OT - Walmart receipt check - what's the point?

[rflorek]

Costco said they do it to mark the receipt with pen so it couldn't be used again, not checking the items in basket against the tape. But marking it prevents someone from taking receipt back again later in day and filling thier baskt a second time.

At my Costco, they actually do check the items against the receipt before marking it with the pen. They've even asked me to produce a roll of stamps if I purchased one and placed it in my purse already.

 

[Shannon G]

At my Costco, they actually do check the items against the receipt before marking it with the pen. They've even asked me to produce a roll of stamps if I purchased one and placed it in my purse already.

Isn't it kind of silly to ask you to produce the items shown on the receipt? I thought the idea was to make sure they didn't see anything that WASN'T on the receipt? I don't get it - "hey this says you paid for stamps - prove to me that you actually have them or you can't leave the store..."

 

[jessica52877]

I think I am quite normal looking and would never steal a thing yet my walmart asks pretty much every time. No stereotyping at ours.I just keep the receipt out.

I think they should have the right to do it, they own the store, if you don't like it, don't shop there. They need to prevent theft (or deter it) any way they can and they are doing it for me, to keep prices down for me. I understand it can be frustrating if there are several in front of you, but I have never had it hold me up more then a minute and not even close most of the time. I can spare a minute for savings.

This goes for all stores, not just walmart, theft raises prices and it is passed onto us consumers.

DH is a manager and once they are past the point of check out they are allowed to pursue for shoplifting, they do not need to be out the door.

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

I just went to Walmart. I can't stand the policy of stopping & showing your receipt on the way out. By the time I get to the door, I have already shoved it deep in my purse or one of my bags. Does anyone know what the point of this is?

It gives the elderly lady or gentleman that is "standing guard" something to do..

 

[Piglet843]

I have found - at WalMart - I get asked for a receipt if I went through the self check out line - or if I have items that didn't or couldn't go in a bag.

I used to work at walmart - you'd be surprised. People will walk in - fill up a buggy - deactivate the sensors (or know it doesn't have one) and just walk out.
The greeter ladies are told to watch for that. If its not in a bag - check the receipt.

 

[moniot]

Isn't it kind of silly to ask you to produce the items shown on the receipt? I thought the idea was to make sure they didn't see anything that WASN'T on the receipt? I don't get it - "hey this says you paid for stamps - prove to me that you actually have them or you can't leave the store..."

If they prove you have it then you can't came back later and say you didn't get what you paid for.

 

[dismom24]

I was at mine yesterday and the lady told me they had a new policy and had to check every one. That will slow down my trips there. As soon as we get a Target (next year), I will no longer shop there.

 

[tina_la]

When I worked retail our head of sercurity said something that stuck with me "You try and deter it and you'll catch one here or there but you will never catch the professionals and they are who cost us the big money".

Now I don't agree with stealing anything but aren't you really ticking off your consumers. And how many shoplifters do they really think they catch with this method?

Most of our shoplifters put it in their clothing not their bags. Course in our local walmart we had managers passing TV's out the back doors to their family members. Maybe they should have put someone back in the employee exit.

 

[Bust*A*Stitch]

In my years of retail, the big money theft is usually employees.

The big one was camcorders pagers and cell phones at the Best Buy in S. OKC, taken right of the truck and they never saw the inside of the store.
Or "clearencing" large ticket items and still paying a very small percentage of it.

Also as someone said earlier, registers not ringing up friends purchases corectly.
Busta

 

[krcit]

I was at mine yesterday and the lady told me they had a new policy and had to check every one. That will slow down my trips there. As soon as we get a Target (next year), I will no longer shop there.

My Target checks receipts.

 

[dqpowell]

Someone pointed out that Costco/Sam's are membership clubs - but frankly if ANY store feels the need I think they should have every right to do it.

I think they should have the right to do it, they own the store, if you don't like it, don't shop there.

These two statements (or rather, the ideas that are implied by them) are so wacky I hardly know where to begin.

Your civil rights do not end simply because you walked through the doors of a store.

Stores have the right to request to check your bags against your receipt, and you have the absolute right to refuse to allow them to do so. There is one exception to this, which I'll mention below.*

You have not given up your right not to be searched simply because you entered and/or exited a store. Once you have paid for the items at the register, they (and by law, the bag or packaging the items are placed in) are YOUR PROPERTY. The items ceased being the property of the store when you exchanged money for them. Therefore, they have no right to search YOUR PROPERTY without cause to suspect you of having shoplifted something. In this case, cause is defined as somebody having witnessed you conceal an item and then not pay for it.

Note here that a sign hanging on the outside of the store or in the entranceway declaring that those who enter the store are subject to search is legal bull*rap. You do not give up your right not to be searched even if you read the sign and then enter the store. They may request a search as you leave, which you may simply decline. At that point, they have the right to choose not to allow you to ever enter the store again, but they may not forcibly search you or your bags. If (and only if!) they have witnessed you shoplift something (and refusal to be searched is not just cause in this scenario), they may detain you forcibly until the police arrive to sort it out.

* As mentioned above, there is a gray area. If you are a member of a "shopper's club" like Costco, Sam's Club or BJ's, a condition of becoming a member there is that you agree to allow store employees to compare your receipt to the contents of your bag when you sign up for the membership. It's in the fine print of the agreement. Now this is really a gray area, as there are legal challenges to the idea that one can give up a basic civil right by signing a document that includes such a provision in the fine print. Generally speaking, one must prove that the person who gave up such a right did so knowingly. That's why the police must recite the Miranda rights to those they arrest out loud, and ask the person if they understand those rights (such as the right to remain silent). In this way, they know that the person (who doesn't remain silent, for example) was aware that by talking about something, they have given up the right to remain silent. Discount shopping clubs would be on stronger legal ground if they verbally explained their policy of requiring a bag/receipt check to each and every person that signed up, rather than assuming they read it in the fine print prior to signing on the line.

Still, it's not an irrelevant distinction. Walmart, Target, Best Buy and Circuit City can request your receipt and to examine your bag, but have little or no legal recourse if you refuse. The membership clubs do have some recourse, though what they actually can do is questionable. The obvious right they have is to reject your membership; searching you is still a shaky premise, though certainly they're on stronger ground than the non-membership stores.

Is it difficult to show your receipt? No. Many people will do it and don't consider it a hassle at all. But you have every right to decline the search at non-membership stores.

David

 

[Cindy B]

David--

Thanks for such an infomative post.

 

[cinmell]

I have never been asked to show my receipt in any Walmart or any other store, except for BJ's. I always keep my receipt in my hand to be checked at the door at BJ's b/c that's their policy.

 

[powellrj]

someone posted this blog a few weeks ago.

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

I am a rules follower, so I am the person who always has my receipt out and ready to show, but this guy does have a point. I just have a problem with the fact that he is taking donations for his defense fund.

 

[dawnball]

At my Costco, they actually do check the items against the receipt before marking it with the pen. They've even asked me to produce a roll of stamps if I purchased one and placed it in my purse already.

Isn't it kind of silly to ask you to produce the items shown on the receipt? I thought the idea was to make sure they didn't see anything that WASN'T on the receipt? I don't get it - "hey this says you paid for stamps - prove to me that you actually have them or you can't leave the store..."

It's to prevent employee shrink. They charge you for a roll of stamps you didn't ask for/receive, you don't notice, they take the stamps.

 

[GJM]

I try to stay out of Walmart - I hate that store and get a headache before I even walk in the store!

They have checked at times, I kind of just keep walking and don't look at the person checking or they are so busy chatting with someone. The Walmart I go to puts a pink sticker on stuff if you are returning and item - WHY! When you get to the customer service counter they then take the sticker off, they have such a hard time getting it off half the time.

 

[dqpowell]

someone posted this blog a few weeks ago.

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

I am a rules follower, so I am the person who always has my receipt out and ready to show, but this guy does have a point. I just have a problem with the fact that he is taking donations for his defense fund.

IIRC, the whole thing is over and done with, and he has decided to donate the money he's received for legal defense to the ACLU rather than use it to pay his substantial legal bills.

It's worth noting that even though his legal problems began at Circuit City with a declined bag check, that's not what he spent so much money and time fighting against. Here is a list of the legal wrongs he was subjected to after refusing a receipt/bag check:

1. Circuit City employees illegally held him and his family members against their will from leaving the parking lot. Because they would not let his family leave, he told them he was going to call the police, and he (Michael Righi) did. Note that HE called the police, not the store manager.

2. When the policeman arrived, he did not fully understand or enforce the law. Instead of correctly recognizing that Righi and his family was being illegally held against their will, he did the bag check that Circuit City employees had requested and that Righi had refused. When this was complete and it was obvious that Righi had done nothing wrong, he should have been asked if he wanted to press charges against the Circuit City employees for illegally detaining him and his family.

3. Instead of doing this, the police officer asked Righi to produce proof of his identification in the form of a driver's license. Righi was not driving the car, and therefore under state and federal law, does not have to show a police officer a driver's license. When asked to identify oneself, non-drivers (meaning somebody who was not driving a car when stopped by a police officer) need only verbally give their name, address, and date of birth. Remember here that it was Righi who called the police in the first place, and Righi who was illegally detained by CC employees -- and yet the police officer was treating him as a criminal.

4. Righi verbally identified himself, but refused to produce a driver's license. He knew the law, and the police officer didn't. The police officer threatened to arrest him if he didn't produce a driver's license, and then did arrest him without telling him what charge he was being arrested for. IIRC, he also failed to read Righi his Miranda rights. He took Righi down to the police station, then dug around for something to charge him with, finally deciding to slap him with "obstructing a police investigation." Yes, he was charged with obstructing the investigation he himself had initiated when he called the police so that he would be released from the illegal detention he was subjected to by the Circuit City employees.

5. So that's what Righi was actually fighting -- his unlawful arrest. He had legal ground to go after Circuit City, but was sort of forced into fighting the city and police department for his unlawful arrest. While Circuit City employees should know and understand the legal requirements and limitations they work under, it's exponentially more important that a police officer, who works enforcing the law every day, should know the law and apply it correctly.

David

 

[Cindy B]

Is there a Federal Statute number for this predicament?

(Illegal bag seizing, refusal to check, etc.)

Just curious.

 

[dqpowell]

Is there a Federal Statute number for this predicament?

(Illegal bag seizing, refusal to check, etc.)

Just curious.

The Bill of Rights, Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One does not give up their civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution simply by walking into Circuit City. Declining a bag search does not constitute probable cause. If it did, anybody would be able to circumvent the protections the fourth amendment provides simply by asking to search you, and then claiming probable cause when you refused. i.e., it would render the protection meaningless.

David

 

[Cindy B]

The Bill of Rights, Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One does not give up their civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution simply by walking into Circuit City. Declining a bag search does not constitute probable cause. If it did, anybody would be able to circumvent the protections the fourth amendment provides simply by asking to search you, and then claiming probable cause when you refused. i.e., it would render the protection meaningless.

David

I thought it was the bill of rights, but I wasn't entirely sure. I wasn't certain if the right of refusal was a separate statute or not.