It amazes me at how many of you think it is ok to give up your rights in a situation like this. If you are willing to give up your time because a private citizen wants you to prove your innocense at the door, would you also be willing to be stopped by police and have your vehicle dismantled on the side of the road with no probable cause other than the suspicion that somebody may be trying to run drugs through town that day? Some of you should go spend a year or two in any other country. When you come back tell us how giving up your rights is no big deal.

We shop at tree-hugger marts and carry our own bags in, when we tried this at Target we were stopped at the door and told by the security guy that it was against their policy. I rolled my eyes and told him to get a manager. Dur...yes, Target is in favor of killing the environment. The manager apologized and said the security guy was misinformed their policy was something about not letting people fill unpurchased bags with merchandise and then pay for the bag too, or some such silliness. Anyway, we stopped doing that because their bags are great for kitty litter.

It sucks to be inconvenienced, but that's all. It's not a crime and you certainly don't have to shop there. Buck up or pay full price somewhere else.

I sincerely hope that every single person who says that has a personal emergency while in a receipt-checking/person-detaining store.

I sincerely hope that each one of you misses the birth of their first child because you ran post a security guard at Circuit City or whatever, and got illegally detained.

Our rights are valuable, but many of you would happily see them disappear if it might save you $0.17 per year. And sadly, I think it would take something extremely drastic for many of you to realize why it is that they are so precious.

This is the most distressing part of the story, IMO.

The police have no business commenting on this in any way, and the manager definitely should not be making claims to higher authority by doing so.

Belief is at the forefront of any action. It is also what keeps a person from being arrested for making a false claim. If I see someone crawling out the window of a house, carrying a bag and looking suspicious I am going to call police. If, when the police arrive, they discover that the person lives there and was was just carrying something out to the trash and didn't want to go out the front door then it is my honest belief that he was committing a crime that keeps me from being arrested for a false report. I didn't say "believe" as in "they think." I said "believe" as in they had an honest belief in what they saw.

Obviously, the store was BAITED into breaking the law by this crime non-denier. Poor little TigerDirect never have a choice against someone who didn't deny taking the ACT for someone else!!

@Stockholder - you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether you think Shaneal should have just showed his receipt, is making a mountain out of a molehill, or is a muckracking troublemaker--the store shouldn't have detained him. Shaneal had the right to complain -- and I for one will never do business with TigerDirect again. Shaneal should not be subjected to some kind of veracity withchunt on the rest of his life because he wouldn't just put up with it. You have the right to try to discredit him -- but you shouldn't be proud of yourself. And one wonders why people are so often silent in the face of injustices large and small. Speak up and get smashed down, apparently. How sad.

There's also the issue of policy being applied consistently. If anything is cited as "policy" my first questions are:

1) Where is a written copy of the policy that I can review?
2) Why am I subject to this policy?
3) Is the policy applied uniformly and consistently to everyone? If not, why not?

If it's not published and not applied consistently, then there's definitely some liability on the policymaker's part.

1. If we are to believe Consumerist, the law states that "shopkeepers are only allowed to detain customers under suspicion of shoplifting if they actually see the customer hide the item on their person"--not that the shopkeeper has the right to check receipts at the door.

2. If you are willing to give up your right to privacy, and submit to a receipt search, fine. That doesn't mean that all other customers should be required to give up THEIR rights, too, or face store consequences if they refuse to relinquish those rights. That's wrong.

So you're not condoning the store's behavior, you're just saying it's Shaneal's fault. Riiiight.

So, does that mean in the confine of their own walls they are allowed to define law?

Well, if they want to pick up the soap for every Barney Fife stationed at the door of a retail entity, you'll understand if I think they're sheep, right?

I'll ask again: If a store security guard told you he was going to frisk you before you could leave the store, would you go along with that? I mean, it would be easier and faster than arguing about it, right? That's what some people here have tried to make the discussion about: convenience.

If you say no, you wouldn't go along with that, then you DO have a line you won't cross; it's just different than mine. I prefer nipping this bullshit in the bud.

If you say you WOULD go along with that, how 'bout we cut to the chase: just put on the armband, practice saying "Achtung!" and be done with it.

To summarize for you, as you don't seem to know the difference between a law-making body, and a shitty convenient store policy:

1. store=not a lawmaking body/don't need to obey

2. "store's property"= not trespassing b/c not asked to leave/doesn't entitle them to search, sorry =O

3. Please save us all the aggravation of reading your "well-thought-out" remarks, and read my last post.

4. Grow a brain.

Love Nero

Now, wouldn't a reasonable person believe that the store policy doesn't require you to show the receipt, and that security guard would get a reminder on the rules?

I don't know who's telling the truth, but I hesitate to take the side of a store that knowingly broke a law after there was an incident just a week earlier.

I said it when the story first posted, and I'll say it again, taking 2 seconds for somone to glance at your reciept and run a highlighter across it is not some huge social crisis. Also, if what Wattle said about the earlier dispute was true then quite frankly I think it is Shaneal's own damn fault for going back into the store when he knew store policy.

Yeah, sure. But he could have something in his pants, too. Should EVERYONE have to take off their pants because someone COULD shoplift something in their pants??

So, if they asked you to give them a drug test because it's their "policy", you would have to do it??

Again, my issue with the whole situation was that it clearly could have been avoided. Show the receipt or receipts and you're gone. Simple as that. Having every customer show their receipts isn't going to lead to pat downs outside of the store or hover-cams shopping with me, its just going to mean that I get to that first red light 3.5 seconds later. Clearly it seems to be this stores policy to ask to see receipts upon exit. If you take offense to that practice so severely as to cause an incident previously why would you go back? You know what their practice is. Apparently you don't agree with it but will continue to shop there, either because A) the prices are low or B) you are looking to cause trouble.

The civil liberty issue is the illegal detention. Unless the rent-a-cop can provide evidence of theft or fraud, he has no right to stop you from leaving a private property.

Though I feel that this r-checking should not continue, because it is annoying and insulting, I do side with the corporation in one aspect. The intent of this detainment should be factored in. If the government detains someone illegally, it is a very, very large concern because of the likelihood of very bad things happening to the citizenry (1984).

However, this is just a brick-and-mortar store. If or when an employee of a store requests a receipt from me, I wouldn't think "he's intent on violating my rights for the nefarious purpose of undermining civil liberties", I'd probably think "this store has probably lost lots of money due to thefts, here's my receipt".

This store probably received an email from HQ saying that they "lost a crapload of money, stop all suspicious customers". And well, people overreacted.

I have had situations like this happen to me before. Having to wait in line to buy the item and then wait in another line just to exit the store? It does seem a bit much. If I don't have a busy schedule, I will wait. If I do, I bypass the reciept check line and exit. Only a one or two times was I ever stopped and detained. A security guard did try to detain me physically on one of them. I explained to him that I wished to leave the store and he was very rude, saying he "Had to see my reciept!" or he was going to "slam me to the ground" and search for it himself. At that point I politely let him know that I would not allow that to occur, and I that I was prepared to defend myself against this action. He sneered and asked what I could do about it? I then calmly explained that this was a state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. The smirk slipped off his face and I left without further incident.

Haven't been back to that store ever again.

Why stand up for your rights against oppression when it's easier just to give in to simple, easy, unjustified demands?

@Jerim: I know its already been stated, but lets go over it again...the only way they can lawfully detain you is if they PHYSICALLY see you take something off the shelves, put into your pocket/handbag/backpack. Its right there on the post, people. So, them just ASSUMING the extra bag = unpaid merchandise is not grounds to detain. Therefore, making him show a receipt or keeping him there is ILLEGAL no matter how you feel about him just showing the receipt. Lets not even get into rights, lets just look at it being illegal.

Even if the customer is caught with items not found on his receipt, he still cannot be arrested for stealing, as he was still in the store.

Until he leaves the store, it's not stealing. If a customer doesn't want his receipt checked, he's simply taking the liability of theft on himself.

Maybe you should go reread that Wikipedia article. "Belief" (and no matter how strongly you believe it) just doesn't cut it as legitimate grounds for a citizen's arrest.

Yes, it is private property. And they can ask you to leave, and summon the police to escort you off their property and charge you with criminal trespass.

But their rights don't go any further than that, least of all to some putative right to detain a person. (Seriously.)

At this point, all I really want to know is WHY did you go BACK if this same sort of thing had already happened before? Surely at this point you already knew they would probably want to see your receipt and that they would probably make more of a fuss over it this time if you didn't. Particularly if someone along the line recognized you as the guy from the week before they felt the need to call the cops on (and why exactly DID they call the cops the first time anyway?)

Personally, while I disagree with the way the situation was ultimately handled, I am still at a loss to understand why so many people are equating a store wanting to do a receipt check to a civil rights violation. It's NOT the same thing as a cop wanting to search your car. The security guard is not even looking in your bags, for Christ's sake. He's not asking to frisk you, he's not asking you to bend over so he can make sure you didn't shove an iPod up your ass. If you honestly think that a receipt check is going to LEAD to any of those things, you've got a much more active imagination than I. If you think this is a privacy issue, shouldn't you be more concerned with the security cameras that are watching your every move? Sorry, but I don't consider my self a "sheep" just because I don't have a problem with occasionally waving my receipt (which is usually in my hand anyway) as I walk out the door. I might have a problem with it if it was clear they were singling me out, but in the OP's case they were not. Again, if you really have a problem with it, you are free to not go back, especially considering what happened the week before. Sounds to me like you were just itching for something to be outraged about.

I am not really sure where all this "no one can detain you" stuff is coming from. Any citizen who sees you commit a crime can detain you legally. There is not some blanket "no one can detain you" law. Now, the question is whether they store saw him commit a crime. That is open to debate, but there is no such law anywhere that says you can absolutely not be detained.

Refusing to show a receipt is not a crime. Stealing is. Most companies merely ask to see a receipt as an opportunity to avoid making a mistake. The store goes out of it's way to prevent false accusations. They didn't detain him because he didn't show a receipt. They detained him because they believed they witnessed him attempting to leave the building with unpaid merchandise. Before they put their foot in their mouth, they give you an opportunity to correct the situation.

I understand the company made an apology, which was probably done merely as a public relations move.

Shaneal is an asshat with too much free time.

It's private property. You do not have a "right" to dictate to the store its policy on showing your receipt any more than you have a "right" to pay for your purchase with pixie stix.

Instead of spending so much time on a useless jihad against showing a receipt, why don't you use that energy doing some charitable work.

@Jwissick

your link didnt seem to goto the article but i did find this one [blogs.mercurynews.com]

And simply posting the policy isn't enough. Çustomers have to have explicitly agreed to inspections and possible detainment. But "it's our private property so we can set whateverthefuck rules we want" doesn't work in this country. By that logic, we'd all get away with criminal acts as long as we do it in the privacy of our own homes.

When you come right down to it, my policy is simple. If there's no line to get out of the store, I'll show the receipt. If there is, I walk right by. They have the right to courteously ask to see it, and I'll normally accomodate that, but I'm not waiting my turn to do so.

Vangogh71 - Well said! As our rights are kneaded, over and over again, slowly but surely, we become more maleable and can be formed into whatever the corporations/government (one in the same anymore) want.

The rights we have lost, and are still losing, were not lost overnight. This has been a constant, deliberate and covert assault. Having our rights taken away a little at a time, ie: showing our receipts to prove we aren't liars and thieves, will inevitably lead to something much more intrusive, ie: a camera hovering over our heads and following us through the store. I, for one, am not OK with this!

The more I'm thinking about this, the more I disagree with it being a "civil rights violation". *If the policy is posted,* (which, admittedly, I don't think it was), then you always can choose NOT TO SHOP THERE. But otherwise, it's private property and unfortunately, they can choose the conditions under which you enter. The US Constitution applies specifically to interactions between the govt and it's representatives and individuals. What the constitution does let you do is stand outside on the public street and hold up a sign saying TigerDirect is a bunch of jerks. :)

If the store has a problem with their employees stealing, it is NOT MY PROBLEM. It is THEIR PROBLEM. If they want to make it my problem, then I expect to be paid or otherwise compensated for my time and trouble, and I expect to be able to opt out if I choose not to participate in their loss-prevention program. That means that, at minimum, the prices for everything I buy should be significantly lower than they are at stores that don't expect customers to give up their time and rights to help catch their dishonest employees.

Other people answered the first part above, but in many (probably most) states, you're required by law to be clothed and shod in places of public accommodation. (This even includes things like requiring dancers to wear shoes the second they come off stage so they can't even run to the dressing room barefoot!)

The other policy ("you must show receipt or be detained" without an actual contract signed) tends to contravene state law. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is merely a store restating state law. There's a huge difference.

@All: As for other stores that do it, some Best Buys do. I don't shop there anymore because of it.

A Fry's near me has the same arrangement. They do the stupid check receipt thing. I refuse every time and just walk past the checker. But this store is so arranged that anybody can walk out of the store without approaching a register aisle, they have product displayed AFTER you have checked out. I mean come on. The Tiger/Fry arrangement is very antiquated on this score.

Dantc, Cranky...

The store admitted to acting illegally when they detained the OP, not when they asked to see the receipt. I think that most of Shaneal's critics would reiterate that the store's illegal behavior would not have occurred if he had produced the receipt. Neither I nor they are condoning the store's behavior once the situation escalated and Shaneal was detained. The point people are trying to make is that they would rather show a receipt and avoid the potential ensuing conflict. There are a number of ways to put this - "pick your battles," "don't be a jackass," "chill out" - you get the idea... but they drive home the same point.

And cranky, if the governmental authorities (i.e. the courts, USPS, etc. begin to do those things, that is the time to raise civil rights issues and Nazi analogies.
Not when a private entity does it.

So, Shaneal should have just gone along with an illegal order?

You guys would have made great Nazis. Just do what the authorities say (even if they're really only minimum-wage security guards). You're going to LOVE showing your government-issued ID card every time you go to the court house...or the local DMV...or the post office.

The fact is you have YOUR rights because 'assholes' fought for them...

After all, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't like the way we squeak, then up yours and the horse you rode in on.

Baa Baa Baa

~Grow A Brain
Love Nero

After reading the saga and the posts, I fall on OP's side. I think OP should have shown the receipt (yes, civil rights, blah, blah, blah). I honestly don't think its that big of a deal. I choose to save my anger for spying on my emails, phone calls, IM chats, etc. without a warrant and then push to give the companies immunity. BUT, I think once he refused, Tiger had a choice, escalate the issue because they really thought the guy had stolen, or let him go. They choice to escalate and they chose wrong. The law is clearly on OP's side.

When asked for a receipt I have always declined and said it was my right to do so. No one ever gave me an issue with this, but I can anticipate there will eventually be a problem. Sure you can just show them a receipt, but why must an honest person prove they are not a thief?

Hell in some stores, I have seen people go out of the store, the security system goes beeping and no one even tries to stop them. That I suppose would be reason enough to stop someone, but hey...

I'll now say rude things toward people who waste my time in stores by pulling this bullshit. Your right to be a asshole, my right to embarrass you more than you would have ever been if you just showed the fucking receipt.

@North of 49:

I have had that happen a couple of times & I usually just stop dead in my tracks & look at the employee manning the door near (or nearest cashier) with a wide-eyed "wtf did I do wrong?" look on my face & the person almost always just waves me through. I stop because I dont want to be tackled in the parking lot by some dirty harry wannabe loss prevention employee (or pulled over by a cop down the road).

Its a bit annoying because everyone within earshot of that alarm is looking at you like you are some POS thief!

@Freedomboy:

If they search anything of yours or do a "pat down" I would then claim that I am suddenly missing $500 in cash that was in my bag or pocket.

This is why no one is allowed to search your belongings. So it does go 2ways.

I started getting spammed to hell in that email account within a few days to a week.

No doubt here that they sold my email address to a spammer. Pricks.

Furthermore is this really an apology or an explanation? What was the point of this follow up, to say hey we were wrong but so was he? Honestly step up to the plate TigerDirect, say that you are sorry and stop making excuses about it. Sure there was more to the story, but the way Wattle says it points a finger at Shaneal is shameful. Learn some ethics for gods sake take a look at a good company like Nordstrom, talk about an A company....

BUT, I totally agree with you in principle.

Furthermore is this really an apology or an explanation? What was the point of this follow up, to say hey we were wrong but so was he? Honestly step up to the plate TigerDirect, say that you are sorry and stop making excuses about it. Sure there was more to the story, but the way Wattle says it points a finger at Shaneal and it is shameful. Learn some ethics for gods sake take a look at a good company like Nordstrom, talk about an A company....

@smanek: And why and by whom were the police called on the first occasion ?

He was still a Dick. He went in there to cause trouble and he got it.

Unfortunetly, they didn't learn their lesson. The next week the same thing happened (different manager, same guard) but I was physically detained and unable to leave. That is when I tried to press charges and emailed the consumerist.

In the first incident they did nothing illegal (it was poor customer service, granted, but I was willing to give them a second shot).

The store's manager, Tony, said he spoke to everyone involved and agreed that my version of events was substantially correct.

@bradg33:

ArtDonovansDrunkenLovechild talks a lot of sense.

A store can easily make 'produce receipt at exit upon request' a condition of sale. Customers might decline to make the purchase, that is their choice.

This is a huge storm in a teacup. Creating a huge constitutional rights debate simply invites corporate blowback - i.e. all stores setting a condition of sale as above. Theres a time and place to enforce 'rights'.

(Online shopping is great BTW !)

The thing is, whenever a customer gets into a dispute with a company, and especially if it's made public, it's best for the company to just swallow its pride and do whatever it takes to make the customer happy. Pointing fingers, and playing the whole "he did it FIRST!" game just looks horrible to outsiders, who are already inclined to believe the innocent customer.

I've worked customer service for many years, and now manage a retail store, and the best thing that I've learned is that the customer is always right, even when they're wrong! It's a shitty situation, but it's the cost of doing business.

I have nothing more to add to the thoughts Buran has already contributed.

Items and receipt is all anyone but the actual people standing at the cash register should see and most of the time that is all anyone would know.

This bs about 3 items but only 1 receipt just doesn't make sense to me unless I am missing something. Why just because you had 3 items should you have 2 receipts?

So anytime the Head Cashier only sees one transaction but more than one item she tells the guard to stop the person? Makes no sense. Someone was lying to cover up.

And I wasn't really going for the "schmuck with an ego trip" when I called. I just wanted to see if they stuck with their (illegal) policy as the OP reported it.

1. Get the name of the security guard.
2. Walk back to customer service counter.
3. Return merchandise and ask to speak to a manager. Tell them you don't like the way ____ (use real name) treated you, and you'll be taking your busines elsewhere because he illegally tried to detain you. Get managers name. Do this with a rather loud voice, but still professional voice and be polite so other customers hear you, but don't think you'r just a jerk.
4. Go home, and complain to the corporate office, mention the managers name as well. Let them know other customers heard you complain at the counter and looked shocked. That way when it gets back to the store, that will go with it.

Would have had a lot more impact. This little PR stunt they just pulled is just talk. I doubt they will really do anything, and that guard just got assigned to another store his company works for.

He apologizes for his employees' behavior with one breath, and accuses the customer of "baiting" the store with the next. That doesn't sound like much of an apology to me. It's like saying, "Sorry for punching you in the face, but I didn't like the way you looked at me."

I find compulsory loss prevention inspections insulting, and I do what I can to avoid them. I have never stolen anything in my life, and I have 100% confidence that I have done nothing wrong. If an alarm goes off as I leave a store, it's because the equipment is malfunctioning -- I keep walking. If you're going to detain me, be prepared to falsely accuse me. Also, be prepared for the subsequent litigation.

I probably wouldn't have allowed the situation to escalate as far as Shaneal. Instead, it would have gone something like this:

Loss Prevention: Receipt, please.

Me: No, thank you. Have a nice day.

LP: Sir, I have to see your receipt.

Me: Are you accusing me of something?

LP: No, but it's store policy.

Me: Here is my receipt. As you can see, I paid for these items.

...

Returns Desk: How can I help you?

Me: I'd like to return these.

RD: Any reason why?

Me: I don't appreciate the way I was treated by your store.

The "no shirt, no service" comparison doesn't work because the policy is about keeping people out of private property and doesn't require breaking the law to enforce.

I don't think any of the people who said "show your receipt" believe that it should go any further than that.

Much like I don't call the cops and report every bozo that doesn't give me the right off way when I'm walking across the street. That shouldn't suggest that I'd also shrug off becoming their hood ornament.

And why is it accceptable? Because, just maybe, it's possible that the store had hired a bunch of scammers, and the only way to remedy its own lack of institutional control is to bully customers.

yes, that typically is what occurs. By purchasing an item, you agree to that stipulation as long as it is clearly posted. Most sotres have that sign posted at the entry/exit and at various point around the store, but the most that allows them to do is refuse service next time, it does not allow them to search you or retain you.

Just a thought.

The fact that they haven't posted the video is a huge clue that the video would show the guard and the store manager both obviously being jerks.

I don't care if he "baited" them or not by asking that his civil rights not be violated. How is expecting the store to obey the law considered "baiting", anyway?

Furthermore, there's no way a COP is going to comment on store policy, let alone tell someone to "not go back to the store if you won't submit to having your civil rights violated".

First TigerDirect blows it by detaining the guy, then they blow it again by spinning the story full of BS.

So this is the SECOND time the Shaneal has been detained by the store eh?

I have a question that maybe a couple of the lawyer types on here may want to address. I know every time these stories pop up people call it "civil rights violations" and false arrest and say business dont have the right to unreasonably stop people without proof of theft. But cant a company say "We have the right to check receipts as a condition of service from our store". If that is a stated policy then you really cant complain about it if you purchase something right? If you dont want to consent then you have the right to go elsewhere. Wouldnt this work?

I would think it would be no different then them requiring shoes or shirts as a condition of service.

Just as some clarification, the executive VP Richard Wattle was rude, inconsiderate, and confrontational. The Store Manager I spoke to, Tony, was extremely helpful and apologetic. The VP said I was still banned, while Tony said I was welcom back to the store any time I want.

And, as for the thing about me having two seperate receipts, that is true. I split the purchase up into two orders (to give one receipt to the person I was buying some items for). However, the guard did not know this until well after he illegally detained me.

Thanks for all your support

So the next time you come out of a store it should be ok to frisk you too? I understand showing a receipt may not be a big deal but where does it end. If the technology was available would a camera hovering over your head and following you through the store be ok as well.
The balance between individual freedoms and those of the corporation/government is slowly tipping and little stands like this helps reaffirm that we don't have to be sheep.

I will never permit a search without a police officer present, I also, though I have never yet have had to play this card, will never "go" anywhere inside the store for "privacy" with any store employees. What is there to stop them from "finding" something in the search??? Makes it real difficult to fight a false charge if the store suddenly has this watch and says YOU had it in the bag. And if true the,laughably silly as it is, idea that , "well we just need to check our cashiers to make sure THEY are honest" is ever used on me then this might happen,I stride right back to the checkstand and yell right to the cashier I used - "Hey Bob, they guard just checked me and I guess you didn't commit any crime THIS time so just keep up the good work but it sure looks like they are watchin' YOU so all you checkers better be careful because they are presuming YOU are thieves, have a nice day!!

what is really happening here is the common law tort of false imprisonment. and potentially slander per se if you're accused of having committed a crime in front of others [shoplifting].

the funny part is that people will continue to shop at Tigerdirect even if they hire East German border guards to man the exits.... BECAUSE MONEY TALKS... and bullshit walks.... all the way back to Tigerdirect for more of that cheap electronic crack.

A request for a copy of that day's incident logs would confirm/disprove Tigerdirect's allegations against Shaneal.

@Buran: Well said.

Apparently Shaneal's dignity is really cheap.

Lip service, whoopidoo!

[www.tian.cc]

If a retail store is having problems with their employees aiding in theft then I see no problem in asking the customers to aid in keeping prices low. I know of one scam in particular where a "customer" goes to the check out line with a handful of DVDs or games and the clerk appears to scan each item only he glances too quickly over some. The final bill is only for 3 of the actual 10 or more movies. From afar the scene looks legit. The "customer" even pays for it (probably cash) and then begins to leave.

What does the security guard do? Ask to see a receipt which would clearly show only 3 movies and a bag full of DVDs or let the guy walk because he says "Um, I have rights and you can't do that to me even though I've been shopping here forever and spent $10,000 here and everytime I've come in here you've asked to see my receipt."

I really don't think 2 seconds out of your whole day is worth a big stink. And yes, maybe you give up some rights but its not a slippery slope where it would lead to having a guard escort every person in the store. Its a minor inconvenience for the benefit of pricing.

Is it worth it at Wal-Mart? Probably not. Best Buy, TigerDirect, etc all have high priced electronics that run expensive. The smallest packages can be $100 or more.

If a store has problems with cheating employees, it is not reasonable to expect the general public to help fix that problem. The only stores that CAN require a receipt shown at exit are those where you signed an agreement to allow the store to look it over before being allowed to enter. 99% of stores out there do not do this. The store must come up with some other solution, end of story.

I like having rights. I like exercising my rights. I don't like people telling me that I should just happily waive them for anyone who asks me to.

That's not an apology. That's a warning to other potential customers "show your receipt or else."
@cryrevolution: what really pisses me off about those damn magnetic security devices is when the cashiers don't properly deactivate the tag and it goes off as you go out the door. There's been at least twice where I just kept on walking because I had bought the item in question, I knew I wasn't shoplifting and if they wanted to "stop a shoplifter" then they better have proof that I had shoplifted and not just a stupid magnetic scanner.

Yeah, look where THAT gets you if allowed to continue.

*not customer, store....

It's great he followed through with this and stood his ground. Did the customer have those beeping security things that you walk through? Whats the use of asking for a receipt on small transactions if you have those? I know the few times I EVER go into Wal-Mart, they never stop me if I just have one or two bags. It's the big loads they stop. But then again...Wal-Mart isn't the BEST example. :\

The employee that publicly chastised the customer was probably a standard supervisor. This sounds like the Store Manager. Horrible situation.

Yes, please do retrain your staff. I live (and shop) in the area, so I called up the store yesterday. I asked if receipt-checking was mandatory, and I was told it was (at this point, they cited several Costco and Sam's Club as having the same policy). I asked if they would physically prevent me from leaving if I refused, and they said they would. I asked if they knew this was illegal, and they outright refused to accept it. I promptly informed them I would no longer be shopping at their location and hung up.

Good work, and yes more stores need to properly educate and train their staff especially security guards at the exit points about this. It needs to be stressed that under no circumstances is a customer required to show their receipt upon exit. And if a customer declines, that is fine. Antagonizing just leads to bad service.