Dealing with checkout harassment

[mhendo]

@OneCentStamp

The legal issues might be cut and dried if not for the twofold problem that in the OP’s story, he (1) was complaining about retailers (e.g. Costco) who check every receipt, alarm or no alarm; and (2) the merchant employees in question were at pains to assure him that nobody suspected him of theft.

It’s true that the article, as a whole, deals with all those issues.

But the two paragraphs quoted in the OP specifically deal with the issue of a shopper who activates the alarm. The author states very clearly that, in cases where this happens:

The clearest reason for leaving the store, however, is that there exists absolutely no legal obligation to remain there, and the store has no right to detain you.

As far as i can tell, in Alabama and in plenty of other states, this simply IS NOT TRUE. If the store has probable cause to suspect theft, they do have the right to detain you. And the sounding of an alarm definitely constitutes probable cause in some states, and probably does in Alabama.

Also, if you read the other threads on this issue (the one linked by Random, and the ones linked in that thread), you’ll see that our resident lawyers like Bricker and Random have clearly stated that activating the alarm is probable cause, and that it is a very different situation from simply asking to see all receipts.

In fact, in this thread, in post #90, Random says:

The majority of this thread has become a discussion of whether a merchant may detain a customer who sets off an alarm, or otherwise does something that gives the merchant probable cause to suspect shoplifting. I think Bricker and others have fully answered that question, at least for some representative states, with appropriate cites.

I don’t see anyone here citing any authority for the proposition that a merchant may routinely demand a receipt from a customer absent any indication of shoplifting, unless the customer has agreed in advance (as in the Costco situation) to allow this. Does anyone [deny] that a customer may legally ignore such demands, without any (legal) fear of being detained or other penalty, other than being banned from the store in the future?

In response, Bricker, in post #92, says:

Absent some indicia of suspicion, the level of which (probable cause, reasonable suspicion) varies between states, and absent a pre-existing Costco-type agreement, the merchant may not simply demand to see a receipt and legally detain you for not presenting it.

The problem is that too many people, either from poor reading comprehension or wishful thinking, continue—despite all evidence to the contrary—to assert that the store cannot detain a customer under any circumstances, including the activation of an anti-theft device.

Like hajario, i enjoyed the article despite its problematic legal conclusions. I am also extremely sympathetic to most of the author’s points, as i think i’ve already made clear. I hate being asked to show my receipt for no reason, and i hate being stopped by an alarm when i’ve done nothing wrong.

But the author makes an unequivocal statement that a store has no right to detain you if you set off the alarm, and he is unequivocally wrong.

[OneCentStamp]

@mhendo

Like hajario, i enjoyed the article despite its problematic legal conclusions. I am also extremely sympathetic to most of the author’s points, as i think i’ve already made clear. I hate being asked to show my receipt for no reason, and i hate being stopped by an alarm when i’ve done nothing wrong.

But the author makes an unequivocal statement that a store has no right to detain you if you set off the alarm, and he is unequivocally wrong.

I fully concede the point in the last paragraph here, and agree with your statements in the first. I think I’m just extra grouchy because I went to Costco yesterday. :mad:

Minor hijack: why do they bother making me show my membership card when I enter, since I can’t check out and leave without one anyway?

[corkboard]

The author of the quoted article sounds like a prick. Is it really that much of a hardship to spend a few extra seconds- even up to six minutes, in the case of Costco (supposedly)- before leaving the store? I belong to Costco too, and the door check has never taken me more than maybe- maybe- 20 seconds. It’s called the cost of living in society. You stop, they swipe your receipt, you move on. Yeah, that’s a real affront to my personal liberties.

[gigi]

@D_Odds

Not that anyone that I’ve ever encountered checks, but why not? Just because you purchased X number of items does not mean you haven’t picked up X+Y items, and have secreted some on your person.

Wow, so it could escalate to a search of my person.

[hajario]

@OneCentStamp

Minor hijack: why do they bother making me show my membership card when I enter, since I can’t check out and leave without one anyway?

They don’t want non-members in the store, even just to look around.

[OneCentStamp]

@hajario

They don’t want non-members in the store, even just to look around.

God, you make them sound like Nigel Tufnel guarding his guitars. :smack:

[msmith537]

Personally I like to plow through the security guard at Best Buy and yell BOOYA!!! But that’s just me.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Sadly, I’m too lazy to read the other threads for an answer to this question. If y’all don’t want to pander to my laziness, you don’t gotta.

But my question is this. It’s legal for a merchant to detain me under suspicion of theft. Is it legal for me to refuse to be detained? That is, if they tell me to stop, and I take off running, have I broken any law (assuming I haven’t stolen anything)?

Daniel

[betenoir]

@gigi

Wow, so it could escalate to a search of my person.

Don’t worry, I don’t think Costco will resort to cavity searches.

[Hampshire]

Usually when these things go off on me I just act oblivious and just keep on walking (not a panicked sprint). 98% of the time nothing happens.
1% of the time I might hear a “sir?!” but again I act oblivious and stroll away and nothing happens.
In the reamaining 1% of the time if someone actually chases me down and politely asks to check my packages and receipt I will comply without much fuss.
But if they demand I come back in the store I will decline their request.

[The_Universe_Lashes_Out]

Okay, so how does a store go about “detaining” me? I walked away from a receipt checker a couple weeks ago, and she called security on me. Now there’s chance they had Probable Cause that I had stolen something (the cashier forgot to affix a sticker to my twelve pack of beer to show I had paid for it and I refused to show my receipt) but I don’t see what they could have done to keep me from getting in my car and driving away. If I had been blocked on other sides by cars, they could have pulled their golf cart up behind me and blocked me in, but I had no one else around me. They aren’t going to physically restrain anyone are they? Would that be legal if they had Probable Cause? They wrote down my plate number, could they have gotten the cops to pull me over? Basically I’m asking what their “right to detain” consists of.

[gigi]

@betenoir

Don’t worry, I don’t think Costco will resort to cavity searches.

This is Wal*Mart. Aren’t they used to screwing people up the bum?

[According_to_Pliny]

One time the fool machine was right, but I was right as well.
I’d been trying on shoes and a loose adhesive metal sprial sales tag had stuck to my sock.
When I put my old scuffed shoes on, they now set off the metal detector.

I stopped for them and we discovered the thing on my sock and all learned something.
Except that I still felt I had been detained in error, so I never went back there again.

[alphaboi867]

On a related note if store staff attempt to physically detain you how far can you go to get away? If they’re using force can you use force to escape?

[D_Odds]

@gigi

Wow, so it could escalate to a search of my person.

I think a merchant or loss prevention would be on very shaky ground legally if they searched your person, but IANAL. I would imagine, if they had cause other than simply ringing the machine (i.e. they saw you stuffing stuff down your pants), they might detain you while appropriate law enforcement was called.

[mhendo]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Sadly, I’m too lazy to read the other threads for an answer to this question. If y’all don’t want to pander to my laziness, you don’t gotta.

But my question is this. It’s legal for a merchant to detain me under suspicion of theft. Is it legal for me to refuse to be detained? That is, if they tell me to stop, and I take off running, have I broken any law (assuming I haven’t stolen anything)?

Daniel

My understanding of this situation, based only on my reading of thew lawyers’ opinions in the other threads, is that it would depend on how you got away.

If they ask you to stop, and you simply run away without them ever laying a finger on you, you’re probably in the clear.

However, Bricker pointed out that the store is allowed to use reasonable force in order to detain you, and if you resist that force with force of your own you could face a charge of assault, even if you have not stolen anything.

Bricker cited a case in which a security guard attempted to stop someone, they scuffled, and the person’s friend drove up in a car. The person jumped in, and the security guard got dragged by the car and injured. The person was charged with assault, and convicted; the security guard was not charged.

I’m sure there’s more to it than what i’ve said here, but that’s the extent of my understanding on the subject. That should also, i think, answer the questions posed by HowieReynolds and alphaboi867.

[Random]

@mhendo

The problem is that too many people, either from poor reading comprehension or wishful thinking, continue—despite all evidence to the contrary—to assert that the store cannot detain a customer under any circumstances, including the activation of an anti-theft device.

---

But the author makes an unequivocal statement that a store has no right to detain you if you set off the alarm, and he is unequivocally wrong.

Thanks – that’s the source of the grouchiness. It’s not so much that there was a new thread on this issue. I fully understand that people can’t be expected to have perfect recall of all past threads. So if the OP had asked this as a question, I would have linked to the past threads, without much comment. (Although I still have to say that I’m a bit surprised that someone as active as the OP hasn’t come across any of the many lengthy threads where we’ve done this to death.)

But it wasn’t a question. It was a statement on what the law was. A wrong statement. And beyond that, the OP essentially advised people to ignore door alarms. That’s advice that could be dangerous, if followed.

For reasons that aren’t fully clear to me (or, it appears, Bricker), something about this issue somehow induces people to make incorrect claims about what the law is. Again and again. And many in the earlier threads doggedly refuse to be accept that their assumptions are wrong.

Fully explaining the law in this area takes more than a trivial amount of time. Unlike the author of the article cited by the OP, I don’t guess. I try to explain the limits and exceptions that might apply, and where state law might vary, I will generally point that out as well. That’s SOP for most of the lawyers who post here.

In the prior threads, Bricker cited to Virginia law. I cited to Illinois law. IIRC, other lawyers discussed California law and Michigan law. We were all in basic agreement. Others still diputed the point. We challenged them to cite even one state where the law was different. They couldn’t do so. Variations on this have happened several times.

I really don’t want to have to go through all that again, when a simple search will reveal those prior threads. Besides, I’m not about to verify research from 4 or more other states, which is what I would have to do to duplicate the content of those earlier posts.

[Rigamarole]

@msmith537

Personally I like to plow through the security guard at Best Buy and yell BOOYA!!! But that’s just me.

I’ll one up ya. After plowing through the security guard I like to do a full on butt-wiggling, tongue-sticking out Happy Dance right outside the door.

[Campion]

@A.R. Cane

I do find Randoms repeated beratings to be condecending and tiresome.

Really? Huh. I find them charmingly endearing.

@Random

For reasons that aren’t fully clear to me (or, it appears, Bricker), something about this issue somehow induces people to make incorrect claims about what the law is. Again and again. And many in the earlier threads doggedly refuse to be accept that their assumptions are wrong.

I think it’s the concept of rugged individualism. So much of our lives, we’re hemmed in – forced to stand in line, or hold the phone, and say please and thank you even when we’re getting screwed. There’s something so appealing about the almost pre-constitutional idea of telling a merchant to sod off (a metaphorical Boston Tea Party, as it were), that even if our subconcious knows that the Iceman Cometh, we can’t admit it.

What are we without our pipe dreams, after all?

[Common_Tater]

@A.R. Cane

I don’t know what the local law is, but if I found myself in such a situation I think I would submit to a check of my receipt against my mechandise.

I never do, and when some drone asks to see my receipt I just smile and say “No Thanks” and that’s the end of that. Everybody needs to look up “Receipt” in a decent dictionary before they opine. Apparently this kind of thing is some sort of check against employee/customer fraud thing, which isn’t my concern. It’s just insulting as hell.