Or did you just happen to steal something that day?

Productive criticism does not include calling people idiots and insane.

I am in favor of DUI checkpoints and having to prove my US Citizenship, but this does not classify me as an idiot. In addition, just because I am OK with showing my receipt does not mean I am on the lower end of the intelligence and income spectrum, and it does not mean I don't place a value on my personal rights. In fact, not only do I place a value on my personal rights, but I also place a value on the rights of others (people and entites). How does this make me an idiot?

Jim, seems you've spent too much time in the Arizona sun without a hat.

If a policeman stops you for no reason and asks to search your car ( and you have nothing to hide) do you scream foul and raise cain? No, you let the officer check your car and go on your way.
(Are you talking about the USA, or the dictatorship that you currently live in?)


Lots of bonafide arrests have been made when officers ( or security people) on a hunch ask to check someone's property to make sure they are not smuggling something even though they appeared to be doing nothing wrong.

(Here in the USA, there has to be probable cause, any evidence obtained by a hunch is inadmissable, and the case would be thrown out)

Unfortunately, there's enough idiots like you around to tolerate this crap and willing to forgo their rights for perceived low prices. Your Costco example is not valid because it's a club, and they stipulate receipt checks as part of membership.

You're insane, and you're scary too. How about the cops just coming to your house for a "look around", with no warrant and they plant drugs on you because they don't like you. Would you like that?

I agree that it is a pain to have a greeter ask to see your receipt, but at some retailers it is the norm (Costco, etc). Why is it such a big deal? If a policeman stops you for no reason and asks to search your car ( and you have nothing to hide) do you scream foul and raise cain? No, you let the officer check your car and go on your way. Lots of bonafide arrests have been made when officers ( or security people) on a hunch ask to check someone's property to make sure they are not smuggling something even though they appeared to be doing nothing wrong.

In this case Wal-Mart wants to make sure that the majority of us are not getting away with something that the minority of us are guilty of. If it weren't for thieves we would not have to be asked for receipts and the such, but until the world changes, and we don't have people trying to get away with something they should not be doing, this is the way it has to be.
I do not work for Wal-Mart and don't care for all of their policies, but I recognize that when I do choose to shop there I have to abide by their rules and policies.

I agree that a greeter should not get aggressive in detaining a shopper. That is up to security. I would be quite upset if I were accused of stealing as I am walking out the door after paying for the goods. However, simply being asked to show my receipt is no more offensive than being asked for my ID after paying with a credit card (to make sure that I am the card holder) or to see my ID when cashing a check at a bank that does not know me. I do not see this as a case of being ripped off. I see this as a case of being inconvenienced.

I reviewed the aforementioned law. There was absolutely no mention of a buzzer being probable cause. It couldn't because they are so inaccurate, and what if a merchant just decided to let them all go off, and use that as an excuse to check receipts.

Probable cause is typically defined under shoplifting laws as: having direct knowledge of an offender''s approach, selection, concealment, movement, and/or modification of an item, and his/her failure to pay before attempting to exit the store. When a person is caught shoplifting, they will be required to return the items, will be prohibited from returning to the store for a period of time, and may be prosecuted through shoplifting laws.

So what this means is that the merchant has to see the person actually steal the item.

But if you can direct me to the buzzer text, please do.

At least in Arkansas where the OP is from. In Arkansas State law 5-36-116 it states that if the store lets it be know that they use inventory control tags and the buzzer goes off, that the buzzer is probable cause for the person to be detained until the police get there under suspision of shoplifting. It further states that the police, merchant and merchant employees are not rendered liable criminally or civilly for false arrest, false imprisonment or false detention. So the poeple posting here who say that the buzzer by itself is not grounds for the customer to be stopped had better review their own state laws to find out the truth.

I know the OP said nothing of the buzzer going off, but a lot of people are giving potentially incorrect information as to when the store can stop you. I'm still reviewing to see if I can come up with anything on the request to see the receipt.

I have never had a problem showing a receipt to any greeter at Wal-Mart
I rarely shop there but whatever it is not a matter of National Security
And to the pompous Mr Ving (and I use the term loosely)
Yes I do agree with DWI check points and showing my ID to prove I am an American Citizen - what is your beef with that
Stacey

The one time that I was asked to show a receipt, it was an unabagged item that caused the buzzer to go off. I told them no. And they basically told me, "well have a nice day". So they know they can't randomly check a receipt without having probable cause, because they know if they detain you or touch you and you paid for it, they're going to jail.

I'm sure all the idiots who just want to "help" WalMart keep their "low" prices most likely are in favor of DUI Checkpoints and having to prove your US citizenship.

The one time that I was asked to show a receipt, it was an unabagged item that caused the buzzer to go off. I told them no. And they basically told me, "well have a nice day". So they know they can't randomly check a receipt without having probable cause, because they know if they detain you or touch you and you paid for it, they're going to jail.

I'm sure all the idiots who just want to "help" WalMart keep their "low" prices most likely are in favor of DUI Checkpoints and having to prove your US citizenship.

The one time that I was asked to show a receipt, it was an unabagged item that caused the buzzer to go off. I told them no. And they basically told me, "well have a nice day". So they know they can't randomly check a receipt without having probable cause, because they know if they detain you or touch you and you paid for it, they're going to jail.

I'm sure all the idiots who just want to "help" WalMart keep their "low" prices most likely are in favor of DUI Checkpoints and having to prove your US citizenship.

The one time that I was asked to show a receipt, it was an unabagged item that caused the buzzer to go off. I told them no. And they basically told me, "well have a nice day". So they know they can't randomly check a receipt without having probable cause, because they know if they detain you or touch you and you paid for it, they're going to jail.

I'm sure all the idiots who just want to "help" WalMart keep their "low" prices most likely are in favor of DUI Checkpoints and having to prove your US citizenship.

How are you helping the theft problem by showing a receipt for goods you paid for?

This makes no sense, wouldn't it be more effective for Walamart to go after people who DIDN'T pay for their merchandise.

The truth of the matter is that the majority of the merchandise that is stolen, is stolen by their own employees. So the old bat checking your receipt probably has stuck a few boxes of pork sausage under her lovely blue coat a few times herself.

WalMart can cut down on consumer theft by identifying and apprehending thiefs commiting theft through observation, then apprehending criminals at the door. Not checking the receipts of paying customers while the real crooks have figured something else and get away.

How many shoplifters do you think have been apprehended through random checks

Having been there and "done that" let me tell you how the case started.

Having bought my merchandise, paid for same, I headed out the door. Door greeter stopped me and said "sir, I need to see your receipt" i kept walking towards door and said " no you don't", at which time she grabbed my arm ( mistake # 1) and started yelling "security, security". Next the manager appeared and told me I "couldn't leave the store until I showed the receipt, and that if I didn't have anything to hide, why was I refusing?". Next threat ( mistake # 2 ) was they would call Police on me. I CALLED THEM FOR THEM ON MY CELL PHONE !

When the officer arrived I told him what had happened, The officer asked the manager if they had reason to believe i had "stolen anything", manager told him, "no, it's just our policy to randomly check receipts against items in the bags", to which the officer replied "I can't even check his bag or receipt without PROBABLE CAUSE, what makes you think YOU can?????". After the manager was flustered being unable to answer the officer, The officer then advised him he was getting a summons to appear in court for "UNLAWFUL DETENTION" for detaining me in the store without cause. The "greeter" was summosed and charged with BATTERY for grabbing my arm and " attempting" to hold on to me to keep me from leaving. The officer told me if I wanted to pursue it, They could both be charged with Kidnapping under Louisiana Statutes.

When I got home, i thought about it overnight and called me lawyer the next day.

With a smile on his face when I went to his office to relate the details fo the previous night to him, we decided to pursue the matter in court.

Wal Mart settled TWO DAYS before the trial was to begin for $10,000.00 !

I have written apologies from the Manager, and the Greeter ( who lost her job, by the way ).

Charges and summonses for unlawful detention and battery were dropped by the District Attorney as part of the settlement at my urging.


Was this the right way for me to approach this? mmmm Not Really.

Was it right for wal mart to "place hands on me" and "detain me"......Nope,

Was i within my rights to keep walking towards the door, with merchandise that I had legally paid for ? YUP... according to the law here, Once I have paid for my merchandise at any checkout which is located with 50 feet of the entrance or exit door and NO MERCHANDISE is being offered for sale between said check out and exit/entrance, UNLESS I AM BEING OUTRIGHT ACCUSED AND CHARGED WITH SHOPLIFTING...... The title to the merchandise passed to me upon my payment, and I can do with ot whatI see fit without harrassment from the store or it's employees.

In a nutshell...IT WAS MINE and didn't I'm not required to show anything to ANYONE once I paid for it.!


The laws in your state may vary, but here Wal Mart was WRONG, KNOWS THEY WERE WRONG, and by settling basically ADMITTED THEY WERE WRONG.


Haven't seen them checking ANYONES receipt in the past year or so...hmmmm

What this boils down to is:

This is still America, and we have the right from unreasonable searches, and wether Wal Mart likes it or not, They may be the biggest retailer in the world, BUT, they have to abide by the law of the land just like everyone else.

Some may say I was "showing my a*s" but I strongly beleive in individual rights and do not easily give them up because "it's company policy"

Due to the number of dishonest people in this world, stores are coming up with new policies to curtail the thefts. When people continue to deliberately steal, or indeliberately (i.e. cashier not ringing up items on the bottom of the cart), those losses are passed back onto me, the consumer, in the future by way of price markups.

If I can help the stores curtail thefts so they can continue to keep their price low for me, I will do that. Why shouldn't I let them see my receipt if I have paid for my items? Doesn't this help both me and them? You may ask why I should want to help them? Why shouldn't I want to help them? Why shouldn't anyone want to help anyone or anything else? What has this world come to that no one wants to help anyone?

We keep complaining that no one wants to help us or do anything for us anymore? Why should they when we won't help them? Why should they when we continue to "cry" over the smallest things?

A buzzer going off is not probable cause, because the most likely reason it went off is because the idiot cashier didn't know how to de-activate it. And if unbagged items are such a concern, then why not get bigger bags.

Once the items are paid for they are my personal property. Just like my shirt or underwear, or the box of mints in my pocket.

WalMart has no right to check for a receipt unless they saw you actually stealing the items. So, if I choose to walk out with an item and the buzzer goes off, or it's unbagged, it's not my fault they don't have big enough bags or they can't work their buzzers.

If they detain me, and I've paid for the items, and the police determine I've paid for the items, you are correct, it wouldn't be a false arrest. It would be illegal detainment.

Thanks

Not much on store technology but most items (especially hi dollar) have a magnet that is disabled when the item is purchased. Sometimes this is not disabled and sets off the alarm.

The checkers at the door are just doing their job. If an alarm goes off they check to make sure it is on the receipt. If you are an honest person and paid for it what's the problem??? Just show them the receipt and you are on your way.

Despite being the evil empire they are Walmart has the right to make sure their inventory is not being stolen. If you can't see or understand that point of view then you should not shop anywhere and purchase your goods online or hire someone to go into the store and buy your stuff.

If the police were called you would not be able to file a false arrest claim unless you were arrested. The store is within their rights if the item is not bagged or the buzzer goes off to ask for the receipt. If you chose to keep walking, they can call the police. The police will review the situation. If everything is paid for you go home. If you have something not paid for you get arrested and go to jail.

Bart is possibly the biggest idiot to ever troll ROR. He ranks up there with Beverly Hills Feeble and Kim from Santee.

He may smarten up when he's bending over to load his weekly supply of Pop-Tarts into his 1992 Hyundai and the tag on his underwear is exposed, and an astute WalMart cart collector realizes that WalMart sells that brand of underwear and demands the receipt.

It could get even worse, the ba*tards could start following you home and ask for receipts. No end to this crap.

Stay out.

Americans do not shed their rights on private property. Bart needs to move to a Communist Country. We don't need idiots like you in America.

Stalin Mart needs to be boycotted for their total lack of respect for shopper rights.

Boycott...........StalinMart........Boycott StalinMart.

I have an answer for Bart's comments and the rest of the right wing Stalin thinkers in this country......Full Metal Jactet-----30 rounds. Ready and waiting!!!!!!!

Patrick's synopsis of this 100% correct. You cannot be required to show a receipt. Just think how far this could go.

Let's think about how far this could go. Let's say you purchased a jacket at WalMart on a Monday, and went to WalMart on a Tuesday wearing the jacket, and the door greeter sees it's a new jacket that they are currently selling, and they ask you for your receipt. The possibilities of abuse are limitless. They could ask for a receipt for virtually anything on your person that they sell.

That's why there has to be probable cause.

I've been to WalMart a few times and the buzzer went off, and they asked for a receipt. I told them no and that the cashier should learn how to de-activate the goods. The door greeter actually agreed and I walked by without showing the receipt. The goods were paid for and I had proof. If they had called the cops they would have gotten slapped with a false arrest charge.

My first piece of advice to you is to stay out of WalMart, if you can't avoid it, just walk by them when they ask for the receipt. There's nothing they can do unless you actually stole the goods.

More people should refuse to show their receipts. I suppose the majority who are OK with it are on the lower end of the intelligence and income spectrum, and don't place a value on their personal rights.

Good luck to you in the future.

In most states (notice I said "most", not "all"), retailers cannot legally detain you for not showing a receipt without probable suspicion of having shoplifted any items. Some would say that even the simple act of refusing to show a receipt would be probable cause. Unfortunately, that won't fly in 99.9% of the courtrooms accross this country.

Now, of course, the obvious exclusions from this are the Sam's Clubs and Costco's, and stores of their type, whereby in signing up for the membership you actually agree to having your receipt checked each and every time you exit the store.

Now, once a consumer tenders payment for goods, those goods then become their possession, even if they are still on store property. And the retailer has NO LEGAL RIGHT to ask you for a receipt, unless they have probable cause to suspect you of shoplifting. Otherwise, they could demand you produce a receipt for things like the clothes you're wearing, your purse, your shoes, etc.

What I have noticed is that the door greeters at Wal-Mart will stop you for one of two things:

1) You set off the alarm. 9 times out of 10 the cashier did not deactivate the security tag in items like DVDs, CDs, electronics and such. This is a royal pain because the door greeter must then find the item, check your receipt, and log it in. That's why I make sure that when I buy items that are likely to have these tags, I'll make sure the cashier deactivates them.

2) You have an item that is not in a bag. 12 packs of soda in the bottom of your cart, large boxed items, etc. They are trained to try and stop you and ask for your receipt. But unless they have probable cause to suspect you stole from them, YOU ARE PERFECTLY IN YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP GOING!

Now, is it easy to stop and take 5 seconds to have your receipt checked? Yes.

Do you have to do it? No.

If Wal-Mart truly suspects you of shoplifting, it will be LP stopping you on your way out instead of the door greeter. If a door greeter tries to detain you for not showing a receipt, you have the right to sue for unlawful detention. If they lay a hand on you in the process, it can be considered assault.

So, to respond to Alan's original post. Yes, your rights are being violated. Next time the door greeter wants to see your receipt, and you don't want to stop and show it to them, tell them that if they suspect you of shoplifting to call LP. Odds are you will be on your way without further adieu.

In most states (notice I said "most", not "all"), retailers cannot legally detain you for not showing a receipt without probable suspicion of having shoplifted any items. Some would say that even the simple act of refusing to show a receipt would be probable cause. Unfortunately, that won't fly in 99.9% of the courtrooms accross this country.

Now, of course, the obvious exclusions from this are the Sam's Clubs and Costco's, and stores of their type, whereby in signing up for the membership you actually agree to having your receipt checked each and every time you exit the store.

Now, once a consumer tenders payment for goods, those goods then become their possession, even if they are still on store property. And the retailer has NO LEGAL RIGHT to ask you for a receipt, unless they have probable cause to suspect you of shoplifting. Otherwise, they could demand you produce a receipt for things like the clothes you're wearing, your purse, your shoes, etc.

What I have noticed is that the door greeters at Wal-Mart will stop you for one of two things:

1) You set off the alarm. 9 times out of 10 the cashier did not deactivate the security tag in items like DVDs, CDs, electronics and such. This is a royal pain because the door greeter must then find the item, check your receipt, and log it in. That's why I make sure that when I buy items that are likely to have these tags, I'll make sure the cashier deactivates them.

2) You have an item that is not in a bag. 12 packs of soda in the bottom of your cart, large boxed items, etc. They are trained to try and stop you and ask for your receipt. But unless they have probable cause to suspect you stole from them, YOU ARE PERFECTLY IN YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP GOING!

Now, is it easy to stop and take 5 seconds to have your receipt checked? Yes.

Do you have to do it? No.

If Wal-Mart truly suspects you of shoplifting, it will be LP stopping you on your way out instead of the door greeter. If a door greeter tries to detain you for not showing a receipt, you have the right to sue for unlawful detention. If they lay a hand on you in the process, it can be considered assault.

So, to respond to Alan's original post. Yes, your rights are being violated. Next time the door greeter wants to see your receipt, and you don't want to stop and show it to them, tell them that if they suspect you of shoplifting to call LP. Odds are you will be on your way without further adieu.

'If you go to jail for selling crack it is up to the police to find your guilt. '

Chechnya sounds like an expert in this regard. The police will find the crack on you and you're busted. You go to jail. In the store - everything belongs to Wal-mart; that is their proof. Your proof you didn't steal anything is your receipt showing you paid for the items. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

You are innocent until proven guilty. If you have anything that you're carrying out, that is your proof of guilt. Your receipt exonerates you. If you show the receipt, they can't stop you. If you don't - they have the right to stop you from leaving the store until you provide proof. Then they can call the police because they'll defend the store before they'll defend the person stealing from them.

What Walmart will do one day is take pictures of people who won't show their receipt and then blacklist these people from the store and with facial recognition software becoming more prevalent - that could be done in every store. In a public place like Wal-Mart, you have no privacy. The store has the right to refuse to do business with anyone, just as any other store will do. I personally would never shop at Wal-Mart for reasons that are mine (labor in particular), but I will defend their right to operate a business without people like Chechnya ripping them off.

The burden of proof is not on YOU but on Wal-Mart for them to prove that you stole something. So the guy above me is way wrong. If you go to jail for selling crack it is up to the police to find your guilt. Same with Wal-Mart. If they want to search your bags they must come up with proof if you stole something or not. That's why when they ask to see my receipt i refuse and keep walking.

The burden of proof is not on YOU but on Wal-Mart for them to prove that you stole something. So the guy above me is way wrong. If you go to jail for selling crack it is up to the police to find your guilt. Same with Wal-Mart. If they want to search your bags they must come up with proof if you stole something or not. That's why when they ask to see my receipt i refuse and keep walking.

The burden of proof is not on YOU but on Wal-Mart for them to prove that you stole something. So the guy above me is way wrong. If you go to jail for selling crack it is up to the police to find your guilt. Same with Wal-Mart. If they want to search your bags they must come up with proof if you stole something or not. That's why when they ask to see my receipt i refuse and keep walking.

The burden of proof is not on YOU but on Wal-Mart for them to prove that you stole something. So the guy above me is way wrong. If you go to jail for selling crack it is up to the police to find your guilt. Same with Wal-Mart. If they want to search your bags they must come up with proof if you stole something or not. That's why when they ask to see my receipt i refuse and keep walking.

While you feel that you somehow have some mysterious right to just walk out an establishment with out them excercising THEIR right to protect THEIR investments, why are you somehow better than them. If the exit was immediately at the register, then you my have a complaint. Otherwise, it's their store and property. Don't like it, don't go there. I, persoanlly have no problem with the policy and have nothing to hide and graciously volunteer to show them. Not really that big a deal.

The burden of proof falls on YOU to prove the items in your possession indeed were purchased by you. The burden is NOT on Wal-Mart. Here's why: Before you entered the store, the inventory in the store belonged to Wal-Mart. Unless you have proof of purchase, the store's inventory still belongs to them. Your receipt is your proof that the items are yours. That's the bottom line and they have the right to insure you are not stealing their inventory. The fact you shop in good faith is irrelevant. The fact you choose to shop there is the issue. You can choose to be a pain in the a*s. On the other hand, they can choose not to let you shop there; they don't have to allow you to shop there if they don't want to. That is the beauty of this.

You have another choice. You don't have to shop there. I don't like to shop there for other reasons. However, if you do patronize Wal-Mart, or any store for that matter, you have to abide by their policies and their policies would stand up in a court of law.

They aren't violating your rights.

Okay, I don't know what proof they required of you. But it if is like the Wal-Marts here the proof is your receipt. Which as if you said you just paid for the items should be no problem to provide.

They look at the receipt, and one or two items to see if they are on the receipt. But they also are checking to make sure that something on your receipt is actually in your bag(s), so you don't end up getting overcharged. They then mark the receipt so that you can not use it again. I think everytime they have looked at my receipt it has taken a grand total of 10 seconds.

I don't think they singled you out, I bet if you stayed there and watched them for any length of time they checked several people. It might be totally random such as every 3 groups, or it might be every person they can.

Also, if you have the receipt that shows the purchases why in the world would they call the police? So that would be a mute point.

This may be a new policy at Wal-Mart, but is becoming more common thanks to the small percentage of people who are not honest. If you don't like the policy then talk to the store manager. In the mean time just keep your receipt out untill you are outside.