![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I am usually all about not showing the receipt, but if you set off the alarm it's another thing entirely.
Agreed, you set it off show the receipt and move on with your life.
My cell phone has set them off before. The sensors are not end-all be-all.
Oh absolutely, but it's still constitutes reasonable suspicion, so it's a good idea to cooperate.
It's well within their rights to do so, just like it's well within your rights to decline a receipt check. I hope you don't live in a small town like I do where Wal-Mart is basically the only game in town for household goods.
One good thing about my small town situation is that I'd easily be able to find where the Asset Protection clowns lived & do very bad (but legal or untraceable) things to them & theirs.
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong here, and I don't know how this guy can see anything wrong with what they're doing. It's surprising that it took so long for something like this to happen.
I also think it's funny that he's so insistent on standing up for his rights to the Walmart employees, but he actually offered to waive his rights for the police. I don't think this guy \"gets\" the whole \"rights\" thing.
It's all good, Target is generally a less frustrating place to shop.
I think this is an awesome story and a great lesson for this guy. he wants walmart to respect his right not to have to show his receipt but now the tables are turned and he doesn't want to respect walmart's right to ban him from the store. kinda funny actually
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1529717-100x100.png\")
I agree. Good for Walmart. I only wish that more companies would do this. You claim that you have rights to not show a receipt? That's fine, because Walmart has the right to no longer allow you on their property.
I hope that your passive aggressive stance that you don't have to show a receipt was worth it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-318831-100x100.png\")
So, you're saying that it's not shady of Walmart to ban people for following the law, and expecting Walmart to do the same?
here's an analogy. You come over to my house and I ask you to remove your shoes. You refuse. Fine, go ahead. Now you come over the following week. I don't have to let you inside anymore. Thanks for playing
Here's a better analogy: I want to come over to your house and give you money. You say I need to take off my shoes. I refuse to take off my shoes. You tell me not to come over again. I go next door and give the 23 year old blonde \"actress\" next door the money.
That's an acceptable decision as well. Only in this case the person is writing a letter on the Internet that he's upset that he can't give his money to the first person.
Hey, decisions have consequences. Perhaps the customer will consider them a little better next time when he's shopping at Target.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-114659-100x100.png\")
Bingo.. They \"Reserve the right to refuse service\".
You can tell anyone to stop coming into your store or home for that matter.. The only thing you can not do is say \"no allowed\" Like race, religion, etc..
Sorry, the filter stripped off the \"no (protected class) Allowed\"
but why would the submitter want to go back and shop at a place that treats him this way?
Vigilante justice... wonderful...
Not vigilante justice. Revenge, pure & simple.
Wal-mart needs to just post a notice at the door stating that they reserve the right to check receipts upon exit. That way you have fair warning of the policy before you shop there.
And that sign would not grant them any rights they did not have without it. They reserve the right to asl to see a receipt, which they'd have the right to do without a sign. But posting a sign that says they reserve the right to break the law has no moral or legal weight. If they could not do so without a posted sign, they cannot do so with one.
Walmart has basically banned the OP for insisting that everyone involved (the OP, the police, Walmart employees, etc) obey the law. Why is that being a jerk?
They should be able to post a sign, many stores here have posted a sign saying that you cannot wear heeley's shoes while in the store (because they have wheels in them and could cause danger to customers of the store). The signs also say that the store reserves the right to remove those wearing the shoes. If stores here can post this then I don't see why they cannot post that we reserve the right to check your receipt on the way out of the store. The heeley's craze is pretty much over here (thank god) but the signs remain. At one point it was so bad though that a lot of stores had posted guards at the front of the store and were checking the bottoms of people's shoes because retail stores were basically turning into skate parks for kids. I am guessing someone got sued because a kid wearing heeley's in a store plowed into a customer.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-100023-100x100.png\")
\"I am guessing someone got sued because a kid wearing heeley's in a store plowed into a customer.\"
Actually, the more likely scenario is that a kid wearing heelies falls down and gets hurt, and then the parents sue the store.
To be very clear, the store already has the right to kick you out for wearing heelies, whether they post the sign or not. The store can kick you out for any reason at any time.
The store does NOT have the right to search through your property - and once you've paid for merchandise, it's your property. Posting a sign claiming that they have that right will not magically grant them that right.
I also think the alarm is somewhat of a red herring. Everyone in this story acted well within their rights. Yes, it's somewhat assholish to refuse to cooperate with security when their alarm goes off. But we do have the right to be assholes. It's also assholish to ban someone from your store for not shoplifting. But Wal-mart also has the right to be an asshole.
Any time you refuse to show your receipt, you are taking the chance that the store will decide to trespass you. They can trespass you for any reason other than race, gender, sexual preference, etc. The store always has the right to tell you to stay away from its property. And if they exercise that right too frequently, they'll lose a lot of customers, especially in this crappy economy, but that, is the store's problem. Go shop elsewhere.
The difference is, banning heelies is a pre-emptive ban. That is, if you have them, you aren't allowed to enter, and if you enter anyway, they kick you out. The trouble with a receipt check is that it happens on the way off their property. Kicking you off their property for refusal does nothing in particular given their interest is preventing a shoplifter from leaving. What are they going to do, kidnap you for not showing a receipt?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-288368-100x100.png\")
Yea, and they should add no minorities as well. Stating a policy does not remove my of my rights. You can put up a sign that says \"all customers subject to random search and seizure\". But the sign is meaningless and I can say no.
Yes you can say no.
and they can say goodbye and not allow you on their property for doing so.
You're missing the point, just posting a sign doesn't mean I agree. You could bar me from coming back (ie trespassing), but on my exit, you can't force me to do anything. You're corporate policy is meaningless.
They can't. It's not a private club.
Actually... if there were a noticeable notification of that, which one would necessarily see prior to entry (say, beside all outer doors)... I'm pretty sure they'd be within their rights to insist that you show your receipt. A \"by entering you agree to this\" sort of statement is generally enforceable, and doesn't need a club membership or what have you (and it's also something I would be totally okay with)
Posting a sign does nothing. If they post a sign that says \"Entering grants explicit sexual consent\" they would not be able to rape customers at will. Store policies do not overrule laws, and the law against search and seizure is a higher one than the one against rape.
If they made you sign a contract, that said to shop there, you must show a receipt before leaving, that would be another story. But even if you refused, the worst they could do to you for that simple act is not let you shop their anymore. Without a signature, the sign has no legal weight.
>>>\"Entering grants explicit sexual consent\" they would not be able to rape customers at will.
You know as well as I do that if you consent, it's not rape.
I believe you CAN consent to sexual touching in a retail store assuming that there are no other laws broken. If no other law was broken, this is what strip clubs would be doing.
See also Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. from first year tort classes: knowledge (even implicit knowledge) of a probable tort will bar a complainant when they are harmed.
Many businesses wrongly believe that their policies trump the law.
They need to realize that's not the case.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-70159-100x100.png\")
So the sign on my door is pointless? Damn.
Nope, you are wrong.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-109756-100x100.png\")
Nope, doesn't work like that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17616-100x100.png\")
I don' think that works. Sort of like the trucks that put \"Not responsible for falling rocks\". Yeah...I'd like to see that hold up in court.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-400379-100x100.png\")
Actually it would. If you are notified ahead of time that as a condition of purchase Walmart has the right to check your receipt, you can either agree to the condition of purchase or not shop there. It isn't against the law for them to check your receipt.
Now in the case of the truck, if your car got hit by rocks, then the truck would be obligated to pay. In fact, by putting the sign on the truck, the company is agreeing that it is a possibility that the truck can do damage to your car so you would have an even better case.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
It's against the law to decline a receipt check. It might (I say might as I don't know either way) violate the law to be forced to show your receipt. A sign posted isn't going to cut it for this - maybe I didn't read it, maybe I have poor vision so couldn't read it, maybe I can't read! But if I have a sign that says \"I will punch you in the face if you buy something in my store\" that doesn't mean I get to.
Now, if I sign something before shopping there that I agree to this, that's something else entirely (see also: Costco)
Is that how that works? I would have thought that, because of the sign, the company would have been making a 'reasonable' attempt at warning drivers not to drive too close. (At least, to cars driving directly behind them.)
I am more appreciative of the companies that do more than just trying to warn others, and actually do attempt to prevent falling rocks by having some sort of tarp over the load.
They do this for the fools that think it releases them because of it. sigh.
just show the damn receipt and get on with life. They wasted more time by not showing it.
I know already.
I also concur that Consumerist and others should stop posting stories like these from wanna be heroes and \"activists\" whose sole purpose in life is to be an arse to hard working store employees.
Goodness gracious just show the goshdarned receipt and get on with your life. You are NOT that important as you think you are.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1226025-100x100.png\")
I wish there was a way to sort this kind of Non-Consumerist article.
Maybe the editor could not post such a disregard of a open rule- THE ALARM sounded!
Show the receipt and you are on the way in 15 seconds. Instead you get your DL info in the hands of the Evil Empire and you get a police record.
If the alarm went off, and it's a false alarm, the store is committing libel and/or slander to stop and search someone (or just demand a receipt). If it's not a false alarm, then the store, of course, has proof in addition to the alarm, and doesn't need to ask to see a receipt at all.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1527570-100x100.png\")
I really, really think you need to look up the meaning of \"libel and/or slander.\"
It IS their right. Seems silly, but it is what it is.
Also, I am someone that refuses to show my recipt... So bravo on that side of the story!
If you were to go to a concert or a sporting event do you refuse to show your ticket at the door because once you made the ticket purchase its your property and you're not obligated to show it again? How about when you go to a movie theater?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1533805-100x100.png\")
You aren't purchasing the paper the ticket is printed on, you're purchasing the right to enter the venue which you MUST, (see: terms of service from any ticket vendor/venue) show your ticket at the door. And even then, you don't have to show your ticket to leave the stadium or if you did and they held you then they would breaking the law. Otherwise they can refuse you entry which is well within their rights. Bad analogy pal.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1532772-100x100.png\")
Rock on with your bad self! Bet you \"forget\" to put the cap back on the milk too! How about those mattress tags, you baaaaadd-asssssssss!!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523369-100x100.png\")
If he goes to a different Wal-mart and pays with cash, would they even know? These nation-wide bans are lame. Unless they use casino-esque facial recognition and have a database of blacklisted customers the customer should be fine at another Wal-mart.
That would be a pretty hypocritical thing to do, would it? This is a guy who cares about his rights. Why would he infringe someone else's right to decide who they want on their property? Principles are principles.
I've got a better idea.... shop somewhere that's NOT Walmart. They did him a favor if you ask me.
I imagine those bans are largely unenforced -- but they do it because if there is another incident involving you in one of their stores, they have proof that you shouldn't have even been there in the first place.
Just a little bit of legal CYA.
I didn't think about it that way. Thank you for shedding light on it.
I have an acquaintance that was busted shoplifting from Wal-Mart year & years ago. Banned for life from all the stores, but still shops there. I'm not sure if she strictly uses cash or not however.
With the turnover rate typical of most Walmarts, all you'd have to do is wait a week or two and you could go back with no worries.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
In this case, I completely understand WalMart's desire to see the OP's receipt, since the alarm did go off. However, if it went down as the OP said (politeness and all that), I don't see why they would ban him.
Polite, at least in my opinion, would have been to just let the wal-mart employees do their job and get on with your life. I'm sure he was very calm when he refused to show the receipt and walked out the door. I'm also sure he chuckled to himself on the way to his car over how awesomely calm he just was when he stuck it to those silly wal-mart employees. That's not polite. That's being passive aggressive
I totally understand that companies like wal-mart make life hard for us sometimes, but the employees enforcing the rules that they're being forced to enforce by their managers who are also forced to enforce these rules probably don't care whether or not you stole something in the first place. They just don't want to get in trouble for not pretending to try to do their jobs.
As for getting banned--well, that may have been a little harsh, but speaking as someone who has been on the side of the business before during a situation like this, sometimes it's quite satisfying to calmly explain to some smug jerk that I don't appreciate having to chase him down and that he should just stay out of my workplace if he's going to make a scene every time he comes in over something incredibly stupid. So few people who work in retail or the service industry get paid enough to deal with that crap.
Again, I don't care if you're stealing a $2,000 TV right in front of me. Just let me do my job so I can continue getting paid crappily instead of not getting paid at all, please.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-804913-100x100.png\")
They have a habit of banning anyone who even interacts with the Loss Prevention team... possibly because they know who to look out for? :P
But really, Wal-Mart is pretty ban happy. Just Google \"Banned from Wal-mart\". That being said, GL with them enforcing it, unless you did something bad enough that they took your picture, and even then someone would have to be paying attention.
However, if you're caught ignoring the ban, bad things could happen, sooooo.....
They have a habit of banning anyone who even interacts with the Loss Prevention team... possibly because they know who to look out for? :P
But really, Wal-Mart is pretty ban happy. Just Google \"Banned from Wal-mart\". That being said, GL with them enforcing it, unless you did something bad enough that they took your picture, and even then someone would have to be paying attention.
However, if you're caught ignoring the ban, bad things could happen, sooooo.....
They have a habit of banning anyone who even interacts with the Loss Prevention team... possibly because they know who to look out for? :P
But really, Wal-Mart is pretty ban happy. Just Google \"Banned from Wal-mart\". That being said, GL with them enforcing it, unless you did something bad enough that they took your picture, and even then someone would have to be paying attention.
However, if you're caught ignoring the ban, bad things could happen, sooooo.....
Arrgh, sorry. Something about NoScript (even with the proper allowances) and Consumerist doesn't play nice :(
First off, the opinion of his being polite is from him. The tone and self importance of his letter tells me otherwise.
Probably for making their life difficult. Being a little over-assertive can result in such an outcome. Had it been, as others suggest, a non-sensor check, I don't know if the ban hammer would have come down. But in a situation where they clearly had some reason to believe that he had walked out with a stolen good, their lives would have been much easier had he shown the receipt.
In the end, if a shopkeeper thinks serving you is too much trouble, why is he going to allow you to come back?
No, they had reason to suspect that he had walked out with something whose security device hadn't been correctly deactivated. At most Wal-Marts the most likely reason for the alarm to go off is that cashier didn't do their job correctly during check-out, not that someone is stealing something.
That being said, I've had the alarm go off so often at some WM's that I usually walk out with my receipt in one hand so I can easily show it to the greeter if/when the alarm goes off. Amusingly enough when I do immediately turn around to hand them the receipt they usually wave me off and tell me not to worry about it (this is particularly true if I'm more than 10 ft away from them or so). I suspect the OP's attitude \"polite\" though he may have thought it to be probably contributed more to his ban than any perceived shoplifting.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-64687-100x100.png\")
You were banned from Walmart for acting like a jerk. Forcing them to wait for police so that they could do their job because you triggered the RFID alarm is simply being obnoxious.
If you hadn't triggered the RFID alarm I might have backed you up, but since you triggered the alarm they had every right to investigate the cause of the alarm. If you had simply recognized that fact and volunteered to help them out rather than stonewall then they probably wouldn't have banned you.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-38607-100x100.png\")
I agree -- not a smart person. He was defiant about showing a receipt after there was clear suspicion of an issue, yet he readily hands over his license after they determine there was no crime?? Not smart at all
Hey genius: HE didn't trigger the alarm, something in his bag WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEACTIVATED BY THE CLERK did.
See the issue?
Hey genius: NOBODY from Walmart had any way of knowing why the alarm was set off UNTIL THEY CHECKED THE BAG.
See the issue?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4587-100x100.png\")
Protip: This \"hey genius\" is pissing me off only slightly more than the use of \"protip\". Please stop it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27359-100x100.png\")
No, I don't see the issue. Like others said, that's probable cause. Sure, maybe a clerk screwed up, but this time, they had a good reason to follow up on their suspicions. If the alarm didn't sound, do you REALLY think this would have happened? Essentially, perhaps politely, he was belligerent and decided that he was better than everyone else who had their receipts checked -- even though likely the alarms didn't sound for those guys!
Like he said, \" I can only guess that I somehow unintentionally offended someone.\"
No kidding. He undermined their authority when they actually had a good reason to follow up on the suspicion.
I am all for people legally exercising their rights when they haven't aroused suspicion, but he did, and they were well within their rights this time to make him show his receipt. Politely declining at this point is especially rude.
If you're trying to talk to someone and they are completely ignoring your request, you'd probably be pissed off too.
Where do you people get your legal opinions? IT IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE... they have a right to ask, he has a right to refuse. Unless they detain him for shoplifting, they have no right to require anything. His problem was that he was too compliant.
\"At that time, two police officers who were already on the premises walked up, and upon the senior officer's request for my receipt, I provided it.\" So according to the OP, there was no wait.
FWIW, I'm in the camp of \"the alarm went off, show your damn receipt.\" But that's no reason for the OP to be banned. He obeyed all laws, showed the receipt to the proper people, and by his account, was polite. And I'm inclined to believe the politeness bit just by how the letter was worded: clear, respectful, and without any name-calling. They're just banning him because they're on a power trip, in my opinion.
To be fair, they don't need to have any reason whatsoever to ban him. At least in this case, he has some logical idea why.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1528272-100x100.png\")
Lets try a thought experiment, shall we?
How many shoplifters do you think are caught using those sensor alarms? And of those, how many do you think have a receipt? And of those how many do you think had the items they were shoplifting clearly visible and mixed in with the items they had legitimately purchased.
The sensors, like receipt checking itself, are pointless. Stopping for them is even more pointless.
The sensors aren't pointless. I had an incident while working at one of my college jobs where I was the only one in the garden area, and was checking out customers. I was looking at my register when I heard the sensor go off and saw someone wheeling out a weedeater box. They paused and looked at me; I told the customer I was working with that I'd be right back. Asked the person trying to leave for their reciept, which they didn't have. They went back inside saying they must have forgotten it at the registers inside, so I told them I'd hold onto the cart for them while they grabbed it. They did so, I called a manager out while I finished ringing up my other customer and stopped a big ticket theft.
Sometimes you straight up do not have the staff to have someone posted at all doors. Also, looking at the receipt allowed me to quickly scan the items purchased if I can't clearly see whats in the bags identify what set the alarm off in the first place. (You quickly memorize what things have the tags and where to scan them if you care anything about doing a good job)
And sometimes, the sensor beeps for no apparent reason. There's a Target that I sometime frequent and I honestly don't know what I have on me but even when i don't actually buy anything there's about a 50/50 chance that I set the alarm off whle either entering or exiting the store. Based on your assertion, that constitutes probable cause for them to search me every time I visit. It doesn't. To successfully prosecute shoplifting there's a stringent set of requirements they need to meet. Unless those requirements are met, they shouldn't be detaining people, period. Write down a license plate number if you want but stopping someone just because the buzzer went off is not right given the amount of false positives.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1269364-100x100.png\")
My dad was having that problem. Every time he left Wallymart the alarm would go off. Knowing that they bury those those tags in strange places, I looked and found one of those anti-theft foil sticker tags buried in a lining seam of his wallet.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1532627-100x100.png\")
I'm willing to bet a lot more than you can imagine. They do indeed work and catch kids trying to swipe a video game and such, I've seen it happen.
I get declining to show your receipt when you're just trying to be on your way, but if you set off the RFID alarm they have a reason to search you. Let them scan the Blu-Rays and write in their little notebook. The checker who failed to disarm the RFID tags will get a good talking to.
'reason to search' is not the same as 'right to search'. The OP requested a law enforcement officer, got one, and complied with the officer's requirements.
The only problem the Walmart employees seemed to have is the customer wouldn't waive their rights at Walmart's request.
They asked you to sign a notification of trespassing ?
If you refused, would you have been arrested? I wouldnt think they could get you for trespassing on Walmart property if you were standing there helping them fill out the notification.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-255368-100x100.png\")
Notification of trespassing? But he was a welcomed customer until he was attempting to LEAVE the property. It was only while he was detained that they discussed and decided while they were detaining him on the property that he was \"tresspassing\"?
I'd look very closely and be leary of signing something like that.
it's a notice of trespass, not trespassing. It's not accusing you of trespassing. It says that if you come back to the property, you will be trespassing.
It's basically your acknowledgment that they told you not to come back.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53856-100x100.png\")
This is the sticking point. It sounds like Walmart did everything by the book until the point that they checked the receipt. At that point, there was no reason for Walmart or the police to detain him -- no reasonable suspicion whatsoever. But they made him stay there while they went back into the store, filled out paperwork, and then forced him to sign it? If there is some law that allows this, I would be very interested to hear it. Otherwise it sounds like Walmart acted illegally and the police unconstitutionally.
Of course, they are free to ban him for almost any reason, including not showing his receipt. But I don't see how they can make him stay there and sign a document after they've conclusively established that he is not a shoplifter.
yes, its not like he had left and was attempting to come back after they said \"if you come back we'll get you for trespassing\"
Then again, if Walmart never allowed me on their property ever again, I cant say Id be that upset (aside from the \"the man shouldnt keep me down\" sentiments)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4147-100x100.png\")
Its a lawful police order. Just like signing the back of a speeding ticket. You got to do it.
How do you figure? Signing the back of the ticket says that you will appear in court. You don't have to sign the ticket, but then you are not promising to appear in court. Without a promise to appear, they keep you in jail until your court date.
In this case, there was no court date because the OP had not committed a crime. Without signing, the worst I can think of is that the police might follow him out of spite and wait for him to commit a traffic violation (almost inevitable even amongst the best drivers).
You don't gotta sign it, but refusing to do so means that the officer presenting you the letter now records that you were provided it and refused to sign it. Making it even less likely that if you should ever be arrested for trespassing on those premises in the future, that you'll receive any sort of favorable treatment when it goes to court.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-144398-100x100.png\")
Just as you are well within your rights to not show your receipt at the door, Walmart is well within their rights to ban you from their stores.
I'm completely against receipt checks, but I have no problem with what Walmart did.
I would have gone through everything to make sure I didn't have to wear clothing with a security tag in it. I agree that under normal circumstances you don't have to show a receipt, but by setting off the sensor, there's more than probable suspicion of an act of theft. Sorry buddy, ya lost this round. IANAL
But he followed the letter of the law - he allowed the WalMart employees to detain him until law enforcement could come and investigate. Could he have shown them the receipt to make everyone day easier? Sure. Is he required to? Nope.
The letter of the law says that the cops can pull me over and ticket me for driving 26 in a 25 and arrest me. Do we really want to say that the letter of the law is the best this for this situation? Common sense says that if you set off the sensor, don't be an ass when someone asks if you may have stolen something. It's not random and it's not due to a no-reason policy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-789724-100x100.png\")
Are you sure that's the letter of the law? Here in Georgia for instance, the only people that can do that are the State Patrol. City and county officers can't ticket for less than 10 over. Also, the fine for less than 10 over, for a first time offender, is $10, so the GSP usually don't bother anyway.
Don't be so sure of what they can and can't do.
I'm going to have to agree with the OP on this one. Nobody, has a right to search me without A) My permission, or B) Probable cause.
And no private person will ever legally have probable cause unless it's given to the shopkeepers via state/local law. (In my state it is not)
The OP chose not to give permission and was within his rights to decline. It may seem silly, but if we don't stand up for our rights, we lose them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-874363-100x100.png\")
Except that the alarms went off and it's within their right to detain him until an investigation; in this case the investigation would show that no theft occurred. Banning him may be extreme, but don't act like a jerk at the places you shop.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-449801-100x100.png\")
Absolutely. And I also stand up for Walmart's right to ban him.
It goes both ways.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-563505-100x100.png\")
Exactly. And if you're the kind of person who can't stand these receipt checks, Walmart is doing you a favor by banning you. If you feel that strongly about it, why are giving money to businesses that perpetuate such policies?
If you're banned, you'll never be tempted to shop there again.
Nobody was attempting to search anybody. All they did is ask for receipt. Walmart is private property and they are entitled to set certain rules. If these rules are not illegal then shoppers should comply or choose another place to shop.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-385800-100x100.png\")
I am on the side of the OP too.
Yes, if he had complied differently, it's possible there would have been a different outcome. He is not required to comply with WalMart's policies though. He obeyed all the laws and assuming that this account is accurate, he wasn't being belligerent.
Yes, the alarm went off, but he DID cooperate with the police. While WalMart is within its rights to ban him, it's ridiculous and over the top. He did nothing wrong. He paid for his items. He is not required to do more than he did.
They're banning someone for what? For not stealing? Again, it is their right, it's stupid. And just because the OP could have settled this easily doesn't mean he HAS to.
And we shouldn't assume that if he had just shown the receipt that the story would have had a happy ending. If they're going to ban him for NOT shoplifting, why should we think they'd have just checked his bag and said \"Sorry sir. Have a nice day\"?
Did you miss the part where the alarms went off? I'd say that is probable cause. Yes the security tag might have not been erased like it should have been but at least you could not act like a jerk when the alarm goes off. Sounds like he is looking for a reason to sue someone.
Probable cause applies to law enforcement officers only. The OP willingly showed his receipt to the law enforcement officers. If probable cause applied to just anyone, we'd be in big trouble.
Disclaimer: I would have shown my receipt when they first asked. Just pointing out a commonly misunderstood concept.
You set off the alarm, they have probable cause.
The *police* have probable cause. The employees of WalMart do not. The OP cooperated with the police by showing them his receipt.
FWIW, I would have shown my receipt at the first question. Just pointing out that the OP was not in the wrong, legally.
kats, you say it a few more times.. maybe the'll get it.. :)
setting off the alarm = probable cause
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-90710-100x100.png\")
Shopkeeper's don't need probable cause. They need reasonable suspicion to detain someone. They can only detain a person for a short time. At no time is a shopkeeper given the authority to enact a search.
Probable cause does NOT apply to WalMart employees. It only applies to law enforcement officers. The OP cooperated with them. He even cooperated with the WalMart employees by allowing himself to be detained until the police could investigate.
Reasonable suspicion under the shopkeeper's privilege does apply to Wal-Mart in those jurisdictions where the privilege is available.
So, yeah, the alarm is probably reasonable suspicion -- though it depends on the jurisdiction whether that matters.
(IAAL,BNYL)
But that doesn't mean they get to search him, right? My understanding was that they can call the cops all they want, but the WalMart employees themselves do not have a right to search anyone.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1524746-100x100.png\")
\"BNYL\"! I actually snorted coffee from my nose from that one.
Just want to add that Walmart also has every right to ban him from the store. So standing up for your rights always has consequences, not always favorable to you.
To the OP: feel free to picket the store with a sign saying \"Walmart bans customers for declining to be searched\" as long as your already banned, what can it hurt?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-244548-100x100.png\")
I concur that Walmart's general policy of receipt checking is BS - but when the THEFT ALARMS GO OFF, then it is not unreasonable to check a receipt. Any intelligent merchant, even without a blanket receipt checking policy would be prudent to check why the alarms were ringing.
To refuse to be let someone see you've legally purchased something when there is a valid basis for suspicion is being a jerk. The OP is the one being unreasonable.
When I am in a store and the sensors go off, I will voluntarily stop and even return to the cashier for the proper deactivation of a sensor.
The OP is obviously irritated by Walmart's policies, but is expending a lot of energy to demand his legal right to shop there. I personally wouldn't work quite so hard to give my money to a company who doesn't treat me the way I wish to be treated.
If you set off the alarm, show your damned receipt!
it's not rocket surgery...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1529900-100x100.png\")
I actually think it would be a lot more entertaining, not to mention correct, if the response when the alarms go off is not to harass the customer, but for security people to go scream at the cashier's face who didn't fricking demagnetize things properly.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-296530-100x100.png\")
No. If they think I stole something, they can call the cops. I'll wait.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-184590-100x100.png\")
Or rocket science. ;)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63809-100x100.png\")
Or brain science. :)
wow! a reciept check story that works out like its supposed to! theres a first time for everything
I'm a big proponent of not showing your receipt after paying for your items and leaving the store, but Jeremy needs to use some freakin common sense here! The alarm went off. I'd have no problem showing my receipt if on my way out I triggered the alarm. Obviously there's a difference between getting hassled to show your receipt and triggering an alarm on your way out. I think Jeremy just wanted to be defiant and cause a hassle here.
I stand up for my rights and won't show my receipt at Walmart... UNLESS... the alarm goes off. At that point I feel (regardless of what the law may say) that they have reasonable suspicion that I may have shoplifted something. To that end, I'm okay with showing my receipt. If the alarm doesn't go off however they are unlikely to reasonably have that suspicion and accordingly I refuse to show my receipt.
This guy was looking for trouble and found it. This is his fault and I have little sympathy.
For once I agree with Wal-mart. What could be the harm in showing your receipt when the alarm goes off? Refusing like you did makes YOU look guilty not the other way around. Tough luck and go shop somewhere else if you do not like it.
As usual, a whole bunch of \"just show the receipt\" replies, not so helpful. When I read these I somehow imaging the same people saying \"just sit in the back of the bus already, what's the problem?\"
I wish I had something useful to say about being banned for life from Wal*Mart. That seems excessive, given your description, and I hope you find some recourse. My gut says if you're being honest then this has crossed the line from \"reserve the right to refuse service to anyone\" and become discrimination, but it'd take a lawyer to figure out whether the law agrees with my gut.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1280310-100x100.png\")
If not showing your receipt is somehow an exercise in your personal freedom, while you are shopping for products on someone else's private property, you need to get a life.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-422781-100x100.png\")
Discrimination against what? \"People who don't show their receipt\"?
I doubt that's a constitutional protected class.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1239591-100x100.png\")
I'm pretty sure you don't really know the legal definition of discrimination. I'm positive you don't know when discrimination is legal and when it's illegal.
HAHAHA!!! Comparing Walmart to Rosa Parks?? Really? If I call you what you obviously are, I'll be booted for trolling.
Seriously, though, you need someone else to check on your mental state. That's pretty ludicrous to even compare. Didn't you even restrain just a little when typing that?
God, thats just BAD!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
Did YOU read the post at all? And any of the comments? We're not being irrational here. He should have shown his receipt because he triggered the theft alarm! If you trigger the alarm, they have reason to be suspicious. Just show your receipt if you've triggered a theft alarm. Not doing so elevates their suspicions even more.
If it's not the government doing it & it's not based on sex, race, creed or color, it's not discrimination. People throw that word around too much without having a clue as to what it means in this context.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1525727-100x100.png\")
If you don't want to show your receipt then DON'T SHOP AT WALMART. This isn't an atypical event, it happens everywhere at most walmarts. I can't stand these pretentious smug OPs who get their rocks off by \"protecting their civil liberties\" by hassling some poor minimum wage worker just doing their job. If you have an issue, show your receipt this one time, write a letter to corporate and NEVER SHOP THERE AGAIN.
It's not about the minimum wage worker or their plight. It's about a creating negative press against Wal-mart's anti-consumer actions.
Yeah, I kind of stand on your side of the argument.
If you don't mind showing your receipt, shop at Walmart.
If you disagree with the policy of showing your receipt, for god's sake, stop trying to take it up with a minimum wage lackey who most likely can't do anything about it. Write a harshly worded letter to corporate, then speak with your money and shop elsewhere.
I think this is especially pertinent in this case. If he hates the receipt checking policy, why the hell is he upset that he's been banned? Rejoice that you've been banned and give your money to a store that appreciates you as a customer.
If you don't want to read those comments, then DON'T CLICK ON THE COMMENT LINK.This isn't an atypical event, it happens everytime this sort of article is posted. I can't stand these pretentious smug OPs who get their rocks off by \"demanding we just give in and comply\" by whipping some poor bloke who just doesn't like being treated as if the burden of proof was on him that he isn't a thief . If you have an issue, just don't read the comments this one time!
If you don't like the comment ridiculing folks like yourself who like to bore society with their nonsensical wisdom while claiming they are \"protecting their rights\" and yet seem to act like children, then don't read the comment pointing you out to the rest of the normal readers. Yes, you are a child.
I'm beginning to think the majority of these \"I refuse to show my receipt's\" truly have nothing else going on in their day-to-day lives and this is as exciting as it gets. \"Hey honey, I stood up to the Walmart worker and DIDN'T SHOW MY RECEIPT! Now I'm going to go write the Consumerist about it! Can I have a cookie?\"
When I go a while without a haircut I look like the unibomber, especially when I add to the look and don't shave. Seriously, small children look at me and wonder if I'm going to kidnap them and hide them in some cabin in the woods.
Because of this, I often am followed around in stores by clerks and loss prevention staff. Sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly. When I regularly spend $1,000 a month in a store, not once 'being caught' taking something that I haven't paid for, I get tired of being treated like a criminal, especially when _I_ know the reason why the alarm went off is because your minimum wage earners whose feelings you are so protective of were too busy fucking around with each other and asking if they saw how fat that woman that just left was and \"OMG, isn't Clark just a complete dick.\" to take the time to pay enough attention and realize they need to deactivate or remove the sensor in one of my oh so valuable $5 DVD purchases. And it's always some cheap bullshit instead of a $500 purchase because God knows that when I buy something that expensive I'm escorted to the door by your clerks and they triple check the paperwork three times to convince themselves that I'm not somehow hypnotizing them into letting me walk out with something I haven't purchased.
You want my sympathy, pay your people enough money that they don't feel like walking off with your inventory is an ethical choice we ALL know where the majority of your inventory shrinkage comes from it's not a secret.
Hire enough people to man your store that you actually have people doing the job those sensors should have been doing and stop being cheap/lazy. Don't want to do that? Can't hack the prices if you actually invest enough money in personnel and training instead of trading on my good will toward you?
Then don't get butt-hurt when I keep walking and ignore your employee's ill-trained attempts to treat me as a shoplifter.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469349-100x100.png\")
+1, brotha.
As usual, a whole bunch of \"just show the receipt\" replies.... When I read these I somehow imaging the same people also saying \"just sit in the back of the bus\".
I wish I had something useful to say about being banned for life from Wal*Mart. That seems excessive, given your description, and I hope you find some recourse. My gut says if you're being honest then this has crossed the line from \"reserve the right to refuse service to anyone\" and become discrimination, but it'd take a lawyer to figure out whether the law agrees with my gut.
Did you miss the part where the alarm was set off?
No, I saw that. And I also didn't miss the part where he waited calmly for the police, and then showed them his receipt when asked. He was fully cooperative with the people that did have the right to search him.
I'm glad you think that checking receipts is the best use of the police force's time and that retailers nationwide should be forced to call the police every single time their door sensors go off.
Your tax dollars at work!
Look, when a retailer says \"We want to see your receipt and check it against your bags\", what they mean is \"We think you stole something and we want to search you for stolen merchandise.\"
Why would you put up with being accused of theft, being detained, and having your person searched every time you leave a shop?
Walmart's decision to waste our tax dollars, yet again.
Did you miss the part where the alarm is about as useful as a divining rod?
The OP set off the alarm. All you had to do was show the receipt in the store and move on. But no, you were banned and it's your own fault.
Had you not set off the alarm I may agree that being banned was a little over kill. How everything went down, I see why they chose to ban you.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-969620-100x100.png\")
At Wal-Mart they ask for it after the alarm goes off to record which register/cashier and what type of item set the alarm off. It's then used by management to provide 'better' training and/or guidance to the cashier.
Although, when I was greeting and someone told me no, I'd log it in the book as person refused to stop. And all of our loss prevention people were in street clothes to blend in while walking around, I wasn't aware that they didn't have some sort of store ID but I never saw ours do anything anyways.
I am curious about how Wal-Mart or the police has banned you from all Wal-Marts ever. Did they tell you that? Was that part of your warning? Can the OP provide more details on that part of the story? Not that I doubt him, just curious about who banned him and how they believe they can enforce it.
Well, if you work there, maybe you can tell us what the heck the security thing says when it goes off. All I hear is \"We're sorry!\" followed by some muffled mumbling from the box that might have once been in English but is so distorted that it no longer has any actual meaning.
I get that they want the automatic system to go off. I get that it's saying SOMETHING, but it's not intelligible.
I haven't worked there in years but it use to say \"We're sorry, you've activitated our inventory control system. Please wait for assistance.\" Years of working there also means I can tell what just about anyone is saying over the intercom too.
The funniest ones are when the drunks come in late at night and use it to page blue light (K-Mart) specials.
They couldn't really enforce the ban, but if in the future the loss prevention people that dealt with him saw him (and it sounds like a memorable incident) in the store they could have him arrested for trespassing. Also if he was ever caught shoplifting in the store they could add trespassing to the charges.
Actually, if he used his credit card it would be de facto trespass, and if they have video cameras any store that he is seen in would be proof of a trespass. Wal Mart has the right to say we do not want you as a customer any more, just as you have the right to not shop there. This freedom thing swings both ways people
Yeah, that's true, it works for that store. But not all stores.
I think they should have had a police escort to the back of the store where they beat the ship out of you for being an asshole. You set off an alarm, they are being reasonable.
I can vaguely understand the people who don't want to show their receipt, but they had a perfectly good reason to ask and you were just being a prick. It's a shame you didn't get your ass kicked as well.
People like you are a small part of what is wrong with the USA.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-520287-100x100.png\")
Oooo, internet tough guy. So scary!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523316-100x100.png\")
I never really understood why people have such problems showing a receipt. I mean, ID I can see, but really, it's a piece of paper that proves that you bought the things you have in your cart/ bag.
If it helps to deter shoplifting, which reduces the store's shrink, which leads to lower prices (or more likely, less higher prices) then I'm all for it.
Can someone give a reason why they refuse, other than it's a bit inconvenient?
Why do you need a reason beyond it's inconvenient/wastes time?
But, since you asked:
-- I don't like being treated like a criminal for no reason
--I don't like interacting with strangers if I don't have to
--I don't like sharing info on my purchases with random people
--The stated reason is a pointless exercise which does virtually nothing to reduce shrinkage.
Shall I continue?
Here, I'll answer your dumb questions with some dumb replies:
Why do you need a reason beyond it's inconvenient/wastes time?
Right, because no more time was wasted out in the parking lot, arguing back and forth with the receipt checker and definitely with the police!
But, since you asked:
-- I don't like being treated like a criminal for no reason
They aren't saying you're a criminal, it's a process for everybody. If you don't like the process or policy, don't succumb to their solicitation, go somewhere else where you can be happy and stuff.
--I don't like interacting with strangers if I don't have to
I guess you're good friends with the checkout clerk, the department clerk you asked to see if they carried underwear in size 28 at this particular WalMart and best friends with the McDonalds clerk who shorted you 2 nuggets in the 10-pack?
--I don't like sharing info on my purchases with random people
Cause they're all taking notes on what YOU bought! But ONLY YOU! They MUST know what you bought and they will go to your house and steal it from you after they stalk you for weeks and stuff.
--The stated reason is a pointless exercise which does virtually nothing to reduce shrinkage.
I'm guessing you never took an economics class.
Shall I continue?
Yes, please, but I have some questions for you:
Do you take drugs for paranoia?
2-parter: a) Do you ever socialize with bus drivers or the nice older gentleman at the WIC office? b) How is that different from this \"stranger?\"
How many times a day do you use Purell?
3-parter: a) Do you get satisfaction from refusing to show your receipts? b) How long does it last? c) How does that compare to the satisfaction of telling others on a comment string about it?
You're deliberately missing the point about legitimate privacy concerns that receipt checks bring up.
\"legitimate privacy concerns that receipt checks bring up\"
There aren't any.
That's what trolls do best! ;-)
You're not so smart, are you?
They call me Mr. Smartypants!
People that do not show receipts obviously have something to hide, so those people should be checked even closer. Either that or they are raging morons. Some might say \"invasion of privacy\", and those people should carefuly constructed a well written letter and mail it to somone who gives a damn. I feel sorry for this guys wife and kid.
And I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with your ignorance, family or not.
I'm done with Best Buy because they have people arrested for having administrative issues with gift cards. Now I'm done with Wal-Mart. Go ahead ban me. My next call is the the ACLU!
...and the ACLU would answer that call by saying that you're legitimately retarded and are wasting their time. Situations like this have nothing whatsoever to do with them, or with \"civil liberties\" in general.
The ACLU will laugh at you over something like this.
And why did you take your license out of your wallet?
you were confirmed to not have stolen at that point walk away.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-449511-100x100.png\")
The cops asked for his ID because Walmart security accused him of a crime - trespass - and the police issued a trespass warning.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1527980-100x100.png\")
That's the part I'm wondering. Was he legally required to hand over his license despite breaking no law? I kinda doubt it.
No. Unless you are actually operating a vehicle, you are not required to produce or offer your driver's license to anyone, even a police officer. This logically makes sense, as there is no law requiring you to actually HAVE or CARRY a license on your person (unless you're operating a car). That being said, you ARE required to identify yourself to an officer when requested in most situations, but your name and address should be sufficient.
It would have been tricky for the OP in his situation, b/c in order to leave the premises it sounds like he would have needed to drive away, and so the second his key was put in the ignition the officer could have asked for his license.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-263779-100x100.png\")
This actually varies by state or municipality. In California bicycle riders are subject to all the same laws as a motor vehicle operator and as such you are required to have your license on you while riding. Just an example of a situation where you are not behind the wheel but should a LEO ask for it, you would need to produce a DMV issued license.
...so a twelve-year-old bicyclist riding his bike can be pulled over and catch hell for not having a driver's license when too young to drive?
Wow. Glad I don't ever intent to ride a bike in California.
So are 10 year olds allowed to ride bicycles? As far as I know bicyclist are required to follow the traffic laws in every state, but that doesn't mean a license is required.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-439021-100x100.png\")
The alarm for me makes it reasonable for them to ask for a receipt.
Now, if the alarm had not gone off I would be cheering you on.
I am a fellow receipt showing decliner.
The ban is silly too BTW.
Enter text...This whole discussion seems silly. You weren't treated right and Walmart banned you for what they said \"acting like a jerk\". If that's the case and you felt you were harrassed why would you even want to shop there. I don't get why the ban would bother you. Is it the principle of the matter? If so, move on
Up until now, I've supported the rights of those who refuse the receipt check as some small \"don't give in to big brother\" protest. But dude .. You set off the RFID shoplift prevention alarm. Refusing to show your receipt doesn't make you some hero of personal freedoms; it makes you a dick. Show your goddamned receipt and we can all go back about our day.
Lame.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-513539-100x100.png\")
i know walmart has a right to deny anyone service, but this retaliation for getting their feelings hurt is just lame. if im ever asked to show my reciept ill tell them to follow me to the returns desk and they can see it when i get a refund.
WHY is everyone so up in arms about showing their reciept to the Walmart greeter when you're leaving????
I don't get it.
In order for them to keep the \"low prices\", they gotta cut down as much as possible, on theft. Right?
So when you're walking out with a TV or something, and the greeter checks your reciept...I don't blame them!!!!!! GOOD! I want the prices to stay low! And I don't want someone else getting away with stealing a tv, when I want a new one myself, but I'll PAY for it. Why do they win?
Sometimes I get my reciept checked for having my case of water bottles on the bottom of the cart. And ya know what? I've totally accidentally forgotten to pay for it a FEW times! Luckily, most of the times, my daughter said \" mom! What about the water? You almost stole it!\" Lol!
If you're gonna shop at Walmart, then the FEW times you get checked for your reciept....don't act like it's the Soviet Union! Sheeeesh!
There are better things you could be protesting, people!! Seriously.
1) Customer theft is minor in comparison to employee theft.
2) there are certain times when a 'greeter' can detain you on suspicion of shoplifting. Not having your stuff in a store bag is NOT one of them. In fact, if the 'greeter' is properly doing their job, they should have been keeping an eye on customers passing through the checkouts and approaching their exit.
That they've not bothered to do their job correctly in the first place, is no reason to compound their error by then breaching the law by demanding a receipt. At NO TIME is an employee of a store EVER allowed to search you, or your property. They have no rights or powers to do that, at all.
At best, they have the ability to DETAIN in order for the police to attend, IF one of a few specific instances occurs. One of them happened in this situation. However, the OP acted entirely within the law, and it seems the 'Loss prevention' agents got a bit upset about having their perceived power taken from them. So they decided to make up for it in another way.
Personally, I'd be contacting the local media and suggestion a story with the headline \"Walmart bans local man in law adherence retaliation\"
I quickly checked two websites concerning retail theft. One stated shoplifting was a close second to internal theft in the percentage of shrinkage reported by retailers. The other pegged shoplifting at about 33% and employee theft accounting for about 47%. Either way I wouldn't call shoplifting \"minor\" when compared to employee theft.
What makes you think the local media doesn't know about the story already? Maybe they looked into it and don't see the grievous injustice some people here do.
And banned you should be.
You were asked to show your receipt AFTER the freaking alarm went off. At this point, they have reasonable cause to suspect you of shoplifting.
Show your damn receipt.
Sadly, I think this individual unintentionally won the idiot of the week award for being overly vigilant about his civil rights. As a nine dollar an hour Wal-Mart worker (or whatever lowly wage they make) it's gotta be an awkward situation to have to stop someone and ask for a receipt, even under the best of circumstances. When you you include the possibility that the person might have stolen something it can be anxiety-raising.
I show my receipt only when asked, which is literally 5% of the time I go to any retail store that checks receipts. If you don't want to play by their rules, they have no obligation to serve you any longer.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1526773-100x100.png\")
Over the line I think. If you set off the alarm that's reasonable cause to search your cart (and like someone else says if a DVD or something's sensor wasn't deactivated it shows a cashier didn't do their job). This is not worth the fight or the scene caused, just show the darn receipt.
The receipt checker at our local Wally world is a senior citizen who obviously had a stroke. No way am I going to make this woman's life miserable by acting like a jerk when handing her a receipt so she can look it over is an easy five second task. Even if she was 20 years old and able-bodied it's still not that big a deal to me. I'm all for personal rights, but get a grip, pick your battles and all that stuff. This just isn't worth it.
Seriously. Majority of yahoo's that send in stuff like this are just ignorant jerks. Why do you have to give the employees at this business a hard time? Get over yourself.
So don't shop at Walmart, anymore. Seriously, did you think this would end any other way? I hate Walmart and have never actually been in a store (thankfully there's none by me at all), but if they asked to see my receipt, I wouldn't care, nor would I think it's a personal attack or abandonment of my personal human rights or whatever drives these morons to decline taking 2 seconds to show a receipt these days.
A better question: Why do these stupid stories keep showing up on Consumerist? Blah, blah, blah, don't give me the \"personal rights\" crap. It's beyond this. People now just want to rebel against a stupid but apparently necessary process just to write in to these blogs. Seriously, find something better to complain about! They're NEVER going to stop that process!!!
How about: \"Man, that copay to my insurance provider SUCKS!\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-54738-100x100.png\")
You are not required to show your receipt for the merchandise you buy from Wal*Mart. I agree with that and have no problem.
The thing here is that Wal*Mart has the right to not allow you as a customer.
It's a two way street... You are free to disagree with their policies (good or bad, again I don't agree with receipt checking) just as Wal*Mart is free to choose who their customers are.
Personally you may find yourself better off in the long run. I don't miss Wal*Mart at all.
So if the Police Officers determined that you were within your rights, then how did you allow the police officer to \"...take and process your license...\".
Usually I'm all for telling the checker to shove it, but if the alarm goes off in response to your bag (or dvd in your pocket) then they most certainly have a good reason to check your receipt at that point since there *is* a reasonable suspicion of theft.
Bullshit, more than likely the alarm went off because their $2/hour employee didn't properly disarm the rfid tag; so you are banned for not showing a reciept due to employee error. Utter bullshit.
F w-mart , they are evil...
F all you sheep who surrender your rights to these pigs so easily too.
HAHAHA!!! Surrender your rights? Like what, your right to shop?
I bet when you go to the library, you're loud as hell, huh? Just to rebel against \"THE MAN!\" Or do you follow the rules in that situation?
Wait, I assumed you went to the library, sorry about that...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1533077-100x100.png\")
Q: Why Was I Banned From Walmart For Not Showing My Receipt?
A: Douchebaggery
I've always found this particular fight silly. Regardless of what big box store I'm shopping at, I can either waste time fighting with the poor sap whose entire job is to stand by a door all day marking receipts with a Sharpie, or spend substantially less time just letting them do their \"job.\"
I've never seen this particular transgression on the part of Corporate America to be one where it's worth any amount of energy pretending to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Also, seriously, the guy set off the alarm. They had a legitimate cause to stop him.
Thank you for bringing this story to my attention. I will now abstain from shopping at walmart! Costco does the same thing but it's a membership operation. Target and Walmart will be seeing more of me and my dollars.
As far as I can tell there is no evidence that the alarm was set off other than the word of the two loss prevention employees. I suppose the alarm could be silent, but my experience is that when the alarm goes off it makes a noise. The OP never mentioned that he heard the alarm, he also said he had no problem with showing his reciept in such cases. So I have to assume that he insisted the police be present because he felt that there was a chance the loss prevention guys weren't being truthful.
No evidence? The OP says that it went off .... \" After paying for our merchandise, upon exiting the store we set off the RFID alarm...\"
Indeed, after a more careful reading I see that you are correct
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
Here's what I don't get:
We continued to walk to our car...Walmart's right to detain suspected shoplifters for a reasonable amount of time while awaiting a law enforcement officer for an investigation (in accordance with the common law concept of Shopkeeper's Privilege) was also respected.
If the OP agrees that Wal-mart has a right to detain them for suspected shoplifting then why did they keep walking to their car?
He has the right to act like a self-important douchebag.
I think the ban is an overreaction but still that part didn't make sense.
Was this a store where the alarm was always going off? There are stores where those things work properly so I'm not making an assumption on that either way.
If the store cashiers never let an item pass without killing the RFID which sets off alarms, then yes, they might have a need to look into this. If the company does not want to ensure the tags are killed at the checkout on purchased items, by having a scanner between the RFID killer and the bags/customer, there is no reason any consumer has to be incorporated into their employee pool for reason of investigation. You do not work there, you do not need to aid the company in their endeavors.
The store also has a copy of everything that is on his receipt, and there is no reason to need his copy specifically. The entire receipt check process is nothing more than an attempt by the company to pass their work onto the customers, instead of out of their own wallet by having a second individual watching each cashier to ensure they are finding and processing all items brought up to the checkout by the customer.
They do not pay me, therefore I will not help them in their business. I am there to purchase and leave, not to maintain proper operation of their business. I will not fill the holes in their business model. I will take extreme offense to their attempts to enslave any customer.
I also will not sign a trespass confession when there was never a request to leave, or even if there is a request to leave, as I would leave on request. They get the paper work as employees.
One store to kill all others, leaving only one place to work in towns. If it does not work out for the employee, they have no more jobs without moving to another town. One store bans you, and there is nowhere left to shop. And to think of all the people that have had their properties taken by their local towns to make room for the one single store, the parking lots required, and the road alterations. Good thing property ownership is not a requirement to vote the idiots out of local office that allowed all of this to occur.
Nicely said.
Nicely said.
They are within their rights to ban you from their store, but I think any reasonable business owner will find that alienating customers ultimately never works in your favor.
I'm a decliner myself, I've yet to be banned but I have had them run after me and write down my license plate number (best buy).
Those alarms go off so often at Wally world, half the time no one pays attention anyway. As previously said, unless they are using some kind of facial reconigtion software, I don't see how they could enforce this at another Walmart away from the first one.
At any rate, it's no great loss, they suck, spend your hard earned duckets at another store.
I don't shop at Target because I think their return policy sucks. I don't try to return things and then complain about it, I exercise my right not to patronize the store.
I only read up until \"I set of my alarm, and refused to show my reciept\". Good, douchebag. If only this was the guy that got office linebacker tacked in the parking lot by a greeter.
I'm gonna have to say this is too much here. I to have also stopped showing my receipt to checkers who are just picking me at random. But when the sensor goes off you need to be more cooperative. Better to just handle it then instead of handing some hyperactive checker calling 911 on you and having the real cops chase you down and tackle you to the ground, not that it happened in this case, but it could. I decided to not show my receipt because I feel that it violates the ideal of \"innocent until proven guilty\"; and they have no reason to suspect me. That being said, the sensor going of gives them EVERY reason to suspect someone and therefore IMO gives them the right to check a receipt. This guy has gone to far and apparently doesn't understand the spirit behind the \"I won't show you my receipt\" concept.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-67846-100x100.png\")
anyone else notice that these stories seem to involve \"police officers that happened to be at the Walmart at the time,\" like, A LOT? does every town's PD station officers at the Walmarts just in case of situations like this? or maybe most cops shop at Walmart during their time off?
oh, and I guess setting off the alarm would make me WANT to show my receipt, to avoid actual accusations of theft.
omg would you people stop. what makes you think you have the right not to show your receipt? YOUR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, OBEY THEIR POLICY OR DON'T SHOP THERE, stop complaining about a simple request.
Wal-Mart does not have an official policy regarding bag and receipt checks. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. They are not like Costco, where consenting to checks is written into the membership agreement.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1527363-100x100.png\")
So you can't go to Walmart anymore?
I don't see the problem. Seems like there *was* a problem (you used to go to Walmart), and now, Problem Solved!
Thank you, Rosa Parks.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1224432-100x100.png\")
Shockingly I am on the side of Walmart. When the theft alarm goes off, there's a reasonable suspicion of theft. From the consumer side, there's the chance the alarm is going off because a security tag on some clothes was left on; if you try to remove it yourself you will ruin the item and with it on you can't return it later.
I have a, dare I say, ninja-like way of handling situations when the theft alarm goes off. I lift the bags into view (readying my hands for punching) and lull them into a false sense of security with a facial expression of confusion and slight embarrassment. Rather than throw their lives away in a vain attempt to subdue me, the security guards wave me through with an apology. I then disappear in a puff of smoke (from the exhaust of my truck).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98684-100x100.png\")
So many of these issues come down to:
Would you rather be right or be happy...? Sure, you can *be* right and be a Richard and face whatever consequences. Or you could have been happy, and shown the receipt and have been done with it. Now you're unhappy and writing to the Consumerist.
People (me included) should really learn to pick their battles... Who lost here?
Not Wal-Mart... Not the police... Maybe the OP, if not going to a Wal-Mart makes their life more difficult.
if civil rights are violated, they will be in a world of hurt.
This is one reason all the bad ass people who think that refusing to show receipts proves how smart they are about their \"rights\". A business has a right to refuse you service in the future. By the way, good luck if something you bought is not the right size, there is no requirement by law to return anything, but stores do it. Just because something is legal, does not mean you can't understand the business situation and show a receipt. If it were my business, I would have banned him forlife the moment he refused to show the receipt.
Probably gonna have a hard time building a business if you ban customers who exercise their rights.
But Walmart doesn't need his business. In fact, they're under the assumption that he needs theirs, and should submit to whatever privacy invading requests they come up with. Worse yet, when he politely denies, they are vindictive and retaliatory.
There was every reason to check his receipt cause the machine went off, but there was *no* reason to ban for life someone who was politely exercising his rights.
I hope one day you do try to start your own business. You'll learn a LOT. I promise.
Yeah, because Wal Mart has done so poorly building their business. I know they have awful sales and do not make much profit. I am pretty sure they are asking for a government bailout as well. Oh whats that? They are the largest corporation in the world? Hmm, I guess my way works better than your way.
As a side note, there is a MAJOR reason for doing receipt checks on everybody and not randomly or only when the alarm is set off. It avoids any race or sex discrimination. If everybody is asked it is all the same. There is less chance of racial profiling, or anything like that. I am guessing those that object tend to be white suburbanites.
Let;s put receipt checks in their place as to intrusions, this isn't making you ride the back of the bus, it is not separate but equal. The stores clearly tell you THEIR policy befoere you enter, and you people whine about it that it is not right. Every store has the sign WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO INSPECT BAGS ON OUR PROPERTY. Once you enter the store you agree to those terms. If you do not like it. Do not enter.
So walmart got where they were by checking receipts?
The got to be so big by treating the customer right and providing amazing prices. Now, they're leveraging their size (read: power) to force customers to give up their rights. In some places, walmart is the only grocery store for many miles.
Try running a SMALL business using these corporate policies. I guarantee you'll be out of business in about a month.
I have run a small business, and if my alarm went off I have never had a customer say \"no, I won't show you\". Intelligent and reasonable people realize that mistakes happen and if an item is accidentally not rung up, or was no paid for, or even an employee made an honest mistake they allow it to be fixed. Legally, you do what you have to do. I do what is going to keep my company from losing money. If you choose to act that way, I will legally do what I have to do.
I look at Wal Marts numbers and they keep growing, even with these new policies. So either they are working, or most people aren't douche bags like you and the OP. Kinda like when The Consumerist bans or disemvowels somebody from the site. IT IS THEIR SITE. If you don't like it take your business elsewhere.
I don't completely agree with you. Statistically, mom-and-pop (or small businesses in general) shops don't check receipts and might (or might not) have a guard posted at their door to check on things, but usually not receipts in general. More than likely they are either keeping an eye on things themselves, especially if they don't recognize folks in their store, who could be passing through the city/town. In which case, they'll likely either just chase them out if they suspect the person(s) is/are up to no good or don't want to take a chance. If those people never come back, who cares. Small businesses make money on the repeat shoppers or regulars who won't pose a threat because they are confident in the store and it's management or they just feel better about shopping there for whatever reason (size, prices, owners, NOT Walmart, etc...).
But when you enter a store, especially if you've never been there before, you're not exactly giving up your rights, but you are, sorta. See, the store expects you to act civil and there's a certain exchange of trust with the store \"hoping\" you do the right thing and not commit a crime. Now if you don't commit a crime, then great, you're doing the right thing. The bigger stores can't keep an eye on you all the time due to size, resources, etc... so they plunk a poor guy at the exit to check receipts as a measure to check shoppers for whether or not they've breached this \"trust\" or not (or just knowing the receipt checker is there might prevent theft). You're not giving up your rights by saying \"sure, check it out,\" you're merely complying with their check system. If you don't like this \"check system\" go to the mom-and-pop shops or some other store where you feel happy to not have to take 2 seconds out of your precious time to show some poor schlep a piece of paper. Unfortunately, there's a REALLY HIGH percentage of people who DON'T want to play by the rules and, say, pay for things. You're not being treated like a criminal at the time of the receipt check, you are being treated so the moment you walk into any store, EVER. If you don't think so, you must live in a very sheltered, low-crime town. The only exception, maybe, is when you walk into the hardware store owned by your grandfather or something. Even then, he's probably keeping an eye on things...
This reply should make the front page and the main article never should have.
I'd say Consumerist needs the traffic to their websites, which is why the continue to post these nonsense articles, but they aren't ad-supported. Which leads me to further wonder why these stories are always green-lit...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20281-100x100.png\")
The title.. it answered your own question.
I was a Walmart cashier for about a year and six months, and many times I had the chance to be a greeter. Their policy(I'm not sure if this applies to every facility) is ask for receipt when customers are buying alcohol(example: Budweiser 30 pack, they will stamp your receipt, I really don't remember the reason for this), an expensive item such as a T.V, bike, computer, etc. Those alarms sometimes go off for no reason, such as because of your car keys, a cell phone, etc. Now If you're walking out the store and the alarm goes off, that's a totally different story, and if you know you didn't do anything wrong, I don't see the reason why not showing your receipt. I'm totally against their policy of asking for receipt for no reason(yes, it's ridiculous.) About Walmart banning you from every store in the country, well, let's say is laughable.
Here one for you all. I was exiting a Walmart at the exact same time as someone else. I stopped when the alarm went off but the other person kept walking. The \"guard\" came directly to me and checked my receipt. The other guy obviously planned this with some shop lifted merchandised. Point being, make sure you are the only one walking between those sensors or else be prepared to be treated like a common thief.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1526432-100x100.png\")
I'd probably be thankful to be banned from Wal-Mart. It would give me the ultimate excuse never to set foot in that place ever again, even when my wife insists I go there with her.
I ban myself from all the walmart$ in the world!!
Glad I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart in months and stories like this just enforce the fact that I do not go into them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20679-100x100.png\")
FWIW, it's not an RFID tag that would have set off an alarm at WMT but instead a Sensormatic tag.
That's a pretty vindictive and retaliatory response from Wal-Mart. They were mad the OP exercised his right to not submit to a search by a private party, so they decided to ban him for life? What's worse is they're attempting to leverage their power as a large retailer to make it harder for him to buy food and household items for his family! It's wrong, any way you slice it.
While the OP may not have much recourse here, I'm not sure why he'd even want any? I wouldn't do business with a company that's malicious and vindictive.
It's probably been 6+ months since I've been inside a Walmart, and after reading this story, I don't know if I'll ever go back.
They had every right to demand a receipt after their machines went off, but the malicious retaliatory response on the part of Walmart is...just...wrong.
Firstly, I'm with the 'show your receipt' group since the sensor activated, even if it was due to the cashier's error, so I believe the OP should've shown the receipt.
Nationwide ban....wow. That almost sounds like the loss control employee's way of a smile and a middle-finger for the trouble. However, it is 'their' right. I don't see them *actively* enforcing it except for at that particular store where this incident occurred. However, travel to another walmart and successfully shop unnoticed, then get a receipt-check request then I might comply with that one because arguing would only make them notice your on their 'list' and then your actually arrested and/or fined for trespassing regardless of your \"receipt rights\"
Years ago, 1-800-WAL-MART worked for consumers and employees to reach corporate to resolve issues. Not sure if it still functions but you should give it a call if you would like to try to lift the ban.
I think many of you are missing the point. The OP did NOT refuse to show his receipt. He refused to show his receipt to someone other than law enforcement. The alarms went off, providing probable cause that a crime had been committed by the OP. At this point he is a criminal suspect.
There have been enough stories on this site alone about store security personnel acting wrongly, bullying, intimidating, etc. that I believe it's wise to address such issues directly with law enforcement. What if the OP had handed his receipt to an employee, who then walked away to verify something and either didn't return or lost the receipt? Suddenly the OP is unable to prove his innocence. There are a bunch of ways in which entrusting a store employee with the only reasonable proof of his innocence could turn out badly.
I fully agree with the OP. Once there's reasonable evidence and suspicion that he'd committed a crime, it's appropriate to wait a few moments and entrust law enforcement with the resolution.
The OP did NOT refuse to show his receipt.
The OP didn't offer to show his receipt to the cops until after the employees followed him to the car. He was going to leave without showing it to anyone and I think that's what people are taking issue with. People think that the OP should have initially let someone look at it, even if they had to wait for a cop, rather then simply walking away.
I have to say that if the alarm went off that since the stores seem to work under guilty until proven innocent that they are in their right to ask for a receipt. I do not agree with this idea at all. If there is no alarm, I would tell them to call the cops, and make their case. Then I would wish them luck and walk away.
The real thing is to educate people so they do not shop at Walmart.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-144627-100x100.png\")
The sensors went off when I was leaving a Fry's grocery store last week. In a hurry and despite the rain, I stopped. A lousy box of vitamins triggered it- sensor had not been deactivated.
I was tired and not in the best of moods, but I stopped because I had gone through the U-scan and wondered if I had accidently not scanned an item (I did do it correctly but the supervisor of the u-scan missed deactivating the item).
Automatically showing a receipt upon leaving? Nah. But if something is amiss, I'd stop.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1528673-100x100.png\")
I for one will never shop at Walmart again. They are disgusting and unprofessional. Best Buy also checks receipts. it's very annoying, especially when I am spending hundreds of dollars on stereo equipment. Now I just buy stuff online. Cheaper and easier than going to retail stores, and no getting treated like a criminal.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159948-100x100.png\")
I'm a woman. I'm 100% fully within my rights to go topless in public in Texas. Its legal. Will I get arrested by pretty much any law enforcement officer for doing so? Yes. Rights and/or laws do not equal practical practice.
You have the right to \"refuse a search by a private party\".... and they have the right to ban you from their private property.
Do they also have the right to ban black people from their property? Why should defenders of freedom as a class be treated as lower than black people?
I do not believe people who do not want to show their receipt at Wal-Mart are a protected class... and I would never call myself a defender of freedom for choosing not to show my receipt at a store.
\"protected class\" ? Really? So constitutional rights only apply to protected classes of people in your opinion?
Would you be OK with them coming to your house and searching it? Maybe the alarm sound is defective but it has a log they review later and your receipt roughly matches the time period.
What would you be willing to do to \"defend freedom\"? Anything? Lay around watching Oprah maybe? Cheer for the troops when they bomb Haji?
Just wanted to add - I don't show my receipt at Wal-Mart...but if the sensor went off, I would. Probable cause and all...
You guys sure do have a lot of faith in the Walmart alarm system, which as this story clearly points out, DOES NOT WORK.
You give up all your rights for something as simple as a malfunctional alarm system. Nice.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-367619-100x100.png\")
If they don't all the \"beeped\" customers, they will lose money and pass on the costs to you and other WMT shoppers.
I think you overreacted and since the police copied your driver's license, it would appear somewhere in the form of a background check.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1435794-100x100.png\")
This guy must a real pleasure to shop with - goes out to get some movies and other stuff - spends the whole evening getting banned at Walmart. I wonder how many times his wife said \"dear - please stop\" or rolled her eyes.
And the funny thing is - you have no problem with them holding you (while your wife and kid sat around waiting) until the cops show up, but didn't have 30 seconds to show your receipt.
If the alarm goes off - I have no problem with them wanting to see the receipt - they are after all trying to protect their business.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1512440-100x100.png\")
I didn't sign up for a full body search ifa store's stupid alarm goes off, and when one does I just keep walking because I *know* it can't be me 'cause I haven't done anything wrong. It is either someone else, a defective scanner, or an employee error - none of which are something I should have to answer for.
Years ago I had a door entry security card that set off some store detectors consistently. Wish I still had it.
... maybe I need to make a medallion, pendant, belt buckle, bracelet, shoe insole, ID card, entry card or something with a common security tag included to consistently set off store sensors just to annoy them. :o)
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1532254-100x100.png\")
I'm all with the not-showing-receipts crowd (I always kindly refuse), but I must blame the OP here. The alarm going off constitutes reasonable suspicion of shoplifting and gives the store the right to detain him until law enforcement arrives.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-193720-100x100.png\")
How can this be reasonable suspicion? You should go to a store with these sensors and find out how often they are correct. I've seen a lot of people get stopped but it was always due to an error on the part of the cashier. I'm sure they may catch some people, but I haven't ever seen it happen. Most of the time, it is a \"False Positive\" for lack of a better word. If these machines are incorrect this often, how can their suspicions be reasonable?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523438-100x100.png\")
Don't shop Walmart and will not start. I would rather pay $.10 more from someplace that paid their employees then to deal with Walmart and the people who shop Walmart. I'm poor but respect myself to much to be a Walmart shopper.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-148665-100x100.png\")
There is nothing at all surprising about this. If I invited someone to my house, and he didn't comply with my rules, I wouldn't invite him again.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1525076-100x100.png\")
He should have stopped when he set the alarm off. By many state shoplifting laws, setting off an alarm gives them reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, even if it's their mistake for not deactivating the tag.
That being said, banning him for life from all Walmart properties is a bit harsh, especially given that he claims he was not rude or belligerent, and he willingly complied with the police.
It's within their legal rights, yep. It's really got nothing to do with the alarm going off or the receipt or anything else.
They, as the property owner, can decide at any time that any person is banned. They don't actually even need a reason. If the local police endorse it -and all it takes to get that done is call the police and tell them you want someone gone- it's done.
This applies not just to Walmart but to pretty much any business or even your home.
Now, in a practical matter, this Walmart ban is probably only effective in that one store or in the local area where they might recognize the person. Nationally, they are not likely to notice but if they did catch the person, there would probably be \"trouble\" of a sort. Trespassing charges. Fines.
You want to exercise your rights. Wal-mart want so exercise theirs.
I see no problem.
Private individuals have no right to search you at all. The police have no right to search you either, unless they have probable cause.
Do they have probable cause in this case? The only evidence they have is that the Walmart alarm went off. How many times does this alarm go off falsely? Judging by the number of stories like this and the number of times I have personally witnessed it going off by accident I would say that this occurrence by itself is without a doubt, NOT probable cause.
Seriously, do these things ever catch ACTUAL shoplifters or are they just there to harass the public? I call on Walmart to release data citing the ratio of true positives to false positives so the public can make an informed decision.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16063-100x100.png\")
I see a ton of \"You set off the alarm!\" comments.
No he didn't
The idiot at the electronic counter set off the alarm by NOT DOING THEIR JOB and running the movies over the demagnetization plat or whatever.
Walmart needs to make sure their equipment works, and their employees do their job.
I don't get the big deal of showing your receipt in any circumstance, seriously. It takes all of 1 second and if it is an inconvenience, it is a trivial one. Not to mention the fact, you set off the alarm. All the more reason to show your receipt. It doesn't sound like they would have given you any shit about it.
Now I think Walmart's response was extreme to say the least, but being a private enterprise it is their right to ban you for any reason they see fit. Looks to me like they made your decision to vote with your dollars for you.
I will not shop at Walmart anymore. Not because this sort of thing has ever happened to me, but because it has happened to other people and it is wrong and they will not change their policy and have no sympathy for pain and suffering they have caused to innocent people.
It will be hard to find other places to shop and get the same items, but it will be worth it in the long run. No one has the right to treat you like this.
Yeah there was lots of pain and suffering involved. Seriously how big a deal is it to show your receipt as you are walking out the door? It takes such little effort and in this case, the guy set the alarm off. I would expect to have to show my receipt if I set the alarm off.
I'm talking about the pain and suffering innocent people who are exercising the constitutional right to not be searched are enduring when the the Walmart goons and cops harass them.
Plaintiff: Your honor, I feel that my consitutional rights were violated.
Judge: You might be on so something...
njack: I gladly surrender my rights at the drop of a hat and so should everyone!
Judge: Case dismissed!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-283698-100x100.png\")
With all due respect to those that say \"just show your receipt\"...Walmart does not have the right to detain you, absent probable cause that you stole THEIR PROPERTY. This can only be satisfied by personal observation of the selection, concealment, and subsequent passing of all possible cash registers and exiting the store without making an effort to pay for this property. The legal grounds for approaching the customer and asking for the receipt is just that, a request. They have no legal recourse, short of the trespass warning, which can be executed for any purpose that they wish. If they overstepped their authority by detaining the Op they would be liable for false imprisonment. Now, don't all go off on me for my opinion, I don't make the butter, I just deliver the butter. The law is clear in this regard. The shopkeeper or their agent has a right to protect their property, but this is where it stops. They do not have the right to detain under anything less than probable cause. The door alarm sounding is not probable cause. Probable cause is defined as a crime has been committed and this specific person has perpetrated this specific crime. Door sensor alarms, as these RFID systems have demonstrated that they are not valid, in and of themselves, to arrest (READ DETAIN) a person, absent personal observation as noted. Now, I am not saying don't show your receipt. The shopkeeper has the right to refuse to serve anyone.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-565952-100x100.png\")
do us all a favor people, STOP shopping at Walmart. I would think of it as a public service to never have to shop there. I easily don't and I'm extremely price conscious. I also factor into my purchase decisions a higher price for a higher quality of good that needs not to be replaced as soon or as often or is by a company or local business that stands behind their products. That being said the OP seems to be taking the word of the Walmart security officers that the alarm was triggered since it was AFTER he had already put the goods in his car and returned the cart. If they had stopped him immediately for triggering it perhaps a different outcome would have occurred. (Please OP clarify if this is correct) If so kudos to you for following everything you are required to do in a polite manner and consider it an opportunity to get to know some stores close to you, perhaps even in walking distance as the weather gets warmer.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1528660-100x100.png\")
So glad I don't have to shop at Walmart.
For those of you that feel the sensors make a difference . . . they don't.
They aren't foolproof, and regularly produce false positives. The people operating them don't have the right to detain you, even if they go off. If you carried around a portable RFID detector, would you be in the legal right if you stopped and detained a random stranger based on the fact that your device went off? No, you wouldn't and the police, judge and jury would laugh at you.
We need to behave the same way when Wal-Mart attempts the same thing.
Consumerist, why do you even print stories like this? He should have shown the receipt to the Walmart employee who asked to see it. End of story. Again I ask, why do you print stories like this?
Wayne, why do you even write comments like this? He should not have shown the receipt to the Walmart employee who asked to see it. End of story. Again I ask, why do you write comments like this?
+1
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1524851-100x100.png\")
I've had the alarm go off on me before; in this case, it was Kmart. I simply stepped over to the customer service desk that was right there and told them something beeped. The lady checked my receipt and looked through my bag, and then she told me to go ahead. When I went back to the door, I waved my bag in between the alarm gate and this time it didn't go off. We both shrugged and then I left, no worries.
It happens to me sometimes at the library too. I always wave my bookbag in the gate before I go through. If it goes off, I go back up and they deactivate the sensor. No biggie.
But I don't like having my receipt checked if I don't beep, and I won't usually stop for that.
That's a favorite trick of mine at libraries - take 10 or so tags out of the books, put them in target's backpack and hang out to watch the fun when they leave...
The kind SS officer asked me where the Jews were hiding and I showed him the house in which they had found a hiding spot in the basement. They were quickly found and arrested and I was able to go on my way. I was happy.
I am fortunate enough to live near many options for shopping for the things I need so I can avoid Wal-Mart, some cannot. That being said, I'd always let them see my reciept if the alarm sounds.
BUT if you have a problem with this policy, do not shop there. Also, if anywhere I shop asks me for my receipt without the alarm, I will go right back inside to CS and get a refund immediately, explaining that I prefer not to be harrassed or treated like a criminal while doing honest shopping.
Speak with your wallets people! I can BAN them too.
It sounds like the alarm being triggered is probable cause enough for them to require a receipt check, no? I normally wouldn't show it in most cases but would in this case.
I didn't think it was in Wal-Mart's policy to check receipts. I could understand Sam's Club because it's membership based. I swear Consumerist had done a bunch of articles last year about the whole receipt checking policy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1532345-100x100.png\")
I was very surprised by this decision, since I have never in my life shoplifted, let alone from Walmart.I wasn't. You behaved like a dick. Next time you set off the alarm system and refuse to show your receipt, expect consequences such as being banned from the premises. IMO, you don't have much of a case here.
I wonder how WM will start harassing paying customers next....let's see:
- Ask customers for 5 forms of id and look at every single one of them very suspiciously, assume every person is an identity thief until proven otherwise
- Run out after customers using store carts and ask them why they are stealing the carts before they can put their paid-for-items in their cars
- Randomly walk up and down the aisles and ask customers if they have enough money to pay for the things in their carts so far, and demand to see their payment form in their wallets / purses, because putting things in the carts without having payment forms ready means they are probably going to steal things
- If you see any customers hanging around the store too long or with cell phones that have cameras, scream and try to snatch them away because they might be casing out the store for a robbery
- Start installing teeny cheap video cameras in every cart and eject shoppers for anything that looks suspicious
Hey why stop with receipt harassment? Make security paranoia a state of the art!
Don't give them any ideas...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-404607-100x100.png\")
Yeah I come down on the 'the alarm went off' side. these things happen and that is what the receipt is for.
but if everyone stopped shopping at Walmart then they would not be the insensitive behemoth they are today
We're forgetting the convenient part here. There are so many Wal-marts unless he lives in a tiny little town. He could just go to another one. They don't have a very good picture of his face if they even have a picture, how would they know at the other stores?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-965713-100x100.png\")
*sigh* FFS. It's an EAS tag, not RFID. Two totally different technologies. Moreso, the reason that you have people set off alarms as they enter the stores typically turns out to be a cellphone. The EAS panels work by sensing a certain frequency range from the vibration of the two metal pieces on the inside of the tag. That frequency has an offset carrier frequency that some cellphones use, and will occasionally set them off too. Another thing I have seen set them off is shopping carts. If two are crashed together at the right angle, they set off a harmonic vibration that will set off the EAS system.
That being said, I still would have stopped just as a professional courtesy. They have no clue as to wether you stole or not, hence the EAS system is installed in the first place. Once they have verified you have paid for your goods, the talk is over, have a nice day.
Look at the public resources the OP wasted by being a prick about something that would have taken all of 15 seconds.
My suggestions to shoplifters:
1) Print out your own receipt for whatever you want to steal before you go to the store. They will usually only glance at it anyway to see if you have one. Use older receipts as a template.
2) Do your deed at Walmart since most other stores will have enough sense to detect your shoplifting in more intelligent, accurate ways. At Walmart receipts are as good as gold.
3) Optionally toss some unchecked item into someone else's cart. When the goon squad takes chase, casually walk out with your new toys.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-944482-100x100.png\")
OP: \"I was neither rude nor belligerent to Walmart employees...\" Yes, you were. You set off the alarm and you should have shown the receipt to the receipt checker, who would have seen you bought the DVDs, and you would have gone on your way.
I don't know what is the big deal with not showing your receipt at Wal-Mart. I do it as a common courtesy, and it's funny how sometimes the receipt checkers just wave me off after I flash the receipt to them without marking it.
I agree with the other responders here that Wal-Mart should post a sign saying they have a right to check the receipts. It's a joke to see these stories every day who just want to cause problems for the rest of us at Wal-Mart.
I'm all for Walmart in this case. You triggered the alarm. At that point, it's reasonable to expect Walmart to check the receipt. By refusing and walking out to your car, you were being a jerk. Walmart is well within its rights to ban you, and I think they're reasonable for doing so.
So why is it the customers fault that the cashier didn't disable the RFID thing? I don't mind showing my receipt if it happens though. It's happened once or twice when I buy razors at the grocery and I do the self-scan thing. No big deal.
I don't see what good the receipt checking does. Unless you're stealing a lawn mower or a canoe. Using my above example of razors, all the police officer does is look at the receipt and say 'oh, it's probably the razors' and it is... but what's to say I didn't have bluray movies and more razors stuffed in my pants pockets? They dont actually check anything. Hell, I could have just put more stuff in my bag. I don't get it.
Oh wait, yes I do.
It's a scare tactic.
If the beeper goes off I would have no problem showing my receipt. This man might have a chip on his shoulder. Regardless, is it the corporations right to ban anyone from their store for any reason? The customer didn't break the law. Can they start banning overweight people or people they think look like shoplifters (i.e. racial profiling), how about banning gays...oh wait, gays only shop there if their isn't a Target in town.
ok what's the issue here? Walmart wants customers to show receipt and the OP doesn't want to. I think this is an amicable settlement that'll prevent future confrontation. No?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1021770-100x100.png\")
Well, you set the alarm off. At that point, it gives them probable cause. Refusing to show your receipt only serves to make you seem suspicious, so it's no surprise that you were barred from the store.
Why was he banned? Cause he's a nitpicker. I used to work for Wal-Mart ages ago, and they don't just ban people for declining receipt-checks. You have to be a real pill to get banned from there. I don't blame them one bit. He didn't wanna prove he's not a thief, so WM had every right to ban his troublemaking ass.
If you set off the alarms, common sense dictates that you show your damn receipt to prove there's nothing in your pockets. I cannot believe this guy thinks he can just decline to prove he paid for his stuff even after setting off the alarms. Yes, they DO have every right to make sure you paid for your items when you set off the THEFT alarm, dumbass. Yes, the clerk didn't deactivate it properly(I used to be a cashier, and it just happens sometimes), but he made HIMSELF look like a thief when he refused to show proof of purchase. He only has himself to blame for his banning.
Security people in stores are known to use inventory control tags to trigger exit alarms in order to detain people they THINK maybe shoplifting. They've been doing it for years.
1.) An alarm sensor going off is not probable cause. These things go off often enough with false positives for them to be considered reliable.
2.) Having a person who has set off the alarm come back and show you the receipt does nothing to deter shoplifters. If somone really has shoplifted an item with an intact sensor, do you think they are really going to walk back in and say, \"Aw, gee, you caught me. I thought I could sneak out with this.\" No, they are either going to bolt and hope you don't catch them, or they are going to refuse to come back in, which in the absence of the whole \"observed concealing the item through left the store without paying\" sequence, they have the perfect right to do.
Long story short: EAS alarms only keep honest people honest.
Or maybe a person who accidentally has something that was not paid for on their cart? Maybe the cashier did not ring the item up. Maybe you had something on the under part of the cart and it did not get taken care of. These are things that will stop honest people and make them realize, oh a mistake was made, lets go and see what happened.
How can this be considered \"reasonable suspicion\"? Maybe it's different around here, but I've seen a lot of people get stopped. It has ALWAYS been due to an error on the part of the cashier. I'm sure they may catch some people, but I haven't ever seen it happen.
If most of the time it is a \"False Positive\" (for lack of a better word) how can their suspicions be reasonable?
New to the Consumerist... Pardon my ignorance.
People have cited their right against search and seizure as the main reason not to show a receipt to a Walmart employee after leaving the cashier. I don't understand the reasoning behind this basis.
In United States v. Jacobsen (1984), the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the unreasonable search and seizure protection only applies as a protection from the government. The ruling reads in part ... [ This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable \"to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.\" ]
You are correct. Which in turn would mean that any detention (which is also an arrest) by the private shopkeeper or the shopkeepers agent would be false imprisonment. The detention is a civil rights violation and can and will probably result in a civil suit.
What the supreme court forgot is that \"we the people\" ARE the government. A government official is an agent of the people, never the other way around. This is why I can't deprive you of your rights, nor may my agents.
Cool! I'll be over later to \"search\" your house and \"seize\" whatever catches my eye.
I'll also be taking any weapons since I'm not the government and I don't favor you having 2nd amendment rights either. Also you are now my slave.
The reason i see here why Wal Mart banned him, is because they cannot trust him. He refuses to show his receipt so now wal-mart cannot approach him anymore knowing he will cause a fuss. Which as they see it, almost gives him a free pass to shop lift now that he knows for sure he won't be bothered.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1529791-100x100.png\")
Why can't they trust him? He didn't steal anything. After he showed the receipt to the police, walmart knew he hadn't stolen anything. He exercised his right not to show the receipt. Walmart has acted within their rights too, i suppose.
Do they trust you? Is that why all their products have surveillance devices in them?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-170618-100x100.png\")
My brother supposedly has a Wal-Mart ban. It's not like anybody is going to enforce it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-329647-100x100.png\")
I would have simply just shown the receipt, and not made a big deal about it,takes not even 3 seconds, even though i think the whole banning thing is a overboard.
Setting off an RFID does NOT give Walmart the legal right to detain you. The law is pretty clear on this - a store employee must see you steal the item (from the moment you pick up the item to the moment you exit).
The author of this letter handled the matter poorly. He should have asked \"Am I being detained for shoplifting?\" until he received a yes/no. If Walmart answered yes, he should have immediately called the police, stating he was being detained by Walmart for shoplifting. Upon showing his receipt to the police, the author should have filed a police report for false detainment. He should have then sued Walmart.
I understand the principle, but being treated like crap is the price you pay for everyday low prices. If you don't like Wal Mart's business practices, don't shop there.
The number of posters stating that the OP set off the alarm is alarming.
The WalMart alarm indicated a false positive while the OP was apparently in the area. Why is it his responsibility to help troubleshoot their system? In point, they were uninterested in troubleshooting the false positive, seemingly undisturbed by it.
Comments stating RFID going off \"gives Walmart the right\" to detain you and search your property is simply not true. Similarly, if Walmart overcharges you, or if you dispute the amount of change given, you do NOT have the right to go thru their cash register. Walmart has a right to detain you if they see you take an item and leave without paying (without losing sight of you for even a second). Otherwise, they are a huge legal risk of being sued for false detainment/kidnapping.
Ok, so I've had times when the alarm goes on (at department stores, mainly) and I've been asked for my receipt. I have no problem whatsoever but after that I do go and find the manager and bitch about the inconvenience I just had. I do this because in most of the cases, the RFIDs or sensors or whatever aren't deactivated correctly because the salespeople are just not paying attention or doing things completely wrong. If I'm going to bitch about something, it won't be because they asked for my receipt, it will be because they didn't deactivate the sensors in the first place.
You were treated badly by WM, but by banning you they actually did you a favor. Take heart in knowing you are not helping to destroy this country as only supporting Walmart can do.
treated badly? He triggered the RFID alarm and just decided to walk out. Sorry but, they should of tackled him against his car.
That would have been assault.
could be worse our walmart here in houghton lake makes you show them your receipt for anything that is not in a bag. so basically anything that can not fit in their bags your gonna get stopped for.
If I set the alarm off, I don't usually mind, even though it's an embarrassment to me, because they didn't do their job. But it's getting to the point where they check everything. I went in the other day, bought deodorant, a toothbrush, paid for a prescription, and as I was leaving, with my Wal-Mart shopping bag, the lady at the door approached me, took hold of my bag, and pulled the plastic, so she could see the receipt in the bag. Then she said thank you. There was no reason to suspect me of anything. No alarm went off. I had purchases in a Wal-Mart bag. She probably just didn't like the look of my leather jacket. And I wasn't asked to show a receipt. She just walked up and handled my shopping bag.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....was it worth being cool, causing a scene and not showing a receipt?
Once the 'agents' were satisfied that you were not a thief and had handed your receipt back to you, you were legally within your rights to simply leave and go home. The 'agents' as private individuals had no right to detain you.
My driver's license was taken by the police officer and processed. This is an illegal search. The police needed probable cause to detain you and run your license, yet they had none. At that point you could have refused giving your license to the officer and exercised your lawful right to walk away. After all, you had committed no criminal or civil offenses.
The trespass warning is bogus because at that point you were not legally a trespasser but a licensee of the store. Since you were on the premises lawfully and not in violation of any type of restraining order, they must afford an opportunity to leave before you become a trespasser.
I was asked to sign a notification of trespass by the Walmart employee At that point you were under no obligation to sign anything at all. A private party cannot compel you to sign such a 'notice' or a contract. If you were forced to sign anything it is coercion. Parties under coercion cannot legally enter into contract. The Walmart employee acted with no legal basis or authority.
Generally speaking no private party may detain you for any length of time without committing false detainment. There is a narrow exception called the 'shopkeepers privilege' that allows merchants to detain you in the store for a brief time if they suspect that you stole something. Properly exercising the privilege is a dangerous affair for businesses because the exception is so narrow, and detained parties often sue (and win). As a result most chain stores have a policy of non-intervention in instances of suspected criminal activity.
The bottom line here is that both the cops and the store screwed up and acted outside the boundaries of the law. I would definitely write to Walmart corporate and explain the situation to them. Say that you are a frequent customer and would like to shop in their stores, but are unable to do so because of the malice and illegal acts of two of their employees. I'm pretty sure you could get both of them fired, if you wanted to. I might even ask for a gift card for the inconveniences you have endured. Finally, if you really really wanted to you could bring a civil suit against Walmart for false detainment.
Yes, I am an attorney.
I have two words for you - Thank you!
Finally, someone who shows reason, logic and intelligence. As opposed to those \"Just show your receipt\" \"sheeple\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1531310-100x100.png\")
This is the best reply I have read. I will never understand why some think it is bad to stand up for your rights against government or corporate bullies.
I don't know about you all, but I have never been trained or briefed on a store's security system and all of the sounds that you hear when you walk in or out of a store. I have never seen a store post signs to educate customers about its policies and security systems and what to do when you hear certain sounds.
I would never consent to a search by an employee - they have no rights. If they feel strongly that I have shoplifted, they need to get law enforcement involved.
If anything, Walmart owes this guy an apology for the false accusation.
As much as it annoys me to have my receipt checked when I'm leaving Walmart for having something in the cart (or my hand) that isn't bagged, I still do it. What's the big deal? They have a right to make sure people aren't stealing from them.
If you set off the RFID, you can't expect them to *not* want to see a receipt, and *not* showing it makes you pretentious, not someone concerned about his rights.
They're a private company. If you want to shop in their stores, you play by their rules. If you don't want to play by their rules, there are plenty of other stores you can shop at. Most of them have RFID scanners, though. :)
I'm already boycotting Cost-Co over membership card checking at entrance and their hierarchy of memberships wasting my time arriving before my allowed store hours and finally after I started driving to the Cost-Co in the next town over someone chasing me out of the store after I exited while no one was checking receipts at the door. But I don't think you have a case here. The sensor is supposed to be disabled by the checker, which admittedly is often neglected or fails to be disabled, but when the alarm goes off that's probable cause of shoplifting. What you should focus your argument on is whether these sensors violate your right to privacy. I mean if you set off a metal detector in the court house, they've got to wand you or pat you down, whether it's your belt buckle or a gun.
Last year after finishing my shopping at my local Walmart's. I set off the alarm when I was leaving. The Door Greeter dug thru my shopping cart and found nothing.
Again I started to leave and again the alarm went off. After another check this included my pockets etc. Nothing was found to set of the alarm.
I than asked for the store manager. I wanted to know what was in my shopping cart to set off the alarm. After 45 minutes the manager and I found a security bar suck onto the bottom ( Underneath) the shopping cart.
The mystery was solved.
Its a good thing a lot of people don't stick security bar's underneath every shopping cart at Walmarts.
If I was this guy I would try and sue Wal Marts for their employee not following procedures to disarm the security bar after purchase.
Wal Marts created this entire problem themselves.
This entire mess including the poor guy not being allowed back into Wal Marts was do entirely to Walmarts poor training and supervision.
Plus from a business point of view: over the lifetime of this guy and his family they may have spent thousands of $$$$ dollars in the same Wal Mart store who had him banned from the store.
These 2 security men I hope they are \"worth\" all the money their little stunt cost Wal Marts over this guy's life time.
How much can false detainment cost a store? Over $3MIL in this case http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_199909/ai_n8866740/
I always wonder, if a company like wal mart gets tax breaks, roads built for them, etc for moving into an area, should they legally be allowed to refuse access to someone?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-465055-100x100.png\")
I'll avoid all the needless bickering about whether or not the OP was right, wrong, insane or a 5'10\" rabbit in people clothes because you're all doing such a swell job of it...
Instead, let me just say this; not only can you walk into any WalMart you want, but I'd bet the farm -- if I had one -- you could walk right back into that very same WalMart next week and nobody would even know. Seriously, do you think they're going to post your picture like its the post office? You wont be on America's Most Wanted, WalMart wont circulate a BOLO bulletin between stores with your face on it, and the laughable loss prevention employee wont even remember your face if he's even working there next month. If, IF they actually do? Drive a mile in the other direction and to the other WalMart that's no doubt in the next shopping plaza.
He should have told them to shove it when they asked for his license and just walked away, gotten in his car and left.
LOL. Tell the cops to shove it and walk away. You won't get very far..
I shop at the local WalMart on occasion, and I find it as pleasant a place to shop as anybody else -- as much as that might shock people. Sometimes when I'm leaving some old guy at the door asks to see my receipt. I show it to him. He says have a nice day. I say have a nice day. For some reason, this never makes me feel as if either my rights or my personal integrity have been violated.
As much as Jeremy says he was being polite, his own narrative suggests he was being a PITA.
I've decided to let them see the receipt, but inconvenience them as much as possible. I usually stick the receipt between a couple boxes under the cart, and if they ask to see it, I say sure, it's right down there... put it back when your done. if they don't want to spend the fraction of a cent on PAID stickers that every other store uses, and want to inconvenience me instead, fine by me, i can inconvenience them back.
I can't believe how many sheep are here posting. Sure, showing your receipt is a convenient way to avoid some hassle, but if YOU know that you didn't steal anything, that's all that matters. Once you pay for something at the cash register, it's YOURS. It doesn't stay Walmart's property until you leave the store. On the other hand, it's well within Walmart's rights to ban you from their store. It's private property, and if they don't like the way you look/act/submit, than out you go.
Seriously? I'm all for standing up for your rights...when necessary. This is just stupid. Like everyone said, you set off the alarm, show the receipt, period. I don't blame them for banning you. You were being a pain in the a$$, so we're they. They have too many REAL shoplifters to deal with, without having to waste time with this crap. Stop being a jerk and making things difficult for no apparent reason.
It just reaffirms my decision to ban Walmart. Alienating customers seem to play big in their business plan these days.
wow really, i never have a problem showing my reciept as this person should have and not taken up more time then letting the old person who probably does not even understand what they are looking at anyways..see it.....although it is the cashiers fault for not scanning the DVD's to get the security crap off i would have just showed the receipt.......and i would not have signed anything nor shown my id....
We don't know if he checked out at a cashier or a do-it-yourself.
Most people are unaware that a notice of trespass from Wal*Mart bans you from entering every Wal*Mart, not just the one that trespassed you.
The Op needs to take the following steps if he really would like to shop at Wal*Mart again....
1. Contact the Asset Protection Coordinator, the salaried supervisor of the APA, regarding this matter.
2. If that fails, contact the store manager.
3. Then the Market Asset Protection Manager.
4. Then the Market Manager.
5. Then the Regional Asset Protection Manager.
6. So on, so forth, until you get your way or then stop accepting your calls.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-121022-100x100.png\")
It's time for a consumer revolution. Seriously, who here wants to turn tables on Walmart and ban them from your wallets? Lets send them a message now that this receipt showing crap ends now.
I am not joking.
\" A small, non-invasive search, but a search nonetheless, and one which I am fully within my rights to decline.\"
If you are referring to the 4th amendment in the constitution as giving you the right to refuse to show the receipt or in other cases be searched then you are mistaken. The bill of rights is a contract between the government and its citizens, not a contract between private corporations and the consumers who shop there.
Now I'm wondering how closely most receipt checkers check the receipts in non-alarm situations. If this ever actually happened I might pull the wrong receipt out of my pocket just to see if they check the date.
The OP should have completely ignored the store employees, because they are essentially trolls. Never respond to a troll. A troll is looking for a response. If you don't respond, they usually move on to someone else.
If the police were still summoned by the store employees, then the OP should have asked if he was free to leave. I'll bet the police would have said the OP was free to leave. Only if the police said the OP was not free to leave should he have shown the receipt.
Really?, At what point when you buy something , does it become yours? If I pay cash or a debit card -- the instant the transaction goes thru , I consider the merchandise mine. If a employee wants to check it ; they can pay me to search. I tell the Wal mart person that I did not install their alarm system and that the merchandise is mine. I could care less if their idiot employees do not de-activate the alarm system.If they think I stole something -- call the cops( I want to see the security tapes).
OP exercised his rights, wal*mart exercised theirs. I would have done two additional things the OP did not.
1) When accused, I would have insisted that upon showing my proof (the receipt) that I would then be able to witness the cashier being written up for causing my beinf falsely accused and
2) I would complain to the police supervisor that my Id was compelled and then given over to a private company that had zero right to it. It was fine that the cop(s) asked for it and it was fine that they oversaw the wal*mart inspection of my purchase/receipt. But anything the cops did after that to aid the employees in issuing the trespass notice was illegal. The OP was free to leave and he was entitled to keep his ID to himself. Period.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1262450-100x100.png\")
\"I was asked to sign a notification of trespass by the Walmart employee, and the officer issued me a trespass warning.\"
Why sign any such document? If no crime occurred, and law enforcement has confirmed same, why continue to engage the employees?
I wish I could get banned from Wal-Mart so I wouldn't be tempted by their low prices any more.
As a former employee of both Wal-Mart and other retail establishments (worked in AP at another major retailer) I can attest that the deactivators on registers are notorious for not doing what they should, namely deactivating. While the act of the alarms going off should mean probable cause for a receipt check, the fact that the vast majority of time the alarm goes off are false alarms is reason to rethink the approach. Think about it, how many times have you been shopping and the alarm goes off only to have a greeter, AP associate or front-end manager approach the customer, check the receipt and send them on their merry way? It's a highly inefficient and obnoxious system. We are have the right to be free from unreasonable search, especially by private citizens. In the case of Wal-mart and any other retailer, they do reserve the right to refuse service to anyone on their own criteria, however a permanent ban from Wal-Mart entirely seems drastically over the top. (pipe dream) On the other hand, it would be funny if everyone refused/was aware of the right to not show the receipt. The might get a different reaction from thecompany in the long run (/pipe dream)
I didn't agree with the people who refuse to show their ID when they pay with their credit cards until Phil gave a reasonable explanation. He changed my mind by explaining that showing your id can leave you open to identity theft.
I think someone from Consumerist either needs to give a good explanation why these people can't take two seconds to show their reciept to the greeter, or these \"I don't have to show my reciept to the man\" stories should go away. I mean jeez in most cases these reciept checks are superficial methods to show the semblance of security.
Which by the way Wal-Mart has rights to. It is their property and they can ban customers who they think cause them trouble.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1240349-100x100.png\")
I still find it quite funny that there are people out there that are still so prissy that they refuse to take ten seconds out of their \"oh-so-busy\" schedule to show a receipt. Yes, ooh, you have rights. Well, Wal-Mart is a private company, and they have the right to ban you from their stores for life, and frankly I see no reason why they shouldn't, considering how absolutely disruptive he was (he sets off the alarm and out-right refuses...anyone working with people knows that person is going to be anything but \"cooperative\" and \"calm\"). \"Oh no, I have rights. I'll waive them if you bring a police officer though.\" So your rights are too good for Wal-Mart employees, but once a cop shows up, it's time to waive them? I don't think he really gets the whole idea of waving the \"rights\" stick around, considering it looked like he was doing it just for the sake of saying, \"I have rights.\"
Nope, can't say I feel sorry for this guy. All of this could have been avoided if he spent ten seconds letting a Wal-Mart employee check his receipt. I hope he enjoys his thorough self-expression of letting everyone know he \"has rights.\"
I work in the Bronx and just about EVERY store has a security guard that checks receipts. There are no Wal-mart stores (I think partly to unions and Wal-mart's union policy.) In our local shopping center K-Mart, Radio-Shack, PC Richard and Son, even Duane Reade and Walgreens checks receipts. I would like to see one of the \"I wont show my receipt to you\" customers try to walk out of K-mart without \"Bubba\" checking your purchases.
I don't get those of you who feel any company gains the ability to require surrender of legal rights to self simply by utilizing their service. If the checker's busy when the alarm goes off should they be able to bang on your front door later and search your house?
Allright allright, I have fun with avoiding authority, and i just politely walk by the greeters at walmart wthout showing the reciept, If the alarm went off I would without a doubt stop and show it to whoever was there. You were the one who made a big issue of not showing your reciept you had to get security and police involved. They are fully within their rights to issue a tresspassing order.
I almost dispise you for making me side with walmart on this one, but a store or company is allowed to protect themselves as much as a citizen or consumer is.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523339-100x100.png\")
This is just silly. I am not a fan of showing receipts or having to show ID to use a credit card and know this site is littered with stories on how to battle back both requests.
HOWEVER, the OP set off an alarm and that usually means something is being stolen and they had every right to investigate. How a national chain \"bans\" someone and can enforce the ban escapes me.
I have been to stores with rfid alarm systems more times than I can count, and only set off the alarm accidentally one or two times.
No sympathy for the OP here. They had probable cause.
Police can have probable cause, not Walmart. If Walmart has a dispute with me, it's up to them to notify the proper authorities.
I don't like showing my receipt when I walk out either. What's it going to hurt? It's not like they target people with receipts they ask EVERYONE for the receipt! It's probably one of the ways they keep prices low. The more people steal the more prices are gonna go up! It's self preservation!
Now, setting off the alarm. Well...the guy should have just showed the receipt and called it a day. What he did was totally unnecessary! Banning him nationwide....eh....not so sure about that. I'm glad it was an infant with them and not a child who could understand what was going on. What kind of example is he setting for that child? I also wonder if his wife was embarrased. I know I would be!
In this instance, despite what others may think, this gentleman was correct in refusing to stop and show his receipt to a Walmart employee. He has no legal obligation to do so, but was willing to have an actual police officer there to verify that he had paid for everything. Walmart, among other companies that routinely check receipts upon exit have no legal right to demand them. You do have the right to refuse. Yes, the alarms are there to protect their assets, and as this man stated, he didn't steal anything, was cooperative with police and in the end was shown to be innocent. Given that he had done no wrong, he was merely protecting his own rights. I personally applaud him for standing up for himself.
I also was detained by a Walmart employee one evening several years ago. I had gone into the store, purchased some groceries and when exiting the store, was asked by a greeter to show my receipt. The alarm had NOT sounded in my case. Since I had not stolen anything, and knew they had no probable cause from a legal standpoint, I was within my rights to refuse to show my receipt.
When I refused to show my receipt, the employee ran up, grabbed my cart, stood in front of me and would not let me leave the store. I told the individual that he was detaining me illegally, but he did not care. He called for a store manager who came out after I was held captive for several minutes. I explained the law to the manager, letting him know that in reality, I could sue both Walmart and this indidvidual greeter for illegal detention since they had no probable cause to stop me and keep me from leaving the store. The manager's response was just to say, well if you just show the receipt, this would not happen. I did not show my receipt to him at that time either and he had the greeter release my cart, obviously showing that he knew he had no right to detain me.
The downside of this is that Walmart obviously doesn't care that they abuse people's rights, and I know at least at my local store, they will continue to train their employees to break the law and detain people against their will. I had no intention of suing Walmart but I do applaud those who do, not so that they make money off it, but to hopefully force Walmart to eventually abide by the law and stop abusing their own customers.
I also was not banned, but chose to stop shopping at Walmart altogether and bad mouth them every chance I get. I know the few thousand dollars I used to spend in the store will not be overly missed by the giant company, but it does add up when you consider the number of us who have been abused and now take our business elsewhere, along with those who sympathise with us and also boycott them due to their bad business practices. Even though I now live in a small town where Walmart is nearly the only game in town, I happily now travel 40 miles out of my way to shop at Target when I cannot find what I need in my local Kmart. I think Walmart did this man a favor by banning him. There are many other retailers out there who value you as a customer and treat you as such, rather than looking at each person that walks in the door as a shoplifter. Which store do you think will give you a better customer experience? I will give you hint...it is not Walmart!
While this whole ordeal seems terribly insulting to the OP, try to look on the bright side: Your life will probably be improved by not shopping at Wal-Mart.
If you don't like the receipt policy, stop shopping there. Easy solution.
Consumerist would be a much better place if we could stop reading anti-WalMart articles from self-righteous prigs who enjoy trampling over 80 year old senior citizens who are only doing their job. Once the alarm went off and he refused to cooperate with their understandable desire to see his receipts, he was in the wrong. Glad to see that as private property owners, they solved his dilemma for him.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116400-100x100.png\")
Oh well, you're banned from Walmart. You apparently didn't like their policies anyway, so why did you willingly hand over your money and indirectly support those policies in the first place?
Find another business and give them your money instead. And inform all your friends, neighbors, family, etc that Walmart banned you and they eat babies.
I'm starting to get very sick of reading these stories. I'm truly convinced that most of the people who won't show receipts are just people who like to cause a fuss. Seriously, it takes two seconds and saves a huge bunch of hassle. You might think you're \"standing up for the masses\", but you're doing nothing more than causing trouble. Receipt checking isn't going anywhere. If a store chooses to implement a policy where you have to show it and you don't like it, don't shop there. I can understand why you were banned. They have a policy that you went out of your way to ignore, even after setting off the alarm. I'm sure they don't want the same issue again so they banned you. Perfectly within their rights to refuse access or service to anyone they want. Let's be honest, you were going to go down the 'I'll never shop there again' route, so what's the problem that they've now said that you can't, even if you wanted to? These stories used to be amusing to me, but not I'm getting tired of people starting crap over this. I'm from Europe and I bought a PSP case at a best buy in the New York. The register was right by the door and there was a guy standing there watching me. When I left, he asked to see my receipt. First time in my life I'd been asked and this site came to mind immediately. I showed him my receipt, wished him a good day and was out the store 5 seconds later than I would have been if he hadn't asked and got on with my day. Why can't everyone just do the same?
The door alarm going off does not provide any probably cause or reasonable suspicion to law enforcement or to the store owner. It is certainly not enough to invoke shopkeeper's privilege and detain someone.
I, personally, would not have stuck around to wait for anyone to walk over. If the police showed up before I had managed to leave, then the pertinent questions would have been asked. \"Am I free to leave?\", \"Am I being detained?\". If they say I'm being detained, I tell them I consent to no searches and am exercising my right to remain silent. I'm certainly not going to be voluntarily producing identification, and even less likely to sign something.
I won't show my receipt anywhere unless a) I set off an alarm or b) am at a place like Costco where I have a membership and it is in the contract that I agree they can look at my receipt.
I got stopped in Walmart to arbitrarily check my receipt and I refused because I did not set off the alarm or have anyone accusing me of shoplifting. After that one time they never have stopped me again. For what I could get from the woman it was a managers idea to check all receipts at night. I told her that Sam's Club (their sister company) can because of a contract but not them.
In the article I side with the belief you should have shown the receipt and not been a jerk about it because they had cause due to the alarm sounding.
I will never understand why some think it is bad (or being a jerk) to stand up for your rights against government or corporate bullies. We will loose all rights (like you have when you fly the unfriendly skies) & protections we have if we just follow like sheep what ever government agents or corporate bullies tell us to do.
I have a policy of briefly cooperating with stores if they ask without demanding politely & courteously without being rude or jerks as they usually are unfortunately. I have stopped for some & some I don't stop for. WalMart is usually manned by older retired people & for some reason some treat you as Guilty first which is when I go past them without stopping. I take being accused of being dishonest by anyone private or LEO very personally. I have personally had a good encounter with WalMart Management over one such encounter with an over-zealous WalMart Greeter not only was he rude but he touched (technically assaulted) my wife in the process. He was very lucky she or I didn't touch him back but being business owners we do have good control though.
Has anyone ever thought about the little fact that once payment is given the store doesn't own the items anymore or for that matter can't even take them back & if they take them from you without consent after payment that could be considered THEFT. Also even if you give them access voluntarily the store is putting themselves in liability for being accused of stealing from you if you put something else in your bag such as cash or other stuff purchased from other stores.
As for electronic tags being probable cause this would be easily defeated since they rarely alarm with a real theft. They go off because of cashiers & many more things that a person buys, wears or uses while going thru them. IMO the OP did nothing wrong but WALMart & the LEOs overstepped their authority big time. If the LEO had handed my ID over I would have immediately called for a supervisor. I also wouldn't have even spoken to the LEO without first establishing if he was detaining me.
I now for my protection always carry a digital voice recorder since most people usually only remember what makes them look good. I miss the days when a person could shop with out being falsely accused & harassed of a theft that never happened by over-zealous employees or even worse Power Hungry LEOs that have no respect for your rights or the laws. Before anyone says I am paranoid remember you are usually recorded & possibly filmed when speaking to LEOs for their protection & to use against you. Also don't be fooled the stores don't have the cameras in place to protect you.
Interesting Side note I have yet to have a bad encounter with BestBuy employees over receipt checks.since they are usually not demanding here.
Thank you!
Finally, a voice of reason amongst gale force winds of ignorance!
\"Just show the receipt\" my A$$.
If someone accuses me of theft, directly or indirectly, they better have evidence to back it up. Simple as that.
In other words, stop shopping there if you give a shit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223640-100x100.png\")
Can someone please inform me why it's THIS important to feel like it's \"your right\" to not show your receipt? I have nothing to hide. If you want to ask me, as long as it makes you sleep at night, I'm fine with it. It's certainly not worth all the BS this person had to go through, just to \"protect his rights.\"
It is important mostly because if you or anyone doesn't exercise your rights they will be taken away since they wouldn't really matter if no one stood up for them. Also if we all just fall in line what is next maybe we leave all our rights & protections at the door to enter a Store kinda like flying has become now days. Why not just let the stores strip search you if they feel like it probably wouldn't take that long after all & would possibly prove you aren't a thief.
Look at history the rights we have were fought for by people who didn't want to just roll over maybe some of the followers said they were just jerks & should roll over since since it was no big deal to be a blind follower.
First, I am pretty sure they're not using RFID, Radio Frequency Identification, because last I heard Wally was just rolling this tech out to PALLETS of goods. The tags are still too expensive for a per-item basis. An RFID alarm would probably defeat the need for receipt checks all together with how high tech it is.
And like most people seem to be saying, Wal-Mart is private property. If they ask that you don't drive your Toyota there, if they ask you not to wear pajamas, if they ask you to buy pancake batter with every purchase, you don't have to do any of that, but they're well within their rights to ask you not to come back to their private property. They have other customers that will abide by their rules and continue to pay money to follow them.
I work in retail, and we probably wouldn't ban you for your first \"offense\" of this sort, but we'd advise you that this is what we expect, and if you were to do it again, we'd then have you trespassed.
I have to say, these \"Just show the damn paper.\" people are either terribly unintelligent, or just not bright enough to grasp the simple concepts presented in this article.
1. If someone walked up to you and said \"Papers, citizen.\" would you provide them with your documentation?
2. Did you pro-walmarters even READ the fact that door sensors are practically useless?
3. If you want to give up your rights, go ahead, but don't come crying to me when they are ALL gone. You have to stand up for yourself or you're pretty much a \"sheeple\".
Wal*Mart only wanted to check him because they thought he STOLE something without actually voicing that accusation in any direct manner. When you accuse someone, directly or indirectly, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defender. Hence the term \"Innocent until proven guilty\". You guys remember that, right?
Why would someone who's being accused of something co-operate with the accuser? Why should they? Think about it.
I pay for something, it's MY PROPERTY. Whether it's inside the store or out. The store has NO legal rights to search me or my property, WHICH I PAID FOR. The receipt is also MY property.
Banning him from the store for life is just plain being a prick and totally malicious in intent. And me refusing to show MY receipt to prove that something is MY property is not right. They have NO rights to search me in any way, shape or form.
If you think I've stolen something, accuse me.. but be ready to have proof, otherwise I'm just going to walk away, I'm not even going to wait for you to call the police. Why should I waste my time? I haven't done anything wrong.. why should I have to prove to YOU that I've done nothing wrong? Get it? Probably not.
P.S.
The rosa parks reference was accurate.
P.P.S
Those who give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security, will have neither and deserve neither.
Here is another perspective. For not being willing to show the receipt you were being a jerk. Your punishment of being banned is actually a favor. I wish Walmart would ban everyone from shopping there.
I've been telling my girlfriend for months how much I don't enjoy shopping at Walmart...you're telling me this is all I have to do to get out of ever going to Walmart again!?
IANAL, but I think the whole part about signing a trespass notification was a mistake. The OP had no obligation to let the Wal-Mart employee look at his receipt. In fact, he could have insisted that the police officer did not have his permission to show the receipt to a Wal-Mart employee. If the receipt proved theft, then the officer is guilty of mishandling evidence. If it proved there was NO theft, then the officer is guilty of illegal transfer of goods (the crime that results when you have something legally but dispose of it in an illegal manner).
Also, since the receipt proved there was no theft (according to the OP), the officer had no reason to detain the OP further. The OP should have asked \"am I being charged with a crime? Am I free to go?\" repeatedly until the officer admitted that the OP could go.
Also, my understanding of the sensor issue is that a sensor going off is not probable cause for arrest or search. You need a witness to a crime (i.e. someone has to see you shoplifting). All the sensor can tell you is that a tag went through a door. It's not a crime to carry a sensor tag through a door.
In fact, I think EVERYONE should carry an active sensor tag with them, just so those damn things go off when anybody at all goes past them. That way, they'll eventually go out of style. Sigh. Too bad it'll never happen.
Hmmm...Why would they want to ban a customer for being an ass? Oh, I don't know...
Next time you won't be such a smart-ass, will you?
Why can't I comment on anything...
I have NEVER had my receipt checked when the sensor has gone off at Wallyworld. I have had it checked multiple times without it going off, I've noticed that almost anytime there is an item that's not in a bag in your cart (barring pet food/litter, soda, really low priced stuff), they tend to ask for your receipt. The last time they did it I didn't have anything that wasn't in a bag and I got annoyed and I told the guy that I don't mind showing it, but that Wallyworld has no legal right to ask for my receipt. If I decided to say no and keep on going, there wasn't a damn thing they could do without probable cause.
That said, the guy should have shown his receipt if the sensor went off, That's enough probable cause, regardless if it was a cashier farkup or not.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-122616-100x100.png\")
Had you just shown your receipt, none of this would have happened. You set of a sensor, which gave them cause to ask you if they could look in your bag; it's not as though they didn't have a reason.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
Criminal court: Innocent until proven guilty.
Airport: Guilty until proven innocent.
Walmart: Still guilty after being proven innocent.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1530937-100x100.png\")
Can I volunteer for this? I'll go get the paperwork if you call the police to come over here to my office so I can be banned from ever having to go Wal Mart.
I have lived in the Soviet Union. I can tell you that shopping there was a better experience than shopping at a Wal Mart. The idea of a manager or security guard from some crappy wal mart violating your rights, treating you like a criminal and wasting police time pretty much bottoms out the american experience for me. what can they possibly do to make it worse for their customers?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-802677-100x100.png\")
I don't understand where all the hostility for the OP is coming from. His letter to Walmart doesn't demand money or a lifting of the ban--he simply asks for clarification on Walmart's policy. It's possible, given the conduct of the Walmart associates he dealt with, that they are \"off the reservation\" and escalating the issue might get the ban lifted.
I'm also a little surprised that posters seem to think that the OP was out of line here. Yes, OMG, the beeper went off! But the beeper is not an indication that your privacy rights have been suspended. The OP doesn't argue that the store doesn't have a right to detain him to wait for law enforcement. He states that he was willing to cooperate with actual law enforcement to investigate the issue of the beeper, and he did so. He even indicates that he wouldn't have complained if the incident had ended there. It seems to me that the problem the OP is complaining about here is not a \"show your receipt/don't show it\" issue, but the capricious and rude behavior of the store employees after the customer was demonstrably innocent of theft.
What I find hysterical is that I imagine your average Consumerist reader wouldn't be caught dead in a Wal-Mart, so their indignation is pre-fabricated at best. If you don't want to show your receipt at Wal-Mart, don't shop there. It's not like the DMV where the customer is king and everything.
My favorite thing about Consumerist posts is when the margins get so thin that they turn into concrete poetry.
In my town, our Wal-Mart greeters stand at the door often and check customer's receipts before they even go through the security system. This is really ridiculous. I don't know if I would mind being banned. Wal-Mart gives me panic attacks.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160786-100x100.png\")
Firstly, do greeters now have Banned Customers posters at each store?
Secondy, this is his fault for giving Walmart his business in the first place.
Thirdly, why is being banned from Walmart a bad thing? I don't shop there if I can at all avoid it, and I certainly would stop going entirely if they pulled crap on me.
Huh. Well, I guess I sort of yay and nay this. Yea, you DID set off the RFID alarm. Yes, that IS probable cause for a search.
HOWEVER... Walmart has hundreds of cameras in EVERY STORE. There is literally no place inside the store that they cannot see or track you. Can they see you purchasing everything? Yup. Can they see the checker bagging it? Yup. Do the checkers have sole responsibility for disabling the RFID tags in the paid merchandise? Yup.
I would have asked them for a copy of the policy regarding banishment before I helped them fill out any damn thing at all. \"Show me the policy\" is my mantra. If I try to return an item and am told I can't because of policy, \"I'd like to see the policy, please.\" If you can't show it to me, it doesn't exist. Process my return, please.
I don't know what state you're in-- but as a former police officer I can tell you that in most places you cannot be given a notice of trespass unless two things occur: One, you MUST be told you have to leave. You weren't, until they said they were going to ban you. Two, you must refuse to leave or substantially delay leaving in a timely manner so as to make the requestor believe you are not going to leave. You didn't do that, either.
Therefore, I'd call the local PD and ask what their policy is. Get online and research the criminal trespass law/code in your city/state and find out if they were even legally allowed to write you one.
Second, I'd call the Store director and ask him for a copy of the policy for banishment. Yes, it's within Wal-Mart's right to ban you; but it's also your right to demand that the policy be applied fairly.
Here, locally, at my hometown Wal-Mart, my partner and I were shopping and noticed a family in the grocery section with several older, adolescent children. The kids were opening bottles of orange juice, drinking them, and then placing the empties back at the back of the shelves where they wouldn't be immediately seen. We reported them to security, they were all arrested, but NONE of them were banned. It seems to me that in your case, you were banned for, well, \"being a jerk\", at least in the eyes of the Wal-Mart folks. IF that's the case, then they DIDN'T fairly apply the policy.
Should you have shown your receipt? Yes, if you set off the alarms.
Prior to becoming a police officer, I used to work LP for Walmart. First things first... LP cannot ban you from the store. Only the store manager can ban you. That's policy. Second, you did nothing wrong. The only way that LP can actually do anything is if they see 4 steps happen.
First, you have to select an item.
Second, you have to conceal.
Third, you have to continually carry the item throughout the store.
Finally, you have to bypass all registers and leave the premises with the item.
Everything above has to be met and LP has to keep sight on you the whole time. If they lose you, even for a minute, they have no case because you could have laid the item down. Now, can LP follow you into the bathroom? Into the changing room? No. So if you make it into the one of those areas, they have no course of action against you.
As for them having the right to check your receipt, no... as per my policy (back then) there were no standards set. They could ask but unless there are signs posted, they have no right unless they can prove that you stole an item. BTW, the minimum amount of money that Wal-mart has to pay out for a \"bad stop\" is roughly $3000 so I would start by calling the LP district manager and then putting in a call to the Walmart legal department. Those front door alarms go off all the time so unless they can prove that they stop and check every single customer receipt... you have a case.
Good luck and to everyone else not on this guys side... go pound sand.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-966198-100x100.png\")
They did you a favor by banning you from their terrible store
A trespass order can only be upheld at that particular store though, not all Wal Marts
After three visits and three receipt checks (with no alarm going off) at the local Walmart that opened last year, I stopped going. I'm sorry but you folks are sick or something. You are all discussing the legal aspects of this. Who cares? As a CONSUMER, go somewhere else if you don't like it. Of course there are other aspects of our lives where less and less choices will be available, however that is off topic for this board.
If the folks at WalMart are so inept that they can't properly disable their security devices and therefore feel they need to check your receipt, then the inconvenience you suffer should be rewarded with a $5 gift certificate if they detained you in error. Bet this would stop the alarms from constantly going off & embarrasing a shopper when they are leaving the store as everyone focuses their attention on them.
I don't know about anyone else, but my time is valuable & I don't appreciate being detained unnecessarily simply because WalMart can't be bothered to fix their lousy problem of erratic signaling devices going off!!!
man good for you i would have done the same thing.So big deal if the alarm went off.They should have told you they were sorry for centering you out in front of the whole store.It is not the customers job to prove they are not criminals.They get these machines to bare false witness and think it is ok.then ask to see your receipt also baring false witness.I would not shop at this hell hole anyway go somewhere where they want you.Just another eg. of people being treated like criminals ,you are better off not even leaving your home.
Before you support Walmart on this issue, consider some facts. If the alarm went off because of their error, they do not have the right to detain you. I would understand thier side with all the shop lifting. But that is not the truth. Walmart purposely mismarks items (common practice, other retialers do it too) to charge you more than you think you are paying; just to cover shop lifting. A crime against Walmart makes it ok for Walmart to commit a crime against you. I have caught them many many times. Watch your reciepts. I have caught over $50 in errors in the last year and a half. 60 minutes did a segment many years ago and I have watched my reciepts ever since. They cheat you out of $50 and they are sorry. They catch you stealing 50 cents and you go to jail.
Well, Ive shopped at walmart numerous times. And the procedure that they take a look at your receipt before you leave the store is nothing new. It sounds like you wanted to be special. Not trying to be a jerk but it would have taken 5-10 seconds for them to look over your merchandise to make sure you did'nt steal anything. So now that they ban you you are shocked and amazed? lol. You invoked your \"right\" to not submit to a really simple search in which you knew you had nothing to hide, and walmart invoked thier \"right\" to ban you. Open shut case to me.
You all are ridiculous, Saying \"oh if you know you did not steal you should not have to show them anything\" really?? seriously? So if a thief could use that same reasoning, he could say I did not steal therefor you can not check me. Those of you who say you don't show your receipts I guess you don't shop at Cost-co or Sam's because they check. Another thing. So if you owned a store and a guy was walking out with a huge 50 inch tv you would not ask him for a receipt?? You would just assume that he is an honest person and he bought it right?? I hope that you all own stores someday and tell me where it is located. I would like to have free food and electronics for life.
I can see both sides of this....sometimes employees at Walmart are just rude. I try to take into account that Walmart doesn't pay their employees well at all. So he (the consumer) probably pissed off the greeter to begin with....then not showing the receipt....whether you are polite or not you are exserting authority over them by saying they have no right to look at the receipt. This can also show deception. So with that in mind do I believe that you should be banned from all Walmarts? I don't. I also believe that the manager should have been involved because you had not stolen anything. But I know they think oh well we have so much money right now anyway why do we need his. Just remember Kmart and Sears had their hayday too....and look where they are....Walmart won't be around forever...some other store will take their place someday....especially if they keep pissing on ppl who actually buy products in their stores.
ok, this really simple. show the receipt be on your way. obviously, walmart policy for their associates are to ask for reciepts from customers who set off the alarms. its not that everyone that sets it off are theives, maybe the security strips were not deactivated upon purchase. Don't hate on them for doing their jobs. as far as the loss prevention guys are concerned. banning you from the store was a too over the top. From what I have been told to by a walmart asset protection associate. Managers are the only ones who could do that. maybe if you showed your reciept when asked to do so, you would be shopping at walmart right now.
I had this happen at a Safeway. I had shopped in the store, left with my cart, was in the parking lot then noticed I had some items from the shopper that was behind me in the line. We both went back in, got our refund from the customer service, then paid for the correct items at the customer service then proceeded to exit. Our carts got stuck and would not move through the automatic doors. The \"assistant manager\" appeared, demanded mu receipt. The other lady and I were both laughing at how funny the whole thing was turning out to be especially as we tried to so hard to do things the right way. We told the assistant manager what happened, said the customer service person is still there at the counter and you can check with her. He looked over at the customer service counter, who wasn't paying attention because she was busy with other business/customers, looked me up and down (and can you tell me what the problem is with an older woman, young man?) didn't say a word, acted as if he checked the receipt then let me go. NOW, the lady that was behind me, he said nothing and proceeded to walk away. Oh no. I told him stop right there - what are you doing making a scene of checking my reciept and then allowing the person behind me to breeze through without checking her receipt? He took her receipt for a moment, acted as if he looked at it then handed it back. It was \"on\" by that point. I told him OK and if you checked the receipts as you are supposed to then you would have seen that there were items in my cart that are not on my receipt and items in her cart that are not on her receipt! (these were the things exchanged at the customer service desk) He ran off. I followed him and demanded an apology for the whole incident. He finally did saying that the carts are automatically locked at the door if they have not gone through a checkout counter. What happened was when the other lady and I reentered the store and did not go through a checkout counter again the secuirty system locked the carts. OK well why dind't you tell me that before????? Did you expect two older women, one with a cane, to break into a run in the parking lot? As I make my busines deposits at that Wells Fargo inside the store, I still go in there. But I have made it a point of speaking up and embarassing this young man every time I see him. At first, he would get this snide grin on his face knowing he made me so mad. But I kept at it and now it is at the point where he won't look at me - or say anything - smart boy! Before that if I saw him I would ask if it's OK to be in the store, do you need to see my portfolio, should I make a point of showing you my receipt before I leave? The first time I did that he tried to play dumb and I asked why he was acting like that, and told him he knew what I was talking about. That boy should have saved his energy for a shoplifter instead of trying to intimidate an older woman. He's learning one of life's lessons the hard way: hell hath no fury like a woman scorned! muuwaaAHAHAHA
I have no problem with declining to show a receipt if there was no reason for the request as that is your right but you set off the RFID sensor. Stores have a huge expense in shoplifted products and they must be vigilant in pursuing any possible theft. Refusing under these circumstances was just stupid and pig headed. I don't think showing your receipt is the same as someone entering your home and searching it without a warrant.You wasted more time and cost the store and the town money with your idiotic action. If you had shown the reciept, they would have verifed nothing was stolen and sent you on your way, 5 minutes max. I also have no problem with your being banned. It's their right so stop whining, man up and get on with your life.
I work as a cashier for Zellers, a Canadian department store, and I'll be the first to agree that EAS systems are highly ineffective at preventing shoplifters. (And seriously now, even if the alarm goes off and a kid has a concealed tube of mascara or a DVD , there isn't going to be an \"Aw shucks, you caught me\" and bashful returning of said mascara or DVD). And from the view behind the counter, they're even less effective at actually deactivating merchandise, so slip-ups do happen, and where I work, there is no security person waiting at the door; thus I, the cashier, must stop every person who sets off the alarm (regardless of whether they have purchased anything or not). I don't like stopping people any more than they like being stopped, as, more often than not, it wastes my time and the customer's, and I am automatically glared at by customers in line for being the \"evil, oppressive lackey\" once I return to till; I hate checking receipts just as much as people hate having them checked, but I, like a lot of store employees (not \"lackeys\" or \"trolls\" -- most of us who work for big chains hate working there just as much people hate shopping there) have to because I am watched on camera and am expected to do my job. There is no antagonism: I have never once assumed someone to be stealing because they set off the alarm; all I ask is that people just cooperate and allow me to do my job.
So to make a long story short, the OP should have gotten off his high-horse and just showed the receipt. Especially if he set off the alarm. Christ.
P.S. For those of you concerned about \"privacy\" when having a receipt checked, no one cares about what you bought, or will even remember ten seconds afterwards. And if it bothers you, then let's hope that you only pick up items when no one else is around and that you use self-check-outs.
P.P.S. I really don't get the Rosa Parks comparison. One was rebelling against an unjust rule based on nothing more than an uncontrollable factor. The other was being a self-righteous jerk. I think if being asked to show a receipt after setting off an alarm is your Oppression of the Day, then you're doing pretty well for yourself.
Everyone has the right to be petty and childish,you exercised your right now except the consequences like the adult you thought you were...............
I'm confused as to why you would decline to show your receipt AFTER YOU SET OFF THE SENSOR, but you signed their notification of trespass. Seems like your Abbie Hoffman-esque free society pomposity deserted you in the end there.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1562681-100x100.png\")
Suppose both sides chose to apologize and admit to being wrong. How would it change things? Is this a power struggle, are both sides saying, \"I'm not wrong, you are.\" Walmart won't relax. The customer won't relax. Afraid to be wrong? Need to be right? Can't meet in the middle?
I will not show my receipt at Walmart either, BUT if the alarm goes off that is another story entirely... Stupid move on your part!!!
Look, I am all in the camp of not showing your receipt, but if the sensor goes off, show it. Seriously.
My thoughts exactly. I've never been to ANY store that didn't insist on seeing your receipt if you set off the alarms as you walk out. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Sears, JC Penneys...ANY STORE. All of them check your receipt when you set off their alarms.
You are right. Further I would encourage everyone to look at Prosser and Keeton. I am looking at the 5th edition Section 22. In there is makes clear that when a shopkeeper suspects one of taking goods from the store they may make a reasonable investigation. The investigation is very limited - it basically only allows the shopkeeper to do what is necessary in order to ascertain what the facts are.
That being said, without knowing the specifics in each individual jurisdiction, it would seem that showing a receipt on the way out is a minor procedure that would be considered reasonable under these circumstances. It is true that it may be Wal Mart's fault that the beeper went off but the law clearly allows such a reasonable search even if it is Wal Mart's fault.
In response to others who suggest that they could make it beep for everyone - if it beeped for everyone then there would be no reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion arises when something is out of the ordinary and it points to possible shoplifting such as someone hiding something under their jacket or such as an anti-theft security device going off.
completely agree
Awesome. So now all Fry's has to do Is make sure their sensors go off every time someone walks through it. Then they could receipt check everyone.
As far as I know, there is no law stating you have to show your reciept if the sensor goes off. If that is true, you don't HAVE to show anything. Some people would, some people wouldn't. It doesn't matter. Legally, he doesn't have to do anything.
Sometimes the sensors go off for no reason. I've walked through them and had them go off. I hadn't purchased anything. I had no bags to inspect, no receipt to show. Just me what I was wearing.
Am I supposed to strip naked to prove I didn't steal anything?
Besides, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. They have to produce evidence that a crime was committed and have no right to search you or your belongings. The fact that you are exiting a store, even carrying something while exiting a store is not evidence enough to prove you stole something.
When I was in retail, we had strict instructions not to stop anyone leaving the store for any reason. Even the LP guys couldn't stop someone unless they saw the person enter the store, pick up something, then leave and had eyes on them the whole time.
The beepers are not to prevent shoplifting. They're a deterrent and reminder to the honest folk who simply forgot to pay.
No it doesn't. Just because the sensor goes off doesn't mean you stole anything. I used to work at a Home Depot - several times per week that alarm would just go off for no reason. Sometimes it'd go off when people walked through it because they'd recently bought shoes at Target, Walmart, or Kmart and the cashiers at those stores failed to deactivate the sensors in the shoes. We'd tell them what we thought the deal was, get our portable deactivator, wand their shoes and BEEP! that was the end of the problem. Sometimes people would end up with tags in their bags, on their clothing, in their purses, on their coats. They'd get stuck on them w/o their knowledge and the scanner would trigger.
If *anyone* was even remotely close to me when that scanner triggered, I'd tell them that I wasn't showing any receipt either - they can't prove it was you. If no one was close to me, I still wouldn't show the receipt. Unless they saw you conceal a product and leave the premises with it, they have no proof that you stole anything. You have nothing to prove to them - they have to prove it to you.
Moreover, all of these stores have a nearby \"activation log\" - it's got the date/time of the activation, the counter # of the activation, what the reason for the activation was, who noted the instance, etc. So ask to take a look at that log when they're pestering you for a receipt, and note particularly all the instances where the cashier forgot to deactivate the tag on a product. That's probably what happened here - but you know what? It's not the OP's problem - it's the problem of Wal-Mart for deciding to use the technology, and then not training their employees how to use it properly.
As for the whole Banning for life thing - I'd sue them. They can generally choose to serve or not serve, but they can't do it in an arbitrary and capricious manner. That's what they did here - \"We don't want people like him here...\". Like what? Oh like a free-thinking, patriotic, civil-rights cherishing citizen of the United States of America? Someone who doesn't want to be a member of the sheeple that shop at Wal-Mart and have their rights chiseled away bit by bit? I wouldn't give them my DL either. I have to tell you my name - I don't have to give you anything. Arrest me, then go look up the info. And as for the Cop giving the DL to Wal-Mart - Sue that idiot - he had no right to hand off the information to Wal-Mart. In most States, DL information is protected.
I'd have to agree with you here. The receipt check is BS (the whole \"We're a huge company so we can violate your rights whenever we want to.\" thing turns my stomach), but with the sensors setting off the alarm it is perfectly reasonable to just produce your reciept. I mean, that's the whole point of the sensors.
Maybe it's just me, but I thought that it was Walmart's responsibility to deactivate the sensor after you have paid for the item. By not deactivating it, haven't they done something wrong? I can't put a tracking sensor on your car, can I? Once the product is purchased, Walmart does not have any ownership and has no right to have a tracking sensor active on the product.
I was just at Best Buy and the sensor went off as I was leaving with my purchase. The guy did not check my receipt but he noticed that my new laptop didn't have the security sensor removed. It would have been impossible for me to remove at home and would have just made me come back so I could open it. The employee removed it without even checking my receipt (I held it in my hand the entire time so he just trusted me, I guess).
Anyways, I always stop when I hear the sensor go off. It saves me the trouble of coming back.
Yeah... I hate agreeing with Wal Mart on this, but dammit...
Ditto what everyone else said. When the alarm goes off it gives them probable cause.
If the alarm had gone off when I walked in the store, I would have wanted to find out the cause because I know I will have the same problem when walking out. If I was unable to determine the cause, then I would need to be prepared to show my receipt when the alarm went off when I left.
I've been in other stores where the clerk didn't run the item over the thing long enough to deactivate the RFID and it sets off the alarm when I walk out. I have no problem with showing my receipt then. I really don't see the problem.
Yes, indeed. The sensor going off indicates reasonable suspicion, so it's reasonable to expect to have to show your receipt. Now if there is NO reasonable suspicion, it is NOT reasonable to expect me to agree to letting you stop and search me.
Yep...In many states (I know VA is one of them) the sensor going off does give them the right the detain you. So at that point showing your receipt would be the simplest solution.
Agreed 100%.
My objection to the receipt checking is based solely on the fact that they do it with no cause to suspect you of something nefarious. If the alarm goes off -- they DO have reason to suspect you. In that case, I'm more than happy to let them see the receipt and my bag. (Nine times out of ten, they just wave me through without looking anyway.)
/agreed
Technically that's evidence of theft that needs to be clarified. As opposed to the random screenings they try to institute based on nothing but the \"checkers\"... we'll call it an opinion.
Actually....the sensors are notoriously inaccurate. I've had sensors go off just walking *into* a business. Obviously I didn't steal anything since I'd just walked in....does that mean I should submit to a search?
No...this man *was* fully within his rights. I also applaud him for not only standing up for those rights but doing so in a calm respectful manner. Walmart should be ashamed of themselves.
If the sensor goes off? Show it. If not, not a problem.