Yes.
ok, IANAL, but I would convict you in a heartbeat if I sat on the jury for your case.
How can ANY amount of force from the customer, over and above that required to display a slip of paper which the customer has, be considered reasonable? You could have defused the entire situation by flashing the reciept, but you allowed or encouraged it to escalate into a physical altercation? That is not reasonable; that is “baiting”.
In Nevada, fighting is illegal and you would likely be charged for this type of situation, especially if it resulted in an injury or death.
Bo
Yes. Hence the term merchant’s “privilege”. Essentially, the law respects the privilege of a merchant to protect its property.
Further, the it is possible that the buzzer went off for something other than what the customer actually purchased (e.g., the “extra” stuff the customer loaded into the bag, the item stuffed into the customer’s pant leg, etc.). The merchant has the right to conduct an investigation to compare what was actually puchased to the property that is headed out the door in the customer’s possession. This would require the merchant to verify the receipt of the purchase.
I have no obligation to provide a receipt, nor ID, nor my underware, but have a right to defend myself and my property against attack.
You are suggesting that the merchant can detain you, which IIRC is called illegal imprisonment, you can not detain someone this way, with the possiable exception of a citizens arrest, which carries a shitload of liability.
A detainment backed up with unreasonable physical force may be called "unlawful detainment"and/or “assault”, but holding you there verbally cannot. . . and that’s all the store employee is doing. “Sir, hold on just a minute, I’d like to see a reciept.”
You’re implying a little too much into the situation (and taking it a little defensively, to boot). Nobody will disagree that any physical force over a store’s merchandise is a stupid idea, and frankly not worth it for a $20 lamp. But then again, nobody will disagree over the reasonable means of a store to protect itself from shoplifting.
Tripler
I have a reciept for my $0.02.
How about if you do what I did one day?
I purchased a TV, and displayed my receipt to the LP associate, and then when he tried to do the little “mark your receipt with a pen so you don’t reuse the receipt” I pulled the receipt away from him. I then walked away.
Does the store have any recourse besides banning me?
This was Best Buy, and to be honest, I haven’t been notified that I’m banned, but given the level of pure evil that establishment displays, I’d not be saddenned to have a lifetime ban.
NQR. The tort is false imprisonment, and you don’t holding someone verbally certainly qualifies under some circumstances. Shoplifting False Imprisonment - Lawful Detention or False Imprisonment?
http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/TORTS-FALL2002/evening/reviews/false_imprisonment.html
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/charges/314b.htm
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/mcji/intentional-torts/intentional-torts-Ch116.htm
Similarly, assault does not require physical touching, but only the fear of it. http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/TORTS-FALL2002/evening/reviews/assault.html
If the merchant’s alarm goes off, the law says you DO have an obligation. Do you understand that?
YES, the merchant can detain you. The law gives the merchant that right.
What part of that is escaping you?
I’ve been meaning to start a legal urban legends thread*. This would fit well there.
If it’s a citizen’s arrest, then there is no liability. That’s the reason for the rule. And many states have carve-outs for merchants arresting shoplifters, as **Bricker **has pointed out.
Here is Michigan’s
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-764-16
*At the top of the list of legal urban legends is everyone’s favorite: If you ask an undercover officer if he’s a cop and he says no, then [he can’t arrest you] [it’s entrapment] [you can’t be prosecuted].
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 assert 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?
Blort.
Does anyone deny that a customer…
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.
I agree.
Note: I’ve made no study of every state’s law on this, this is meant to be a general comment on an interesting hypothetical issue, and no one should rely on this as legal advice.
I do have some real-world concerns that should be considered by anyone refusing to show a receipt:
-
The people hired to make these demands aren’t likely to know the law and may not correctly apply it. In other words, you might get detained, at least by the yahoo at the door, even if it isn’t legal.
-
If the merchant calls the police, they may not have a lot of patience with a customer standing on principle in this regard. I’m betting that the most likely cop response is a demand that the customer produce the receipt.
-
Even if a cop (or later, a judge) correctly indicates that detention requires some indication of shoplifting to constitute the necessary probable cause (Virginia) or reasonable grounds (Illinois - 720 ILCS 5/16A-5) to detain, one possible response from the merchant or LPO (who now realizes he’s screwed up) is to lie, claiming to have seen something that is probable cause.
Question of fact for the jury.
Of course. My point (practical rather than legal) is that a refusal to show a receipt may result in risks and complications, even if the customer is in the right.
I suspect that our hypothetical customer would end up regretting his decision, even if the case never gets near a jury. Although I may not be happy about it, I’d consider producing the receipt in response to demand, even if the demand is rude, than waste even 15 minutes in a contentious debate with store staff about whether they can detain me. Certainly, I’d rather do so than run any significant risk of arrest, even if the charges are later dropped, and I’d regard any decision that leads to a situation where I’m facing a jury as extremely stupid - a huge waste of my time and money - even if that jury rules in my favor.
The OP posed a hypo where the alarm sounds at the door, which gives rise to probable cause.
Based upon my general understanding of the law, absent an alarm or other probable cause, a customer can refuse to show a receipt or submit to other investigation or detention. This all gets into factual jury questions.
Very true.
This has been covered several times in the local San Jose Mecury news consumer help column. No, they have no right to do so. You may walk past them.