Outrage over receipt checking!?

[NeonMadman]

@MaxTheVool

A lot of people in this thread are asserting that the purchased item is your property the moment the transaction at the cash register is over. Does anyone know if this is actually, precisely, true?

It wouldn’t shock me if, legally, the item wasn’t yours until you had left the store, including passing any security procedures that the store considered standard practice.

So what constitutes “leaving the store?” Is it walking into the vestibule? Out the front door? What if I stop in the men’s room on the way out? Or is it actually leaving the parking lot (assuming the lot is owned by the store, which I ordinarily have no way of knowing)? It seems pretty strongly obvious to me that once I have my items and they have their money, the deal is done and the items belong to me.

And, in the case I’m citing, I’m not sure you could refer to the procedure as “standard practice.” They only check receipts once in a blue moon, and then they don’t check everyone. As I noted when telling my story, there was a customer who walked out of the store ahead of me who was completely ignored by the receipt checker. On the vast majority of occasions I have visited, nobody was checking receipts.

@MaxTheVool

Would it matter to anyone if the store had a sign saying “all receipts will be checked as customers leave the store”? Would that have no legal force? What about “we reserve the right to check any receipts for any reason”?

I suppose it might, but I’ve looked for such a sign on entering the Wal-Mart since the incident I reported, and if it’s there, I sure can’t find it. Nonetheless, I might very well be inclined to read such a sign as saying, “Please shop at the Target store that a half-mile up the road rather than at this store.”

@MaxTheVool

Certainly, speaking from no actual legal knowledge here, I would have thought that a store can set up its commercial transaction in any way it wants. Store A can say that the purchase is over when the object has been physically handed to you and you have left the cash register. Store B can say that its over when you have had your receipt checked and have left the building. Store C can say that its yours when you’ve gone to window A to pay, window B to receive your item, window C to double check the item, and window D to remove the security tag from the item.

Granted, store C would go out of business in a big hurry, but I’d be very surprised if they were violating any law, and as long as their procedure was well marked, I’d consider you to be shoplifting if you just decided to leave after window B.

Seriously? If they had my payment and I had my goods, you’d call it shoplifting? I think you’d have a hard time making it stand up in court (IANAL). As you note, though, it would be a moot point, since a store with that sort of policy wouldn’t be in business very long.

[NeonMadman]

@MaxTheVool

Sure, but what defines “stolen”? If they think that the transaction is not complete until you went to window C and window D, then they do have reason to believe you stole something if you left straight from window B. Is there some reason why a simple transaction that completes at the cash register is enshrined in law in preference to any other scheme?

I think there is. It’s called a contract. When you purchase an item, you are effectively making a contract to transfer your money to the seller and for the seller to transfer ownership of the item to you. Once you have both fulfilled the terms of that contract, it’s a done deal, and the item is yours. I suppose the seller could apply other terms such as checking receipts (like Costco, Sam’s and BJ’s), but they would need to be part of the original agreement, not an add-on after the fact. For my money, the receipt checker at Wal-Mart has no more right to see my receipt than any other stranger who walks up and asks for it.

[Mister_Rik]

Heh. Old lady at the Wal-Mart door today stopped the lady in front of me to check her receipt, and waved me on past so I didn’t have to wait behind her. For the record, the lady in front of me and I are both white and middle-aged. But she had a full cart, while I just had a 10-pack of Monster and a single bag with a few small items.

@Machine_Elf

Generally, proceeding beyond the point of sale with unpaid merchandise. Most stores won’t detain you unless their loss prevention team has observed you concealing an item and then kept you under continuous surveillance until you’ve made it to or through the double doors/vestibule, or even to the parking lot. However, from what I’ve read, some states allow stores to have you arrested for theft even before the POS if they observe you deliberately concealing items.

The only time I’ve ever been stopped by security was in a ShopKo store. I had stopped in the music section and perused the CDs, but decided not to purchase a CD at that time, and proceeded to a different section to grab the OTC salve (or whatever it was) that I actually came for. I got stopped by security in the entryway. They thought I had stolen a CD.

In hindsight, I understand what happened:

• I didn’t have a driver’s license at the time, so I walked or bicycled everywhere, and was wearing a backpack.

• Because I only intended to purchase one or two small items, I didn’t grab a shopping cart or basket.

• The salve I bought came in a tube that was in one of those plastic “blister packs” stuck to a card, and that card was approximately the same size as a CD jewel case.

So I suspect that security chose to watch me because they noticed my backpack when I entered the store. They let me see the surveillance footage that showed me looking at the CDs, and other footage of me with the salve in my hand. Of course, the black-and-white, grainy footage didn’t make it clear what I had in my hand. Then they informed me that my transaction didn’t indicate that I paid for a CD. Of course, they never came right out and accused me of stealing; they did a roundabout thing where they suggested that I may have picked up a CD and then left it on a shelf elsewhere in the store. But it was obvious what they were getting at.

Deciding to cut things short, I opened my backpack (where I had placed my purchase, in full view of the cashier), showed them my purchase and receipt, and pointed out that the salve card was about the same size as a CD case, hence their confusion. They apologized for the inconvenience and sent me on my way.

Nevertheless, I never went back there again. But it did make me more aware of the effect my backpack could have. After that incident, I always made sure, before entering a store, that every compartment on my backpack was zipped shut, and while in the store I made absolutely sure that my hands never went anywhere near my pack. I also got into the habit of using a cart or basket, even if I was only there to get one item.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Bone

To elaborate, in Virginia, and I believe in other states, simply setting off the door exit alarm (electronic article surveillance device [EAS]) constitutes probable cause for detention:

But they can do it “only in a reasonable manner.” Is it still reasonable when they know from experience that the vast, vast majority of alarms are false, and that they’re false because of the store employees’ own negligence in removing the tags? I mean, you can be detained based on what a radar gun says, but if a cop knows his radar gun only works correctly 1% of the time, that doesn’t give him carte blanche to use the errors to stop people (especially when it’s broken because of his own negligence and he knows this).

[Bone]

That’s a question for a jury.

[Bricker]

@Lord_Feldon

But they can do it “only in a reasonable manner.” Is it still reasonable when they know from experience that the vast, vast majority of alarms are false, and that they’re false because of the store employees’ own negligence in removing the tags? I mean, you can be detained based on what a radar gun says, but if a cop knows his radar gun only works correctly 1% of the time, that doesn’t give him carte blanche to use the errors to stop people (especially when it’s broken because of his own negligence and he knows this).

“In a reasonable manner…” modifies the phrase “…provided such person is detained only…”

In other words, the law says that the device’s activation creates probable cause, period. The subsequent detention itself must be done in a reasonable manner, but the question of whether it’s grounded in probable cause is answered the instant the alarm goes off.

[Lord_Feldon]

That’s terrifying. I hope there’s some way of enforcing an obligation to keep the false positive rate low if they’re going to use force to ensure compliance with the god-machine.

[MaxTheVool]

@NeonMadman

Seriously? If they had my payment and I had my goods, you’d call it shoplifting? I think you’d have a hard time making it stand up in court (IANAL). As you note, though, it would be a moot point, since a store with that sort of policy wouldn’t be in business very long.

Well, that’s precisely what I’m trying to ask. Many stores use a commonly understood transaction in which you go up to a cashier, physically holding the item, and pay them money and then keep the item.

But suppose a store does have a policy of pay at window A, pick up item at window B, verify item at window C. As far as they’re concerned, all of that together is the transaction, and you don’t own the item until it’s complete.

If you just pick up and leave between B and C, can they stop you from leaving the store and insist that you go to window C? Why or why not?

[NeonMadman]

@MaxTheVool

Well, that’s precisely what I’m trying to ask. Many stores use a commonly understood transaction in which you go up to a cashier, physically holding the item, and pay them money and then keep the item.

But suppose a store does have a policy of pay at window A, pick up item at window B, verify item at window C. As far as they’re concerned, all of that together is the transaction, and you don’t own the item until it’s complete.

If you just pick up and leave between B and C, can they stop you from leaving the store and insist that you go to window C? Why or why not?

I suppose in a sense that’s what the warehouse stores like Costco do. But they have a contract with you, in advance, that says they are going to do that, and you have agreed to those terms. I guess if it were posted at the entrance of the store, they might be able to require you to have the item checked before leaving, but even in that circumstance, if you skipped “window C,” I think they would have a hard time making the case that you didn’t own the item after they had taken your money for it. For Wal-Mart to simply try to check receipts randomly without prior notice doesn’t really fall into the sort of situation you are describing.

[MaxTheVool]

@NeonMadman

I suppose in a sense that’s what the warehouse stores like Costco do. But they have a contract with you, in advance, that says they are going to do that, and you have agreed to those terms. I guess if it were posted at the entrance of the store, they might be able to require you to have the item checked before leaving, but even in that circumstance, if you skipped “window C,” I think they would have a hard time making the case that you didn’t own the item after they had taken your money for it. For Wal-Mart to simply try to check receipts randomly without prior notice doesn’t really fall into the sort of situation you are describing.

Yeah, I don’t know what the actual legality of the situation is, but I’m curious. I’m hoping someone will clear it up. I will admit that I find the passion some people display about this topic a bit bemusing, particularly for places like Fry’s Electronics which check (and highlight) every customer’s receipt, which is certainly different from doing it selectively.

[Machine_Elf]

@NeonMadman

I suppose in a sense that’s what the warehouse stores like Costco do. But they have a contract with you, in advance, that says they are going to do that, and you have agreed to those terms.

And if you insist on skipping the receipt-checking process, they can’t legally compel you to do it, and I don’t believe they can detain you, either. The worst they can do is revoke your membership and ban you from the premises.

[MaxTheVool]

@Machine_Elf

And if you insist on skipping the receipt-checking process, they can’t legally compel you to do it, and I don’t believe they can detain you, either. The worst they can do is revoke your membership and ban you from the premises.

Are you sure of that? Why would such a contract not be legally enforceable?

[Machine_Elf]

@MaxTheVool

Are you sure of that? Why would such a contract not be legally enforceable?

I haven’t looked at my Costco membership contract, but I’ll bet it doesn’t include a clause that says “we reserve the right to physically detain you until your receipt and cart are reviewed.”

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

@Alley_Dweller

And then you will proudly wear that shirt, pants, or dress with the security tag still stuck to it? It’s the new chic!

I actually hate when there is a security tag that the checker didn’t remove and the alarm doesn’t go off. They almost never go off. Then, if you don’t want to walk around with a big tag stuck to your clothes, when you discover it you have to make a special trip back to the store to get it removed (and hope you didn’t lose your receipt).

Has anyone ever tried to get clothes with a security tag dry cleaned or washed them? If you have, how did that work out?

I once had to make a special trip to Lord & Taylor [moment of silence here; they’re gone from my area now] while wearing a dress that had a security tag on it. A couple of weeks before I had bought two dresses. I wore one that very night, and saved the other one for a very special occasion, which I was getting dressed for when I discovered the stupid anti-theft device. On a silk dress!

I didn’t have time to take it back. I called them, and they actually said they would send someone to my house to take it off, but I was having dinner with my publisher and I didn’t have time and I really didn’t want to be late because it was a really big deal. So I wore it into the store, they took it right off without seeing a receipt or giving me a hard time. I was only a little bit late.

[NeonMadman]

@MaxTheVool

Yeah, I don’t know what the actual legality of the situation is, but I’m curious. I’m hoping someone will clear it up. I will admit that I find the passion some people display about this topic a bit bemusing, particularly for places like Fry’s Electronics which check (and highlight) every customer’s receipt, which is certainly different from doing it selectively.

I had never heard of Fry’s Electronics, though I see there’s a store in Nyack, NY, which is only about half an hour from my house, and another in Manhattan, which means I’ll probably never see it. But I’m wondering whether they have something posted at the entrance of the store saying that all receipts will be checked. If not, I don’t see why you’d have to show a receipt if you didn’t want to. And if they do, shopping elsewhere is always an option. If management sees enough people turning around and leaving when they see the sign at the entrance, I suspect they’d reconsider their policy pretty quickly.

[running_coach]

@Machine_Elf

I haven’t looked at my Costco membership contract, but I’ll bet it doesn’t include a clause that says “we reserve the right to physically detain you until your receipt and cart are reviewed.”

Membership Agreement

Costco reserves the right to inspect any container, backpack, briefcase, etc., upon entering or leaving the warehouse.
To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be inspected as you leave the warehouse.

[Machine_Elf]

@running_coach

Membership Agreement

OK, thanks for digging that up. But this is a lot like the classic liability waiver that you sign for various risky activities, e.g. “Floyd’s Carnival Bungee-Jumping and its inadequately-trained staff are not responsible for any injuries you incur while bungee-jumping using our uninspected made-in-Mongolia equipment, and you agree to waive all rights to sue us if the bungee snaps or the ill-fitting harness falls off when you make your leap,” which doesn’t actually waive any of your rights.

Point being that the Costco membership agreement may say they have the right to inspect every enclosed space you have on/in you, but only if you consent to it at the time. If you do not consent, then they don’t have the legal right to detain you; they can only declare the membership contract null/void (because you are in breach) and boot you off the premises forevermore, i.e. “take your shit, get out, and if you ever set foot in this store again we’ll have you arrested for trespassing.”

[MaxTheVool]

@Machine_Elf

OK, thanks for digging that up. But this is a lot like the classic liability waiver that you sign for various risky activities, e.g. “Floyd’s Carnival Bungee-Jumping and its inadequately-trained staff are not responsible for any injuries you incur while bungee-jumping using our uninspected made-in-Mongolia equipment, and you agree to waive all rights to sue us if the bungee snaps or the ill-fitting harness falls off when you make your leap,” which doesn’t actually waive any of your rights.

Point being that the Costco membership agreement may say they have the right to inspect every enclosed space you have on/in you, but only if you consent to it at the time. If you do not consent, then they don’t have the legal right to detain you; they can only declare the membership contract null/void (because you are in breach) and boot you off the premises forevermore, i.e. “take your shit, get out, and if you ever set foot in this store again we’ll have you arrested for trespassing.”

Are you sure? Again, I’m not at all a lawyer, but if shopkeepers have the right to detain someone they suspect of shoplifting, and costco has a contract saying you consent to having your receipt checked, and someone wants to leave without having their receipt checked, isn’t that fairly plausibly a reason to suspect them of shoplifting?

[MaxTheVool]

@NeonMadman

I had never heard of Fry’s Electronics, though I see there’s a store in Nyack, NY, which is only about half an hour from my house, and another in Manhattan, which means I’ll probably never see it. But I’m wondering whether they have something posted at the entrance of the store saying that all receipts will be checked. If not, I don’t see why you’d have to show a receipt if you didn’t want to. And if they do, shopping elsewhere is always an option. If management sees enough people turning around and leaving when they see the sign at the entrance, I suspect they’d reconsider their policy pretty quickly.

Honestly, I dunno. I’ve never noticed such a sign. But I’ve also never looked for one.

And Fry’s has been in business for a long time (20+ years, lots of stores all over California) so their policy is clearly not driving away so many people as to bankrupt them.

[Bone]

@MaxTheVool

Are you sure? Again, I’m not at all a lawyer, but if shopkeepers have the right to detain someone they suspect of shoplifting, and costco has a contract saying you consent to having your receipt checked, and someone wants to leave without having their receipt checked, isn’t that fairly plausibly a reason to suspect them of shoplifting?

Shopkeepers can detain only upon probable cause, not mere suspicion. Wanting to leave without having a receipt checked doesn’t rise to the level of probable cause for detention. It would be sufficient to terminate the membership agreement though.