When you join Costco, you have to sign the membership agreement, and so you’re explicitly agreeing to the receipt check.* If you change your mind as mks57 suggested, you can can cancel the membership.
*From the Costco welcome brochure general policies: “To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be inspected as you leave the warehouse.”
No, you are not, not by the language you cite. That language simply states the Costco policy. It doesn’t say you agree to let them do it. Perhaps other language in the membership agreement does, but not that language.
The only thing that really chaps my hide is when the Fisher-Price Police ask to see my receipt when my hands are clearly full of shopping bags. In these cases I invariably make the security guard hold one or more bags while I look through my pockets for the needed paperwork.
I always ignore the anti-theft alarms when I set them off (accidentally) and I’ve never been challenged on it. The joys of alert fatigue.
I think it’s been covered to death on this board, but some people seem to be misinterpreting merchant’s privilege. “Can be detained” is not a sound concept when it comes to store employees and not police officers. Perhaps technically you can be detained, but what exactly do you suppose they will do? I have never had anybody even try, but typically “Sir, may I see your receipt?” answered with a short “No, you may not” ends the interaction right there. Do you suppose the security guard is supposed to grab me? Hit me? Handcuff me? Kill me?
Perhaps, but I’m not one of them.
They can/will use reasonable force.
The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
He can grab you. As to the rest, well, you’re engaging in sophistry whether you are aware of it or not.
A security guard is not going to kill you because he thinks you’ve got a pack of bubblegum in your pocket. But if you’ve got a backpack full of those Elphs or have stuffed your pockets with sunglasses, he’s a lot more likely to do so.
There is a vast gray area between the heroic SDMBer flipping off the impotent security guard and the soon-to-be-Mr. Kairos slamming you to the ground, cuffing you, and tossing you into the Chateau D’If because he thinks you’ve got one too many Juicy Fruits in your bag.
In many of these cases, what the stores will do is try to take advantage of the herd mentality of most humans (which I’ve never understood, because apes don’t travel in true herds, but that’s another issue…). That is to say, if you put a guard or attendant at the door, and have that person ask for a show of receipts, 99% of people exiting will show the receipt. This may be because they don’t think to decline, or it may be because (like me), they prefer to be helpful. But whatever the reason, simply establishing the expectation results in compliance by almost everyone.
Similarly, when store investigators ask shoppers if they can answer a few questions, they usually get compliance. The circumstances will often make a shopper uneasy about declining: the guard/investigator may be large, dressed in uniform or in suit, often appears with someone else as backup, etc. Again, most shoppers will allow the questions, allow the person to poke through their belongings, etc., without demur, either because they don’t think to object, or because they are willing to help. I had it happen at Sears once; I had purchased a set of Allen wrenches which was incomplete, and had simply added a solo wrench of the appropriate size from the rack (where it was clear that there was no difference between the singles and the sets). I understood completely when the suited man appeared at my side during the transaction, and was quite happy to assuage his concerns. Did I have to? No. Does the store more or less count on the fact that I will? Yes.
Does this stop or slow down shrinkage? Trust me that stores, especially large chains, invest large sums in figuring out how to stop external shrinkage. If a practice is in place, it is because there was a demonstrable drop in loss to theft. And if it is any solace to you, keep in mind that, no matter how focused on theft by shoppers the company may seem, they are at least 10 times as focused on theft by employees, and rightfully so, statistically. So if you think YOU are being unfairly scrutinized, imagine the honest employees who live with it every day at work. <sigh>
In many of these cases, what the stores will do is try to take advantage of the herd mentality of most humans (which I’ve never understood, because apes don’t travel in true herds, but that’s another issue…). That is to say, if you put a guard or attendant at the door, and have that person ask for a show of receipts, 99% of people exiting will show the receipt. This may be because they don’t think to decline, or it may be because (like me), they prefer to be helpful. But whatever the reason, simply establishing the expectation results in compliance by almost everyone.
Similarly, when store investigators ask shoppers if they can answer a few questions, they usually get compliance. The circumstances will often make a shopper uneasy about declining: the guard/investigator may be large, dressed in uniform or in suit, often appears with someone else as backup, etc. Again, most shoppers will allow the questions, allow the person to poke through their belongings, etc., without demur, either because they don’t think to object, or because they are willing to help. I had it happen at Sears once; I had purchased a set of Allen wrenches which was incomplete, and had simply added a solo wrench of the appropriate size from the rack (where it was clear that there was no difference between the singles and the sets). I understood completely when the suited man appeared at my side during the transaction, and was quite happy to assuage his concerns. Did I have to? No. Does the store more or less count on the fact that I will? Yes.
Does this stop or slow down shrinkage? Trust me that stores, especially large chains, invest large sums in figuring out how to stop external shrinkage. If a practice is in place, it is because there was a demonstrable drop in loss to theft. And if it is any solace to you, keep in mind that, no matter how focused on theft by shoppers the company may seem, they are at least 10 times as focused on theft by employees, and rightfully so, statistically. So if you think YOU are being unfairly scrutinized, imagine the honest employees who live with it every day at work. <sigh>
Um, with respect, security guards, even when they are off-duty police officers, will only use force to detain when they are damn certain they are correct. Trust me on this.
Unless you happen to run into one with far more testosterone than brain cells, as happened to me once. The twit didn’t even apologize after failing to find any stolen merchandise. His probable cause was that he thought I “looked suspicious”.
No, my argument was not sophistry, but rather poorly phrased.
What I was getting at is that in general peace officers have a certain degree of immunity from civil liability when performing their duties. I am not aware of any such immunity extending to security guards or their employers, but I am more than willing to be corrected with a proper cite.
Yes, they may very well be able to use reasonable force to detain me, and not be guilty of crimes of kidnapping or assault. However, what legal mechanism protects them and their employer from the false imprisonment, false arrest, negligence and assault torts? What if the guy grabs me and I have a heart attack and die? Can Walmart afford that wrongful death lawsuit?
Any time they detain somebody they are taking a big monetary gamble.
Here is your cite- California Penal Code Section 490.5(f).
Here is a CA law firm’s explanation with case cites to back it up.
You got a pack of gum, there really is no reason. But the aforetheorized bag fulla cameras, I can see that being a different story.
Thank you, I did not know that. That covers most of it but not all.
However the cites have no bearing on the receipt checker issue, which is still moot – if they have probable cause somebody must have already been observing you so they can detain you when you attempt to leave the store. If they don’t have probable cause, you don’t have to show them a receipt or let them search your bags, which is, what I believe the OP was asking, no?
In which case you had a potential law suit to file. And should have insisted at the very least upon an apology from the store’s manager, if for no other reason than to rub his/her nose in the odious behavior of the guard.
At Dillard’s, we in management went through some pretty important training as to what exactly we could consider when detaining shoppers for further investigation. It helped that the store’s guards were uniformed police officers, who knew the rules pretty well. Of course, I had somewhat more knowledge of the pit falls than others did.
I will point out that the California Penal Code section in question is almost identical in its basics to the sections most states have. In short: if they have probable cause to believe you are shoplifting, you can be detained for purposes of determining if you are or not. Probable cause has to be something more than just belief itself, or “suspicious activities.” Usually it involves seeing an attempt to conceal; on rare occasion it can involve inferences from other evidence (such as walking into a dressing room with five items, but walking out with only four, and nothing left in the room). It most certainly doesn’t extend to detaining every shopper to examine a receipt.
Not really. Unless your civil rights are violated (read, you are a minority and can establish that the detention was because of your race, etc.), you won’t get much monetarily from detention in such cases. Now, if you get injured, that might get you more, but even then, your damages won’t be that high.
Now, if you can establish a class action against a major national chain for their propensity to wrongfully detain people, well… 
If there is no penelty for false detention, why doesn’t every store do it when they think they might have a shoplifter?
[disclaimer] All of what follows is from about 1970, and the laws may have changed[/disclaimer]
When I was fresh out of college I spent some time in retail hell at Montgomery Ward. Got to know store security real well. Nice guys. Anyway, they told me that in order to stop and search someone they had to have probable cause, which was either they had to see the person take something themselves, or another employee had to alert them that they had witnessed the taking of said item. Also they said that stopping someone before they got to the door, was to invite a not guilty as the person would claim that they were looking for a register. (this was back in the days before centralized cash wraps)
Anyway in at least two cases that I recall they detained, and the police arrested a senior citizen for shoplifting. In both cases the jury found not guilty. The seniors played the age card I guess. In both cases I heard back that the store was sued for false arrest. As a result of this, the length these guys went to to make sure that all the T were crossed, and all the I were dotted was almost funny.
Now I have two questions, first were these false arrest suits a sure losers, or did the plaintiff have a case? Secondly and more importantly, Happy Scrappy’s second link discusses probable cause. Is the mere fact that a door alarm was triggered probable cause for a detention/ search?
I was wondering when door alarms would be raised.
The answer would be, “it depends.” However, it’s easier to see how a triggered alarm would help establish probable cause (if it weren’t for the fact that the damn things always go off for innocent reasons; just watch some day if you don’t believe me…). 
As for false arrest suits, keep in mind that, even if each individual suit didn’t result in much monetary recovery, you certainly wouldn’t want to end up having it be a regular cost of doing business. After all, the point to stoping shoplifters is to avoid shrinkage, because it eats into profits; so, of course, would a steady stream of verdicts requiring damage payments, even if they were relatively nominal in each case.
Oh, I believe you alright. I have seen more false alarms than I can shake a stick at. With the problems with false alarms, could a defendant claim (and be successful) that he was singled out because he was black and the alarm went off, or he was a teenager and the alarm went off or he was [fill in the blank] while the white middle aged folks that set off the alarm were not stopped.
I know I got stopped by an alarm at a Walmart once* (the dumb clerk did not deactivate the tag) I was in a pissy mood and refused to return to the store (my receipt had already been checked) when asked by the 75 year old receipt checker at the door. I told her if she had probable cause to arrest me for theft, if not I was out of there. her manager got involved then and tried to say they were trying to find out which cashier screwed the pooch. I then asked why they did not ask to see my receipt again so they could see which cashier it was. :smack:
“Oh ah we were going to do that”
Sure you were.
I stated that I had paid for everything in my bag and on my person. I then said that if they felt I had not they could arrest me, but IMHO opinion they did not have probable cause to detain me, and I asked them if they felt lucky.
Apparently they did not feel lucky, and I went out to my car.
So is there any law or cases directly on this point? ( door alarm as probable cause)
*FTR the last time I shop lifted anything was age 5, a piece of candy. My mother caught me, and I have never done it since.
Did you read the links kindly provided by Rigamarole?
For further edification, if I pretend to steal, but still pay for my items, cn a store detain me? For instince, if I have a shady look and put a can of soup in my coat and pay for it and put it back in my coat, can the store detain me for having a can of soup in my coat and no reciept?