[QUOTE=whorfin]
First of all, remember that this policy is as much to deter misconduct of sales clerks as customers. So maybe a clerk ringing up a $100 camera for $1 and pocketing $99 would be caught, because the customer isn’t a part of the scheme.
[/quote]
I seriously doubt this “scheme” is happening. I doubt a cashier could pull this off even once without a customer coming back and complaining that her $100 purchase came with a $1 receipt.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
Secondly, (I thought) that many thieves steal things to return them (as they really want money); I also believe that most of your ability to return non-defective goods is due to store policy, not law.
Hence, if a store only accepted returns if the reciept was checked, it would discourage people stealing the things (say taking three and buying one, so they had a reciept) only to return them and get money
[/quote]
I don’t think that’s correct. Thieves are stealing items because they want them or want to sell them. If they are stealing so that they can return them with another receipt, then that’s the receipt that will have the check mark on it. I’m not following your logic.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
Finally, however, I don’t think your points are particularly convincing.
a) means that the store relies on deceit to make this policy work. It might be true that this is why it works, but it does nothing to give the store a legal right to the checks. It’s simply not a strong legal argument to rely on fraud.
[/quote]
You’re making a straw man argument here. I never implied that the store has a legal right to force others to submit to a check. I gave reasons why I believe these stores have these checks and why I believe they may be successful in deterring crime.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
b) Again, if the store has no right to stop someone, THEY ARE IN THE WRONG IF THEY DO. A store will probably be liable to a shoplifter if they beat them up with no cause (even if the guy was in fact guilty of shoplifting).
[/quote]
Again, I never said that store has “right to stop someone”. I said fear of being stopped because one may walk past a bag checker may deter crime. That’s one of the three reasons I believe a store may have bag checkers.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
c) doesn’t rely at all on the security being there for a reciept check. They might even be more effective if they weren’t spending their time checking receipts, but instead watching people. This point is true, but has nothing at all to do with the receipt check. It applies if the security is there to greet people, or manage carts, or just to, well, provide security.
[/quote]
Some kid is thinking about stealing something and sees a security guard checking bags/receipts at the door. I think it may be enough to change that kid’s mind. Maybe you think the guard’s time can be used more efficiently. I really don’t care. I gave reasons why a store might have bag checkers; I’m not justifying that these policies are the most efficient methods. My purpose of giving you the reasons was to show you that a bonus for customers getting their bag/receipt checked won’t work.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
and my response: the bonus might be a special membership/discount card. Say, pay 95% of price if you agree to have your reciept checked (adjust the level to the average amount of money the store saves through such checks, per shopper).
[/quote]
And once again, by advertising this is a bonus for voluntarily having your bag checked, the store is also advertising that their receipt checking is voluntary, causing many more than before to walk past checkers and making thieves feel more at ease following right behind. It’s a lose/lose for the store.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
Finally, as noted, I’m trying to show how the store could legitimate the checks (and perhaps encourage people to use them). It’s not my problem if the checks, if done consistently with the law, aren’t effective.
[/quote]
Well, yeah, it is your problem if the checks aren’t effective because you’re the one who just came up with this system. If it’s not effective, why even bring it up as some sort of alternative?
[QUOTE=whorfin]
That doesn’t mean the store has a right to break the law to make them effective.
[/quote]
Voluntary checks aren’t against the law. If you’re implying that I said store’s have a right to break the law, cite where I said that.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
First of all, as seen with my bolding in your quote, if the employees need to “come up with a story” to have a case, well, that’s called perjury. It’s a crime, and saying that that’s necessary to win their case makes my point that they have no legal case.
[/quote]
They may not have a case unless they lie. What’s your point? Did I say something to make you think I would disagree with that remark? They may also have a case without lying as we haven’t heard both sides of the story.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
Secondly, as noted endlessly above, refusing to do something you don’t have to do is NOT and NEVER IS probable cause. other, more expert posters have listed what a store detective does have to see to have probable cause to suspect shoplifting. Rigi did not create probable cause by refusing to do something that he had no obligation to do.
[/quote]
And as I have noted endlessly above, I tend to agree with that. Although I’m not convinced a judge/jury will.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
Similarly, if the store had other reasons to suspect Rigi, they’d have probable cause. They don’t then need his consent to detain him till the cops arrive. (and even then, as noted above, they’re still in the wrong. Under the law cited, the store doesn’t appear to have a right to detain him EXCEPT to hold him till the police arrive. the store never called the police–even if they did have probable cause, they weren’t doing what they had a right to do under the law). And that’s why Rigi seems likely to win.
[/quote]
At what point were two employees in the parking lot supposed to have called the police? They haven’t yet successfully detained him. We also don’t know if employees in the store aware of what was going on didn’t call the police. I’m betting they did.
