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

Great Debates
141

From my youth, I recall electronics stores where you would pick out what you wanted, and take a ticket to the register. You would pay at the register and be given a receipt. Then you would take the receipt to another station and they would check it, call your item in to the stock room, and the item would show up on a conveyer belt a few minutes later. Then they would stamp your receipt, hand you your item, and you’d be on your way.

In this way, the store gets to control its merchandise without subjecting its customers to the indignity of having their receipts checked at the door as if they are suspected criminals.

Really the difference between that sort of system and Circuit City’s system is that Circuity City is enlisting its customers to transport their goods within the store. Which saves money for Circuit City, but I suppose Circuit City would say that a lot of those savings are passed on to customers in the form of lower prices.

Which is probably true. Consumer electronics is super competitive and that puts pressure on companies like Circuit City to save money wherever possible. For a little extra money, you can probably find an electronics store where your receipt won’t be checked.

Personally, I shop at Staples and nobody has checked my receipt since I was 16 years old. (Which was pretty insulting, since the store manager obviously assumed that young = thief. )

142

Like I’ve tried to say, I really don’t care who’s in the right legally here.

Since I don’t see it as bad behaviour, I don’t have a problem with this.

143

I don’t have enough free time to do this, but I’ve done it a couple of times anyway. If someone at a retail establishment insists on checking by bags, I take the whole thing directly to the customer service counter and return it. Sure, it costs me some time, but I don’t see the benefit in patronizing a store that accused me of being a thief. If more people did this more often I figure the problem would go away.

This does not apply in Costco, I figure that’s part of the deal I made when I became a member, but I didn’t join anything to go to Circuit City.

144

So, question: Where do you draw the line between “accusuing you of being a thief” and “making sure you’re not a thief,” and why?

In other words, what actions can a store take to prevent theft without you taking it as a personal insult, and what makes the difference?

145

I think you might be subtly misinterpreting the statute. The statute limits detentions. It doesn’t limit searches.

So while the store will need to detain you (for whatever trivial amount of time it takes) to do the search, I don’t see anywhere that says they have no right to search you. Granted, it doesn’t say they do have the right to search you, but it seems that that right isn’t what the statute is designed to address.
Hypothetical: What if the CC lawyer got up and said that the customer’s payment did not cover the plastic shopping bag. Thus the bag remained CC property, and they have the right to search their own property. What would the bag-checkers do if you stuffed all of your merchandise into your pockets/purse after getting your receipt?

146

Practically, as regards the situation in question, there is no difference. All an employee has to do is 1) establish probable cause, and then 2) notify me of his suspicion. At that point, I am free to decline the inspection. He can then restrain me. He better be damned sure he is right.

Whatever actions the stores that do not make receipt checks take, more or less. I am a little tired of this assumption that without receipt checks shoplifting would become pandemic. It’s just laziness on the part of the store. Most of the time they are trying to catch their own employees who are teaming up with their friends who shop there. How am I going to shoplift anything between the checkout line and the exit door?

Fair enough. As you point out, if I refuse the search, the only option is to detain me. At which point, the statute requires there to be probable cause.

I can’t imagine that being upheld. First, they are offering you the bag, with no deposit required, and no request to return it. Second, the cost of each bag is trivial, and covered by mark-up. Third, by overwhelming general understanding, shopping bags belong to the customer to which they are given. And fourth, they still have not established the right to search the bag. I suppose they could demand the bag back, but they have no claim on the contents.

147

I do see the where it says they have no right to search you. So that you may see it also, I have italicized the relevant phrase. They have every right to ask, but no right to open anything you’re carrying unless you give them consent.

Exactly. Once you pay for the items, they cease to be ‘merchandise’ and become ‘property’. Your property. And it is up to you whether or not you allow a store employee to search your property.

148

It seems as if there is a civil matter on one hand and a criminal matter on the other.

For the civil matter, if I shop at Circuit City, I have not engaged in any type of contract with them other than what a reasonable person would expect when they shop in a store open to the public. If I give them money in exchange for merchandise, then my transaction with them is done. They have no right to detain me, search me, or in any way hinder my progress to where I want to do unless a store employee has probable cause to believe that I , not customers in general, but I have stolen an item.

As others have pointed out, Costco tells you their policy up front, and you must agree as part of your required membership to purchase at product there, so this is part of the civil contract that agreed to. As to whether they could detain you for skipping the bag check, I would think not, unless you have agreed to be detained in your agreement. They could revoke your membership, and in the same vein Circuit City could serve you will a no trespass for the same or for any reason (except an illegal one).

I don’t think that by Circuit City simply posting a sign would qualify, either, as it is not proof that I received the notice. Maybe I was distracted while walking in, and didn’t see the sign.

They could, as you were walking IN, make you sign a statement agreeing to a bag check as a condition of entry. Unless you also gave them the power to detain you, such an agreement would only be a civil violation, and as such they could sue you for whatever damages you caused by not submitting, but you can’t legally detain someone for a civil violation. What if you were late on a Credit Card payment? Can the bank manager detain you until you pay up?

Now, the criminal aspect. Certainly the CC management is looking, or could be looking at a criminal kidnapping charge for their actions. They had no probable cause that this individual committed a violation.

And just because Officer Fife charged him with Obstruction shows what a numbskull he is.

My guess is that the PD will issue him an apology and CC will pay a nice little chunk of change…

149

That would really make a judge mad. All I would have to do is bring one of the tens of thousands of people who shopped at CC within the last ever, and ask them what charge they had to pay for the shopping bag, or what claim the store made for the bag at a later date.

It would become very apparant, if not already apparant, to the judge that the shopping bag is included as part of the purchase price as a convenience to the customer in assisting him to carry his property out of the store…

150

Care to make a friendly wager on that?

151

You don’t what you are talking about. The social security card and number are used for identification.

From this vedry website , a guy named Cecil Adams says:

“In 1943 a presidential executive order directed the military and other government agencies to use the number for identification purposes, and in 1961 the Internal Revenue Service began using the number for taxpayer identification. Eventually states began requesting the number on driver’s license applications and the like. <snip> As a result of all these changes, the “not to be used for identification” line was dropped from the cards and a lot of places will accept them as proof of identity. You just can’t call them national identity cards, or at least the feds can’t, because if they do the right wing will freak.”

152

All the more reason not to shop at these stores (Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA) in the first place. You can get just about everything cheaper (postage cost included) on-line and it will be hand delivered to your front door.

153

They are not allowed to make a search of my person or possessions unless they have probable cause. Just like I don’t have the right to search their persons or possessions. I’m not allowed to look through their purses or lunchbags, right? Will they let me search their offices?

154

Why are you asking me who has allowed stores to have agents checking bags upon exit? Or are you asking if it’s legal for stores to do this?

You asked me, "Why does the act of doing the check create probable cause?
I never claimed it did. I claimed that store personnel may have probable cause to believe (not to know or even be reasonably certain) that an item was stolen based on a refusal of what seems to be obvious to all consumers entering the store is standard procedure.

I never made that assumption. Store employees have a right to detain you if they have probable cause to believe you stole something.

I suppose it will be up to a judge or jury to decide if all of the customers actions (and I’m sure the employees will throw in a few other little nuggets such as nervous behavior, etc., ) warranted a probable cause to believe something was stolen.

You continue to put words in my mouth. I said that refusing to allow a bag check may be enough probable cause to detain someone, not to justify the bag check.

I have no idea why you’re bolding ‘the person’ and ‘a person’. The store employee(s) may be found to have probable reason to believe something was taken. If that is found to be so, the law says they can detain that person.

155

The last time I bought something at Circuit City, a bunch of Nintendo DS games, nobody checked my bag on the way out. For the most part when I go to Best Buy the security guy isn’t checking the bags of people on the way out. Quite frankly, unless I’m at Sam’s I don’t expect anyone to check my receipt on the way out of the store.

Marc

156

Not to quibble, but you are wrong. So that you may see that you are wrong, I have underlined, bolded, and italicized the section of the statute that you are misinterpreting:

Unless you’re counting CC as a museum now…

157

No you shouldn’t be forcibly restrained and if we want to get technical they didn’t forcibly restrain him.

All I’m suggesting is that we at least understand why the stores have these measures in place and instead of staging some bullshit protest to make our point simply communicate with management and home office. If you want to not shop there that’s your choice. If you’d rather show your receipt than drive to a less convenient location then show it and stop making a big issue out of a minor thing.

158

A Wal Mart in Maine held a teenager and his Mom for several hours because one manager thought the boy was a habitual shoplifter and on their restraining order list. He wasn’t and they paid.

159

I am always amuse when people say things like “you don’t have to shop there if you don’t like it”. As if one party gets to make the rules. Equally, Circuit City does not have to do business in my community if they don’t like the rules. And the rules of the community are gonna beat store policy everytime. They’re called law.

160

I think he made his point when he asked them to cite the law that allowed them to search his bag and they couldn’t. He could have explained his objection to them. He could have shown them the bag at that point, gotten their names and called the home office to lodge a complaint. I also think if they had simply driven forward slowly the CC employees would have backed off. Were they technically incorrect? It sure looks like it. Yet he was the one that carried it too far and blew a small issue out of proportion IMHO.
Rights work both ways and that’s where the mutual consideration comes in. The customer has certain rights and the merchant has certain rights to protect themselves from loss. So rather than get all huffy there’s communication available. If a store employee treats me with courtesy I will likely cooperate, out of consideration. If I feel their policies are unfair or just not customer friendly, I’ll tell them so. If they change em fine. If they don’t it’s up to me to decide if I want to shop there or not.
Sometimes a new employee has accidentally puts the wrong item in the bag or some item was left out that is on the receipt. Then the customer is grateful it was discovered before they got home.

It often a matter of what works best for the most number of customers and the store.