jack
Banned
imported post
Deleted personal attack-LW
Deleted personal attack-LW
SNIP I have really been about as clear on this asI possibly can...(and the rest of the post).
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.You should open a business and see why loss prevention is so important in retail. If you pulled that crap in one of my shops, I would ban you from the property. We don't need business from imbeciles. Walmart like all businesses has every legal right to check receipts.
If you guys keep thisup in Walmart they will come out with a no gun policy and post signs, you wait and see. Losing the business of a few that open carry is inconsequential. Private property rights need to be respected, arguing points of law and store policey with managment is counter productive to the open carry cause.
These terms apply to officers of the law and what is required to detain and arrest a citizen.I have really been about as clear on this asI possibly can. Many on here just flat out don't understand reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause ,and what is allowed under each.
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.Having worked loss prevention in the past (for three years) I can tell you that we regularly detained people on suspicion of shoplifting, search purses, cars on several occasions (when shoplifters were followed to their car and observed placing items in their car) never once were they Innocent in any case involving myself.
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?In three years I personally arrested well over 100 people for shoplifting and even more for illegal concealment of merchandise.
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 just isn't a personal liberty issue, it's common sense so grow up.
jack wrote:These terms apply to officers of the law and what is required to detain and arrest a citizen.I have really been about as clear on this asI possibly can. Many on here just flat out don't understand reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause ,and what is allowed under each.
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.Having worked loss prevention in the past (for three years) I can tell you that we regularly detained people on suspicion of shoplifting, search purses, cars on several occasions (when shoplifters were followed to their car and observed placing items in their car) never once were they Innocent in any case involving myself.
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?In three years I personally arrested well over 100 people for shoplifting and even more for illegal concealment of merchandise.
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 just isn't a personal liberty issue, it's common sense so grow up.
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/
Cite, please. I'd love if there were true, as this would open these people up to 1983 lawsuits.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.
Exactly, because it's NOT ILLEGAL to refuse to show a receipt.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.
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?Test it out yourself. Go buy something at Best buy,Circuit City etc. 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.
Assault does wonders for tort damages.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.
Funny, you haven't provided a case cite yourself.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 have read where several posters have mixed 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".
It's not. Illegally imprisoning me, assaulting me or searching me is.How is it a violation of liberty to be asked to show a receipt ?
And this concerns me, how? I don't care -- unless you have video or an eye witness, don't bother me.Did you know that some Walmarts have "shrinkage" of over a million dollars annually?
Did you know that some Walmarts have "shrinkage" of over a million dollars annually ? The Alexandria,Va. store that an acquittance of mine works L.P. at was on a list of stores that Corporate 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.
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)
I believe you are correct in inferring that a large part of shrinkage may be at the hands of employees. When I worked LP, I witnessed that myself. Employee theft was prosecuted right along with shoplifting and other offenses.
With respect to LP guys tackling shoppers I never intended to imply that I condone that in most situations.
With respect to security guardshaving Full police powers in some areas.
Google : security guards given full police powers
security guards police powers
security guards traffic stops
That will give you all the "CITE" you will possibly have time to read. Like it or not security and LP can and do detain people, make arrests and win convictions. I have never seen/or heard ofa successful lawsuit over a shopper being detained for failure to show a receipt. I don't think you ever will see it either. It happens everyday, even to big tough patriots like some of you guys, (cough) that lack the intellect to fully understand reasonable articulable suspicion.
I look forward to read about you guys and your many experiences in not showing receipts as you "stand up for your liberty", LOL. :banghead:
Unfortunately most of you guys are just a bunch of blow hard talkersthat in reality actually show your receipts and ID to police when asked,so the stories won't be forth coming.
The mentality of some of you guys is amusing: " I'm a big bad gun toter and no one tells me what to do. I make my own law , even though I don't have a clue and I'm obviously poorly educated."
What an embarrassment some of you are to the open carry community. When we lose the right to open carry it will be because of the truly ignorant and confrontation loving among us ( that unfortunately open carry seems to attract). A police,security, or LPconfrontation is apparently the only thing that makes some of you guys feel like a man. It's like your big wet dream, one you actually seek out. That is truly pathetic.
And, since YOU'VE never heard of it, it can't possible be true. Well, here you go:I I have never seen/or heard ofa successful lawsuit over a shopper being detained for failure to show a receipt. I don't think you ever will see it either. It happens everyday, even to big tough patriots like some of you guys, (cough) that lack the intellect to fully understand reasonable articulable suspicion.
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.
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.So guys, any word yet on the subject of OCing in walmart?
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.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...