jack
Banned
imported post
Deleted personal attack-LW
Deleted personal attack-LW
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Nampa Walmart OC incident.
- Thread starter bourneshooter
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
jack wrote:
I don't think words like "ignorant" or "grow up" really contribute to the discussion.
I'm trying to get a handle on the full picture. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop treating me as an object of antagonism.
Since you didn't cite a court opinion, I'll take it that you didn't have one. I do appreciate your contribution that courts seem to accept the absence of receipt.
But its not clear that absence of receipt alone has been treated by the court as sufficient to detain, arrest, or convict. Surely there must be other factors that come into play, such as observed concealment by loss-prevention, or observed bypassing thecash registerswhile openly carrying merchandise out the door.
What I'm trying to find out is whether I am required by statutory law or case law tocomply with a store's policy with regard to showing a receipt upon demandof store staff. And whether I can be convicted of petty larceny just for refusing to show a receipt, even if I have one.
jack wrote:
I don't think words like "ignorant" or "grow up" really contribute to the discussion.
I'm trying to get a handle on the full picture. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop treating me as an object of antagonism.
Since you didn't cite a court opinion, I'll take it that you didn't have one. I do appreciate your contribution that courts seem to accept the absence of receipt.
But its not clear that absence of receipt alone has been treated by the court as sufficient to detain, arrest, or convict. Surely there must be other factors that come into play, such as observed concealment by loss-prevention, or observed bypassing thecash registerswhile openly carrying merchandise out the door.
What I'm trying to find out is whether I am required by statutory law or case law tocomply with a store's policy with regard to showing a receipt upon demandof store staff. And whether I can be convicted of petty larceny just for refusing to show a receipt, even if I have one.
Custodian
Regular Member
imported post
http://www.danielcurran.com/2004/08/no-you-cannot-check-my-receipt-and.php
http://consumerist.com/consumer/leg...ave-to-let-stores-check-my-receipt-217098.php
http://sturmdrang.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/door-checking-receipts-walmart-costco-best-buy-target/
Actually, if it is not a warehouse club whose rules you have agreed to and the merchandise is paid for. NO STORE has a right to check receipts. You entered into no contract. And you know what? I have said no when they said they need to check my receipt. And you know what they did at Wal-Mart? NOTHING.
http://www.danielcurran.com/2004/08/no-you-cannot-check-my-receipt-and.php
http://consumerist.com/consumer/leg...ave-to-let-stores-check-my-receipt-217098.php
http://sturmdrang.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/door-checking-receipts-walmart-costco-best-buy-target/
jaredbelch
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I don't believe you are ever required to abide by a store's policy, if you don't want to abide by their policy, then do as we do when stores have no guns policies...Leave.
In Utah the law states that a business/agent must have "Reasonable probable cause" to detain/arrest someone for shoplifting. I understand that to mean a reasonable person given the same facts would assume that the person was guilty of committing a crime. If I am leaving a store with or without my purchases and someone asks me to stop and prove I've paid for everything in my possession, that to me is being detained.
If they don't have the probable cause, then they are civilly and criminally liable for false arrest/detainment. In other words they better be willing and able to say they believe I stole something...In my opinion that would include a description of the item they believe I stole.
I really am not trying to be a jerk, but why should I submit to a voluntary search? Does not submitting to a request to be searched automatically give them probable cause to arrest me? It all comes down to each State's laws, and the interpretation of those laws. Until a case comes across stating one way or the other, I don't think my mind or the mind of others will be changed.
I don't believe you are ever required to abide by a store's policy, if you don't want to abide by their policy, then do as we do when stores have no guns policies...Leave.
In Utah the law states that a business/agent must have "Reasonable probable cause" to detain/arrest someone for shoplifting. I understand that to mean a reasonable person given the same facts would assume that the person was guilty of committing a crime. If I am leaving a store with or without my purchases and someone asks me to stop and prove I've paid for everything in my possession, that to me is being detained.
If they don't have the probable cause, then they are civilly and criminally liable for false arrest/detainment. In other words they better be willing and able to say they believe I stole something...In my opinion that would include a description of the item they believe I stole.
I really am not trying to be a jerk, but why should I submit to a voluntary search? Does not submitting to a request to be searched automatically give them probable cause to arrest me? It all comes down to each State's laws, and the interpretation of those laws. Until a case comes across stating one way or the other, I don't think my mind or the mind of others will be changed.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
jack wrote:
This really is a moot point since we're law-abiding citizens who don't shoplift, and it's indignant to be assumed as one.
This has already been argued in court (by someone who actually didn't steal anything) and charges didn't even come close to sticking.
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/
jack wrote:
These terms apply to officers of the law and what is required to detain and arrest a citizen.
Loss prevention are private citizens, not law officers -- you can attempt to 'detain' someone; however, if you're holding someone against their will without reason and, no, not showing a receipt for THEIR property is not a good reason, you will likely be slapped with a civil suit.
So, you were law enforcement? I thought you said you were in loss prevention? Were these citizens arrests? Or did you simply detain them until the police arrived and actually arrested them?
This really is a moot point since we're law-abiding citizens who don't shoplift, and it's indignant to be assumed as one.
Once money has changed hands, a business transaction has taken place. The merchandise is now MINE. You may ASK to see my receipt, but outside of that, there is no LEGAL right for you to detain me unless you have reasonable suspicion (e.g. you've actually seen me conceal product). If you try to stop me, you will be facing a civil lawsuit.
This has already been argued in court (by someone who actually didn't steal anything) and charges didn't even come close to sticking.
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/
jack
Banned
imported post
Wynder wrote:
Actually you are incorrectreasonable articulable suspicion & probable cause apply to detention and arrest by private security guards and loss prevention employees. Loss prevention and security officers can and domake arrests, in fact in some areas they have been given full police powers. (In Durham,NC for example security officers can make traffic stops within 1 mile of their assigned location.) Some security guard companies and loss prevention personnel will actually transport their own arrests to the detention center and never even involve the police. They see the magistrate and pursue the charges themselves.This is getting more common in many areas (unfortunately in my view).
I'm familiar with the case you mentioned above and he was not charged with not showing a receipt or shoplifting, he was charged with disorderly conduct. The police made the arrest. The court ruled that his refusal to show a receipt was not disorderly conduct. That doesn't mean the LOSS Prevention officer couldn't have detained him for not having a receipt/ or showing it. The ruling didn't say that not showing a receipt wasn't reasonable articulable suspicion for detention of a shopper. It happens everyday and no one has ever successfully sued over it. Jc Penny litigated it successfully once when I was in loss prevention, butI don't remember the details (long time ago).
Test it out yourself. Go buy something at Best buy,Circuit Cityetc. and attempt to just carry it out without showing a receipt ,when asked. You will find it is in fact reasonable articulable suspicion to detain a shopper. Some loss prevention employees are quit aggressive and you might find yourself tackled by several LP guys and cuffed if you resist or attempt to flee. Check out ytube for some really crazy LP arrest videos. Better yet call a criminal defense attorney and ask him if Loss prevention can detain you for not having/showing a receipt. I think you will be surprised at the answer.
Some of you guys make many assumptions with respect to what a court will do in certain cases, yet have no experience as evidenced by statements that conflict with the facts and reality. Above I haveread whereseveral posters havemixed up reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause. In one case combining the two in a obvious lack of understanding of the law, yet so sure he "knows".
How is it a violation of liberty to be asked to show a receipt ? Aggravating or offending you is not a violation of your rights as some on this board seem to believe.
Did you know that some Walmarts have "shrinkage" of over a million dollars annually ? The Alexandria,Va. store thatan acquittance of mine works L.P. at was on a list of stores thatCorporate considered closing because of extremely high losses from shoplifting. That's why they put so much money & effort into loss prevention.
Understanding what they are up against and just politely showing your receipt would be what a reasonable person would do.
Wynder wrote:
Actually you are incorrectreasonable articulable suspicion & probable cause apply to detention and arrest by private security guards and loss prevention employees. Loss prevention and security officers can and domake arrests, in fact in some areas they have been given full police powers. (In Durham,NC for example security officers can make traffic stops within 1 mile of their assigned location.) Some security guard companies and loss prevention personnel will actually transport their own arrests to the detention center and never even involve the police. They see the magistrate and pursue the charges themselves.This is getting more common in many areas (unfortunately in my view).
I'm familiar with the case you mentioned above and he was not charged with not showing a receipt or shoplifting, he was charged with disorderly conduct. The police made the arrest. The court ruled that his refusal to show a receipt was not disorderly conduct. That doesn't mean the LOSS Prevention officer couldn't have detained him for not having a receipt/ or showing it. The ruling didn't say that not showing a receipt wasn't reasonable articulable suspicion for detention of a shopper. It happens everyday and no one has ever successfully sued over it. Jc Penny litigated it successfully once when I was in loss prevention, butI don't remember the details (long time ago).
Test it out yourself. Go buy something at Best buy,Circuit Cityetc. and attempt to just carry it out without showing a receipt ,when asked. You will find it is in fact reasonable articulable suspicion to detain a shopper. Some loss prevention employees are quit aggressive and you might find yourself tackled by several LP guys and cuffed if you resist or attempt to flee. Check out ytube for some really crazy LP arrest videos. Better yet call a criminal defense attorney and ask him if Loss prevention can detain you for not having/showing a receipt. I think you will be surprised at the answer.
Some of you guys make many assumptions with respect to what a court will do in certain cases, yet have no experience as evidenced by statements that conflict with the facts and reality. Above I haveread whereseveral posters havemixed up reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause. In one case combining the two in a obvious lack of understanding of the law, yet so sure he "knows".
How is it a violation of liberty to be asked to show a receipt ? Aggravating or offending you is not a violation of your rights as some on this board seem to believe.
Did you know that some Walmarts have "shrinkage" of over a million dollars annually ? The Alexandria,Va. store thatan acquittance of mine works L.P. at was on a list of stores thatCorporate considered closing because of extremely high losses from shoplifting. That's why they put so much money & effort into loss prevention.
Understanding what they are up against and just politely showing your receipt would be what a reasonable person would do.
IndianaBoy79
Regular Member
imported post
Sorry, it seems I highjacked your post Saint. (edited part...) Not Saints posts, Bourne. Sorry bout that.
First off, I was simly in a hurry and didn't have time for the hassel, and my hands were full. I had just finished paying for my items at the isle closest to the door, not more than 10 feet from this old lady. My wallet was inside my jacket, zipped up. I was tired and annoyed but I complied with stopping as she asked. I wasn't going to consent to any search by her, or law enforcement as it's my policy to never do that without a warrent or at least a reasonable suspicion. I've made that decision long ago and stand by it in my actions. Reasonable suspicion was not there, and after working retail much of my life I know that I was never allowed to stop people and detain them unless I actually SAW something. I could approach them, talk to them, ask them to stop like this lady did. But that was the limit. And they didn't cross this line, they called the police. No phyisical detainment happened. The police arrived, chatted with me for a couple minutes and never even ran my ID. They said there was nothing they could do and I was free to leave. It was about this time that the girl who rang me up came up (she was on break by then and they had to find her) and she said "Ya, he bought that stuff." I promptly returned my items to the store. Whatever you think, at least in Idaho, it's NOT legal to detain me without reasonable suspision, as these people found out when the police arrived.
Now, I've had my say, you've had yours. If anyone wants to PM me and have further, polite conversation on the matter, or start another thread, please do. Otherwise, lets keep this to Bourne's experience and the issue of carry in Walmart. I've very curious how this will turn out. Thanks.
Sorry, it seems I highjacked your post Saint. (edited part...) Not Saints posts, Bourne. Sorry bout that.
First off, I was simly in a hurry and didn't have time for the hassel, and my hands were full. I had just finished paying for my items at the isle closest to the door, not more than 10 feet from this old lady. My wallet was inside my jacket, zipped up. I was tired and annoyed but I complied with stopping as she asked. I wasn't going to consent to any search by her, or law enforcement as it's my policy to never do that without a warrent or at least a reasonable suspicion. I've made that decision long ago and stand by it in my actions. Reasonable suspicion was not there, and after working retail much of my life I know that I was never allowed to stop people and detain them unless I actually SAW something. I could approach them, talk to them, ask them to stop like this lady did. But that was the limit. And they didn't cross this line, they called the police. No phyisical detainment happened. The police arrived, chatted with me for a couple minutes and never even ran my ID. They said there was nothing they could do and I was free to leave. It was about this time that the girl who rang me up came up (she was on break by then and they had to find her) and she said "Ya, he bought that stuff." I promptly returned my items to the store. Whatever you think, at least in Idaho, it's NOT legal to detain me without reasonable suspision, as these people found out when the police arrived.
Now, I've had my say, you've had yours. If anyone wants to PM me and have further, polite conversation on the matter, or start another thread, please do. Otherwise, lets keep this to Bourne's experience and the issue of carry in Walmart. I've very curious how this will turn out. Thanks.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
jack wrote:
Because RAS only allows a pat down search of their person -- unless you have probably cause that they've committed a crime, you have no basis to get a warrant and you cannot arrest them and obtain it from a search incident to arrest. If you have video surveillance or have actually witnessed a crime, more power to you. If not, and you have touched me and illegally imprisoned me, you'd better pray you have a good lawyer.
jack wrote:
Cite, please. I'd love if there were true, as this would open these people up to 1983 lawsuits.
Exactly, because it's NOT ILLEGAL to refuse to show a receipt.
This is analous to assuming guilt for not showing ones ID if they were stopped on the street. If you have full powers of arrest and you're able to detain them, then why not search them?
Because RAS only allows a pat down search of their person -- unless you have probably cause that they've committed a crime, you have no basis to get a warrant and you cannot arrest them and obtain it from a search incident to arrest. If you have video surveillance or have actually witnessed a crime, more power to you. If not, and you have touched me and illegally imprisoned me, you'd better pray you have a good lawyer.
Assault does wonders for tort damages.
Funny, you haven't provided a case cite yourself.
It's not. Illegally imprisoning me, assaulting me or searching me is.
And this concerns me, how? I don't care -- unless you have video or an eye witness, don't bother me.
Sage of Seattle
Regular Member
imported post
jack wrote:
After a brief search, it seems that, statistically speaking, your friends working at Wal*mart have a much higher chance of being the thieves.
So, hopefully you LP guys watch your coworkers more often than you watch the customers; you'd save more money that way.
But I personally am somewhat bothered by the notion that if I say, "no, thank you" to a reciept checker as I'm on my way out the door, that somehow I'm making a bad impression on other gun owners? Yeah, right. And, I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I find it hard to believe that a supervisor or regional manager would green-light gang-tackling a person walking out the door because they refuse to show a reciept.
jack wrote:
After a brief search, it seems that, statistically speaking, your friends working at Wal*mart have a much higher chance of being the thieves.
Code:
Where Inventory Shrinkage Happens
Source of Inventory Shrinkage % of Loss* $ Lost
[b]Employee Theft 48.5%[/b] $15.1 billion
Shoplifting 31.7% $9.7 billion
Administrative Error 15.3% $4.8 billion
Vendor Fraud 5.4% $1.7 billion
Total Inventory Shrinkage $31.3 billion
*total not equal to 100% due to rounding
Source: National Retail Security Survey, November 2002
(based on 2001 retail sales and inventory shrinkage)So, hopefully you LP guys watch your coworkers more often than you watch the customers; you'd save more money that way.
But I personally am somewhat bothered by the notion that if I say, "no, thank you" to a reciept checker as I'm on my way out the door, that somehow I'm making a bad impression on other gun owners? Yeah, right. And, I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I find it hard to believe that a supervisor or regional manager would green-light gang-tackling a person walking out the door because they refuse to show a reciept.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
Deleted personal attack-LW
Deleted personal attack-LW
IndianaBoy79
Regular Member
imported post
Any word yet from the main office about OCing our firearms? It would be nice to be armed with a letter that clearly shows their policy next time you want to visit a Wallyworld.
Any word yet from the main office about OCing our firearms? It would be nice to be armed with a letter that clearly shows their policy next time you want to visit a Wallyworld.
jack
Banned
imported post
Deleted personal attack-LW
Deleted personal attack-LW
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
jack wrote:
And exactly which one of the approximately 270,000 websites listed in those searches should we be looking at? Which post on the thousands ofrandom blogs cites the actual "LEGAL STATUTE"?
We have supported our position with actual websites that refer to specific court cases and/or legal statutes.
Until you provide specific citations:
jack wrote:
And exactly which one of the approximately 270,000 websites listed in those searches should we be looking at? Which post on the thousands ofrandom blogs cites the actual "LEGAL STATUTE"?
We have supported our position with actual websites that refer to specific court cases and/or legal statutes.
Until you provide specific citations:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Well, its clear to me that, at least in Jack's area, loss-prevention staff can detain for refusal or inability to show a receipt.
It is a very bad idea, in my mind, to let merchants get away with this. It takes a fundamental aspect and shifts it. Formerly, all shoppers were presumed innocent, and it was up to the merchant to develop evidence of larceny before accusations were made. It was the merchant's responsibility to prove guilt.
Now, the presumption has shifted. All are suspect, and it is up to the shopper to prove his innocence by showing a receipt.
Of course, none had the common-courtesy to say, "Hey, we are taking a fundamental aspect of the merchant-customer relationship and changing it. Now you have to prove your innocence."
Its insulting, really. I wonder what they will think up next.
I recommend action at the state General Assemblies. Maybe start with consumer groups, and get a few of them on board.
Well, its clear to me that, at least in Jack's area, loss-prevention staff can detain for refusal or inability to show a receipt.
It is a very bad idea, in my mind, to let merchants get away with this. It takes a fundamental aspect and shifts it. Formerly, all shoppers were presumed innocent, and it was up to the merchant to develop evidence of larceny before accusations were made. It was the merchant's responsibility to prove guilt.
Now, the presumption has shifted. All are suspect, and it is up to the shopper to prove his innocence by showing a receipt.
Of course, none had the common-courtesy to say, "Hey, we are taking a fundamental aspect of the merchant-customer relationship and changing it. Now you have to prove your innocence."
Its insulting, really. I wonder what they will think up next.
I recommend action at the state General Assemblies. Maybe start with consumer groups, and get a few of them on board.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
jack wrote:
1. Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 359 Mass, 319, 268 N.E.2s 860 (1971) where a woman told LP she suspected a man of shoplifting. The man was detained, police were called and discovered that the woman had not witnessed the shoplifting, only suspected it. The police realized that probable cause did not exist form the facts known to the store employees. In the civil suit that followed the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lesser courts' jury to award damages for false imprisionment and defamation/slander.
2. After a court held there was a 'total lack of probably cause' to detain him, Clark sued a Kroger Food Store and was awarded $83,000 and $1 million in punative damages. Clark v. Kroger Food Stores, Inc. 587 N.E.2d 1083. Ind. App. 1992.
3. After a search disclosed no merchandise, a security guard continued accusations of theft, The defendant was awarded $75,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punative damages. Caldwell v. Kmart Corp. 410 S.E.2d 21 S.C.App. 1991.
---
Granted, I'm up to homicide and assault in my Criminal Law class this semester, so you've made me skip ahead a few chapters to read. RAS doesn't cut it for shopkeepers -- it must be PROBABLE CAUSE, emphasized in People v. Bitto.
There, I've provided you with three solid and relevant case cites along with the People v. Bitto reference (that's a New York case), that reinforces that shopkeepers must have conclusive, first hand knowledge that a suspect HAS secreted an item before they can detain them.
You may now concede that you're incorrect and, just because you've never heard of something happening before, there IS a possibility that it can be true.
jack wrote:
And, since YOU'VE never heard of it, it can't possible be true. Well, here you go:
1. Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 359 Mass, 319, 268 N.E.2s 860 (1971) where a woman told LP she suspected a man of shoplifting. The man was detained, police were called and discovered that the woman had not witnessed the shoplifting, only suspected it. The police realized that probable cause did not exist form the facts known to the store employees. In the civil suit that followed the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lesser courts' jury to award damages for false imprisionment and defamation/slander.
2. After a court held there was a 'total lack of probably cause' to detain him, Clark sued a Kroger Food Store and was awarded $83,000 and $1 million in punative damages. Clark v. Kroger Food Stores, Inc. 587 N.E.2d 1083. Ind. App. 1992.
3. After a search disclosed no merchandise, a security guard continued accusations of theft, The defendant was awarded $75,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punative damages. Caldwell v. Kmart Corp. 410 S.E.2d 21 S.C.App. 1991.
---
Granted, I'm up to homicide and assault in my Criminal Law class this semester, so you've made me skip ahead a few chapters to read. RAS doesn't cut it for shopkeepers -- it must be PROBABLE CAUSE, emphasized in People v. Bitto.
There, I've provided you with three solid and relevant case cites along with the People v. Bitto reference (that's a New York case), that reinforces that shopkeepers must have conclusive, first hand knowledge that a suspect HAS secreted an item before they can detain them.
You may now concede that you're incorrect and, just because you've never heard of something happening before, there IS a possibility that it can be true.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Wynder wrote:
Thanks for the cites.
Wynder wrote:
Thanks for the cites.
IndianaBoy79
Regular Member
imported post
So guys, any word yet on the subject of OCing in walmart?
So guys, any word yet on the subject of OCing in walmart?
Sage of Seattle
Regular Member
imported post
Why are ya tryin' to spoil all our fun? I like law school as long as I'm not actually having to pay for it...
Why are ya tryin' to spoil all our fun? I like law school as long as I'm not actually having to pay for it...
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
IndianaBoy79 wrote:
IndianaBoy79 wrote:
If you search, there's a topic that has the primary corporate HQ number -- it's long established that Walmart mirrors the states' laws on the carrying of firearms. The manager was wrong, the OP really should contact corporate and get an apology from the manager.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
Sage of Seattle wrote:
Sage of Seattle wrote:
Hah! Working at the college, I can take one free class per semester... So, I should have my juris doctor in about, oh, 30 years, hah! But I won't pay for it either.