Mall security and right to physically detain you

[EEllis]

I would never make a scene, but unless the alarms go off I just keep walking. Never been followed or questioned further. In fact, the greeters will check the receipt in front of me and look the other way when I walk out. It doesn't take them long to figure out whose not a Lemming.

Of course. People do ignore the fact that there is more going on than just walking thru the door. Do you just have one bag or a cart full? Is everything in the cart bagged? Does the alarm go off? Did you come from a different area than checkout? Lets face it unless there is a good reason, like a very high dollar item that they specifically would like to check, Walmart greeters don't check the receipt like the club stores or some electronic stores do. They do a quick glance to see if it looks like what you have and then hand it back. If they are chasing you down there is something else that concerns them making you think that, at least in their mind, it's reasonable for them to take extra action. That difference actually reinforces their claim to be able to stop someone. Besides I can't be rude to some 70 yo woman. That some people on here are worried about "how much force" can they use against them is a bit disconcerting.

[jmra]

I would never make a scene, but unless the alarms go off I just keep walking. Never been followed or questioned further. In fact, the greeters will check the receipt in front of me and look the other way when I walk out. It doesn't take them long to figure out whose not a Lemming.

Of course. People do ignore the fact that there is more going on than just walking thru the door. Do you just have one bag or a cart full? Is everything in the cart bagged? Does the alarm go off? Did you come from a different area than checkout? Lets face it unless there is a good reason, like a very high dollar item that they specifically would like to check, Walmart greeters don't check the receipt like the club stores or some electronic stores do. They do a quick glance to see if it looks like what you have and then hand it back. If they are chasing you down there is something else that concerns them making you think that, at least in their mind, it's reasonable for them to take extra action. That difference actually reinforces their claim to be able to stop someone. Besides I can't be rude to some 70 yo woman. That some people on here are worried about "how much force" can they use against them is a bit disconcerting.

No, these greeters know me well. They've asked me for receipts before and I simply say "no thank you" and keep walking. Now they no longer ask.
The only times I've ever had alarms go off they have waived me on.

[thetexan]

Ok,

Under

§ 124.001. DETENTION. A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.

does one have the right to resist a person's detention under those circumstances? Or can you simply say, no thank you, I think I'll leave now and walk out. Under 124 can force be used legally to effect the detention and would resisting that person's detaining force be unlawful? Especially, if, in fact, you have not stolen anything. Or must the benefit of the doubt be given to the shop owner in the eyes of the law? It seems to me that this statute is simply a indemnification of the shop owner to remedy as long as his actions are deemed reasonable.

As to alarms at a store. In my opinion they are the equivalent of a digitized version of "STOP THIEF!". Since someone yelling that at me would have the wrong guy I would not respond by acknowledging that it is referring to me and I would keep walking. Let a human being stop me if they are certain I am stealing and let those chips fall where they may.

OF COURSE, you better be certain you have not forgotten something and that you have a receipt with you for every item you have because that tactic will also work against you if you are wrong.

tex

[jmra]

Ok,

Under

§ 124.001. DETENTION. A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.

does one have the right to resist a person's detention under those circumstances? Or can you simply say, no thank you, I think I'll leave now and walk out. Under 124 can force be used legally to effect the detention and would resisting that person's detaining force be unlawful? Especially, if, in fact, you have not stolen anything. Or must the benefit of the doubt be given to the shop owner in the eyes of the law? It seems to me that this statute is simply a indemnification of the shop owner to remedy as long as his actions are deemed reasonable.

As to alarms at a store. In my opinion they are the equivalent of a digitized version of "STOP THIEF!". Since someone yelling that at me would have the wrong guy I would not respond by acknowledging that it is referring to me and I would keep walking. Let a human being stop me if they are certain I am stealing and let those chips fall where they may.

OF COURSE, you better be certain you have not forgotten something and that you have a receipt with you for every item you have because that tactic will also work against you if you are wrong.

tex

"A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property"
Reasonable belief requires evidence. Detaining me/checking my receipt as I leave a store is very different than detaining me because you have video of me sticking a steak down my pants.

[JP171]

JMRA, sorry have to disagree with you on the reasonable belief part, reasonable belief has nothing to do with proof. They are two different things. Reasonable belief is nothing more than a reasonable person in my situation having the same information I have believing the same as I do, in your scenario if I see you walking down my aisle and putting your hand down the front of your pants, I have reasonable belief you comitted theft, if my camera records you putting a steak down your pant as I see you putting your hand there, you go directly to jail, I don't even have to show up at court. It has been held that the merchant has the right to see your receipt for any and all goods you remove from that store and if the alarm is tripped they can and will search your bags, pockets and other items or call a LEO and have you searched. In Texas you can be prosocuted for merely sticking that candy bar in your shirt pocket and be convicted

[jmra]

JMRA, sorry have to disagree with you on the reasonable belief part, reasonable belief has nothing to do with proof. They are two different things. Reasonable belief is nothing more than a reasonable person in my situation having the same information I have believing the same as I do, in your scenario if I see you walking down my aisle and putting your hand down the front of your pants, I have reasonable belief you comitted theft, if my camera records you putting a steak down your pant as I see you putting your hand there, you go directly to jail, I don't even have to show up at court. It has been held that the merchant has the right to see your receipt for any and all goods you remove from that store and if the alarm is tripped they can and will search your bags, pockets and other items or call a LEO and have you searched. In Texas you can be prosocuted for merely sticking that candy bar in your shirt pocket and be convicted

I didn't exclude an eye witness as reasonable belief. Stopping and demanding receipts from everyone who leaves a store does not meet this expectation. And as I posted from a consumer law page earlier, you do not have a legal obligation to show your receipt when leaving a store. You can simply keep walking.
Please provide links showing the merchant has a right to see receipts from a customer absent reasonable suspicion of a theft. I only ask because I have already posted a link to the contrary and if your contention is accurate I would not want to be in violation of the law.
ETA: This security/loss prevention expert disagrees:
http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm

Every statute I've read states that there must be reasonable cause and that receipts checks/searches must be on a volentary basis. Involuntary searches can only be conducted by LEO after reasonable cause has been established.

Here's another link to an expert on shoplifting and preventing false arrest charges:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/securi ... fting.html

[patterson]

MotherBear,

I too am a Sams member.

I have no problem with them reconciling my receipt with my purchases. I agreed to this with my paid membership.

What some seem to find intolerable in my attitude is when I'm forced to this receipt hassle when I'm not a member of their store.

I have to stand by while I'm assumed a potential thief until proven otherwise.

Yes, I could meekly acquiesce to this exercise, but this forum repeatedly discusses the chipping away of our freedoms.

Where are their voices?

How is that, it's their right to have whatever kind of shopping policy they like. Is it your loss of freedoms if you get asked for your ID for using your credit card? It's your choice to go there, nobody forces you to go shopping at one place that revokes your right to buy stuff without hassling you over confirming you paid for everything... what is this terrible world coming to? What is the big deal, I seriously do not get it.

I shop at Sams all the time and I really don't even think much about them looking at my receipt on the way out, guess I don't see what the big deal is

[jmra]

MotherBear,

I too am a Sams member.

I have no problem with them reconciling my receipt with my purchases. I agreed to this with my paid membership.

What some seem to find intolerable in my attitude is when I'm forced to this receipt hassle when I'm not a member of their store.

I have to stand by while I'm assumed a potential thief until proven otherwise.

Yes, I could meekly acquiesce to this exercise, but this forum repeatedly discusses the chipping away of our freedoms.

Where are their voices?

How is that, it's their right to have whatever kind of shopping policy they like. Is it your loss of freedoms if you get asked for your ID for using your credit card? It's your choice to go there, nobody forces you to go shopping at one place that revokes your right to buy stuff without hassling you over confirming you paid for everything... what is this terrible world coming to? What is the big deal, I seriously do not get it.

I shop at Sams all the time and I really don't even think much about them looking at my receipt on the way out, guess I don't see what the big deal is

It's not a big deal at SAMs because you volentarily agreed to it as part of your membership.

[Abraham]

patterson,

Me neither, at Sams/Costco because as it's been repeatedly pointed out, with your membership you agreed to this practice.

The issue is with stores like Walmart/Frys etc. where you didn't agree to such scrutiny.

[jmra]

This matter could be easily resolved by someone posting a link that establishes the authority of a merchant to check every receipt and or search merchandise and or detain an individual without specific reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.

In a video posted earlier (which was not even relavent to thread because it involved an officer and not store employees) we see that even an officer dealing with an individual he has previously arrested is unwilling to detain/search in order to verify his purchases. Why? Because the premise behind verifying the purchase was no one saw him purchase the item. This is not a crime, no one witnessed a crime, and nothing about this warrants search and seizure of property. Now, if an employee stated that they witnessed him bypassing the register and leaving without paying, that is a completely different story. But, that didn't happen in this case. If a police officer does not have the authority to verify the purchase in such a manner, what makes anyone think the merchant does.

LINKS PLEASE!

[winters]

obviously people on both sides are very passionate about the whole show your receipt thing. I do enjoy asking the person at frys looking at my receipt if they want me to bend over also. I have been known to walk out the door with what I have paid for if their is a line of people waiting to get their receipt checked. I don't let frys get to me because I know they want to look but that doesn't stop me from asking personal questions to the door guard. lol

If a REAL police officer wanted to see my receipt I accually would be more willing to show it then to some door greeter.

If you want a real test in patience try paying with a check at frys. I dare you to try it. lol

[JP171]

Let me see the private establishments right to make any policy they want comes to mind since as you are so fond of pointing out the the property owner/ shop keeper has the right to dictate what happens in his store

[jmra]

Let me see the private establishments right to make any policy they want comes to mind since as you are so fond of pointing out the the property owner/ shop keeper has the right to dictate what happens in his store

Actually a property owner has a very restricted right to dictate what happens in their store. See federal law on everything from equal access to equal employment opportunity laws.
Again this is simple, just provide links supporting your original claims. Also policy and legal obligations are very different things. Unless dictated by law, a stores policy is meaningless to the conversation at hand.
I only ask for links to ensure that I am abiding by the law while protecting my rights.

[patterson]

patterson,

Me neither, at Sams/Costco because as it's been repeatedly pointed out, with your membership you agreed to this practice.

The issue is with stores like Walmart/Frys etc. where you didn't agree to such scrutiny.

The only time Ive had that happen at other stores is when detector went off but most of the time when that happens you get waved on without anyone checking receipts

[EEllis]

Ok,

Under

§ 124.001. DETENTION. A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.

does one have the right to resist a person's detention under those circumstances? Or can you simply say, no thank you, I think I'll leave now and walk out. Under 124 can force be used legally to effect the detention and would resisting that person's detaining force be unlawful? Especially, if, in fact, you have not stolen anything. Or must the benefit of the doubt be given to the shop owner in the eyes of the law? It seems to me that this statute is simply a indemnification of the shop owner to remedy as long as his actions are deemed reasonable.

As to alarms at a store. In my opinion they are the equivalent of a digitized version of "STOP THIEF!". Since someone yelling that at me would have the wrong guy I would not respond by acknowledging that it is referring to me and I would keep walking. Let a human being stop me if they are certain I am stealing and let those chips fall where they may.

OF COURSE, you better be certain you have not forgotten something and that you have a receipt with you for every item you have because that tactic will also work against you if you are wrong.

tex

If you are not guilty you may be able to make a legal argument for resisting if and as long as you do not escalate the situation. That being said it ends up being a fight you will most likely be facing charges. That is looking at it from a practical viewpoint rather than some abstract one.