digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at consumerist.com

Detained and Harassed at Walmart for not showing a receipt

consumerist.com — Reader J was detained and harassed by some Walmart employees on his way out of the store the other day. J had already put his receipt inside his wallet after purchasing a $25 shower rack when a Walmart employee demanded to see his receipt. J declined and continued exiting the store. That's when things got weird. First, he was grabbed by a Walmart e

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stronglikedan, on 03/03/2008, -166/+426J is what you call "asking for trouble". J wanted it; J got it. J admits to carrying the item to the door without a bag or proof of purchase. What he won't get is sympathy. Is it really that hard to get a bag or, if the item does not fit in a bag, just hold the receipt with the item as you walk out?
    I don't agree that he should have been touched in any way, but I don't agree with conscious provocation (which IMHO is the case here).
    • magic6435, on 03/03/2008, -82/+65to hell with that i just paid for this item i don't have to show you *****! I aint gotta prove to you nothing.
      • Scheissen, on 03/03/2008, -38/+17Yes you do have to have proof. You are still on their property. If it was about theives being able to pick up anything and not having to show proof of purchase then you'd jerk at the knee and exclaim, "why don't employees stop them, they're handing down the fees down to their customers!"
        • Onyxblaze, on 03/03/2008, -8/+22Actually, I live in CALIFORNIA where it is absolutely illegal for them to do so.
          • Jammer, on 03/03/2008, -6/+9Actually, you're absolutely wrong:
            "In general, California law requires that merchants only detain and accuse shoplifters when they have "probable cause" to believe the customer has stolen or is currently stealing merchandise."
            http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n21 ...
          • sharpie05, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Way to end it. People need to read up and study before they flap their gums.
        • gamabunta, on 03/03/2008, -0/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper's_privileg ...
          • FloMonster, on 03/03/2008, -3/+23Shopkeeper's privilege only applies if the shop has reasonable suspicion that you have shoplifted from the store. Refusing to show your receipt is not sufficient for them to detain you.

            I purchased a flat screen TV from Best Buy in January 2008. It was late in the evening and the only register open was the one closest to the exit. The door greeter had a clear view of me making my purchase, he was close enough that he could probably overhear my conversation with the cashier. I paid for my purchase and walked towards the exit. He asked to see my receipt, to which I replied no thank you. He then told me that he HAD to see my receipt, and I told him no, he didn't, and continued to walk out of the store. He continued to demand my receipt as I got to my car, but he returned to the store when other customers began to exit.

            I know my rights, and I know about the shopkeeper's privilege doctrine. Unless I sign a membership agreement that explicitly states I must show my receipt to exit, or the store has reasonable suspicion that I shoplifted, I refuse to waste my time showing anyone my papers.
          • Scheissen, on 03/03/2008, -15/+5???

            Oh, wait I forgot that the majority of Digg users are users in their teenage angst. Screw the police, bla bla bla, free health care and education and housing and cars for everyone!
          • emjaymj, on 03/03/2008, -3/+7Don't know who the link was directed to, but I should point out for the mentally slow the key phrases "so long as he has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed" and "The shopkeeper must have reasonable grounds to suspect the particular person detained." Detaining people on the grounds that they don't comply with an unlawful search does not count as reasonable grounds - that'd be like arresting people because they don't allow their house to be searched without a warrant, you need probable cause to search someone in particular in the first place.

            And for Scheissen, being on their property has absolutely nothing to do with it. By your logic I could invite random people to my house and, as they try to leave, I could lock them in my basement until they submit to a cavity search because their is a small chance they might have stolen something valuable. No. Personal rights come before property rights. That is why things like murder, rape, and assault are just as illegal on private property.

            Granted, the guy should have expected trouble when he refused to show his receipt, but just because it's a common problem does not mean it is any less *****.
          • MURDERTRON, on 03/04/2008, -2/+7FloMonster: "Shopkeeper's privilege only applies if the shop has reasonable suspicion"
            Replace "reasonable suspicion" with "probable cause" and you're right. To most everyone else, please memorize the fourth amendment.
          • gamabunta, on 03/04/2008, -1/+12@ FloMonster

            The comment was aimed at those people who say the customer was in the wrong. I am 100% on the customer's side on this one. He was well within his rights to do what he did. What the Wal*Mart employee did was illegal and should be reprimanded.
          • wellyuk, on 03/04/2008, -8/+5@Scheissen:

            "free health care and education and housing and cars for everyone!"

            It's the 21st century, is it not reasonable for people to expect to have their health and education covered and a roof over their head?
          • Chompy, on 03/04/2008, -3/+8It's not reasonable to believe that those things are free. Someone has to pay for them. I worked for mine, why the ***** should I pay for yours while you do nothing?
          • iamafatguy, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5@wellyuk:
            "is it not reasonable for people to expect to have their health and education covered and a roof over their head?"

            Not on my dime. I have to work for my health, education and house. Why the hell shouldn't everyone else?
          • Scheissen, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2The Fourth Amendment protects you from the government. They are known as the bill of Rights for a reason, to protect rights against the government.
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -1/+0@wellyuk: No. Why should the 21st century be any different from the 20th? It's only a number.
        • Canadian0207, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4i was afraid that ppl in this comments section was going to be pro-J. i'm glad i'm not the only one who think he acted like an ass.
      • deepdiggdude, on 03/03/2008, -36/+27Normal person: Upon being asked to show their receipt, gladly comply knowing you have it, and even if you had dropped, it simply go back to the check out for verification, all while understanding the store's need to curtail shoplifting.

        Disgruntled, angry, looser: Upon being asked to show their receipt, immediately bitch about your rights, unjustifiably whine about discrimination, misdirect your anger at low-level authority.
        • djbon2112, on 03/03/2008, -13/+15Eventually he misdirected his anger at slightly higher-level authority, but I still agree with you. It's not ***** hard to take out your receipt.
          • joosebuck, on 03/03/2008, -13/+16where does it stop? what if they ask to pat you down on the way out to make sure you didnt steal anything while shopping?

            ever heard the phrase "nipping it in the bud"
          • wellyuk, on 03/04/2008, -7/+4Where does it stop? Don't be an idiot all your life. Did you actually read the story? The way it was described, the shop staff were quite reasonable in their requests to see a receipt.
          • absentmindedjwc, on 03/04/2008, -2/+8@wellyuk
            Actually, they were not... at all.... last time I checked, grabbing someone to force them to stay somewhere against their will is assault and kidnapping... Now, I do not think he should of made such a big deal out of this, but the employee was way more out of line by grabbing at him than he was for not showing the recipt. At the end of the day, it is the line between legal and illegal, the customer did something that is completely legal and within his rights, as once you made your purchase, unless you are contractually obligated to show your recipt (in the case of Sams Club), you have no further obligation to the store. The employee committed a crime when he forcefully detained him for suspected-shoplifting, you need proof that something was stolen before you can even think of approaching a customer.
          • sinrtb, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4I rarely shop at walmart any more for this and other reasons. I am sorry I just waited 25 minutes in line while some old lady counts out $.99 realizing she only has 98 she proceeds to write a check, and now you want my receipt? If you want to see every receipt, then tape it to the bag or biggest item but if you hand it to me then it ends up in my pocket with everything else, and dont ask to see it again 30 seconds later.

            I am sorry my time is worth more then your money. How dare you pass along your losses in the form of my time and my convenience.
        • positron, on 03/03/2008, -1/+5looser != loser
    • zen6ox, on 03/03/2008, -65/+63Agreed, buddy was just trying to be a dick and got treated how he deserved. It would of taken him less than a minute to of taken his receipt out and show it to the employees.
      • Oomsoup, on 03/03/2008, -28/+72It's "would have" and so what? It is perfectly fine for him to decline to show his receipt and he was in the right. Don't tell me you are one of those people who want a national ID because it will "make everything easier"? Sometimes it's okay to do the hard thing to stand up for your rights.
        • slvrbullet87, on 03/03/2008, -31/+32Cause that makes sense. Let anybody walk out of wal-mart without proof of purchase with anything and not have to show a recept. Nobody would steal anything
          • Otto, on 03/03/2008, -14/+26It's a better plan than harassing all your real customers.
          • djbon2112, on 03/03/2008, -16/+22They don't, nor in this case didn't, harass all their "real customers".

            RTFA again: One man, walking out with merchandise without a bag or sold tag, was asked for his receipt and refused, continuing to walk out the door. How are they NOT taking reasonable precautions and steps to protect their merchandise by stopping him, asking him again for his receipt, and threatening to report his activity? That's not "harassment", it's common ***** sense. And the manager was an idiot. Normally, in a position like that I'd side with the customer, but not in this case. He blatantly refused to show proof that he purchased the item, and there was no indication on the item itself that it had been paid.
          • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -1/+19djbon2112: Nonsense. If the merchant believes a person has committed an act of shoplifting, they can *ask* the person to stop or they can contact police for help. None of this super-fun happy "tackle and rough up" crap. That's a paddlin'. :)
          • crossmr, on 03/04/2008, -4/+11@djbon2112, if someone touches you and they're not arresting you (which it doesn't sound like this employee was performing a citizen's arrest for shoplifting) its assault and against the law. There is nothing reasonable about that.
          • tamuengineer, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3"if someone touches you and they're not arresting you, its assault and against the law" No, you are wrong, touching someone does not imply assault
          • crossmr, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Yes it does. Obviously you were sleeping when those news articles rolled by where someone got touched during a practical joke they didn't appreciate and the person doing it was charged.
            http://www.compuserb.com/assault_and_battery_def.h ...
            Legal definition "Any unlawful touching of another which is without justification or excuse." you touch me and I didn't invite it, that's assault.
          • tamuengineer, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3"Any unlawful touching of another which is WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE" Clearly that does not blindly apply your previous statement, "if someone touches you and they're not arresting you, its assault and against the law". As you implied
        • joosebuck, on 03/03/2008, -18/+36guess what, it's your ***** 4th amendment right not to be unlawfully searched or detained. grow a ***** pair.
          • hansonc, on 03/03/2008, -21/+12doesn't apply on private property in a transaction between private entities and he could have straightened the whole thing up by just not being a dick.
          • joosebuck, on 03/03/2008, -9/+7actually it does.
            lrn2constitution

            edit: i agree it seems he couldve cleared it up by either saying he knew his rights and wouldnt show, or something less dickish. regardless, he wasnt in the wrong.
          • TheSabre, on 03/03/2008, -9/+16Actually, it prevents against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures without PROBABLE CAUSE. Considering he was walking out of the store with unbagged merchandise that did not have any type of indication that it was purchased, it's completely reasonable to ask for proof that it was purchased. There is probable cause that it was stolen - it was not in a bag.
          • Gastrodamus, on 03/03/2008, -6/+12How are you getting around the obvious issue that Wal-Mart isn't a government actor and isn't subject to the 4th Amendment?
          • joosebuck, on 03/03/2008, -2/+14@sabre "and seizures without PROBABLE CAUSE."
            probable cause in most states is defined as first hand accounts backed up by camera evidence. not lack of a shopping bag.
            @gastrodamus
            you dont have to surrender your 4th amendment rights just because they arent affiliated with the government, unless you have a specific contract (e.g. costco).
          • nihilite, on 03/03/2008, -5/+8Doesnt the restriction against search and seizure only apply against the government (cops, feds, etc)? Wal-Mart is not public property... think if you owned a store and you saw some guy walking out with your merchandise; why wouldnt you have a right to ask for proof of purchase?
          • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -2/+16TheSabre and Gastrodamus: A private entity has even fewer privileges than a police officer does. I wish you the best of luck should you ever decide to search me. Private citizens are permitted, under limited circumstances (especially when they have direct cause to believe a crime has taken place -- i.e. *they saw it* ... none of this "he didn't show me his receipt!" stuff will fly here), to make a "citizen's arrest." A citizen's arrest is generally only permitted when someone witnesses a felony; state law varies on whether simple misdemeanors or ordinance violations are "arrestable" by John Q. Public.

            "Theft of property" *is* an acceptable reason for detaining a person, but there is the requirement of probable cause -- the same criminal standard a court will hold a prosecuting attorney to. "He didn't have a bag and didn't show a receipt" is *not* probable cause to believe that theft has occurred. Suppose he asked not to be given a bag (for environmental reasons, or simply because it was a small item not worth wasting a bag for), or that he put his receipt in his pocket and had his hands full. That's called "reasonable doubt," by the way, and would be included in any defense in the event of prosecution for theft. There's another problem with so-called citizen's arrests -- suppose you *hurt* somebody while you're trying to detain them. Have you got insurance to cover the lawsuit you'll be slapped with? Especially if the guy was innocent in the first place.

            I've already said it here once but I'll repeat it again: if you believe someone has stolen from you, there are many options available that don't involve actually roughing someone up or detaining them. Follow them to their car, write down their license plate number, and call the police. Confront them (non-threateningly) and see if they'll just "come clean." The minute you try to detain somebody for it, you're risking your job and your bank accounts.
          • Gastrodamus, on 03/03/2008, -18/+3YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLY ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE GOVERNMENT. ANY OTHER RIGHTS YOU HAVE VIS WAL-MART ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION - THEY ARE DERIVED FROM CIVIL LAW OR CRIMINAL LAW OR ELSEWHERE (EX. PROPERTY RIGHTS). DO YOU PEOPLE REALLY NOT GET THIS VERY FUNDAMENTAL IDEA??? YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO A PRIVATE ACTOR THAT IS NOT ACTING AS OR ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT. WAL-MART CAN'T TAKE YOUR WALLET, BUT THAT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
          • thedragon4453, on 03/04/2008, -3/+14CAPS LOCK IS LIKE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
          • djbon2112, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Are you all against CCTV cameras in stores too? After all, they violate your privacy rights.

            I consider myself a libertarian, and a pretty strong one at that, but in this situation Wal-Mart has done NOTHING wrong, and the employee was completely reasonable. If you refuse to show me your receipt upon request, I consider that a fairly probably cause for action. I don't know what fantasy world the rest of you are living in.
          • djbon2112, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2To clarify my last statements, If you're walking out, refusing to show your receipt, carrying unbagged, untagged merchandise and being actively belligerent with the person asking for the receipt, refusing a simple request for a receipt to confirm he had in fact paid for said merchandise, many times, then I consider it to be a reasonable suspicion that the person is trying to shoplift that merchandise.

            This is not a "search and seizure" issue in the slightest. For all the employee knew (thanks to the "victim"), he WAS shoplifting that merchandise. End of story.
        • djbon2112, on 03/03/2008, -13/+21Nice straw man there. This has nothing to do with National ID cards. It's a company taking a perfectly legitimate step to prevent stolen merchandise. They may not have he right to "detain" Mr. J, but they (should) have every right to ask for his receipt.
          • Oomsoup, on 03/03/2008, -8/+5Never said they didn't, did I?
            It's not a "straw man", it's a reasonable comparison.
          • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -2/+14They can *ask*. They have that right. I (and anyone else) can smile and walk away. We have that right. Wrongful imprisonment and unlawful detainment are both large-figure civil actions in most jurisdictions.
          • wellyuk, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3@Oomsoup:

            It's a strawman. That was not a reasonable comparison. The guy was being a dick.
          • ilikefun, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5They can ask for his receipt all hey want, but he doesn't have to show it to them. They are definitely not permitted to touch him in any way. Some stores, like Target, employ security companies which have special permits to touch and detain customer's if there is probable cause. Wal-Mart hires no such people.
        • MiDri, on 03/03/2008, -7/+5@ joosebuck -- That only protects you from the government, private organizations can and do this, the government actually contracts out for this kind of thing just to avoid the constitution.
        • rholland356, on 03/03/2008, -11/+10Stand up for your rights? On private property? Exactly what rights does the constitution grant you when you are on someone's private property?
          That said, Wal-Mart today issued new store uniforms featuring snappy brown shirts with epaulets.
          • Oomsoup, on 03/03/2008, -3/+16Uh, do you think your rights fly out the window on private property? So in my own home I can murder, torture or do drugs? (Unfortunately not!)
          • rholland356, on 03/03/2008, -8/+2You murder, torture and do drugs in public? How does your comment relate to the events that transpired at Wal-Mart? And yes, your rights on private property ARE different than in the public space. Just try behaving badly at your place of work and see what happens. And by behaving badly, I don't mean that you must rise to the level of murder, torture and drug-taking. Try using free speech at your place of work. See where that goes, for starters.
          • Gastrodamus, on 03/03/2008, -10/+2Your constitutional rights are irrelevant with respect to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is not a government actor.
          • emjaymj, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3The Constitution/Bill of Rights has very little to do with it in a direct sense, but that does not mean you do not have any rights. Without probable cause, among other things, the store COULD be sued for false imprisonment under tort law, and in certain situations it can even be tried in a criminal court. The latter will never happen in the United States where corporate interests come first, but just because it is commonplace doesn't mean it is any less of an outrage. It may not be a constitutional right, but that's irrelevant because the constitution was explicitly written for the federal government. A customer's unlawful detainment still infringes upon personal rights as derived from both tort and criminal law. Indirectly however, it has everything to do with the Constitution because the government has no right to give companies such authority.
          • spartan2, on 03/04/2008, -1/+8My store policy is to decapitate anyone wearing a red shirt. I'm a private entity using my "right" to enforce de facto rules in my establishment. By entering my store, you have nonverbally agreed to policies that you do not have the ability to read before entering. I guess you should just know better than to enter my store for with a red shirt.

            Private entities cannot require patrons to give up rights by equating entering their establishment as signifying nonverbal agreement. This is why stores that do not require a contract to purchase goods from use tracking mechanisms to make sure items are not stolen from them. Failing to produce a receipt is not Reasonable Suspicion but setting off the detectors at the exit AND a Lack of receipt is Reasonable Suspicion.
          • Oomsoup, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4My point was, all of a person's rights don't vanish when entering someone else's private property! Are you really disputing that?
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1@Gastrodamus: I'm not an American but AFAIK the US Constitution regards your rights as stated in the BoR as "inalienable". You cannot waive them yourself, and a private entity can not make them null and void. The employees cannot detain a citizen (in some countries like Italy it would be considered as "kidnapping" and would land the employee in jail). Their security guards are another matter and in this case the customer can opt to call in the cops, which I would have in this situation. And then I would call my lawyer.
            A lot of those big darn enterprises like to bully people around ("we're big and we've got lots of money, do as we say OR ELSE") but you don't have to play their game. That said, being a jackass doesn't help.
            If you are mistreated, however, don't swallow it. Call the police. Call your lawyer. Call the press. Bad publicity is like the plague to them. You won't run Wal-mart down, but that employee will be history.
        • joosebuck, on 03/03/2008, -5/+18not without you signing a contract(costco) or having reasonable knowledge beforehand that you will be searched before entry (concerts)

          store policy is not above your constitutional rights.
          • senatorpjt, on 03/04/2008, -2/+6When you enter a concert/airport etc, you don't have to be searched, you will just be refused entry. This is like searching you as you leave the concert.
          • joosebuck, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1well yes, that is just common sense though.
        • Cerebral, on 03/03/2008, -6/+8Exactly! There is a very large proof of burden on the store in order to "take a customer into custody" and one of those things is that they technically cannot do that. They can only try to talk to you to keep you in the store as the cops arrive. Next time Wal-Mart needs to follow him out to his car and take his plate number down and call the police.
          Don't even get me started that this guy would lose his job if anything happened and something was filed on him regardless of his innocence or guilt until proven in the court of law.
        • diggduggjoe, on 03/03/2008, -5/+3Yes, they want a national ID and eagerly await licking the boots of those in authority. We have rights because we are individual beings. It is not about being easy for the thugs to corral us.
        • meburnette, on 03/04/2008, -10/+6Wrong, moron. The store has a RIGHT to protect its merchandise. Where was the proof that he was not stealing it? basically they asked him to prove he was not a thief, and he declined. Therefore he is subject to being treated like a thief.
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1You do understand that you DO NOT have to prove your innocence, but THEY have to prove your guilt? That's why they have CCTV.
        • joosebuck, on 03/04/2008, -2/+9are you kidding? the burden of proof is on the one accusing guilt. innocent until PROVEN guilty
        • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -3/+8It's not about rights, its about common ***** decency. Should the employee have touched the customer? No. Should the customer have shown the receipt? Absolutely.

          Running around screaming "I HAVE RIGHTS!!!" over something as trivial as showing your receipt is just stupid. Take the slippery slope argument elsewhere when they CLEARLY only wanted to see his receipt.
          • Cerebral, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry but I don't agree. Sure this would have been solved by simply showing his receipt however there is nothing wrong with someone exercising ANY rights. On the flipside it was illegal for the employee to touch the person as well as the other customer who was claiming to be a cop. The store manager knew the employees were way wrong and that this guy has a lawsuit with his name on it against Wal-Mart.
            It's great that the door greeter was wanting to be a hero for saving a $30 rack but the law is the law. They needed to take this guys license plate down and then check the cameras and call the cops if necessary. I don't show my receipt when I leave and the sensors go off; I continue walking. It's my right and I will always exercise it.
        • absentmindedjwc, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3@JoJoDilio
          Should he have: yes, I believe he should have
          Did he have to: No
          A stores policy is not law, and they are not entitled any rights pertaining to the detainment of any individual without actually witnessing a crime. If they seen him grab a shower pole from the shelves, and then make a b line for the door, then they are more than within their rights the question him about it, and in some states, even detain him until police arrive; they are also within their rights to follow this individual to his car, write down his license plate number, and then call the police, as once the customer is outside of the building, the employees have absolutely NO rights to detain the customer.
          • smithchr, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2You're being modded down, but I think you're 100% spot on here. While he didn't *have* to show his receipt, he probably should have. I disagree completely with the store employees approach to dealing with the problem, however.
        • PathDaemon, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1The issue, for me, isn't that he refused to show his receipt — perfectly within his rights. He was a dick for just trying to push past everyone. He should have said "I paid for it, I don't have to show you my receipt, I'm going to my car."
    • stopbrorape, on 03/03/2008, -25/+23I don't really think he wanted to have this happen or wanted to start something but just wanted to get out of there
      • id000001, on 03/03/2008, -17/+18If that is true, he really wasn't using his brain.

        How hard is it to show a damn receipt? If they are not allowed to ask for a receipt, how are they suppose to stop any one from stop lifting? Everyone can just say "Oh, it is in my wallet, and you can't see it" and walk out with whatever they want?
        • Otto, on 03/03/2008, -9/+20No, they're allowed to ask all they like. But that does not mean that it's okay to make accusations and threats when somebody declines.
          • id000001, on 03/03/2008, -3/+8To be clear. I wasn't saying stopping him is alright. I was saying, asking is perfectly alright. Refusing really doesn't do anyone but the thief any good. Sure, you have your right, but do consider making it easier for everyone next time if you didn't do anything wrong in the first place. Asking you doesn't mean accusing you. Refusing, is giving people suspicion. Beside, they didn't exactly grabs him at first, they just blocked him and a customer came in assist.
          • Mejari, on 03/03/2008, -6/+7Yeah, I wanna know wtf was up with that customer! Was he bored and just want to play cop? He's the one that should get a police report filed about him
          • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -1/+4Otto: Perfectly expressed. There's no excusing a physical confrontation over failing to show a receipt at a store like this that's open to the general public.
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1"consider making it easier for everyone next time if you didn't do anything wrong in the first place"
            Fine. Then why are Diggers against surveillance? After all, why shouldn't we make it easier for everyone if we aren't doing anything wrong?
        • Cerebral, on 03/03/2008, -0/+6They can do it. I used to work in retail and there is quite a bit that has to go on generally involving upper store management and all they can really do is try to keep you in the store without TOUCHING you and keep you there until the cops come to take you into the room to take this further etc.
        • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -5/+4"How hard is it to show a damn receipt?"

          Ever tried it with your hands full?
          • wellyuk, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Were his hands full?
          • dougmc, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4> Were his hands full?
            Of course not. He was carrying his shower rack with his penis.
            (And while that might only require one hand, getting anything out of your wallet one handed tends to be difficult.)
          • Neiby, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1If your hands are full of bagged items, you're probably not going to get stopped in the first place. I've never ever once been asked to show a receipt when walking out with bagged items.
          • ggacid, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2That's why you don't put the receipt in your wallet! I live in Los Angeles and pretty much every electronic store asks you for your receipt. How hard is it to grab the receipt from the clerk and walk over to the door with it so they can just put a ***** highlighter on it.. and you'll be on your way! Also, you better believe that you're going to be asked to prove that you paid for an item that isn't bagged.. If any of you people that are against checking receipts, please let me know what stores you own so that I can go and grab something, walk through the cashiers area and just go out the door without a receipt.. Try looking at things from store owners perspectives for once..
      • ethamajin, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2no, I think he was being a dick because he wanted to feel superior to the walmart employee.
    • skoles, on 03/03/2008, -17/+181There used to be a time, not more than 8 years ago, when you could walk out of a store after leaving the register without being harassed. When there would be employees who walked the store, and a security monitor viewing cameras & keeping tabs on shady people to keep theft in check. That way the people who were there honestly making purchased, were not suddenly a potential criminal after walking 15' from the register to the door. Plus all stores know that the biggest form of theft comes from employees and not customers.

      I haven't had anyone give me trouble for NOT showing my receipt. They just let me go. But the day I get a hard time about it, I'm going to just turn around and return the merchandise right there in front of them and leave empty handed. That would be the proper way to handle this situation.
      • slvrbullet87, on 03/03/2008, -44/+10Your right tough guy, instead of just asking to make sure you arent stealing, they should profile people and just be intimidated by you trying to walk out the door and acting like a dick.
        • skoles, on 03/03/2008, -0/+14Yes. Because people that are there to steal are going to show certain body language. Constantly looking around, walking to quiet areas of the store and milling about.

          I used to work at a retail store and we were trained to watch out for activity like that in the cameras "dead" zones. Management would work the cameras sometimes and alert us to people up to no good.
          • slvrbullet87, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1i am sorry i forgot my /sarcasm
          • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3LOL, the best thieves are the professionals. They're a bigger problem, and don't typically give off that kind of body language. They also don't look shady.
        • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -1/+8slvrbullet87: Okay, captain sarcasm, I'll explain this to you in really small words so you can understand.

          First, there's nothing "internet tough guy" about politely inviting the challenger ("show me your receipt!") to follow you back to the service counter to ask for a refund of the items. Doing this sends two clear messages: 1) "yes, I have a receipt," and 2) "no, you shouldn't have treated me like this."

          Second, why is walking out of a door suddenly an "intimidating" act?

          Third, how is it "profiling" if you watch anybody (*anybody*) who acts suspicious?
      • DjArcadian, on 03/03/2008, -26/+7Why do people always use the excuse that internal theft is a bigger problem? So what. People act like they're so important that they can't be bothered to show a little piece of paper? Oh no. It's the principle of it. What nonsense. Have a little common courtsey. These people are just doing their job and trying to keep theft down. It's called loss prevention. Guess what. That little $50 item you returned doesn't compare to the amount of theft that would occur if they didn't check people at the door. My brother works at Frys Electronics and have told stories of people wheeling $5000 TV's right out the door when the doorman was distracted.
        • mooseontheloose, on 03/03/2008, -5/+12"My brother works at Frys Electronics and have told stories of people wheeling $5000 TV's right out the door when the doorman was distracted."

          Looks like receipt checking works amazingly then... not
          • madeingermany, on 03/03/2008, -4/+14Of course it doesn't work. If you want to steal, just get some old receipt.
            And if your cart is full, they can never do a thorough check.
            All this receipt checking achieves is to inconvenience the law-abiding customers.
        • skoles, on 03/03/2008, -3/+19Common courtesy? I just helped the store earn a profit and they are going to immediately treat me as if I stole it?

          Your brother sounds like he works with a bunch of morons that leave $5,000 TV's unsecured & untagged along with an idiot at the controls of the stores cameras.
        • jstone, on 03/03/2008, -2/+3Rolling $5,000 TVs out the door? Either the store didn't have EAS tags on the products, or a cashier deactivated the tag for them.
      • madeingermany, on 03/03/2008, -4/+13very good idea! And of course never visit that store again and not visit stores that are known to not educate their employees about this.
        • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -0/+5That, and letting them *know* you're not coming back (by writing to corporate; don't rely on the local management to relay that charming message up the chain).
        • senatorpjt, on 03/04/2008, -3/+5You think Walmart gives a ***** about losing a customer?
        • ichibanstunna, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0For every inbred Walmart loses, 4 more are born to take its place.
      • diggduggjoe, on 03/03/2008, -4/+35Returning the product is the strongest effective way to get your point across. If, dozens of people did that every day, Wlalmart would stop the practice.
      • nickj6282, on 03/03/2008, -3/+13I wish I could digg you twice.
      • chakan2, on 03/04/2008, -7/+18 years ago profiling wasn't a big deal either. Now if an employee follows me around the store for being 'shady' I can sue the balls off of Wal-mart for a variety of reasons. So that's not an acceptable practice either.

        I like the comment about returning the merchandise though.

        I think the moral to the story is, if you're a jerk off in public, expect to be treated like one. Yea, it's within his right to walk out the door, but it's also common courtesy to show the greeter your receipt.
        • absentmindedjwc, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8actually... the employee could follow you around the store, and their is nothing you could do about it... as you are on private property... if you took it to court, their defense could be as simple as "we were trying to provide the best service possible to our customers"
          I was trained to do just this in my short time in retail (2 years)...
      • daizaru, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3Of course, let's also ignore that shoplifting is far more common now and the realization that maybe the previous methods were not enough.

        If you can't take 2 minutes to show your bill, but will then spend 10 minutes in line to return it afterward then you're just causing yourself more pain. Most of the time they don't even look at it, they just want see you have nothing to hide, not wanting to show them makes them suspicious.

        Personally I blame the people who steal, not the preventative measures against it.
        • StarlessKnight, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Having nothing to hide isn't an argument.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3No, this is a flawed line of thought. People have a right to their privacy. Unless you have a real REASON to suspect I am stealing you have no right to make any demands of me. Even to see my receipt. Just because I'm leaving the store with something is NOT a reason to suspect of stealing. With that sort of logic literally EVERYONE is a shoplifting suspect. After all, it's possible to put items you didn't pay for in a bag of things you bought. It's even possible to put more expensive items into boxes for cheaper things. Should we just assume everyone is trying to steal something? Of course not, and randomly harassing someone trying to leave with their shower curtail will not curtail real shoplifters. So again, unless an employee has witnessed you actually trying to steal (meaning they see you leaving without having paid at a register or the alarm goes off, they see you hide something on your person, etc) they have no right to detain you or make demands of you of any size.

          That said, J acted like a class A jerk and should have just shown the receipt and filed a complaint, returned the item as has been suggested, or just asked to speak to a manager as soon as the employee tried to stop him. Most of the inconvenience encountered here he imposed on himself.
      • McSwankypants, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1A very similar thing happened to me at a Walmart about three years ago...minus being detained.

        I wasn't a fan of Walmart, but I was buying my mother a KitchenAid mixer for her birthday and Walmart had them on sale. I paid for the item at the register closest to the door (and "greeter"). I swiped my debit card, put it back in my wallet, the cashier handed me my receipt, I put that in my wallet, told her I didn't need a bag for the giant box, and started to leave. I walked the whole 15 feet to leave and the elderly woman asked for my receipt.

        Now, having read the replies in this thread already, this is where some will accuse me of being a dick, but...I kept walking.

        I didn't set this up to prove a point, I'm used to putting my receipts in my wallet when I have finished a transaction. The greeter called out that she needed to see my receipt a couple of times, but I kept walking. I didn't run or walk fast, I just kept walking like nothing happened. I saw no reason to stop, put down the box, pull out my receipt, put it back in my wallet, grab the box, and start on my way again. Sure, it might have taken ten whole seconds, but why? I was 15 feet from her when I paid for it.

        As I get to my car, I pop the trunk, set the box in it, and turn to see a tall, muscular Walmart employee running my direction. He comes up and asks if I heard the woman ask for my receipt. I simply said, "Yeah." He asked why I didn't stop and I said, "Because I already paid for the item and I don't have to." He just looked at me like I was a crook and asked to see the receipt. Having put the box in the trunk already, grabbing my wallet was no big deal, so I pulled out the receipt, showed him, and got in my car.

        That was the last time I went to Walmart.

        Like many have already stated, if I have given them money for a product, that transaction is over, and I shouldn't have to prove that I just gave them money, especially since I was standing 15 feet from the "greeter" -- in plain site -- with one large box. Unless security saw me doing something wrong, let me be on my way.
    • Moosehawk, on 03/03/2008, -15/+73The point the customer was trying to reach was that it's a violation of 4th amendment rights for companies to temporarily detain you and force you to show a receipt if you don't want to. He could have gone about it in a better way, but it's still a small push for consumer rights.

      If you were sign a contract to shop at places like Sam's Club or Costco, it's completely legal for them to check your receipt, as it is in the contract and you're paying for a service.
      • Chompy, on 03/03/2008, -14/+7"If you were sign a contract to shop at places like Sam's Club or Costco, it's completely legal for them to check your receipt, as it is in the contract and you're paying for a service."
        Eh, I still walk right past the guy if the line is too long. I just waited in one long line to pay, I'm not going to wait in another to prove my innocence. Please, lay hands on me. I dare you. And as for canceling my membership, you'd have to know who I am first, wouldn't you? I'm already driving away, so you can't cancel *****.
        • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -4/+5You are a fine example of a person who thinks they are worth more than they are.
      • TheSabre, on 03/03/2008, -11/+9The 4th amendment protects against searches that do not have probable cause. It does not protect against every single search made against you. If there is probable cause, such as walking out of a store with unbagged merchandise, it's completely reasonable to ask to see a receipt.

        People need to stop spouting off nonsense like this and actually learn what the amendment means and when it applies. The word "reasonable" is in there for a reason. A receipt is a PROOF/RECORD OF PURCHASE. That's its purpose. It is completely reasonable to ask to see PROOF OF PURCHASE when you need someone to prove their purchase. It's not okay to beat the customer, take his wallet to get his credit card and then call the credit company to see if a transaction was made. But it's okay to request a receipt whose only purpose in life is to prove that the customer paid for the item.
        • willfe, on 03/03/2008, -4/+8Yup, it's entirely fine for them to *ask*. That is *all* they can do, apart from recording your physical details or license plate number to report a suspected theft to law enforcement.

          There's no point in lecturing people in what PROOF OF PURCHASE means. Once I have paid for an item and been issued that PROOF OF PURCHASE, I have no need to present that PROOF OF PURCHASE again whenever someone working for the store demands it just because I'm trying to leave the store with it.

          There are only three acceptable exceptions to this: 1) a membership store where it is disclosed that receipts must be inspected and marked when leaving the property with items the store sells; 2) as a "claim slip" style purchase, where the merchandise isn't actually put in the buyer's cart at the register but has to be retrieved from a cage and given to the purchaser after PROOF OF PURCHASE is shown; 3) to prove "I really bought this here" when exchanging or returning an item.

          This detainment ***** needs to stop, whether or not people fully understand the details of the fourth amendment. Be happy people even know *what it is*, and try to be more polite when explaining the subtle details of it. Smile when you realize people are starting to actually pay attention at least a little.
          • Jammer, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/21_v35 ...

            'nuff said.
          • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Wait wait wait.. let me follow this...

            You buy a good. At the exact moment that you pay for it, two things happen. 1 - you receive a PROOF OF PURCHASE. 2 - you no longer need a PROOF OF PURCHASE except to return/exchange?

            Riiiiiiiiight...
            well, I just bought good A... went home.. spent a week with it, then brought it back into the store JUST BECAUSE. When I leave, I don't have to show a PROOF OF PURCHASE to anyone, because I payed for it last week :)
          • TheSabre, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2So, why would you need a receipt for claims pickup? If you bought it and they take it out to your car from the dock or some other dropoff... wouldn't that qualify as the same search? They are asking you to prove you purchased.

            Why wouldn't you make a fuss to get the to load it into your car without proof?
          • willfe, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1JoJoDillio: Are you functionally illiterate? I explicitly *stated* that having the proof of purchase is important for a return. Third paragraph, point #3. Go back to school, kiddo, you need to brush up on the critical thinking and reading skills a bit.

            And, actually, yes, suppose you buy some clothes, or a wallet, or some shoes at a store. Do they demand proof of purchase next week if you wear it into the store?

            TheSabre: Again, go look at my third paragraph, point #2. I *said* that's an exception, and it's a legitimate reason to insist on a receipt. It's not a "search," either, unless you consider having to present a claim slip to your dry cleaner's a "search."
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2The 4th Amendment also only applies to searches and seizures performed by law enforcement officers. It is already understood that Walmart employees are not law enforcement officers and consequently do not have this authority even IF there is probable cause. All they can do is call the police and report the suspected theft.

          I do not think this is an ideal solution. Clearly there is a hole in the law, where criminals are allowed to steal merchandise and all the stores can do is call the cops and hope they get there before the guy leaves. If he were to break into your home, you could just shoot him in self defense. It seems only natural the people (Walmart employees) feel there should be a way to stop someone that they believe is stealing from their employer. Especially since they are probably only used to dealing with criminals or people who have no problem proving they are not criminals when asked or commanded.

          Fortunately or unfortunately we do not live in a society where you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Or then again maybe we do...
        • StarlessKnight, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3@TsuruchiBrian: They could, locale depending, exercise citizen arrest, but then they're obligated to follow every rule a Law Enforcement officer would have to including Probable Cause. Store personnel could do this, I suppose, but as far as I know some/many places don't encourage chasing after suspected criminals due to liability if any injury results; better to call the police with details of the suspect.
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1I was wondering about that. I did a bit of research and found that citizens arrest laws are very different from state to state, but what they have in common is that they do not offer the liability protection that is offered to law enforcement. It sounds reckless for a company to ask it's employees to employ citizen's arrest on suspected thieves.

            What I am wondering is if professional security guards are in effect using citizen's arrest when they detain people, or whether they are considered some kind of quasi law enforcement under the law. I am talking more about the real security guards with guns, not the ones that work at the mall.
      • HannibalLecter, on 03/03/2008, -7/+5The 4th Amendment right regarding search and seizure applies to governmental entities, not private entities such as Wal-Mart.
        • GreyICE, on 03/03/2008, -2/+3Actually, if we want to make this a matter between two private citizens, the minute they lay hands on you without your consent its called assault. That's a nice criminal charge, right there.

          The fact of the matter is, to even be able to think about laying hands on you they have to be trained officially. There's usually 1-2 people in the store with that training, max.

          If you don't have official training and permission, and you lay your hands on someone to restrain them or detain them against their will, it is assault. Trust me, I will charge you with it if you decide to do it to me.
        • MrThursty, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Not necessarily.... the corporate entity, being the store and its employees, has the same right to protect its property as you do and has the same right to defend that property as you do. Assault is physical contact with the intent to cause harm. A person may physically detain another as long as there is no physical harm in order to wait for the governmental authorities to arrive and sort out the situation and allow actual charges to be pressed. It usually falls under legislation covering a citizen's arrest process where the detaining person must physically detain the accused until police arrive with full verbal declaration of intent.

          I know I'll probably get buried... but it is basically the same as you defending your home by detaining and restraining a burglar in your home until police arrive.
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0Big difference: if someone breaks into your house, you can reasonably bet that he is a burglar.
            But customers do not break into Wal-mart. They are more or less INVITED there. The establishment WANTS them there. So unless they have evidence (like CCTV footage) of a person stealing, they have no right to detain you against your will. If they do, don't shrug it away and charge them. Sue them. Target the specific employee if you feel so, seeing one ruined will put the rest of the wannabe robocops in line.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2When you capture a burglar in your home, you are not defending your property, you are defending yourself. You can do almost anything you want to the burglar in the name of self defense including killing the guy. You just can't shoot him in the back as he is running away.
        • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4@GreyICE - I DARE you to try and sue somebody for merely putting their hands on you. In fact, lets meet up so I can touch your shoulder, you can sue me, then I can counter-sue for your frivolous lawsuit.

          Its about common ***** decency. He was a douche bag to them, they were douches right back.

          Usually, I'm all about the Consumerist, but there are WAY too many stories on there recently about customers being complete assholes and thinking that it's completely fine. Well its not fine. This guy had, IMO, two options. If he REALLY want to make a stand, show the receipt, then go return the merchandise like the poster above recommended. Otherwise, he could show the receipt and be on his way.
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -1/+0I don't know how things are in the US, but in most countries in Europe I can get you arrested right away for putting your hands on me. Not sued: arrested. As in, jailed.
    • DjArcadian, on 03/03/2008, -7/+2You tell e'm Strong!
    • kingmanic, on 03/03/2008, -8/+95You're forgetting where the store clerk over stepped her bounds into criminal actions. The problem isn't the customer, he isn't required by any law to show the receipt. The store may ask politely for it. If the customer declines it's not within the rights of the store to detain him unless shop lifting was directly observed.
      • rholland356, on 03/03/2008, -22/+3That's a rather fine point to it, kingmaniac. Have you defended people in such cases? How does that work out?
        • kingmanic, on 03/03/2008, -0/+15I'm not a lawyer. I do work for a public legal education firm. If the store employee observed a crime being committed she may issue a citizens arrest and ask the customer to be detained until the police arrive. they may not physically detain them. the Store employee may notify the police in either case. I am only 100% that it is applicable within Alberta, Canada before the date we reviewed the material. However most juristictions in north America have similar laws.
    • div2n, on 03/03/2008, -16/+92I often don't take a bag if I'm buying one item. It's wasteful.

      Also, there is no law requiring me to show them a receipt. Period.

      Lastly, if they grab me, it's assault and I'm going to own them in court when I sue.
      • rholland356, on 03/03/2008, -29/+2No one twisted your arm to shop at that store, and while in the store you are on private property. Store security has every right to detain you if they suspect you have stolen property on your possession. And by refusing to document your purchase for the merchandise in your possession, you generate suspicion. See how it is set up so you can't win?
        • gamabunta, on 03/03/2008, -2/+18As soon as he purchased that item it became his private property. The store has no right to search your private property.
          • rholland356, on 03/03/2008, -10/+2And the store gave J the opportunity to differentiate the item in his hand from the items on the shelf by showing his receipt, while still on private property. And since there was no other reasonable way to differentiate said item from the others in the store, the store took action. And the store had every right to follow its own policy.
            Is it a hassle and do you feel cheapened when the door monkey wants to see that receipt? Certainly. Do they ask it of everyone? They must, to avoid discrimination. Does it help reduce the cost of theft and lower the cost of merchandise? Yes. Accountants swear by it. Do customers return to stores with lower prices? Yes, they do. If J held stock in this retail chain, would he demand store management address shrinkage to get better return on his investment. He most likely would agree that the policy benefits his share price.
            So, if many stores take this same action, where are all the lawsuits?
        • willfe, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Bzzzzt.

          It's set up to make you *think* you can't win, but of course you can.

          1) Don't shop there if they ever treat you badly like this.
          2) Assert your rights and refuse to submit to any kind of search or to any attempt at detainment.

          Just because you walk onto my property doesn't mean I can strip search you, even if I think you've stolen something. It just doesn't work that way.
          • rholland356, on 03/04/2008, -7/+1Walmart did not conduct a strip search--they asked to see the items J was leaving with that he did not have when he came in--the merchandise and the receipt. And your comment makes me wonder how you imagine a citizen's arrest ever occurs.
      • thebigbradwolf, on 03/03/2008, -2/+3Battery
      • qwertycopter, on 03/04/2008, -15/+3You're not preventing any waste by not taking the bag.
        • Firehed, on 03/04/2008, -1/+9He's delaying the bag being taken, which delays more bags being ordered, which delays more bags being produced. Yes, it prevents waste. Barely, but still more than zero.
          • qwertycopter, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1The person behind him will take his bag almost immediately. He delayed nothing.
          • kingmanic, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1@qwertycopter: which still means 1 less bag was taken. Is counting a problem for you?
          • qwertycopter, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1When they run out of bags, they'll just order more. It's not until they stop ordering bags that you will see any sort of "bag savings." And they're not going to do that.

            But it's a moot point because the bags have already been created. So NOT using them is a waste of all the energy spent on making the bags.

            You could take the bag and reuse it for other things. That would be the opposite of waste.
        • wellyuk, on 03/04/2008, -1/+8If everyone didn't take a bag, then the shop wouldn't order as many bags. If lots of shops didn't order as many bags, the bag manufacturers wouldn't make as many bags.
        • samssf, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Of course declining to take a bag prevents waste.
          • TheSabre, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Yes, it does. And all those people that refuse to show their receipt because they choose not to take a bag are creating more waste by making the company and sometimes the police straighten things out. These people don't care about the waste, they care about making a scene and getting their way.
        • iceblademan, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1None of you have ever worked retail, have you? I've worked as a clerk at several jobs and anyone who asks me to take their items out of a bag that I've put them in to better ***** believe that I'm going to throw that bag away as fast as I can. Pretty much every clerk is going to do that, so no, you aren't really helping anything but rather taking away from a convience that is provided to you for free.
      • Pyroteq, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2Conditions of entry.
    • MattyLite, on 03/03/2008, -13/+125Did he do it to prove a point? Yes. Was he acting like an ass? Absolutely. Guess what: he has every right, as a United States citizen to do both of those things. The Walmart employee on the other hand, has no right to detain people.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/04/2008, -16/+4So, anyone can walk out of Wal-Mart with anything and not be challenged?
        • senatorpjt, on 03/04/2008, -2/+10Basically, unless they saw you walk out without paying. There's no reason to check a receipt if there's someone actually watching where people come out of the registers. You don't have to be particularly observant to notice someone walking through with an item without stopping at a register.
          • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/04/2008, -8/+2Since they can't watch everyone all the time, I guess your chances are pretty good if you just act like you know what you're doing, and roll that 43" HDTV out the door.

            I sure hope you are running my local Wal-Mart, or any other store! I wanna just walk out with stuff and take anything I want!!
        • moush, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Yes, unless you're stopped by a police officer. Employee's (and security guards) have no right to detain people.
    • Jforsyth89, on 03/03/2008, -4/+10He probably didn't make the right decision if police involvement could really have have cost him his job. Wasn't there a story on Digg about a man who was arrested at Best Buy for not showing his receipt? I'm not saying that the employees were right in this case, but the guy should probably have exercised better judgment if his livelihood was at stake.
      • tomz17, on 03/03/2008, -5/+16I'm glad he had the balls to stand up for himself, even with his job on the line. This country would be a better place if we had more citizens like him. The tea didn't throw itself overboard!
        • Kanidia, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2He is standing up against Walmart's employees, and not the government. Getting angry at the government violating your rights is one thing. Walmart employees who are just trying to do their job and I don't find it respectful to give them a hard time. The proper thing to do would have been explaining his own rights clearly and apologizing for causing the employee inconvenience, and not barge out the door like he can do anything he wants.
      • gamabunta, on 03/03/2008, -1/+10Yes and in regards to that Best Buy story the police department settled with him before it went to court. The guy didn't want to waste any more time and the cops didn't want the bad PR. It's somewhere on consumerist
      • kingraoul3, on 03/03/2008, -5/+5Yeah, but you can't live in fear. He was right, and he stood up for himself.
      • piper999, on 03/03/2008, -13/+9Let's face it he would have ***** his pants and started crying like a child if made to actually stand up for himself. He is a classic cowardly bully who wants to make somebody pay for his presumably miserable childhood even if it means making the lives of retail workers as difficult as he can manage.
        • gamabunta, on 03/03/2008, -8/+3Regardless, retail workers get paid to provide service to customers. This includes dealing with assholes. If you don't like it then deliver newspapers from a van so you don't have to interact with anyone.

        • iceblademan, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4@ gamabunta
          If you worked a retail job in your life you'd take that back. The problem stems from people presuming that the person providing customer service is "below" them in some shape or form. We are not. We aren't at the ***** mercy of everyone who walks into the store. We are paid to provide service and accommodate those who need help, not take ***** from every bitchy menopausal woman or douch construction worker who is having a bad day. These people actually respect you more when you say this right to their face: "I'm not at your mercy. You can step all over me and then report me to my manager but you better believe we are going to laugh it up at your expense the second you leave."
          • gamabunta, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1I do work retail.
          • gamabunta, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2I've worked 40+ hour weeks graveyard. I've dealt with drunks who bitch and complain about everything from prices being too high to items not meeting their "moral standards." You cannot pick and choose who you are nice to. You are hired to provide customer service, keyword being customer; this includes the ***** customers, the bitchy customers, the messy customers, the rude customers, they are all customers regardless of purchase and you are paid to be courteous to them. They are not paid to be courteous to you.
            This is not some Will Ferrell sketch about Jeffrey's where you can pick and choose who you would like to be nice to.

            As I stated earlier, if you don't like it get out of retail and get a job where you have little human interaction because you are unhappy with your situation in life (as we all are, the key difference between me and you is I don't go bitching about it.)
          • piper999, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Next time you "don't bitch about something" try not bitching about it not only in public but in writing since it sounds a little schizo.
      • senatorpjt, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7I can't believe he would lose his job if the police showed up and found out he paid for the item. In that case he could probably sue his employer too.
    • jccalhoun, on 03/03/2008, -8/+38So not taking a plastic bag that you don't want and that would either need to be recycled or thrown into a landfill is asking for trouble?
      I never take a bag when I only have one item because I don't want the bother of recyling or throwing it away. Am I asking for trouble?
      • daborg, on 03/03/2008, -11/+8No. You're asking for trouble if you do the above and then refuse to show your receipt on your way out.
        • asskicker32, on 03/04/2008, -1/+8even then, youre still not. Youre asking for trouble if you act shady and suspicious then have them detain you for suspicion of shioplifting just to prove a point. Then youre a dick, actually. Youve transcended "asking for trouble"
        • daborg, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5To the retards digging me down: "Asking for trouble" doesn't mean that Wal-Mart is right, or that they will prevail if there is trouble. It just means that you're asking for trouble, which you may or may not get. This has nothing to do with your legal rights, it's just a fact of human nature.

          Asking for trouble isn't wrong, in fact it's necessary in some circumstances when your rights are being threatened in a major way. Having to show your receipt is the wrong battle to pick though, unless you have way too much time on your hands.
    • woohhaa, on 03/03/2008, -23/+16Ok so the employee asks to see your receipt and you just continue on past him like he didn't matter. That's not just rude but it's down right disrespectful towards that person. You think you are better than them J?
      • misterhat, on 03/03/2008, -3/+11Would you be more offended if someone accused you of stealing (which is what walmart does) or ignored you?
      • ElSnuggles, on 03/03/2008, -2/+9No smarty, he didn't ignore him. He said "I put it in my wallet already". In the future, please read the article.

        He was well within his rights. Now, he could have gone about it a better way, yes, but at least he's taking a stand for his rights.
        • wellyuk, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6I'm going to try that next time I'm in the USA and I want to rob a store - "The receipt's in my wallet!"
        • Kanidia, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Standing up for one's own rights is one thing, causing trouble is another. He could have properly exercised his own rights passively and filed a complaint, instead of creating a big commotion. I don't know about that random guy who came up to block him though, that's ridiculous. Who the heck does he think he is?
      • senatorpjt, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Accusing the customer of shoplifting with no evidence is rude too, no?
        • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Originally, he wasn't exactly accused of stealing.

          To be fair, it's possible that the first employee only wanted to see the receipt because he wanted to know the price of the merchandise, thinking to himself, "Wow, that's a nice shower rack. I might have to buy that when I get off work today." It was the other people that got involved who blew the whole thing out of proportion.

          But more to your point, it is rude to accuse people of stealing.
    • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -11/+51"J admits to carrying the item to the door without a bag or proof of purchase."

      No he doesn't, you idiot. Learn to read. He had the receipt, he just chose not to show it.
    • Falldog, on 03/03/2008, -2/+4It's sorta funny that when I opened this digg story Strong had -1. By the time I read the story and some of the comments, dugg him up and refreshed, to see him jump all the way up to 54 lol
    • creepermclurker, on 03/03/2008, -5/+6Strong, you're a victim in waiting.
    • p0tent1al, on 03/03/2008, -8/+16Provocation is non issue, whether his intention was to provoke someone or not, he still reserves the rights given to him by The Constitution. Whether he is provoking or not, once he pays for that item it is legally his and you cannot detain him. But according to you it's wrong to provoke, so according to you he deserved it right?

      The same people that have the "Thank you sir, may I have another attitude" often forget that there are people out there still fighting for all of our rights and principles.

      Me personally, I don't give a ***** how little you think this matters, this is his right to do this. Once you let the government and corporations cross the line, after drawing that new line you allow them to cross it again and again, little by little dwindling down our freedoms. It's called integrity and principle, maybe some people should learn it.
      • moush, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3I don't think the right to not show the receipt is in the constitution.
      • MedHead, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Nor does the Constitution "give" people rights. It limits the power of the government.
        • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0You should read it again. The Constitution states that all individuals are BORN with certain rights that are INALIENABLE: this means nobody (the government AND private entities) can take them again. You can't even renounce them. Any contract you sign that violates your constitutional rights is null and void.
          Check your facts.
    • norman619, on 03/03/2008, -18/+21No *****.

      FTA: "As I was approaching the door, the receipt checker Bob said, "Do you have your receipt?" To which I responded, "Yes, it's in my wallet" and I kept walking towards the door. Behind me, I could hear him yell "Sir! Sir! I need to see your receipt!", but being an avid Consumerist reader, I knew I didn't need to stop, so I kept walking. Bob ran up in front of me and stood between the slider doors, blocking my exit and budging me back inside. Appalled that the Wal-mart employee had just touched me, I said "excuse me", but Bob refused to budge, demanding again to see my receipt. I attempted to walk around him, but he kept stepping in front of me, and I would bounce off of him. Now, I was bigger than Bob, but I didn't wish to get physical and blow the situation out of proportion."

      The man acknowledged that Bob's job was to check your receipt. He also knew his item wasn't bagged. Carrying an item like that and making for the door looks suspicious. Then when asked if he had a receipt he gave the smart ass comment of "yes it's in my wallet" and continues for the door. He escalated the situation. I shot at Walmart all the time. A few times I did as he did and opted to not bag the item I just purchased. As I am leaving they usually ask to see my receipt which I show them and I am on my way. Stopping to show them the receipt only takes a few seconds. When I choose to bag my purchase they usually don't bother asking me for my receipt. I guess it makes him feel important to look like a shoplifter then pretend to be surprised when he is treated as a suspected shoplifter.
      • Nudar, on 03/03/2008, -1/+13Please don't shoot at Wal-Mart or I'll call the cops.
        • norman619, on 03/03/2008, -1/+5LOL!!! I didn't notice the typo. :-)
      • FFIO, on 03/04/2008, -5/+5dugg you down for shopping at Wal Mart all the time.
      • willfe, on 03/04/2008, -2/+12*Ahem*. I can look as suspicious as I like, but without proof, you have zero right to detain me. We do not (yet) live in a country where guilt is presumed and innocence must be proven. "Hey! I think you stole that!" "Oh. Prove it!" "I can't, but you could end this all now and prove you didn't!" "Nuts to you, that's not how this works. Go away." "Dang."

        As for the "smart ass comment" in response to the question, shouldn't the employee have asked the *correct* question?
        • Kanidia, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1I understand what you mean by fighting for your own rights, but sometimes the law isn't what defines a reasonable ethical action. Someone steals your wallet and purse and is holding it in their hand, while walking away. You call to them "stop that's mine! Give it back!". He refuses to give it back, even though he is clearly holding your wallet/purse. However, you have no right to search that wallet or ask him to open it, and he walks away with your money and items.

          What I want to say is, actions such as this doesn't exercise our rights, it makes jobs harder for corporations, which will directly affect the way they function in the system. As a result, you can expect them to implement more obstacles and restrictions in order to prevent shoplifting. There are a lot of legal rights that corporations have too, and if they exercised all of them to "fight for their rights", then us consumers are doomed.
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0You're basically saying that if we don't bend over for the corporations, they will get angry and put all of us in some sort of prison camp? :D
    • tomz17, on 03/03/2008, -18/+11stronglikedan, you are a coward, and your mentality is one of the things wrong with this country today... I mean sure, J could have EASILY reached into his wallet and shown the receipt, but he would have just contributed to the systematic erosion of our basic liberties. Instead, he stood up for his rights at the risk of significant personal expense. Rights that many before him fought and died for. That is NEVER a bad thing.

      In the words of Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      • analogkid01, on 03/03/2008, -6/+9Uh, no. stronglikedan is right, J was simply asking for trouble. He was not "rebelling" or committing "civil disobedience" or whatever. J was not struggling against a tyrannical government; he was looking for trouble at a privately-owned establishment. He was not "protecting his rights," he was being an ass. The WalMart employees did act inappropriately - I would've liked to have seen them let J go, get his license plate number, then call the cops on his belligerent ass. And I hate cops, so, what does that tell you? J's better option, if he hates being asked for his receipt THAT BADLY, is to simply not shop at WalMart anymore. That's the way it works in the capitalist system, and it works quite well if people do it.
        • GreyICE, on 03/03/2008, -2/+3Why is it that if a government does it its taking away our rights, yet if it becomes standard private policy (with no contract signed between the parties, mind you) it's not rights erosion? All this leads to is the government subcontracting their ability to steal your rights to private firms (See: Telecom scandal).
        • willfe, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3He wasn't asking for trouble. He was carrying something out of a store with both his hands busy. It is an unnecessary and unwelcome hassle to have to prove that you really did just pay for something a minute ago. He knew he paid for it. He knew he had a receipt. He knew the law -- they had no right to forcibly detain him. That's not asking for trouble -- that's asserting his own ***** rights. What is *wrong* with you?

          Why would you have "liked" to see the cops called on his "belligerent ass?" So they, too, could spank the Wal-Mart employees for misbehaving? For reminding them that he was right and the cops shouldn't have been called and he shouldn't have ever been stopped?
      • rushiku, on 03/03/2008, -0/+7Being able to walk out of a store with merchandise you may or may not have purchased _without being asked for proof of purchase_ is an essential liberty?

        Yes, I see now that I've been wrong headed about this. People are basically good, right? That's why they have to tether the _fake_ cell phones to the display at . That's why you lock your doors when you leave your house - because you know that because people are basically good, you can trust them not to steal you blind.
        • Rendonsmug, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1Stores do not check receipts to prevent that kind of shoplifting, they do it to prevent employee collaboration to undercharge.

          The store has no right to detain you without probable cause, and there was no probable cause. The store was in the wrong.
        • MedHead, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Stores can check receipts for more than one reason. Shoplifting is definitely one of them.
          • Pixelante, on 03/04/2008, -1/+0Checking the receipt is in their rights. DETAINING a person against their will is not.
            However the right thing to do is: AFTER they have detained you against your will show the receipt, then call the manager and ask if that's normal practice with them.
            If it is, call your lawyer and sue them.
            If it is not, call the police and have the employee arrested, and then your lawyer and sue him into the gutter.
      • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Wow, I forgot that all our soldiers fought and died to protect your right to walk out of Wal-Mart 5 seconds faster... kind of all seems worth it now, huh?
        In the words of Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
        If the Essential Liberty here is not being asked for a receipt, then the safety is that Wal-Mart increases LP and lowers the cost of their goods, helping the economy, and making the "temporary" part disappear. Ben Franklin is still right, but you sir, are still an ass.
      • sporkit, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2"systematic erosion of our basic liberties"

        Couldn't have put it better. The issue here is far from taking 5 seconds to show somebody a receipt. Anybody making that point is obviously incapable of comprehending a simple concept and missed the point of this article. Is showing your receipt hard? No. When were all comfortable with that this we can move on to emptying our pockets and opening up our wallets. Matter of fact give them your email, phone number, zip code, drivers license, and social security card. I've been asked for all but the last of them.
        • MedHead, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Stores want your personal information to sell or use for their own profit. If you don't like it, don't shop at the store. Giving your personal information and presenting proof of purchase are two different things.
    • Tetra, on 03/03/2008, -17/+30What J did was heroic. He pushed the boundaries of his civil liberties. It was not about whether or not it was more or less convenient - it was about taking a stand to test his constitutional right against unauthorized search and seizure. If we had more J's around, people would have more rights.
      • Zong, on 03/03/2008, -5/+3Unauthorized Search and Seizure applies to Government not Wallmart first. I'm all for rights but what your saying to me that business owners have no rights. We would have plenty of rights if it wasn't for every single person trying to get an advantage over the other.

        Since you are on using Wallmart property to buy Wallmart products you have agreed to their terms of service.

        Futhermore most establishments are very lose with these rules, they barely even glance at your stuff so you can hardly call it a search. They usually just want to prevent people from walking back in with the receipt and walkout with the same item agian, and agian, and agian. You take away a businesses ability to protect it's self from that you create more locked down businesses that will only hand you products after you paid for them.
        Now if you want to argue that Wallmart has no rights then you racist toward corporations or whatever they call that type of hate.
        • verevi, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Your* argument is as bad as you're* grammar and spelling in you're* Wallmart* discussion.


          * Examples of your incorrectness used to illustrate my point.
        • MedHead, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2*Examples of ignoring the post because it makes a good point.
        • Kanidia, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4I don't know why you are dugg down. It seems like a lot of digg users are libertarians but they don't understand what being a libertarian means. By exercising your own right, you should not be affecting other people's liberties. Walmart has the right to protect their own business, and I don't find it unethical for them to ask for a receipt each time someone leaves. Maybe these rights aren't protected legally, but they are ethical rights that they deserve, and we should not base our ethics on the laws of the country we live in. By showing the receipt to them, this is a type of courtesy. That doesn't mean that they can search you or anything. They certainly aren't taking advantage of you either. As a matter of fact, if you don't show the receipt, you would be a person taking advantage of them, using your personal rights to exploit the company to your own advantage and convenience.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3So...anyone can walk out of Wal-Mart with anything and not be challenged???
        • Dax420, on 03/04/2008, -6/+4*****, post this question again. I dare you.

          To answer your question:

          By a cop: Yes
          By a $6/hr Walmart goon: NO!
        • Rendonsmug, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3Ok, as someone who used to work at walmart I have 2 things to say.

          1: Entry level wages for cashiers (and cashiers often double for door workers) was $7.90, much above minimum wage.
          2: The first thing they tell you when you first take a turn at the doors was that if the machine goes off, you ask for a receipt, log it, then de-activate the item. Ask. They tell you to NEVER run after or chase down a customer. NEVER prevent one from leaving, as it is illegal.
          • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Wow...I think I'll just start taking TVs and stereos and DVD players from Wal-Mart then. The moment they challenge me, I'll just turn on the attitude and they'll leave me alone!

            Sweet!!!
          • Kanidia, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1@CaptainAmerica: Well, until they call the cops.
    • qbelek2, on 03/03/2008, -6/+10why?
      if you have a receipt that means that you went through the cash register station where they already checked that you bought and you already payed for it.
      If you left the sales floor without buying anything you had to go through the special gate that is monitored.
      so checking by the door, that what was already checked once, is quite pointless. No shop in EU that I know of would even think of implementing such a system, and the people that are asked for receipt are the ones that where caught shoplifting, NEVER all people leaving the store - waiting in a queue to exit then you already paid? - ridiculous!
      • JoJoDilio, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1It's just a tad bit different in the US, but I like that system. If it works, more power to you. Bring it over here.
      • MedHead, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1Personally, I don't really care how you do it in EU.
        • qbelek2, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2well its something to think about the the next time you will be standing for couple of minutes in a 10 person queue to show a receipt that was printed just seconds before, while I wont think of such nonsense that goes in US at all and just leave my EU store without being bothered by anyone :D
    • Jammer, on 03/03/2008, -12/+9stronglikedan is correct: if you go looking for trouble, don't be surprised when you suddenly find it. What's the big deal about showing a receipt? If you are suspected of shoplifting you can legally be detained in many States, btw. Not showing a receipt implies you're shoplifting. This guy "J" is just a dick looking to cause trouble.
      • spartan2, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5You need Reasonable Suspicion to compel a person to produce a receipt or wait for the police. Refusal to produce a receipt is not grounds for being detained because you first need to satisfy Reasonable Suspicion: witnessing the person shoplifting or setting off the security device at the exit. Not showing a receipt implies you didn't want to show your receipt. Your assertion is tantamount to arguing that if one has nothing to hide that they wouldn't mind a thorough search of their house, car, and person anytime they look a bit funny to the police. Remember, refusal of a search does not mean you have something to hide.
        • TheSabre, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Reasonable suspicion is also "leaving the store with merchandise not contained in a bag". While it's not illegal, it is suspicious.
    • signal15, on 03/03/2008, -4/+11So they can't keep an eye on a customer from the 20 feet it takes them to walk from the register to the door? And don't give me that ***** about dishonest employees giving stuff to their friends, they shouldn't have to search the customer to find out if their employees are dishonest.

      I wouldn't show my receipt either, just on principle. They have ZERO right to look at it, and I have EVERY right to leave if I've paid for my items. I should not have to give up my rights because others are shady, and I will not do it.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1So...anyone can walk out of Wal-Mart with anything and not be challenged???
        • joosebuck, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3logic defies you.
        • senatorpjt, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2No, you have to pay for it. It's their job to notice people walking through the register area with an item without paying - if they notice that, then they are allowed to stop you. It's their problem if they don't have anyone there to watch the area - you can't stop people at the door with no actual evidence of shoplifting.
    • vertinox, on 03/03/2008, -2/+1How hard would it be for Wal Mart to put a sticker on it like they do on grocery stores?
    • defska42, on 03/03/2008, -5/+5This is the equivalent to insulting a large drunk guy at a bar. The resulting actions aren't necessarily appropriate (or legal) but you are getting what you deserve. Don't get me wrong, I hate WalMart probably more than most; but why hassle an (obviously) undereducated employee who is just trying to make a living? Fight the corporations, not the workers. These people have obviously never worked in retail.
    • jdepp, on 03/03/2008, -11/+8If you've got the receipt on you then why the hell don't you just show it? I think it's perverse to refuse to do so. If the guy on guard duty lets you walk out without challenging you, maybe it's a test and he would be sacked for not picking up on what 99/100 other times is just blatant shop-lifting? I'm all for individual rights, but seems the bottom line is this guy was ignoring the fairly reasonable request from the shop employee - show me you paid for that - so he's being a jerk. Perhaps he had the legal right to be a jerk, but still.
      • MURDERTRON, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7"If you've got the receipt on you then why the hell don't you just show it?"

        There is no legal compulsion to do so. The guards are not entitled to courtesy because they are not entitled to such a request, yet they facilitated its standardization. This isn't a matter of minimizing store losses. Even though employees are trained to permit and report theft, most retail theft is still attributed to employees! This is about psychological conditioning. Pay attention to the meetings attended by the wealthiest CEOs to learn more about their agenda.
        • TheSabre, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Yes. And there's no legal compulsion to hold doors open for people, let them go first in line, let them keep the change, wait until their finished before speaking, say "please" and "thank you"... but sometimes, it makes the world better if we are considerate towards other people.
    • jhickner, on 03/04/2008, -6/+9"Asking for trouble" is exactly what's called for in this situation. If you want to be a coward, go ahead. Put your head down, keep your mouth shut, and follow the rules. As for the rest of us, being treated like a criminal by employees of the store we just spent our hard-earned money at is not acceptable.
    • spacewhale, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4"When I refused, the customer responded with "Maybe I'm a cop". So now I have Wal-mart employee Bob and a customer impersonating a police officer physically blocking my exit and budging me back inside when I try to press by them. I was scared."

      I would hardly consider somebody saying "Maybe I'm a cop" an outright impersonation. I'll give him props for standing up to the man and knowing his rights, but seriously, he knew these events had a good chance of happening. He doesn't have to lie about being "scared" to get our sympathy.

      Next time, record this stuff with a camera, with audio. I'm seriously tired of all these stories making front page where somebody gets mistreated at a store for a receipt but we don't get both sides.
    • stevan2002, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3I agree, you are just asking for trouble. Nobody shows any sympathy for wal-mart becasue they are multi billion dollar organization, yet if anyone owned their own small business and was just coming in to check up on things, then happened to see someone walking out with one of their items without any proof of purchase, they would not react kindly.

      Why not grow and realize that the people at the store are just employees doing what they thought was right. Nobody refused to show a recipt they have while ignoring the man talking to you unless they are a complete jackass or unless they are shoplifting.
    • GhengisKhan, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2If you were walking down the street and the local cops asked for proof of purchase, I could see resisting. But you are shopping on private property and that company has a right to check for a receipt. Costco does it to everyone and nobody complains. Just show the receipt and stop being a douchebag.
  • Y0tsuya, on 03/03/2008, -32/+84That's why I shop at Target and Costco. At least you don't have to show the receipt at Target (yet). As for Costco, you agreed to it when you signed up for membership. I never agreed to have my bags searched when I shop at Wal-mart, or Fry's for that matter.
    • skipdog172, on 03/03/2008, -21/+6Oh hush. Your comment is brainless Wal-Mart hate. This has to do with these employees and the individual store itself.
      • Y0tsuya, on 03/03/2008, -4/+9Oh hush yourself. What individual store? Every wal-mart checks your receipt. I just prefer not to shop at a place that does if there's a perfectly good alternative. This is a case of voting with my wallet, a concept you apparently don't understand.
        • Harabeck, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2What? No they dont.
        • noloveIII, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3I have never had my receipt checked at wal mart and i go there at least monthly
        • Y0tsuya, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2Must be the SF Bay Area then. I stand corrected.
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/03/2008, -22/+23If it is suspected that you did not pay for the items you are leaving the store with, a merchant has every right to stop you when you exit the store and demand proof that you paid for the merchandise. You do not have to specifically agree with Wal-Mart as to the enforcement of the policy...it's called "implied consent." How do I know this? My first security job was that of a store detective. I went to small claims court many times representing my employer and never lost a case brought by someone who was "insulted" or otherwise miffed that I had stopped them. This guy brought the world down on himself.

      Why is it that US society has spawned a generation of "know it all" micro-activists???
      • MiDri, on 03/03/2008, -4/+1because we have no real activists.
      • brjndr, on 03/03/2008, -1/+18If it suspected you did not pay. But that suspicion has to be reasonable. They can't stop everyone, and they have to have a reason to stop the person they do. It's called shopkeepers privilege, and the requirements vary slightly from state to state, so make sure you know the rules where you live.
      • rholland356, on 03/03/2008, -7/+1Word. And the word is "diggers."
        I has computer. Can I has knowledge?
      • reaper527, on 03/03/2008, -0/+13i agre with brjndr on this one. would you like to backup the claim that EVERYONE who walks through the doors is a criminal? (as they have the right to stop suspected shoplifters, and every single person to walk in gets stopped)

        walmart sucks anyways, i got stuck tagging along with a friend at a sam's club (i personally will not spend a cent at walmart or its affiliated stores), and we not only got stopped going out, they actually stopped us on the way in to verify that we had a membership.
      • defaria, on 03/03/2008, -2/+15No, they don't have that right. They have to see you stealing or concealing things and they have to stop you after you leave. Before you leave you have not stolen anything yet. Add to that you actually paid them. As a business you should set up shop such that people exiting the registers and heading to the doors are assumed to have purchased (like I said, if you believe otherwise you better have observed the perpetrator get the item, conceal the item and you have to have an uninterrupted and unbroken chain of observance from that time until they start leaving - in fact the law says as much and as a self proclaimed store detective you damn oughta know that! Otherwise methinks you're just a plain liar!). You don't have the right to detain people who are leaving your building with their property and you don't have the right to demand the prove they are not stealing. You need to prove that they are!
        • Jammer, on 03/03/2008, -7/+1Buzzzzz. Wrong answer. A merchant has every right to demand proof of purchase before exiting the store, and can detain you if they suspect you might not have purchased the item you hold in your hand (not all States, but most). Read the laws first, dumbass -- then comment.
          • reaper527, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5look up the definition of "reasonable suspicion", they are not legally entitled to stop EVERY single person who walks in the store without just cause.
          • petrodollar, on 03/04/2008, -2/+6Why don't you point us toward one of these "laws" that you claim says a merchant can detain you for refusing to show a receipt?
          • Jammer, on 03/04/2008, -6/+1That's not what I said, petrodick. What I stated is that a merchant has a right to detain you if they have probable cause that you are shoplifting. If you refuse to produce a receipt, they have every right to still also search your bags and items that are in plain sight. It's simple, actually: you want to be a dick - well, they can return the favor.
            http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/21_v35 ...
          • petrodollar, o