Via Bruce Carton at Legal Blog Watch, a fascinating question arose at the Consumerist about whether a retailer has the authority to stop a patron who has purchased and paid for goods on the way out of the store and demand that the shopper provide his receipt for inspection.
The question arose from a poster who was stopped at Ikea.
I was shopping at the [redacted] IKEA today and after going through the self check out a man not in any uniform (Ikea or otherwise) asked to see my receipt. What he said was ” I need to see your receipt.”
I complied and after about a minute I said, “you have another 10 seconds and then I am leaving.” He replied with “you will let me finish.” I demanded my receipt and he told me that “if you do not let me check you could be arrested”. Needless to say I became irate and demanded both my receipt and a manager. He refused to give me the receipt and then pointed to a phone on the cashier podium and said “you can call the manager yourself.”
That the shopper is obliged to pay for his purchases is without question, but the routine inspection post payment is another matter.
[Caveat: Given the enormous difficulty some readers/commenters have had lately in focusing on the point of the post, I’m constrained to make a few things clear: First, clearly the most expedient thing for the shopper to do was be compliant, do as he was told and then walk away. That’s neither in issue nor the point. The question is whether the store has any right to make the demand, detain the buyer and refuse to give him back his receipt and allow him to walk away unmolested. Second, while the propriety of having a person not in uniform make the demand is a real question, raising a number of issues, the focus of the post is elsewhere. Let it go, no matter how critically important you think it is. If you can’t, start your own blog to discuss it. Third, even though you might think the shopper behaved poorly, that too isn’t relevant. People are allowed to behave poorly and are still entitled to rights, even if you don’t think they should be. Again, if you can’t let that go, go elsewhere. Focus.]
The shopkeeper’s privilege permits a store to challenge someone. for whom there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that he has stolen something, from leaving the premises. But the scenario above is a routine, without any individualized suspicion of theft and applicable to all.
As noted at the Consumerist, membership stores, such as Costco and BJ’s, have shoppers sign an agreement, and the agreement may include consent to be stopped and required to show a receipt for goods purchased.
But Ikea is not a membership store. Nor are the other Big Box stores, such as Home Depot and Best Buys. What authority do they have to demand that any shopper for whom there is no individualized suspicion stop and prove that they paid? What authority do they have to detain a person for a second, a minute or otherwise?
Some comments at the Consumerist suggested that the original poster should have called the police. Experience suggests that the police will, invariably, side with the store, both as a matter of bias and due to a lack of viable understanding that stores don’t have the authority to do as they please. To suggest that the recalcitrant shopper call the police is to beg for an arrest. Not the choice most people would prefer.
Retailers become increasingly emboldened to craft “rules” that consumers are “required” to follow, without either constitutional limitation or any meaningful recourse, and consumers have become increasingly sheep-like in their willingness to comply with the demands of “authority”, notwithstanding the absence of any actual authority to make the demand. While most of the posts here address the indignities imposed by the government, what about those we endure at the hand of private entities?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They don’t have any right to stop if there is no basis to believe a theft has occurred. You ate right: we have become sheeplike. When I go to Wal-Mart I offer the receipt for inspection on the way out!
When stores get so large that they collectively are almost impossible to avoid, their individual, private actions/rules become government-like.that justifies constraints on their power.call it’ government or cal it private, if it is the only game in town, constraints on power over us must be had.if not, we have no real freedom
So, there I was at Best Buy, walking in with a book bag over my shoulder. I was stopped by the greeter, who explained that he had to examine the contents.
It wasn’t only because I had six guns in the bag that I didn’t want to get involved in that — I was on my way to the range — although that was part of it.
“No,” I said.
“But we have the right to inspect bags,” he said, pointing to the sign.
“That’s not what it says. It says you have the right to inspect all bags. You’re not inspecting all bags. So, no. If you want me to buy my computer down at MicroCenter, instead, haul your boss over and explain it to him; if not, I’d like to go shopping.”
On the way out, he smiled and waved instead of attempting to check my receipt and cart.
The Caveat above is priceless. Love it!
Oh sure, walk about with a half dozen guns in a bag and suddenly you’re not afraid of the 90 year old greeter in Wal-Mart.
This is what its come to.
Certainly, if police officers must have a reasonable suspicion, store security personnel should be held to an even higher standard. I find it deeply offensive that stores adopt policies such as this which effectively presume that everyone is a thief until they prove otherwise. Fourth Amendment rights should not evaporate merely because people enter stores. These stores are open to the public, licensed to operate by the government, and given a wide array of governmental protections and benefits. They should at the very least abide by basic constitutional values–including that we presume that people are innocent (not guilty), and no one has the right to detain an individual without probable cause. A system wherein everyone who enters or leaves a store is subject to random search at the discretion of store personnel violates basic constitutional principles and is fundamentally at odds with our core values as a free country.
Well, I did also have a thirty-two gun in my pocket (it was just for fun), and a razor in my shoe (although what one of those Bic razors is supposed to be good for is something I never did figure out, unless it was for some tactical ankle shaving).
I got tired of letting them search my bags after the exit alarm went off because some clerk forgot to deactivate one of the tags. Those alarms go off all day, and no one really believes anything is being stolen. I haven’t stopped for an alarm in years. If they really have the courage of their convictions, they can always tackle me in the parking lot.
You can tell a lot about a man from his hairless ankles.
Having met you, my thought is that you’re not the sort of fellow I would want to tackle in a parking lot.
Well, I don’t like to stand up for those imposing the indignities on us, but “fourth amendment rights” and the Constitution, etc., protect us from the government, not from the GED dropout with the neck tattoo working security at best buy. Human dignity is violated, and perhaps it is at odds with our core values as a free country, but I don’t think its correct that it violates basic constitutional principals. Perhaps I’m being over-technical but the right to be left alone is the right to be left alone by the gov’t.
It’s always seemed to me that acting nervously around alarms is probably the worst way to respond. It’s the sort of thing that gets written up as “furtive movements”.
If you walk straight out and it does turn out to be a tag that wasn’t removed you get to answer the “why didn’t you stop when the theft alarm sounded” question with “well, I did pay for all my stuff”.
Some years ago, the very first time one of those alarms went off when I passed it I stopped and waited for someone to check my purchases. Now on the infrequent occasion that this happens I just keep walking; I know I paid for everything in my possession.
On the other hand, although I do mind I do generally show my receipt to the door person at WalMart. Most of the time at the local Wal Mart the door person is a friendly person who I’d dislike causing any trouble for, and that’s exactly why they place friendly people there. On one occasion I just did wave the person away and keep walking, knowing I had paid for everything in my possession. Frankly, I felt no greater sense of freedom for having done that.
Fry’s Electronics and Costco have gotten away with this nasty practice for years, and I’m surprised there isn’t a precedent banning it already. It’s time!