Man arrested in connection with ignoring "bag checker" at Circuit City

Great Debates
401

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Did you miss post #176?:
So no, a store doesn’t generally need those six things. Those are opinions on what guidelines a merchant may want to follow to help keep him from having claims made against him and is not specific to Ohio or what guidelines a judge/jury must follow to find probable cause.
[/QUOTE]

I saw #176–I know they aren’t law. They’re the opinion of an expert as to what you need to do in order to definitively establish probable cause. Yes, of course, they’re not specific to Ohio–they do show, however, that you need a far higher standard than “he was twitchy” to be certain that a court will find probable cause.

I understand that we’re talking about making claims against merchants. That’s what Rigi is doing! He is making a claim in court against Circuit City. I just don’t see why you find that important.

Those claims will probably be for false imprisonment or battery (detaining or searching someone without a right to).

So.. if, in broad terms, you need these things to be safe from claims, then not having them means you risk losing a lawsuit. As I suggest will happen to CC.

IANAL, though.

402

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
You are on the right track. The only numbers we have (besides the stats that are skewed, and I know they’re skewed cause I helped skew them) relate exactly this. Stores with the least restrictive return and exchange policies show a drastic drop in shoplifting. If you ever thought Wal Mart must be crazy for having such permissive return policies, think again: It is loss prevention.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know about that. Does that mean if we let them steal part of the value by using over the weekend and returning it we are less at risk of having them steal all the value? I’m not sure how I feel about that.

We have a more rigid limited return policy than our competitors but we try and make up for it by better service. We don’t try to make just any sale but truly match the customer to what they want and need. I’m glad to say most of my staff will honestly tell a customer if they believe the customer can get the job done for less money. We often take extra time showing someone how more complicated gear works or setting up the PA they just bought in front of them so they will have it easier time when they do it. We will gladly exchange items or give store credit and most of our customers are happy with that because of the service.

Walmart does it by sheer volume and even their return policies have changed somewhat. I talked to a Walmart security guy who said 1 store here in TN had a million dollars in loss one year. A million freaking dollars. That’s a lot of small shit to sell to recuperate the loss. They have a huge shrink issue and when their volume can’t absorb the loss or when they’ve driven most of the competition out of business you’ll see some changes.

Personally I think the rent for free folks who buy stuff to use for the weekend with no intention of keeping it are just as much thieves as the person who puts it in their pocket and walks out without paying.

Many stores had very liberal no hassle return policies and have been changing them over the past few years exactly because of increase in the rent for free customers or customers who are too lazy to do any research on products so buy several items to try them out and return the ones they don’t like. we identified chronic returners at CC. People who have nothing better to do but buy something, play with it a while and then return it. If we looked at a customers buying habits and see they’ve returned 90% of their stuff then we won’t bend the rules a millimeter for them. We also might say , this is your last return here. I’m flagging you name so you can’t shop here anymore.
You would not believe some of the bullshit I’ve heard because customers got conditioned and spoiled by to liberal return policies.

403

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.

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.

And as I have noted endlessly above, I tend to agree with that. Although I’m not convinced a judge/jury will.
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.
[/QUOTE]

I do see your points, (especially about the bonus–). Maybe Cosmodan can enlighten us as to whether cashiers do commit that kind of fraud-he’s the one with the experience. I won’t respond point-by point, but will make one general comment.

If we agree (as we do) that the checks are voluntary, then doing what CC did to rigi is almost the worst thing they could do. It creates kerfuffle, newspapers report on how the checks are voluntary, it’s on blogs and message boards everywhere, and if their effectiveness relies on people not generally knowing that they can refuse (which I perhaps agree with), then the way of dealing with Rigi that creates the least publicity is saying “good day” and letting him leave.

404

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t know about that. Does that mean if we let them steal part of the value by using over the weekend and returning it we are less at risk of having them steal all the value? I’m not sure how I feel about that.

We have a more rigid limited return policy than our competitors but we try and make up for it by better service. We don’t try to make just any sale but truly match the customer to what they want and need. I’m glad to say most of my staff will honestly tell a customer if they believe the customer can get the job done for less money. We often take extra time showing someone how more complicated gear works or setting up the PA they just bought in front of them so they will have it easier time when they do it. We will gladly exchange items or give store credit and most of our customers are happy with that because of the service.

Walmart does it by sheer volume and even their return policies have changed somewhat. I talked to a Walmart security guy who said 1 store here in TN had a million dollars in loss one year. A million freaking dollars. That’s a lot of small shit to sell to recuperate the loss. They have a huge shrink issue and when their volume can’t absorb the loss or when they’ve driven most of the competition out of business you’ll see some changes.

Personally I think the rent for free folks who buy stuff to use for the weekend with no intention of keeping it are just as much thieves as the person who puts it in their pocket and walks out without paying.

Many stores had very liberal no hassle return policies and have been changing them over the past few years exactly because of increase in the rent for free customers or customers who are too lazy to do any research on products so buy several items to try them out and return the ones they don’t like. we identified chronic returners at CC. People who have nothing better to do but buy something, play with it a while and then return it. If we looked at a customers buying habits and see they’ve returned 90% of their stuff then we won’t bend the rules a millimeter for them. We also might say , this is your last return here. I’m flagging you name so you can’t shop here anymore.
You would not believe some of the bullshit I’ve heard because customers got conditioned and spoiled by to liberal return policies.
[/QUOTE]

You make a good observation. Part of the reason for a drop in shoplifting when using a permissive return policy is that when people know they can use and return an item, they are less likely to steal it. Same goes for restaraunts, they give employees a meal or discount because if you don’t, they’re gonna take it anyway.

The bottom line is really that shoplifting and stealing remain constant with or without security measures. No matter what we have thrown at them, it continues at relatively the same rate. The only things that seem to change the rates are “giving”. Whether you put the money into community programs, allow returns and eat the cost, or just let them steal, the loss is still there. We just find ways to put it on another spread sheet.

405

[QUOTE=whorfin]
I don’t think a court can generally order an individual to do something absent a law… they can order you to pay up if you don’t, but they can almost never order you to actually act, at least in a civil case
[/QUOTE]

A civil court can order someone to make an affirmative act (e.g., to perform the terms of a contract), but that’s generally the exception. If money will address the issue, then the courts award money instead. It’s so much easier that way.

406

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
A civil court can order someone to make an affirmative act (e.g., to perform the terms of a contract), but that’s generally the exception. If money will address the issue, then the courts award money instead. It’s so much easier that way.
[/QUOTE]

That’s what I was trying to say (but much clearer)–I was conflating a little the employment exception (that it’s unconstitutional for a court to compel an individual to work for someone else)… though I really can’t imagine feeling damages to be insufficient here.

407

[QUOTE=whorfin]
I do see your points, (especially about the bonus–). Maybe Cosmodan can enlighten us as to whether cashiers do commit that kind of fraud-he’s the one with the experience. I won’t respond point-by point, but will make one general comment.
[/QUOTE]

Cashiers do commit that kind of fraud. They rely on customers not reading the receipt or not even thinking about the receipt at all.

Tell the customer a price but don’t ring up the sale in the computer. Pocket the money. No receipt. That’s why many businsses say, “If you don’t get a receipt, you get a small discount coupon for your next visit!”

Ring up a small item, give the customer a big item. Pocket the difference.

At a full service gas station, tell the customer they need oil. Have them pay for the oil, but don’t actually take the lid off the bottle when “pouring” the oil. Pocket the money.

408

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Cashiers do commit that kind of fraud. They rely on customers not reading the receipt or not even thinking about the receipt at all.

Tell the customer a price but don’t ring up the sale in the computer. Pocket the money. No receipt. That’s why many businsses say, “If you don’t get a receipt, you get a small discount coupon for your next visit!”

Ring up a small item, give the customer a big item. Pocket the difference.

At a full service gas station, tell the customer they need oil. Have them pay for the oil, but don’t actually take the lid off the bottle when “pouring” the oil. Pocket the money.
[/QUOTE]

I forgot the one where a friend brings the cashier a bunch of stuff but the cashier only rings up one item, bagging the rest.

If you perform price-based inventory, steal stuff you want then slightly mark up the prices on a bunch of other stuff in the store to make up the difference, so the semi-annual inventory check comes out even. Other employees will mark the prices back down at the register when a customer tries to buy an item with a price tag that’s a bit overpriced.

I’ve seen or heard about all this stuff when I worked retail. Many thieves are creative.

409

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
I forgot the one where a friend brings the cashier a bunch of stuff but the cashier only rings up one item, bagging the rest.

.
[/QUOTE]

It’s called “free bagging”. A big problem with employees.

Another problem is the over pricing. An item advertised as 3.69 rings up for 3.99 across the country. After you move a few hundred thousand units you have effetively picked the pockets of thousands of customers. Punishment for this stealing ?

410

[QUOTE=whorfin]
I saw #176–I know they aren’t law. They’re the opinion of an expert as to what you need to do in order to definitively establish probable cause.
[/quote]

That’s right; they aren’t law and I doubt very highly that without all of those six things a merchant’s probable cause to detain being justified is doomed, as what’s needed to definitively establish probable cause in the opinion of the article’s author is irrelevant .

[QUOTE=whorfin]
Yes, of course, they’re not specific to Ohio–they do show, however, that you need a far higher standard than “he was twitchy” to be certain that a court will find probable cause.
[/quote]

I’m not doubting that “he was twitchy” may not be enough and we’re not talking about the merchant being “certain that a court will find probable cause”. Right now what we do know is Ohio law says “has probable cause to believe” without defining what those causes may be. An article whose objective is to give guidelines to merchants to “definitively establish probable cause” is not an acceptable citation for what the law in Ohio says is a justifiable reason to detain someone. Not only is it not the articles purpose, it may be lousy advice altogether (or at least way to conservative). I can show you advice in articles on the internet by M.D.s that you would never want to follow. Now don’t go and attempt to prove to me that this author is well regarded in his field; it means nothing to me for the other reasons I gave above.

[QUOTE=whorfin]

If we agree (as we do) that the checks are voluntary, then doing what CC did to rigi is almost the worst thing they could do.
[/quote]

You mean if they detained him solely because he walked by a bag check? I’ll agree with that. I still believe if we get to hear more about this case we’re going to hear at least one more reason.

[QUOTE=whorfin]
It creates kerfuffle
[/quote]

And who wants kerfuffle?

411

[QUOTE=magellan01]
And can we please stop with the strip searching and cavity searches. We’re talking about opening a bag. No one has proposed that they be allowed to, or want to, search pockets, underwear, trunks or cavities.
[/QUOTE]

Whats the difference between convienently opening up your bag and opening up your purse or pulling out your pockets? If your argument is that given minimal inconvienence, you should allow the store to search your personal property then there really is no difference between the three is there?

412

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Whats the difference between convienently opening up your bag and opening up your purse or pulling out your pockets?
[/QUOTE]

Let me first state that I’m not for these bag checks and upon me finding out for sure that stores have no legal right to check my bag/receipt in my state, I will be walking past these checks (Yes, I know; many of you think I should wear the ‘I’m an asshole’ t-shirt).

That said, opening up a bag that contains items from the store that weren’t yours seconds ago and shouldn’t yet have tampons or naked pictures of your mistress in them, is not the same as opening up your purse or pulling out your pockets for obvious reasons.

413

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Let me first state that I’m not for these bag checks and upon me finding out for sure that stores have no legal right to check my bag/receipt in my state, I will be walking past these checks (Yes, I know; many of you think I should wear the ‘I’m an asshole’ t-shirt).

That said, opening up a bag that contains items from the store that weren’t yours seconds ago and shouldn’t yet have tampons or naked pictures of your mistress in them, is not the same as opening up your purse or pulling out your pockets for obvious reasons.
[/QUOTE]

So, as soon as the cashier hands you a shopping bag, dump the contents of your purse / pockets / wallet into the bag.

414

[QUOTE=whorfin]
you hand cashier #1 your memory card. You give him $100. He rings up a stick of gum on the register. He gives you the card and a receipt. He puts $99.65 in his pocket. You have no idea what he did, never saw him before in your life.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, riiiiiight, a $50.00 item rings out as $0.50 and I have no idea what he did?

An honest customer would go, “Uh, I think that was fifty dollars, not fifty cents.”

415

Oh, and another favorite employee scam of mine is when an employee writes a program that will infect the business accounting system with a computer virus, which will round down fractions of a cent from accrual of interest and transfer the leftovers into the employee’s own account. :wink:

416

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
So, as soon as the cashier hands you a shopping bag, dump the contents of your purse / pockets / wallet into the bag.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I think I like it!

417

[QUOTE=Fish]
Oh, riiiiiight, a $50.00 item rings out as $0.50 and I have no idea what he did?

An honest customer would go, “Uh, I think that was fifty dollars, not fifty cents.”
[/QUOTE]

Many people never read a receipt unless and until a refund is needed.

418

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Many people never read a receipt unless and until a refund is needed.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe not at the 7/11 or a gas station where people don’t plan on the possibility of making a return, but I don’t think a cashier is going to have a long criminal career attempting this at a store like CC. People are watching their items being scanned and they are aware of what the price displayed on that oversized LCD reads. Their $50 item reading $0.50 ain’t gonna fly.

419

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
You make a good observation. Part of the reason for a drop in shoplifting when using a permissive return policy is that when people know they can use and return an item, they are less likely to steal it. Same goes for restaraunts, they give employees a meal or discount because if you don’t, they’re gonna take it anyway.

The bottom line is really that shoplifting and stealing remain constant with or without security measures. No matter what we have thrown at them, it continues at relatively the same rate. The only things that seem to change the rates are “giving”. Whether you put the money into community programs, allow returns and eat the cost, or just let them steal, the loss is still there. We just find ways to put it on another spread sheet.
[/QUOTE]

I have appreciated your input. I think that’s where large box stores are missing out because it’s harder for them to be part of the community. WalMart tries with a lot of programs but then they do other things that are very non community friendly. I’m glad to be part of a still successful independent business and try to see it as part of our local community of musicians both professional and amateur. As you can imagine from my location, thats a big community. I find that treating people with respect and courtesy and showing them you care about their purchases big and small means that most customers don’t begrudge you making a profit and in fact would rather shop with you to help you stay in business. The larger the staff gets the more of a challenge it is to keep everyone on the same page but we’re doing okay and still tweaking the details after an expansion and a staff increase. I’m not an owner so I don’t set policy but I can influence it and make judgment calls on how it’s executed.

Concerning loss prevention. What about the members only like Sam’s club and Costco’s Their’s must be down somewhat.

420

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Let me first state that I’m not for these bag checks and upon me finding out for sure that stores have no legal right to check my bag/receipt in my state, I will be walking past these checks (Yes, I know; many of you think I should wear the ‘I’m an asshole’ t-shirt).

That said, opening up a bag that contains items from the store that weren’t yours seconds ago and shouldn’t yet have tampons or naked pictures of your mistress in them, is not the same as opening up your purse or pulling out your pockets for obvious reasons.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it’s not the same for the same obvious reason that my desk drawer and my underwear drawer are different-one has stuff I don’t want people to see more than the other.

But both are mine. And so is my bag full of circuit city stuff.

I paid for it. CC took my money, and handed me a bag, making it my stuff.

I might be more willing to let them look in the bag than my home; similarly, I might be more willing to let someone look in my desk drawer than my underwear drawer.

But that misses the point. It doesn’t matter what’s in the bag. It doesn’t matter if it’s my desk drawer our underwear drawer. It’s MY PROPERTY (and I don’t think you disagree with me on that point).

And people only get to look through my stuff on two conditions. 1) With my permission, 2) with a warrant.

CC doesn’t have the second. If they ask really nicely, and there isn’t a line, I might give them the first. But I don’t have to, anymore than I need to let them look through my pockets, my desk, or anything else that’s my property.

They don’t think it’s my property? fine. They can call the police, it’ll be resolved in court, and then I’ll sue them.