True, in the big picture, waiting two minutes at CompUSA isn’t going to kill me.
But this practice flies directly in the face of “innocent until proven guilty.” Yes, I know that’s a government rule, but it’s perfectly reasonable for customer service.
Some helpful stats would be estimates on how effective it is. I would suppose that Target has more of a theft problem than CompUSA. Any cites?
Previous thread dealing with the same question:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89810
And another:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12261
Okay all you law-abiding consumers, let’s say a “customer” is walking towards the exit pushing a shopping cart containing a 19" color television. Should the store management just assume that all people are basically honest and not hire loss-prevention people to watch the exits?
And don’t say it’s not our problem.
What about when making a return when you haven’t even left the store yet? Surely there will be a “goon” at the return desk who is going to expect to see your receipt, or should he just take for granted that you’ve paid for any item presented to the return desk?
If you are feeling “accused” when asked to show your receipt, then you are taking it personally when no personal attack is intended. Management is asking us to take an active roll in loss prevention to keep prices down. You don’t have to give up any civil liberties to help them and I can’t understand why this is skin off of anybody’s nose.
It’s the principle of the thing. It takes less effort to comply than it does to assert your right to privacy. A lot of people would say, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear.” What would you do if a teacher came to your door and said, “We’ve noticed that kids from this neighbourhood have been caught with drugs, so we’re searching everyone’s residence (regardless of race, religion, etc.) to make sure they don’t have any illegal drugs. Don’t worry; if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear.” Obviously, this would be a violation of your privacy. What if it were a cop? Submitting to searches of any kind is a small inconvenience that delays a person (in the case of the receipt check) for just a couple of seconds. But I think the principle is wrong, so it is worth the inconvenience of asserting your rights.
Suppose an 18-year-old girl has just bought a jumbo-pack of condoms and the guy checking purchases is a member of her church, which she attends regularly. Suppose she has a reputation of being a Fine Christian Girl. If the guy sees her with a box of condoms, she is open to ridicule and gossip. That she exhibits one image to some people and another to other people might be called hypocritical, but it’s her right to live her life that way if she wishes. What if a jr. high school teacher buys teen porn mags (not at Target, but suppose this practice extended to places that sould such things)? If he is known in the community, would he want that little tidbit known? It’s not illegal, but it could be embarassing. Suppose someone has bladder control problems and has a bagfull of Depends? Doesn’t that person have the right to keep it secret from anybody?
I let the goons check my receipt for whatever reasons they want us to believe.
Lets be scientific here, and look at data :
1> Does any data exist as to how much the three leading supermarts lose due to shoplifting each year ? Does any data exist as to how much extra an average customer pays to make up for these losses ?
2> Can the supermarts prove that stores where “goons” are posted have much less shoplifting than those stores where they are not ?
3> What are the rights of a consumer ? The best way for a store to prevent shoplifting maybe the way Douglas Adams points out - that is weigh the person before and after or maybe make customers shop naked. I am ready to pay a few extra dollars to pay for my dignity (to make up for the shoflifters) and not be checked at the door.
In Virginia, the law is as follows:
If a merchant has probable cause to believe that a person has shoplifted, by concealment of merchandise, alteration of price tags, or an attempt to remove merchandise without paying, he may detain and arrest that person. Virginia law shields that merchant from civil liability for unlawful detention, if such detention does not exceed one hour, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest, and assault and battery claims.
The activation of an electronic article surveillance device as a result of a person exiting the premises or an area within the premises of a merchant where an electronic article surveillance device is located constitutes probable cause.
Beyond that, probable cause is a common-sense, fluid concept that takes into account the totality of the circumstances. It is a less demanding standard than “more likely than not.”
I can’t find any case law in Virginia that suggests that refusal to submit to a receipt inspection, without anything else, is not probable cause. But I’m not sure I’d defend the concept tooth-and-nail. In other words, if a store posts a sign that receipt checks at the exit are part of the purchase process, then I’d say it’s quite possible that refusal to participate might be seen as probable cause for a brief detention by the merchant.
See Va Code § 18.2-105 regarding civil liability, § 18.2-95, § 18.2-96, and § 18.2-103 regarding various types of shoplifting.
Er… the cashier has already seen all the purchased items, moments before the receipt check at the door. I think whatever privacy interest the customer might have in his purchases is waived at that point.
Suppose the customer went to a cashier that she knew didn’t know her? In that case, her purchase would probably not be spread around her church. Don’t people have the right to let someone in on a private matter and keep other people in the dark?
I bought a very nice watch a few years ago. Suppose I want to haggle over the price of something I’m buying (a used car, say, or something at a garage sale). If someone sees the watch they might think, “I’m not going to drop my price because he can obviously afford my price.” Don’t I have the right to keep my alleged finances secret by not wearing my watch that day? What if I’m looking for a new job and I don’t want my boss to know? Shouldn’t I be able to keep that secret if I want?
It’s a small thing, but the principle is large.
js_africanus:
The quantity shoplifted impacts the bottom line of the retailer. The retailer wants to see profit in his bottom line. If too much stuff being shoplifted would turn that black to red, he’ll charge higher prices to get back in the black.
Simple enogh rationale, no? The better they prevent shoplifting before it happens, the less they have to charge the consumer for their merchandise in order to show an overall profit.
If they ask for a receipt, I ignore them and keep walking. If the buzzer beeps, I ignore it and keep walking. If they ask me to stop, I keep walking. They have two choices: Detain me against my will or let me keep walking. So far, they have always let me keep walking, so I have never put anything to a legal test.
I’m having trouble parsing this sentence.
Yes, I should be hauled up against the wall and shot for that clumsy phrasing, I agree.
Let me try again: I can’t find any case law in Virginia that is directly on point to the question of whether refusal to submit to a receipt inspection, standing alone, is sufficient to create probable cause.
bizerta, on the other hand, presents a situation explicitly contemplated by statute. The merchant in bizerta’s case is authorized to arrest and detain, and Virginia law immunizes that merchant from any lawsuit that bizerta might file, even if, ultimately, no evidence of theft emerged.
Actually, this is largely NOT true in most cases. Most retailers are more concerned with what the local competition is charging for the same product. Most retailers will do what they can to discourage theft, but even if they had some way to absolutely guarantee that they had eliminated theft 100%, they’re still going to base their pricing on what their competition charges.
Also keep in mind that while theft costs stores money, so does paying for staff to check those receipts, watch the cameras, pay for the cameras and monitoring equipment… pay for those security tags. It’s a very fine balancing act that companies play when trying to decide how much they should inconvenience their customers to prevent theft. They theoretically could take measures prevent all theft, but the average consumer would probably not put up with all the hoops they would have to jump through to shop at such a store and flee to the competition… even if that means they have to pay a little more.
The goal with most “loss-prevention” schemes is to discourage most potential thieves from even entering your place of business to begin with. Detaining and possibly prosecuting shoplifters costs time and money, even if the merchandise is recovered. Your local Target/Best Buy, etc. would much prefer that you (the potential thief) never entered their store to begin with… better that you go rip-off the competition! 
Personally, I try to avoid the retailers that do the receipt-check thing. There are more efficient/less intrusive ways to prevent theft.
I resent the implication that, although it is mildly flattering to think that the Sams Club employees think I’m clever enough to figure out how to hide a color TV somewhere on my person, they also think I’m stupid enough to say, “Whew! Made it through the checkout line! Now it’s time to take this color TV and dump it into the shopping cart. It’s giving me an awful rash.” in the 20 feet between the cashier and the exit.
Dude, if I were to actually try and shoplift something, it would go in my pocket and effing stay there until I got home. How hard is this to figure out?
Yes, simple and true, but only if the retailer isn’t a profit maximizer to begin with. You’re assuming that the retailer can increase profits by charging a higher price. That means that absent theft, the retailer isn’t interested in getting maximum profits. A retailer can’t charge arbitrarily high prices to get arbitrarily high profits. Profits, as a function of price, will look like an inverted U. The retailer’s goal is to price so that she’s at the top of that inverted U. If theft isn’t dependent on price, then the inverted U is merely shifted straight down and the retailer eats the cost of the theft, because the top of the inverted U corresponds to the same price as it did before there was theft.
I don’t exactly understand how a receipt checker will catch a shoplifter unless the shoplifter has no idea he is there. If he is there, the shoplifter would be a fool to slip the merchandise into the bag. It would be better to slip it into his jacket if he is so good at slight-of-hand that he can get it past the cashier. Or just not buy anything so he doesn’t have a bag. So maybe the receipt checker is there to deter the shoplifters who stash stuff in the bag after purchase. But to me that sounds like a much harder way to shoplift. You’d have to somehow hide the item from the cashier right in front of you and then slip it into the bag with the cashier right in front of you or slip it into the bag during the 10 foot walk to the door.
I have heard that the receipt checking is to also catch cashiers who are trying to steal stuff. They have their friends come in and “buy” 10 dvd’s, but the cashier only rings up 2 of them. So maybe the receipt checkers are there to keep the employees honest.
Ok, I’ve read this whole thread and still am very confused about the specific laws regarding detention by a retail security team. Does anyone have a cite or a professional opinion on this? I’d very much like to have the knowledge about whether or not I can ignore the goons at CompUSA next time I make a purchase. If they attempt to physically restrain me and I resist, am I in trouble?
I think the point here is not that people shouldn’t cooperate with security if that is their perogative, but they should have the choice if the law allows for it. Best Buy should not be able to countermand the law to suit their purposes, they make it seem as if you have no choice in the matter.
Since manhattan isn’t around I’ll play the role:
No one gives a flying fuck whether you think it’s right or wrong for a store to check your receipt or why you think it shouldn’t be a “big deal” to shut up and just show it. The question is whether or not the store has a legal right to see your receipt.
This is actually the big issue. Although you do still get the percentage of idiots trying to pull a fast one.
The legal aspeccts were hit here
By myself (ex-amusement park security) and Monster104 (who works/worked Best Buy security).
dzray:
Meeting or beating the competition’s prices and eliminating the theft all still serve the ultimate purpose of profitability. The merchant who has to make up a million dollars of theft overhead still needs to re-make that money to make a profit regardless of what the competition charges. Of course, the merchant also doesn’t want to drive customers to the competition by overcompensating…but both are factors that affect the consumer’s cost.
js_africanus:
But if the cost of the security guards is lower than eating the cost of the theft, then it pays for the merchant to hire the security guards, and they can be more profitable and stay competitive charging consumers less.
Chaim Mattis Keller