Police, Best Buy, Santa hat, and no receipt

turborich said:

I once had a really bad experience at Walmart, They demanded to see the receipt and I said NO. I started walking to my truck where 4 employees began following me into the parking lot. They blocked my truck by standing behind it. I reversed out and they had no choice but to move or they were going to get ran over. On the way home I was pulled over by the police where my vehicle was illegally searched and my wallet was checked for receipts. It was a bunch of BS but they finally let me go. I wasn't allowed back in that Wal-Mart for over 6 months. It took many calls to the district manager and Wal-Mart's corporate office.

I still don't show my receipt to any door greeters. I just walk by and say no thank you or have a good day.

In the OP situation, I would contact an attorney to get a hold of the CCTV recordings. You can decide if any further action is cost effective. Some of these door greeters think they're Superman.

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

What's with the dog and pony show? Just tell them no. The biggest show I've ever put up was asking the Fry's Electronics guy if he was going to illegally detain me. He said no.

A Walmart woman once said "Sir, I told you to I need to see your receipt". I replied "and I told you no."

It's never gone further than that. I shop at Walmart often and Fry's a few times a year. I never show my receipts anywhere and other than a Walmart employee annoying me by asking a second time it's always without incident. I had no issue at Best Buy refusing to show receipt at all, they don't even have a door checker here. Had this happened to me I would sue the store and employee for assault. It does not sound like the OP was detained though, just his merchandise.

I am not aware of laws in Nevada.

This is the law in AZ. I don't think refusing to show your receipt is reasonable cause for detainment.

ETA: Section A clearly defines reasonable cause and it says nothing about receipts. Again, Nevada may be different.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01805.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Click to expand...

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

The "dog and pony show" is fun for me. I would rather sue a govt agency that needs a comeuppance, than a retailer who is gun friendly, but handles shrinkage in a manner that makes you unhappy.

In my opinion, the person who is trying to tell BB or Walmart how to run their business, is no different than the anti gun person telling us how we can and cannot defend our self.

Click to expand...

MAC702 said:

I thought this was NOT required except in a membership store, and that it was simply enforced through intimidation.

Can you please confirm this?

So is it the same at Walmart now, too?

Click to expand...

MAC702 said:

I don't care how badly I wanted that computer, I'd have stayed in the store long enough more to get a full refund for the computer. After all, you paid for a box with an intact handle, too.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

A couple random points.

I don't see the robbery angle some speak of. No threats of force or injury in taking the computer back from the OPer. Just a snatch-and-run. Theft. Not robbery.

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

What's with the dog and pony show? Just tell them no. The biggest show I've ever put up was asking the Fry's Electronics guy if he was going to illegally detain me. He said no.

A Walmart woman once said "Sir, I told you to I need to see your receipt". I replied "and I told you no."

It's never gone further than that.

Click to expand...

I don't think refusing to show your receipt is reasonable cause for detainment.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

I just occurred to me that I've never been stopped at the door of any retailer to show my receipt since I've been OCing.

Click to expand...

DVC said:

YOUR screwup was in not complying with the terms under which they sold you the laptop -- including requiring proof of ownership to leave. They were within their rights to require that you show a receipt before taking the item off of their property. That said, they should have been paying attention to the minor little detail that you were coming from the cash registers. If this BB is like the ones I've been in, the registers are along the front wall next to the exit door, and anyone coming from that direction is unlikely to have been able to sneak a laptop through without being spotted.

THEIR screwups were A), taking the laptop out of your hands, and B), use of physical force. They should have either blocked the door or followed you outside to get your license plate.

The only good thing that I see in any of this is that your being OC was a factor in maintaining safety, rather than anyone hitting the panic button.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

A couple random points.

I don't see the robbery angle some speak of. No threats of force or injury in taking the computer back from the OPer. Just a snatch-and-run. Theft. Not robbery.

Personally and speaking only on the info provided, I woulda loudly accused the shirt-grabbing assault to the cops. I woulda moved the receipt and snatched computer to second priority. But, that's just me; I'm not evaluating the OPers reasons for doing it his way. He mighta had a darn good reason for doing it the way he did it.

Click to expand...

ed2276 said:

SNIP In this instance:

1. The property had been paid for, the store released the property to the person by issuing a receipt and handing it to him. At this moment, the computer was the lawful property of and lawfully in the possession of the customer. The store had no more claim to the property.

2. The property was taken from the customer's hand by force. The force was to such a degree that it damaged the property packaging.

3. The store employee use the force to obtain and retain possession of the property.

IMO, all of the elements of robbery are satisfied and the store employee should be arrested and charged with robbery.

Click to expand...

ed2276 said:

Best Buy's "terms" were satisfied when the employee took the customer's money at the register and handed him the receipt and merchandise. At that moment, Best Buy had complete knowledge that the customer had lawful ownership of the item.

Click to expand...

DVC said:

That's the "negotiation" I mentioned.



They don't detain you for refusing to show a receipt, they detain you on suspicion of theft, after giving you a reasonable opportunity to prove ownership.

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

Aren't you kind of telling them how to run their business by playing the game?

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

There is nothing that prevents them from asking for a reciept but I'm not going to allow anybody to detain me without cause.

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

What if they had a store policy of searching their customers? Is refusing to be searched telling them how to run their business? Am I confused as to what you're trying to convey here?

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

ETA, maybe you think I meant to sue them over the receipt check? I meant sue them over the assault.

Click to expand...

I did not know that they had a policy of checking receipts and bags at the door when trying to leave.

Click to expand...

DVC said:

It falls under several of their rights, including the right to refuse service. Essentially, a seller has a right to determine the terms of a sale. A buyer has the right to negotiate a modification or to choose not to buy. The seller retains ownership until all terms are met.

An example is when a home sale goes through escrow. The buyer gives payment to the escrow administrator, the seller gives the deed, and only after the administrator determines that all terms have been met will payment and title be handed off and the process closed. Even if the seller gives the keys to the buyer and says to move right in, until the escrow closes, there is no sale.

In this case, the seller's terms include requiring buyers (either all or selected) to provide proof that payment was made, before property is removed from the store, the most basic right that a seller holds. Most folks respect the right of a store to keep their stuff unless you pay for it, to ask for ID when you pay by check, to verify funds in the account when you pay through check or card, and to verify that cash is actually cash. Most people also understand when the process goes to a higher level, such as when the cashier calls the manager to approve the sale. MAKING PAYMENT DOES NOT CONFER OWNERSHIP. For instance, you can't just toss a check on the counter as you walk past and expect that to satisfy the process.

The check at the door is an additional step in the process, which most stores don't use. Some do. Until the process is completed, the sale is not completed. Thus, they have the power of law behind them. They DO NOT have the authority to resort to physical force to threat of physical force to enforce those terms. Thus, there were screwups on both sides, the greater being on the store's side.

The buyer DOES have the right to negotiate at any point in the process, including whether or not to show the receipt. When asked for a receipt, he can refuse, point to the register, etc., but if the employee at the door won't back down, that's within the store's rights.

Click to expand...

DVC said:

It falls under several of their rights, including the right to refuse service. Essentially, a seller has a right to determine the terms of a sale. A buyer has the right to negotiate a modification or to choose not to buy. The seller retains ownership until all terms are met.

An example is when a home sale goes through escrow. The buyer gives payment to the escrow administrator, the seller gives the deed, and only after the administrator determines that all terms have been met will payment and title be handed off and the process closed. Even if the seller gives the keys to the buyer and says to move right in, until the escrow closes, there is no sale.

In this case, the seller's terms include requiring buyers (either all or selected) to provide proof that payment was made, before property is removed from the store, the most basic right that a seller holds. Most folks respect the right of a store to keep their stuff unless you pay for it, to ask for ID when you pay by check, to verify funds in the account when you pay through check or card, and to verify that cash is actually cash. Most people also understand when the process goes to a higher level, such as when the cashier calls the manager to approve the sale. MAKING PAYMENT DOES NOT CONFER OWNERSHIP. For instance, you can't just toss a check on the counter as you walk past and expect that to satisfy the process.

The check at the door is an additional step in the process, which most stores don't use. Some do. Until the process is completed, the sale is not completed. Thus, they have the power of law behind them. They DO NOT have the authority to resort to physical force to threat of physical force to enforce those terms. Thus, there were screwups on both sides, the greater being on the store's side.

The buyer DOES have the right to negotiate at any point in the process, including whether or not to show the receipt. When asked for a receipt, he can refuse, point to the register, etc., but if the employee at the door won't back down, that's within the store's rights.

Click to expand...

DVC said:

It falls under several of their rights, including the right to refuse service. Essentially, a seller has a right to determine the terms of a sale. A buyer has the right to negotiate a modification or to choose not to buy. The seller retains ownership until all terms are met....

The check at the door is an additional step in the process, which most stores don't use. Some do. Until the process is completed, the sale is not completed....

Click to expand...