Mall security and right to physically detain you

[EEllis]

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.

But since you know it's going to happen. That they will ask for your receipt how much different is it really than a club store? It's not like there aren't stores that don't check receipts out there.

[Abraham]

Snore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz cough, snore zzzzzzzzz

[jmra]

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.

But since you know it's going to happen. That they will ask for your receipt how much different is it really than a club store? It's not like there aren't stores that don't check receipts out there.

I expect that they might ask just as I expect that a police officer might ask to search my car during a traffic stop. I would consent to neither.

[EEllis]

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.

But since you know it's going to happen. That they will ask for your receipt how much different is it really than a club store? It's not like there aren't stores that don't check receipts out there.

I expect that they might ask just as I expect that a police officer might ask to search my car during a traffic stop. I would consent to neither.

Great but that isn't the question I asked.

[jmra]

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.

But since you know it's going to happen. That they will ask for your receipt how much different is it really than a club store? It's not like there aren't stores that don't check receipts out there.

I expect that they might ask just as I expect that a police officer might ask to search my car during a traffic stop. I would consent to neither.

Great but that isn't the question I asked.

Ok, it's different in the same way a neighborhood with a HOA is different than one without. I get approval from an HOA before I put in a storage building because that is what I agreed to when I purchased the property. If there is no HOA I may expect my neighbor to complain but it's none of his business what I put on my property.
I agreed to let Costco check my receipt, I have no such agreement with Walmart.

[EEllis]

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.

But since you know it's going to happen. That they will ask for your receipt how much different is it really than a club store? It's not like there aren't stores that don't check receipts out there.

I expect that they might ask just as I expect that a police officer might ask to search my car during a traffic stop. I would consent to neither.

Great but that isn't the question I asked.

Ok, it's different in the same way a neighborhood with a HOA is different than one without. I get approval from an HOA before I put in a storage building because that is what I agreed to when I purchased the property. If there is no HOA I may expect my neighbor to complain but it's none of his business what I put on my property.
I agreed to let Costco check my receipt, I have no such agreement with Walmart.

Well I see what you're trying to say but since you're going into someone else's business it doesn't feel the same to me. If it is a problem for me I would avoid shops that did it. But of course that's a side point and a bit off topic.

[jmra]

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.

But since you know it's going to happen. That they will ask for your receipt how much different is it really than a club store? It's not like there aren't stores that don't check receipts out there.

I expect that they might ask just as I expect that a police officer might ask to search my car during a traffic stop. I would consent to neither.

Great but that isn't the question I asked.

Ok, it's different in the same way a neighborhood with a HOA is different than one without. I get approval from an HOA before I put in a storage building because that is what I agreed to when I purchased the property. If there is no HOA I may expect my neighbor to complain but it's none of his business what I put on my property.
I agreed to let Costco check my receipt, I have no such agreement with Walmart.

Well I see what you're trying to say but since you're going into someone else's business it doesn't feel the same to me. If it is a problem for me I would avoid shops that did it. But of course that's a side point and a bit off topic.

Maybe this is a better anology:
I'd say it is the same as the difference between a gun buster sign and a 30.06 sign. One legally prevents me from carrying and the other does not. Costco and SAMs have set up a system that binds you (if not legally then morally) to a set of rules that includes checking your receipt. If Walmart so desired they could institute the same system. They haven't so I choose to not conform to "rules" that I'm not legally or morally obliged to follow. Now it is walmart's store and if they don't want me to come back and spend my money there is a process for that too.

[EEllis]

I'd say it is the same as the difference between a gun buster sign and a 30.06 sign. One legally prevents me from carrying and the other does not. Costco and SAMs have set up a system that binds you (if not legally then morally) to a set of rules that includes checking your receipt. If Walmart so desired they could institute the same system. They haven't so I choose to not conform to "rules" that I'm not legally or morally obliged to follow. Now it is walmart's store and if they don't want me to come back and spend my money there is a process for that too.

Well whatever. I feel like you are going into a business and breaking rules, not the law, and saying "I'm doing it till they stop me." I don't think it the same as a gunbuster because there is some question about what the sign means. Here we know what the store wants you are just trying to find out how far they will go to inforce it.

[jmra]

I'd say it is the same as the difference between a gun buster sign and a 30.06 sign. One legally prevents me from carrying and the other does not. Costco and SAMs have set up a system that binds you (if not legally then morally) to a set of rules that includes checking your receipt. If Walmart so desired they could institute the same system. They haven't so I choose to not conform to "rules" that I'm not legally or morally obliged to follow. Now it is walmart's store and if they don't want me to come back and spend my money there is a process for that too.

Well whatever. I feel like you are going into a business and breaking rules, not the law, and saying "I'm doing it till they stop me." I don't think it the same as a gunbuster because there is some question about what the sign means. Here we know what the store wants you are just trying to find out how far they will go to inforce it.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. For me it is about basic rights, not rule breaking or envelop pushing.

[EEllis]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. For me it is about basic rights, not rule breaking or envelop pushing.

If you are not made to go in or stay in a store nothing they can do has much to do with your "Rights".

[Cedar Park Dad]

I think there are two things going on in this thread. One there is a group of people that seem to have taken the position that no one commenting negatively about receipt would never steal and can't have mistakenly exited without full payment for any and every item. And that may be so but as a standard for business owners it seems a bit pollyanna, An issue that also seems to be missed is that ones behavior, however noble and innocent, cannot give RS to believe that one might be stealing, thus making it not illegal for the store to detain in order to investigate.
Second some people seem to be under the impression that by stopping them the store is committing a crime that then allows them to respond with force. I'm not saying you can't make that legal argument. I am saying that unless it is an extreme case, like you didn't resist and were injured in a significant way or the store employees used drastically excessive force, the likelihood is that by physically resisting you would end up with an assault charge. Sure there are charges like false imprisonment that could apply,but don't bank on it. The real remedy that people get to use isn't violence or criminal but civil. If they stop you, and really stop you not just ask, or even just openly say your a thief then if you can prove it you will end up costing the store money.

Well part of the issue here is that I'm talking about a CHLer here. Not that we're better but that there is the additional issue of a firearm involved.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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

Mmm...real info. Thanks!!

[jmra]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. For me it is about basic rights, not rule breaking or envelop pushing.

If you are not made to go in or stay in a store nothing they can do has much to do with your "Rights".

I get it, you want the last word. Have at it, I'm done.

[EEllis]

I think there are two things going on in this thread. One there is a group of people that seem to have taken the position that no one commenting negatively about receipt would never steal and can't have mistakenly exited without full payment for any and every item. And that may be so but as a standard for business owners it seems a bit pollyanna, An issue that also seems to be missed is that ones behavior, however noble and innocent, cannot give RS to believe that one might be stealing, thus making it not illegal for the store to detain in order to investigate.
Second some people seem to be under the impression that by stopping them the store is committing a crime that then allows them to respond with force. I'm not saying you can't make that legal argument. I am saying that unless it is an extreme case, like you didn't resist and were injured in a significant way or the store employees used drastically excessive force, the likelihood is that by physically resisting you would end up with an assault charge. Sure there are charges like false imprisonment that could apply,but don't bank on it. The real remedy that people get to use isn't violence or criminal but civil. If they stop you, and really stop you not just ask, or even just openly say your a thief then if you can prove it you will end up costing the store money.

Well part of the issue here is that I'm talking about a CHLer here. Not that we're better but that there is the additional issue of a firearm involved.

Unless you pull your gun I don't see the big deal

[ScooterSissy]

I neglected to add that one doesn't have to be rude in not cooperating with the receipt request bother.

It's simple enough to smile and pleasantly say no as you exit the store.

If, at that point you're harrassed, well that's what good lawyers are for...

Having said that, I've never sued anyone. I'm not the litigious type.

But, if I'm ever put in a situation like I outlined above, I'd be having my first experience of suing...

And therein lies the problem. The store obviously asked the police to intervene. The idiot immediately started claiming harassment, and noted that he knew the officer's name because he (the officer) had previously arrested him.

The officers were doing what they were asked to do by the store employees. Not being a jerk to officers go a long way towards peaceful outcomes.