Guy gets arrested for refusing to hand over his Circuit city reciept

[Irb]

http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/

So am I the only person that thinks this guy acted like a complete douche hole over something every Circuit City/Best Buy/Guitarcenter does every time you leave?

This reminds me of a story I read some where.

[mlerner]

Yes but I don't see why he could be arrested over that, legally he did not break any laws. I doubt this will hold up in court.

[surge]

He did act like a douche, but at least his reason is justifiable. He didn't do anything wrong either, so I don't see how this will hold up.

[NiMSo]

He could have avoided the whole mess by allowing them to view the bag contents. If you have nothing to hide, why resist? So what if they want to see your receipt/bag? Just be civil, cooperate, and the whole misunderstanding will be forgotten.

Instead, he decided to act like a jerk, waste important resources (called 911 and got the police?! WTF?!!!), and cause chaos over a situation that was stupid in the first place.

I'm all for standing up for your rights, but this is ridiculous. He was being stubborn and pig-headed to try and illustrate a point. Too bad people don't put this much effort into real issues affecting the world... :rolleyes:

[perplexed_one]

He could have avoided the whole mess by allowing them to view the bag contents. If you have nothing to hide, why resist? So what if they want to see your receipt/bag? Just be civil, cooperate, and the whole misunderstanding will be forgotten.

Instead, he decided to act like a jerk, waste important resources (called 911 and got the police?! WTF?!!!), and cause chaos over a situation that was stupid in the first place.

I'm all for standing up for your rights, but this is ridiculous. He was being stubborn and pig-headed to try and illustrate a point. Too bad people don't put this much effort into real issues affecting the world... :rolleyes:

+1 this guy was trying to pass off as libertarian but came off as a complete anus .

[curtis]

Hah, what a loser. In the end, he's just wasting his time accomplishing nothing.

[perplexed_one]

in his blog, a link to a newspaper articles states:


Michael Amor Righi started his own business when he was 8 years old, bought his first house at 19 and, now 25, is owner of a half-million dollar information technology training and computer consulting business based in his Downtown loft.

if he is so successful and wealthy, why the hell is he asking for donations for a legal fund? is he really going to tie up the courts for a scenario a 8 year old would understand?

[yao416]

That only happens in USA

[YnD]

That only happens in USA

Yah what a crybaby American.

[yao416]

anyways, is his blog down? i havent finish reading yet.

[LoveRFD]

http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/

So am I the only person that thinks this guy acted like a complete douche hole over something every Circuit City/Best Buy/Guitarcenter does every time you leave?
This reminds me of a story I read some where.


Do you get checked at those stores everytime? I've never been checked in those stores, that would make me uncomfortbale and I would return my purchase and never shop there again.

[yao416]

Do you get checked at those stores everytime? I've never been checked in those stores, that would make me uncomfortbale and I would return my purchase and never shop there again.

:O

I will def. do the samething next time :)

[Cyber6]

Typical american, just asking for some trouble so he can sue back for millions.

I can almost hear his whining "I was treated like a criminal, I haven't been able to sleep since then... blah.. blah.. whine .. whine".. :rolleyes:



C.

[Stoe99]

You do not have to show ANY store a receipt, once it is given to you it becomes your property, and therefore, you no longer have to show it or give it to anyone, whether or not they ask for it. If they for one moment try and stop you from leaving the store, I would call 911 and tell them I was being held against my will.

[squall458]

IMO this guy is a ******. He had a BDAY to attend to, and having forgotten the present, this would be a priority in my mind. Instead of quickly flashing the receipt and allowing the bag to be scanned, he made the day a horrible one for everyone. There are times we need to stand for principals but this story is not one of those. Its a measure to prohibit shoplifting, whether its effective or not, its the stores right to do so. They own the private store and can do whatever they want. Some people.

[express.items]

You do not have to show ANY store a receipt, once it is given to you it becomes your property, and therefore, you no longer have to show it or give it to anyone, whether or not they ask for it. If they for one moment try and stop you from leaving the store, I would call 911 and tell them I was being held against my will.

+1

Why should I bother wasting my time showing my receipt? I normally do, but last time I bought two printers (remember the $30 BB printer)? It took FOREVER to get my instore pickup, customer service was being stupid. So I paid for them finally, on TWO separate receipts, given that they were two separate orders. I try to leave and they want to see my receipt, so I show them, and they say uh, it's limit one blah blah. But no where did they advertise this, and I'm like what do you want me to do? They're TWO separate orders and two receipts and I paid for it, they said fine and I finally left after like 10 minutes of arguing. I've decided never to show them receipts again and just walk out.

[express.items]

He could have avoided the whole mess by allowing them to view the bag contents. If you have nothing to hide, why resist? So what if they want to see your receipt/bag? Just be civil, cooperate, and the whole misunderstanding will be forgotten.

Instead, he decided to act like a jerk, waste important resources (called 911 and got the police?! WTF?!!!), and cause chaos over a situation that was stupid in the first place.

I'm all for standing up for your rights, but this is ridiculous. He was being stubborn and pig-headed to try and illustrate a point. Too bad people don't put this much effort into real issues affecting the world... :rolleyes:

Because he has other places to get to, he doesn't want to be bothered wasting his time getting checked... he did pay for it after all.

Do you get checked at those stores everytime? I've never been checked in those stores, that would make me uncomfortbale and I would return my purchase and never shop there again.

I do, and I always complied until one day... see my previous post.

IMO this guy is a ******. He had a BDAY to attend to, and having forgotten the present, this would be a priority in my mind. Instead of quickly flashing the receipt and allowing the bag to be scanned, he made the day a horrible one for everyone. There are times we need to stand for principals but this story is not one of those. Its a measure to prohibit shoplifting, whether its effective or not, its the stores right to do so. They own the private store and can do whatever they want. Some people.

He paid for the stuff, it already got checked, why must he be checked again? So just cause it is a private store they can do whatever they want? Why not ask him to pay $10 service fee for having them check the bag as well?

[squall458]

Because he has other places to get to, he doesn't want to be bothered wasting his time getting checked... he did pay for it after all.



I do, and I always complied until one day... see my previous post.



He paid for the stuff, it already got checked, why must he be checked again? So just cause it is a private store they can do whatever they want? Why not ask him to pay $10 service fee for having them check the bag as well?

Simple, if they charged $10, no one would shop there. Plain and simple and to top that off, think about the media press they would get. Plus, no one else does that but OTHER stores do check your bags, so its not like they are the only one doing it. Look its about the bottom line. Shoplifters make everything more expensive for us and its only a minor intrusion, some Costco, FS and BB do this in a minor form (check your receipt on the way out), no one complains about that. Its not like this is a start to some diabolical plan starting with receipt and bag checking then leading to body cavity searches...

[Cheap]

We just had a thread about a guy who wouldn't show his receipt at Tiger and it seemed the popular opinion was he was being a jerk and should have shown his receipt.

Now it's show your receipt and check the bags but there are a many still saying he was a jerk, just show the receipt and let them check your bags.

If the next one is about someone who was asked to show the receipt, check the bags and a check of purses and any other bags they came in with, is everyone still ok with that? It is their store right? They are only trying to prevent shoplifting by checking everyone, that helps us all right?

And if they only kept you a few seconds and you haven't done anything wrong, then what would be the problem with checking the receipt, checking your bags/purses and asking you to empty your pockets? If you haven't done anything wrong then why not go along with it? They are just trying to prevent shoplifting, you could have easily put something in your pocket.

[ullyeus]

not the brightest person.

[Jucius Maximus]

If you have nothing to hide, why resist?
Because it erodes your underlying privacy rights.

Not that the guy wasn't acting like a fool or anything.

Excercise your rights or you may lose them.

[d_jedi]

The Circuit city employees had no right to detain him after he had left the store. They prevented him from leaving (one standing in front of the car, the other blocking the door).

The police officer had no right to arrest him for refusing to show his driver's license.

This case is pretty clearcut.

Sure, he could have made things easier on himself. But that's not the point.. he was standing up for his rights.


BTW: If you are being unlawfully detained.. do you have any right to use force (etc.) to get yourself out of that situation? I dunno how that works under Canadian law..

[hardcandy1911]

Same goes for the Walmart at Eglinton/Warden, these secuirity checkpoints are 65+ ladies who basically stops customers based on profiling and personal judgement.

Out of all the times I have been there, the person never checks receipts for the following matter;

(a) If its a family leaving the store (dad, mom, sister, brother)

(b) Elderly people

(c) Small items without a bag

But hold on a minute, if your carrying a TV and you just left the cashier counter she stops you, if your looking all gangster shell stop you. Heck, even last time I was there I left in a hurry and she stopped me. Pretty bad.

If your going to check for receipts they better check all of them, and if its too crowded then too bad, dont just check the ones you think might be suspicious!

[Peckerwood]

I remember someone in Walmart being stopped when the door alarm chimed...the guy asked to see the receipt and contents of his bag...he said no...the guy said that he would detain him for theft...and again he said no and continued walking out...Then the guy said he was charging him with theft...the shopper turned and said "How about I deck you for unlawful detainment and you can charge me with assault"

The Store employee obviously backed off.

Obviously at this point I find that both were wrong...one was attempting to detain the other without cause...and the other was uttering threats.

Kind of interesting to watch though. :lol:

[Turge]

If a security guard asks you to show your receipt, it's because he thinks you looks suspicious. He basically thinks you look like a thief, and wants you to prove you purchased what's in the bag based solely on how you look.

If you wanted to test drive a BMW dressed in camo pants and T-Shirt but needed to show proof of income before getting the keys, would you comply?

Stop bending over and taking it.;)

[perplexed_one]

I remember someone in Walmart being stopped when the door alarm chimed...the guy asked to see the receipt and contents of his bag...he said no...the guy said that he would detain him for theft...and again he said no and continued walking out...Then the guy said he was charging him with theft...the shopper turned and said "How about I deck you for unlawful detainment and you can charge me with assault"

The Store employee obviously backed off.

Obviously at this point I find that both were wrong...one was attempting to detain the other without cause...and the other was uttering threats.

Kind of interesting to watch though. :lol:

doesnt that alarm chiming say that the product was not desensitized, either the store clerk made the mistake or someone is shoplifting. in any case the store has a right to stop that particular person. they arent going after that person per se, they just want to clear up any possible confusion (ie store clerk forgeting to desensitize).

[d1sc0veryy]

He could have avoided the whole mess by allowing them to view the bag contents. If you have nothing to hide, why resist? So what if they want to see your receipt/bag? Just be civil, cooperate, and the whole misunderstanding will be forgotten.rolleyes:

Will you say the same thing when police come to your house with no warrant and ask to search your house?

I too am getting sick and tired of all this "security"

Talking about shoplifting - most shoplifting is done by EMPLOYEES

[NiMSo]

Will you say the same thing when police come to your house with no warrant and ask to search your house?

They may touch upon common principles, but there's a very big difference between taking 5 seconds to show your receipt and shopping bag versus the invasiveness of a full search of your private household.

That's a poor analogy, and you can't make that comparison. Sorry, please try again... :razz:

[TapemanPL]

http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/

So am I the only person that thinks this guy acted like a complete douche hole over something every Circuit City/Best Buy/Guitarcenter does every time you leave?

This reminds me of a story I read some where.

just because a store asks to do this every time you shop there doesn't mean that anyone must agree to it. just like some stores who ask to take your bag when you enter, i just leave and take my business somewhere else

though it does seem like he was asking for trouble when he refused to provide his drivers license

They may touch upon common principles, but there's a very big difference between taking 5 seconds to show your receipt and shopping bag versus the invasiveness of a full search of your private household.

That's a poor analogy, and you can't make that comparison. Sorry, please try again... :razz:

what if you put your stuff inside a backpack or purse? would you allow them to search your bag?

[NiMSo]

what if you put your stuff inside a backpack or purse? would you allow them to search your bag?

I'd probably stop for a second, open it quickly to prove there's no problem, and then walk away without taking another thought. Quick, easy, and everyone's satisfied in the end. A lot less painful than getting into a stubborn shouting match.

Seriously - in this guy's case, why turn something tiny into something huge?! And if they asked politely, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be cooperative. They just want to protect their business too. Do you honestly feel violated by showing a receipt?!!!


Example: Lastly, what if your mom/dad/whatever owned a small little family store. And then, while working there, you see some guy slip something in his bag. Are you going to ask about it? Of course you would (if you don't, then you're a terrible son/daughter/etc.! :D).

[Emancipated]

Wow, he's very learned. I had to look up egress.

Apart from my shameless fawning, I think it's noble of him to stand up to the man. It takes conviction to do what he did. I hope he wins and does sue the pants off of CC.

[Setz]

I remember once a long time ago I was in an EBGames with a backpack (it was right after school, so I had it with me), and upon leaving the store they told me to stop, searched my bag and my person, and found a game which I had legally bought months earlier (lent it to a friend, got it back that day), and they called the police and kept me there for 15-20 minutes asking questions. They let me go (obviously), but I felt it damaged my public reputation what with customers coming in the store, seeing someone stopped with the police, etc.

[Cheap]

I'd probably stop for a second, open it quickly to prove there's no problem, and then walk away without taking another thought. Quick, easy, and everyone's satisfied in the end. A lot less painful than getting into a stubborn shouting match.

So which is it, would you comply with the request for them to search your bag to their satisfaction, or is it that you are saying that you would decide how long they get? What if the guard didn't get a good look and you started to walk away, would you turn around and comply? Is there a time limit that you feel they should have?

Seriously - in this guy's case, why turn something tiny into something huge?! And if they asked politely, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be cooperative. They just want to protect their business too. Do you honestly feel violated by showing a receipt?!!!

To be a little more accurate, do you feel violated by showing a receipt and allowing a search of your property?


Example: Lastly, what if your mom/dad/whatever owned a small little family store. And then, while working there, you see some guy slip something in his bag. Are you going to ask about it? Of course you would (if you don't, then you're a terrible son/daughter/etc.! :D).

That is not the case here, nobody saw you take anything, this is something that all customers are subjected too, so..

"That's a poor analogy, and you can't make that comparison. Sorry, please try again..."

[Dragon120]

Example: Lastly, what if your mom/dad/whatever owned a small little family store. And then, while working there, you see some guy slip something in his bag. Are you going to ask about it? Of course you would (if you don't, then you're a terrible son/daughter/etc.! :D).

That analogy is not even close to what happened in this scenario. IT COULD BE but based on what was written on his blog, he wasn't stealing. Obviously, if you see someone stole something in the store then by all means, they have the right to search and be suspicious about it. But that's not the case here.

[Takada]

So it turns from: "As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”"

to: "My father posted the $300 bail that was needed to get me out of jail and back on my way to Park Avenue Place."

because of: "I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused."... "Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today."

I understand the privacy of a bag, but he didn't want to give up the privacy of his RECEIPT? Did I miss something? Why do people keep bringing up the privacy issues of security searching your bag? This guy's initial issue was refusing to have his receipt checked for 2 seconds. Complete waste of time and money.

[d1sc0veryy]

Example: Lastly, what if your mom/dad/whatever owned a small little family store. And then, while working there, you see some guy slip something in his bag. Are you going to ask about it? Of course you would (if you don't, then you're a terrible son/daughter/etc.! :D).

If you SEE someone put something in their bag then of course do something.

Asking EVERYONE to check their bags and receipts is an infringement on civil rights. Next time I go to Best Buy maybe I will try the same thing. If they ask to see my receipt and bag I will just walk over to the returns counters and return whatever I bought.

[Fox2k]

This guy seriously needs to get a life and find some hobbies so he doesn't have to waste his (and everyone else's) time throwing a tantrum over having his receipt checked. If he wants to throw a blanket of blame around he can blame people who do steal from retail stores and make it a reality. Yes, stealing is REALITY, people do it. That means stores need to take MEASURES to prevent people from stealing. If random checks like these were never done, what would stop anybody from taking merchandise and slipping it in to their jackets or bags? Oh, as long as nobody saw me, it's all right. I have rights and since nobody saw me they have no reason to question me. bullsh1t. If he wants to play the racial profiling game or whatever, I hope the court laughs in his face. In my opinion this guy was out to make a scene and now he is getting slapped for it.

To all of you guys defending this person..Why are you crying about your civil rights? In my mind that's rediculous. Theft is a serious problem and stores are doing tehir best to prevent it. All they are asking is your cooperation. This is not turning in to Big Brother, it is simply a matter of loss prevention. Have you guys ever shopped at Costco? Well you might want to stay away from them because they check every single receipt on the way out. Oh my god what a violation of human rights.:rolleyes:

[d1sc0veryy]

Fox2k - the best way to prevent theft is to provide each shopper with a 'security shadow'. As soon as you enter the store you get partnered with a shadow that watches your every move in the store. What do you think of that solution?

You also forget that MOST theft is carried out by EMPLOYEES

[Fox2k]

Fox2k - the best way to prevent theft is to provide each shopper with a 'security shadow'. As soon as you enter the store you get partnered with a shadow that watches your every move in the store. What do you think of that solution?



Hey that's a great idea. Very practical and I'm sure consumers won't mind paying the 1600% markup to cover shadow salaries :D

I also personally feel that having somebody follow me around for the duration of my shopping experience is much less invasive than showing them my receipt on the way out. Maybe they will answer my cell phone for me when it rings, too :D

[d1sc0veryy]

Well Fox - security measures start small and then grow and grow.
Two years ago we did not have to show receipts.
Then today we do and guys like your say "Big deal and play the game"
What hoops will we have to jump through in two more years?
Think about it.

[Fox2k]

Well Fox - security measures start small and then grow and grow.
Two years ago we did not have to show receipts.
Then today we do and guys like your say "Big deal and play the game"
What hoops will we have to jump through in two more years?
Think about it.

I will be happy to give my opinion on future loss prevention methods when they come about, however I can say that to date I have never been subjected to any loss prveention methods which I felt were unfair, unwarranted, or violated my rights in any way. I would, however, like to turn the tables and ask you what you feel would be a reasoanble approach to solving the problem of consumer theft (not employee theft). Do you think it would be reasonable to ask every electornics store to take one of the following measures with every single product they stock:
- Wrap it with an alarm spider
- Place it in an acrylic protective case
- Store it behind a locked cabinet
- Store it in an area which requires a lift / ladder to access

Surely this would be a reasonable way to ensure that no merchandise is stolen, and customers receipts would then not need to be checked as the customers are exiting the stores, right?


As a side note, I would like to mention that I worked at Business Depot for a number of years and I am very much aware of the strain that anti-shrink measures place on the store itself. When the store I worked at introduced spiders and acrylic cases, the time requried to stock shelves increased enormously. Of course our priority was helping customers, so that means that shelves were not properly stocked a lot of the time on high shrink items (memory cards, networking supplies, etc) because we simply didnt have the time to properly secure merchandise between helping customers during peak periods of the day. The percentage of merchandise which we had to secure (in the computer department) was less than 5%. Imagine if we had had to secure every single item we put on the shelf? I cna guarantee that prices would have skyrocketed to make up for the extra shifts that would be required from employees to stock shelves.

I am not trying to defend large corporations by blindly bending over and saying 'yes sir' to everything they do. All I am trying to do is convey my opinion that I have not seen anything in that blog which indicates that any of the people involved (with the exception of the customer) did anything unreasonable:
- The store employee took a routine measure and requested to see a receipt to ensure that nothing was taken. If you would like a logical proof that this action was reasonable, then here it is, but only because I'm bored (not bored enough to give store employees a hard time though hah): Stores experience shrink. Shrink is not entirely caused by employees. This implies that customers play a role in shrink. This person was walking out of the store with a bag, therefore he is a customer. it is therefore reasonble to assume that there is a possibility this customer might have played a role in shrink.

- The manager stopped the customer from leaving the premesis after he had been given good reason (in my opinion, refusing a receipt check is a good indication of guilt) to susppect that something had been stolen.

- The officer arrested the individual for interfering with his routine duties.

Can you imagine if every citizen acted this way? Nothing would get done! Police forces would spend all of their time driving from store to store and playing arbitrator between store managers and stubborn customers! :confused:

[Ziggy007]

Before all these threads and discussion started, I didn't even know I could refuse to show my receipt, and quite frankly I tend to agree with the moral principle of sticking up for your rights, thought I don't like that it needs to escalate so far (police involvement) just to exercise those rights.

I personally don't like the indirect accusation of checking my bags / receipt for theft.

Like the blog author, I feel bad for stores dealing with shoplifting, but they need to find methods which are non-invasive on my rights / privacy to do it.

[Nikita]

Its not like this is a start to some diabolical plan starting with receipt and bag checking then leading to body cavity searches...

You're right, there's no plan whatsoever, there's just this slippery slope that is even more evil in that we acquiesce to just this little bit (because after all it is just a little bit and will save everyone the time and aggravation)...then just a little bit more...and then more...until...well the following posts illustrate...



We just had a thread about a guy who wouldn't show his receipt at Tiger and it seemed the popular opinion was he was being a jerk and should have shown his receipt.

Now it's show your receipt and check the bags but there are a many still saying he was a jerk, just show the receipt and let them check your bags.

If the next one is about someone who was asked to show the receipt, check the bags and a check of purses and any other bags they came in with, is everyone still ok with that? It is their store right? They are only trying to prevent shoplifting by checking everyone, that helps us all right?

And if they only kept you a few seconds and you haven't done anything wrong, then what would be the problem with checking the receipt, checking your bags/purses and asking you to empty your pockets? If you haven't done anything wrong then why not go along with it? They are just trying to prevent shoplifting, you could have easily put something in your pocket.

Well Fox - security measures start small and then grow and grow.
Two years ago we did not have to show receipts.
Then today we do and guys like your say "Big deal and play the game"
What hoops will we have to jump through in two more years?
Think about it.

[hooch]

You also forget that MOST theft is carried out by EMPLOYEES

Thank you! That is indeed the primary reason why they check receipts at the door. It's not that the "company" distrusts customers, though that can always be argued, but that they have a certain amount of distrust of their employees.

Employees will sometimes enlist a mule, who will work with them, picking out items, and then the clerk will pretend to scan them as the mule checks out. This happens more times than the companies would like to admit. In verifying the customer isn't shoplifting is only secondary, as a shoplifter wouldn't even necessairily buy something, and the store has other ways of identifying shoplifters.

[VorteC]

I don't care how much legal right he has, it doesn't make him any less of a doucheface

[Peckerwood]

doesnt that alarm chiming say that the product was not desensitized, either the store clerk made the mistake or someone is shoplifting. in any case the store has a right to stop that particular person. they arent going after that person per se, they just want to clear up any possible confusion (ie store clerk forgeting to desensitize).
The problem is that I myself have had the stupid alarm go off even after not purchasing a thing...I have seen it go off when nobody was near it(20ft away). It even goes off when the people take their purchases to the Customer Service Desk...which is right next to it.

It is broken and they refuse to fix it...another reason why I ignore it. And as far as I am concerned. I will not have myself searched simply out of the negligence of their own staff to "demagnetize" their stickers. I am not at fault for their own lax maintenance of their policies.

[gordholio]

Our privacy and rights are being eroded, especially after 9/11.
That said, the guy shouldn't have made it into a big deal - he should have just showed his receipt and got on with his business.
If it's something major, then make an issue of it, but this was not something major to make a big deal out of.

I used to work at Wal-Mart and the door alarm would go off every 5 minutes or so. It was annoying to me and I'm sure to the customers.

[Takada]

So you guys would rather a store like Costco, install tons of cameras and have detectors at the door, while letting the costs pass on to us just so you don't lose your rights over someone checking your receipt? You do realize that cameras and detectors can be argued to be "treating everyone like a criminal"?

[Nikita]

You know, this is retail. The consumer has all the power here. It's not up to me, nor am I interested, in finding ways that the retailer can recoup losses from shrink in a manner that doesn't infringe my rights. I simply choose to shop elsewhere where my rights aren't infringed. If enough people did the same, these companies would find ways to do business in a reasonable manner....just like the stores that DON'T check receipts, which is about 99% of them. If the vast majority of retailers don't feel the need to intrude on the rights of their customers, why do we have so many people here saying it's necessary? It is NOT necessary! Nor is it necessary for me to say what they should do instead! Like I said, I'll take my business to a store that it's actually easy to shop in and the shopping experience is completely enjoyable and hassle-free.

[NiMSo]

I still can't believe the number of people who are defending this guy's actions...

Oh... crying about "rights" and crap!!! Give me a break! You call that a significant violation of privacy??? Then if you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

As some people have already stated, the guy acted like a complete jerk when it was rather unnecessary. I have no respect for that, and labeling him any kind of "hero" is just dumb. It was not a big deal in the first place, but he turned it into one.

[yao416]

I still can't believe the number of people who are defending this guy's actions...

Oh... crying about "rights" and crap!!! Give me a break! You call that a significant violation of privacy??? Then if you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

As some people have already stated, the guy acted like a complete jerk when it was rather unnecessary. I have no respect for that, and labeling him any kind of "hero" is just dumb. It was not a big deal in the first place, but he turned it into one.

Atleast he got the guts to argue, not like you ;)
He is my hero

[NiMSo]

Atleast he got the guts to argue, not like you ;)
He is my hero

More like stupidity than guts...

If he is your hero, then I pity you. :razz:

[hooch]

If the vast majority of retailers don't feel the need to intrude on the rights of their customers, why do we have so many people here saying it's necessary? It is NOT necessary! Nor is it necessary for me to say what they should do instead! Like I said, I'll take my business to a store that it's actually easy to shop in and the shopping experience is completely enjoyable and hassle-free.

I don't think you can extend what works for one store, or one class of store and apply it to all stores. However, I do agree with you in that everyone has the power to influence stores by the power of their wallet. For those that find receipt checking a violation of their rights and want to protest, just don't shop at that store.

[yao416]

More like stupidity than guts...

If he is your hero, then I pity you. :razz:

That's a no no

[dealtaker]

I still can't believe the number of people who are defending this guy's actions...

Oh... crying about "rights" and crap!!! Give me a break! You call that a significant violation of privacy??? Then if you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

As some people have already stated, the guy acted like a complete jerk when it was rather unnecessary. I have no respect for that, and labeling him any kind of "hero" is just dumb. It was not a big deal in the first place, but he turned it into one.

Walk this way blind sheep.
bah bah

[M@rk]

This is what happens when people try to assert their rights just for the sake of it. Sure, he may be legally correct, but he was acting like an ass in a situation that did not warrant it, and now he's going to have to waste a bunch of time, energy, and legal fees, regardless of whether he was correct in the first place.

[Cyber6]

As some people have already stated, the guy acted like a complete jerk when it was rather unnecessary. I have no respect for that, and labeling him any kind of "hero" is just dumb. It was not a big deal in the first place, but he turned it into one.

I agree that he went overboard. I believe he is getting ready to sue CC and get a juicy "settlement".

There is a limit for everything thou. If I get asked to show my receipt, I have no problem... BUT if they ask to check my purse/backpack/pockets, they better have a picture of me stealing something or they can go and kiss my a.s.s. :D

C.

[i6s1]

I'm fully on the customer's side.

Checking receipts at the door is a useless activity that only alienates customers. Do they really think that someone is going to pay for their stuff, and then somehow steal something between the checkout and the door - which is usually only a few meters, and usually doesn't have any merchandise? And if they wanted to steal something, they'd put it in the bag when they know a receipt check is coming? The only purpose that the check serves is to waste customer's time.

[express.items]

I'm fully on the customer's side.

Checking receipts at the door is a useless activity that only alienates customers. Do they really think that someone is going to pay for their stuff, and then somehow steal something between the checkout and the door - which is usually only a few meters, and usually doesn't have any merchandise? And if they wanted to steal something, they'd put it in the bag when they know a receipt check is coming? The only purpose that the check serves is to waste customer's time.

+1

[Cheap]

So it turns from: "As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”"

I understand the privacy of a bag, but he didn't want to give up the privacy of his RECEIPT? Did I miss something?

Yes. The next request from the store staff only a few more lines down in the story was to show the contents of the bag as well as the receipt before they could leave the parking lot. Granted the initial request was only for the receipt, it was the store employees that escalated the demands. They based this on what? A customer who doesn't want to show his receipt is a criminal? What if the customer was deaf or didn't understand english? What if the customer thought the person at the exit was trying to get them to sign up for a credit card or conducting a survey?

Staples puts things on their products as someone said, taking up much time, etc, etc. Positioning someone at the exit takes all the time of several employees (to cover all shifts, breaks and lunches). I don't see any difference except in the way that Staples deploys their resources. As well as being more agreeable to me, the Staples way means that employees can perform this function when there are times with few/no customers in the store, but can focus on customers when it is busy. The guard at the door is pretty much there the whole time.

Employees do steal and they may have mules or whatever, so if you are concerned your employees are stealing then put the security guards at the checkout to watch out over everyone. If the guards at the exit don't match the purchases on the receipt to the contents of the bag, then how are you actually catching these mules?

Costco requires membership. You pay a fee and agree to the conditions. It is not the same as a retail store. This isn't about some guy who agreed to have the receipt checked under Costco's agreement and then refused out of principal. The Costco analogy is worthless in this case.

I understand that it is no big deal to show the receipt, I think almost all us would agree on that one. Some of us are simply trying to point out the consequences of giving up your rights. It seems the people who are loudest about this guy being a jerk and its all no big deal are very quiet about answering relevant questions. At what point would you object to a search (receipt/bags/purse/manbag/backpack/pockets)? No, I am not talking about cavity searches or anything that would require taking you somewhere private, all this could easily be done at the store exit. Is there a time limit that you would wait, or allow them to search you? And finally, if you answered these questions, what makes you think you should have the authority to decide anything? It's their store, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they feel is necessary to prevent stealing?

[Peckerwood]

The more times people capitulate to this type of policy, then the more times they will continue to use it...to the point of a violation of privacy next.

If enough people cause enough trouble for the store, then they will drop the policy as a warrantless cost of manhours and money. Otherwise they will maintain it in a vain attempt to scare people from stealing(which I highly doubt it does anyway to a determined thief)

[brute33]

i think this is his email......

paypal@michaelrighi.com

he wants donations..yeah i'll give him my 2 cents!:razz:

[Canuck_2005]

I havent read this whole thread, but I will add my 2 cents based on another's post.

Lets say you are at a pharmacy like shoppers drug mart, and they have security checking contents at the exit doors. What if you havesome disease which caries a harsh social stigma like aids or something and they demand to see your recipet. The pharmacist may be bound to privacy laws but is the security guard?

I definitly do not agree with this. If you are a lawful citizen who they have no suspsion of wrong doing then they are impeding on your rights.

One thing i wonder tho, do they have a sign at the entrance of the store stating you will be subject to seaches?

[blahblohblah]

Peckerwood - I agree

Do you think a real thief would get scared by this?
A real thief would not buy anything and therefore not not get stopped by the 'receipt check'

[express.items]

I havent read this whole thread, but I will add my 2 cents based on another's post.

Lets say you are at a pharmacy like shoppers drug mart, and they have security checking contents at the exit doors. What if you havesome disease which caries a harsh social stigma like aids or something and they demand to see your recipet. The pharmacist may be bound to privacy laws but is the security guard?

I definitly do not agree with this. If you are a lawful citizen who they have no suspsion of wrong doing then they are impeding on your rights.

One thing i wonder tho, do they have a sign at the entrance of the store stating you will be subject to seaches?

+1

[rdtx2002]

sounds like that Canada Computers story a while back.

[dougi3000]

One thing i wonder tho, do they have a sign at the entrance of the store stating you will be subject to seaches?

I don't know about you, but my local futureshops DO have a sign. :)
I believe superstore has a sign too. Other stores might but I don't pay much attention, because it is ridiculous to even care it is a fricken receipt. geeeezzz..........

[woodstock827]

correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a store employee or security detain a person until police arrives if they suspect the person for stealing?

[i6s1]

correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a store employee or security detain a person until police arrives if they suspect the person for stealing?

Yes, they can, but they need to accuse the person of shoplifting, which opens them up to a lawsuit if the person was not shoplifting.

Refusing a reciept check or causing the sirens to go off is NOT cause enough to accuse someone. The sirens can go off from a cashier not removing or deactivating a security tag.

My ex worked "Loss Prevention" at a major dept store for a while. Store policy was in order for them to detain someone, they had to wittness someone taking merchandise and leaving the store. This basically makes it impossible for them to get sued. Stores are far more afraid of lawsuits then theft, so this is practically every store's policy too.

One story she told, they knew a person had stolen clothes because they found tags in a changeroom, but nobody had actually seen him take the clothes. She followed the guy around the mall, and saw him pocket a pop at the doller store. When he left the mall, security busted him. The clothes in his car were worth thousands, and it turned out to be the highest value bust that the store had, and without the pop, they would have let him leave.

[Noob1ee]

What's wrong with protecting one's own privacy and rights? How's that being a jerk or a douchebag?

And for those who think it's just a little check, a few seconds of your life, blah blah...you guys ever heard of the old saying that goes "Give Them An Inch And They'll Take A Mile"?

The point here is not the time it takes to check, it's the principle of infringing one's privacy.

[express.items]

What's wrong with protecting one's own privacy and rights? How's that being a jerk or a douchebag?

And for those who think it's just a little check, a few seconds of your life, blah blah...you guys ever heard of the old saying that goes "Give Them An Inch And They'll Take A Mile"?

The point here is not the time it takes to check, it's the principle of infringing one's privacy.

+1

[YnD]

Every situation is different... but to my knowledge... as soon as the "person" leaves the store... the security guard has the right to pursue if suspicion arises... if its done in the store...then false imprisonment would apply...

[Mighty Mouse]

Here's My two cents as well.

Personally I don't think these store should be allowwed to stop people going out the door. Especially when they do not check everyone. Which can be argued can seem to be borderline discrimination.

However I don't think this type checks, of reciept and pruchases work. For, instance I was in costco over the christmas and there was tons of traffic with people coming and going. While I was there I heard, they had problems with people who were able to steal big ticked items.

From a consumer stand-point, I dont think it leads to less cost passed down to customers. As mention earlier in this post, employees are big factor in products being stolen.

Furthermore, these stores should be only checking people who they have a good reason to be suspect.

[Takada]

Yes. The next request from the store staff only a few more lines down in the story was to show the contents of the bag as well as the receipt before they could leave the parking lot.

Costco requires membership. You pay a fee and agree to the conditions. It is not the same as a retail store. This isn't about some guy who agreed to have the receipt checked under Costco's agreement and then refused out of principal. The Costco analogy is worthless in this case.

That's nice and all, but my problem was that a lot of people in this topic as well as Digg, etc. are defending him because they think that he is a crusader for privacy rights. He initially refused to show HIS RECEIPT, not his BAG. His intention was NOT to fight for his privacy rights. I just wanted to clear that up.

Oh, so I guess since Costco charges for membership, they can subdue their customers to whatever they want unlike every other retail establishment. How nice. So I'm guessing if Costco wanted to start searching you bag, you'd be fine with it since you paid for membership.

"...but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused. I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today."

Yeah, he reluctantly understands having to show weapon permits. He's just the type to blow something up out of nothing. You guys say that if they start with receipts now, what will they do next? What about the cameras in stores, and many other establishments? What about detectors in stores? Isn't that suspecting everyone is a criminal? Don't you feel even MORE violated by someone watching you?

And Mighty Mouse:

"Furthermore, these stores should be only checking people who they have a good reason to be suspect.

Especially when they do not check everyone. Which can be argued can seem to be borderline discrimination."

You just explained why they don't do that.

[Noob1ee]

He initially refused to show HIS RECEIPT, not his BAG. His intention was NOT to fight for his privacy rights. I just wanted to clear that up.

By asking to show the receipt, that implies that eventually the bag will be searched. If not, may I ask what is the point of showing just the receipt?


Oh, so I guess since Costco charges for membership, they can subdue their customers to whatever they want unlike every other retail establishment. How nice. So I'm guessing if Costco wanted to start searching you bag, you'd be fine with it since you paid for membership.


By obtaining a membership, you agree to the fact that you will be searched and that you are required to show receipt. If you're not fine with that, then don't shop there, simple as that.

[Takada]

By asking to show the receipt, that implies that eventually the bag will be searched. If not, may I ask what is the point of showing just the receipt?



By obtaining a membership, you agree to the fact that you will be searched and that you are required to show receipt. If you're not fine with that, then don't shop there, simple as that.

No, it doesn't. Go to Best Buy. Buy something. Flash your receipt. Get out. Simple. It's there so a thief can't walk out with a mini TV in a previously acquired bag from the store. Stores don't implement this policy for no reason except to piss off 1% of their customers you know.

And about Costco, I was trying to say that besides the legal issues, the principles being argued about are the same, which is what people seem to be widely mad about: not being treated like a criminal and privacy.

[Ziggy007]

I havent read this whole thread, but I will add my 2 cents based on another's post.

Lets say you are at a pharmacy like shoppers drug mart, and they have security checking contents at the exit doors. What if you havesome disease which caries a harsh social stigma like aids or something and they demand to see your recipet. The pharmacist may be bound to privacy laws but is the security guard?

I definitly do not agree with this. If you are a lawful citizen who they have no suspsion of wrong doing then they are impeding on your rights.

One thing i wonder tho, do they have a sign at the entrance of the store stating you will be subject to seaches?

Regardless of having a sign or not, it does not give any store the right to supercede your government defined rights.

That is like putting up a sign saying "All trespassers will be shot" and thinking you are a-ok to shoot trespassers because you had your dinky little sign up.

You are protected by consumerist laws which allow you to enter a store, and purchase goods. Once those goods have been purchased and handed to you, they are yours to do with as you please, which includes not showing them to whatever random checks a store wants to do.

[bionicbadger]

correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a store employee or security detain a person until police arrives if they suspect the person for stealing?

Yes, but they didn't accuse him of stealing anything. False accusation/detention could be grounds for a lawsuit.

One thing i wonder tho, do they have a sign at the entrance of the store stating you will be subject to seaches?

Having a sign saying you will be searched doesn't mean anything. There is no legal acceptance or obligation by a person walking by a sign that they agree to those terms.

[Noob1ee]

No, it doesn't. Go to Best Buy. Buy something. Flash your receipt. Get out. Simple. It's there so a thief can't walk out with a mini TV in a previously acquired bag from the store.

I don't see the point in that. That's why there are security alarms. If the thief manages to acquire a bag in advance, there is also a chance of him acquiring a copy of the receipt in advance.

But I guess it depends on the situation.

[Setz]

I think proof of receipt isn't good enough. Imagine the scenario below:

Guy walks into a Walmart, goes to electronics, buys a DVD. Goes back in electronics, grabs the same item, hide original item; leave store. If the buzzer goes off, he flashes receipt, everything is smooth. Returns at a later time to refund DVD. Profits are 1 DVD and money back.

Stopping someone to ask for a receipt is an uneffective way at stopping theft.

[Sheky]

Somewhere in Ohio, a lawyer has a grin from ear to ear.

I hope the guy gets a nice pay out.

[express.items]

I think proof of receipt isn't good enough. Imagine the scenario below:

Guy walks into a Walmart, goes to electronics, buys a DVD. Goes back in electronics, grabs the same item, hide original item; leave store. If the buzzer goes off, he flashes receipt, everything is smooth. Returns at a later time to refund DVD. Profits are 1 DVD and money back.

Stopping someone to ask for a receipt is an uneffective way at stopping theft.

+1

he could leave, put dvd in car, go back to walmart and get another dvd heh

[j3fan]

http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/

So am I the only person that thinks this guy acted like a complete douche hole over something every Circuit City/Best Buy/Guitarcenter does every time you leave?

This reminds me of a story I read some where.

umm, circuit city doesn't do that in Seattle. Best buy lo doesn't do that here as well except if you placed an online order for in-store pickup. Costco does this though. The guy just wasted so much of his time, if he didn't do anything wrong, he should have let circuit city examine the receipt.

[Peckerwood]

if he didn't do anything wrong, he should have let circuit city examine the receipt.
If he didn't do anything wrong then why does the company feel it so necessary to violate his privacy.

Sorry but the whole"if he didn't do anything wrong" BS doesn't wash with me...that is just another reason to violate rights.

"If you haven't done anything wrong then you won't mind the security personnel doing a complete pocket search."

"If you haven't done anything wrong then you won't mind the security personnel doing a strip search."

"If you haven't done anything wrong then you won't mind the security personnel doing a cavity search."

The way I see it, if you aren't doing anything wrong then your rights are still paramount...violating rights to go on a fishing expedition is still wrong no matter what way you try to paint it.

http://usera.imagecave.com/peckerwood/security_fence.jpg

[hooch]

If he didn't do anything wrong then why does the company feel it so necessary to violate his privacy.

Sorry but the whole"if he didn't do anything wrong" BS doesn't wash with me...that is just another reason to violate rights.

I agree that the "If he didn't do anything wrong" stuff isn't valid. It's like in the US, pleading the fifth does not mean guilt.

I think part of the issue though, is IS the customer willing to offer having the bag searched in order to help curb theft. And no, not shoplifters, but employee theft. Which also, in turn helps prevent (or at least slow) the cost of products going up to accomodate shrinkage.

Yes, other stores don't do it. Most stores don't do it. And for each product you buy, you do pay extra to cover shrinkage. (That's true for all stores, receipt checkers or not.)

But no one is forcing a customer to shop there. Would you be willing to accept it at least where the store places placards about what will happen, and if the customer wants to buy something, they're agreeing to those procedures? (Much like Costco has a membership agreement.) If a store makes those policies plain, would that be okay? They're not forcing anyone to shop at their store, and everyone knows what they're getting into, what's wrong with that? If people as a whole voluntairily decide to give up some (or most, or all) of their privacy, where's the conflict?

[nickia]

Ｓｅｅｉｎｇ　ｓｏｍｅ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｒｅｐｌｉｅｓ　ｆｒｏｍ　ｔｈｅ　ｔｈｒｅａｄ　ｍａｋｅ　ｍｅ 　ｒｅａｌｉｚｅ　ｔｈａｔ　ｗｈｙ　ｗｏｕｌｄ　ｄｉｃｔａｔｏｒｓｈｉｐ　ｗｏｒｋ．　Ｐｅｏｐｌｅ　 ｌｉｋｅ　ｓｏｍｅ　ｏｆ　ｙｏｕ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｓｕｒｒｅｎｄｅｒ　ｙｏｕｒ　ｒｉｇｈｔｓ　ａｎｄ　ｂｅ ｎｄ　ｄｏｗｎ　ｔｏ　ｔｈｅ　ａｕｔｈｏｒｉｔｙ，　ｗｈａｔ　ａ　ｓｈａｍｅ．

[Ojam]

It's really sad how many people here are willing to just give up basic rights of privacy because it appears easier then the feared alternative.

[hooch]

It's really sad how many people here are willing to just give up basic rights of privacy because it appears easier then the feared alternative.

I don't have a problem with people being willing to give up their rights, so long as they are given the option to give up their rights, and are informed about it and it is that where I personally would draw the line.

If someone wants to give up the right to privacy of their shopping bag while shopping at CC, I say more power to them! They made their choice and living by it. But I would like to make sure that the option is there. I would not be one to force them to fight for their rights, as I see that as just as much an imposition on their rights (as in right to make choices for themselves) as it would be to force them to be subject to a search.

Though, I do agree that most people won't at least question what's going on so that they're aware of what they're giving up. :(

[grant]

I don't care how much legal right he has, it doesn't make him any less of a doucheface
boy you people sure are cranky.

You act like this guy kicked your puppy or something.

[hardcandy1911]

UPDATE:

TigerDirect does this in woodbine, old fart stopped me and asked me for the receipt, I didnt at first but then my g/f was waiting for me in the car, anyways I asked him he doesnt have the right to ask for it, he gave me a BS excuse, lol.

[bionicbadger]

I'm pretty sure costco can get away with this because you need to buy a membership to shop there. They could just cancel your membership and stop you from shopping there again if you refuse to cooperate.

[YnD]

It's really sad how many people here are willing to just give up basic rights of privacy because it appears easier then the feared alternative.

Cause there are those little scavenger punks that actually steal... like the one in this video....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4aVbDpXd7A0

or this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jvzkBirRnnc&mode=related&search=

And then they cry about their rights afterwards.. this guy was a baby... but you can see hes a punk.... deserves this too...

[awais]

basically as i see it... the guy had a point of not showing the receipt.. its almost like saying that if im studying at the library and decide to check my email and the librarian comes by and asks me if she can check what im doing on the computer or who im emailing because I could be doing some illegal stuff on the computer.. would you allow that? no you wouldn't because you know that your email is private and no one has the right to see it so why would you allow someone to check your bag.. the contents in the bag are your private items as well...

[YnD]

basically as i see it... the guy had a point of not showing the receipt.. its almost like saying that if im studying at the library and decide to check my email and the librarian comes by and asks me if she can check what im doing on the computer or who im emailing because I could be doing some illegal stuff on the computer.. would you allow that? no you wouldn't because you know that your email is private and no one has the right to see it so why would you allow someone to check your bag.. the contents in the bag are your private items as well...

Close..but your analogy cannot work in this situation...

Because the emails would belong to you in the first place... there's no transfer of responsibility....

In a retail store... the items belong to the store until purchased... at the time of purchase you get a receipt...

Showing the receipt when asked is your proof of purchase...

[i6s1]

Close..but your analogy cannot work in this situation...

Because the emails would belong to you in the first place... there's no transfer of responsibility....

In a retail store... the items belong to the store until purchased... at the time of purchase you get a receipt...

Showing the receipt when asked is your proof of purchase...

No, once you hand them the money, you own the items in the bag, the bag, and the receipt. You have no obligation to show any of your possessions to anyone, even if the person asking is wearing a plastic badge.

[Kasakato]

Close..but your analogy cannot work in this situation...

Because the emails would belong to you in the first place... there's no transfer of responsibility....

In a retail store... the items belong to the store until purchased... at the time of purchase you get a receipt...

Showing the receipt when asked is your proof of purchase...

Would you show me the hard disk from the computer I sold you a year ago? Its proof of purchase as I sign the hard disk when I sell a computer. This is basically what Circuit City is asking to do.

[Ojam]

Cause there are those little scavenger punks that actually steal... like the one in this video....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4aVbDpXd7A0

or this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jvzkBirRnnc&mode=related&search=

And then they cry about their rights afterwards.. this guy was a baby... but you can see hes a punk.... deserves this too...

Your reply had nothing at all to do with what I said.

[tlamm]

Would you show me the hard disk from the computer I sold you a year ago? Its proof of purchase as I sign the hard disk when I sell a computer. This is basically what Circuit City is asking to do.

Not even a close comparison. You’re a year late and looking for a file. He was a minute latter and they were looking for the piece of paper they gave him 60 seconds ago.

If he really wanted to make a point he should have showed his receipt, then gone back inside and returned everything.

[Turge]

Who cares if he was supposed to show the receipt or not. He left the store.

If he walked outside, do they really have a right to make him show them the receipt or not? Are they allowed to prevent a car with 4 people in it from leaving even without any reason or proof that he stole anything? How far can they go? Are they allowed to punch the driver in the face if, let's say, he refused to stay?:cheesygri

[Kasakato]

Not even a close comparison. You’re a year late and looking for a file. He was a minute latter and they were looking for the piece of paper they gave him 60 seconds ago.

If he really wanted to make a point he should have showed his receipt, then gone back inside and returned everything.
Time is irrelevant. Best Buy could stop him on his next trip there and ask to see a receipt. The statue of limitation is not 1 year.

Who cares if he was supposed to show the receipt or not. He left the store.

If he walked outside, do they really have a right to make him show them the receipt or not? Are they allowed to prevent a car with 4 people in it from leaving even without any reason or proof that he stole anything? How far can they go? Are they allowed to punch the driver in the face if, let's say, he refused to stay?:cheesygri
No, they do not have the legal right. The civil rights of America prevent such a thing. Punching a guy in the face in almost any case will land you with an assault charge. Punching is not likely to be found as "reasonable."

[squall458]

First, for costco, you cannot buy anything without a membership (giftcards too) so checking for non members is not why they do it. Second, time is relevant...this is self explanatory..seriously.....if they asked for the receipt days later, that's just crazy, 30 seconds after you check out is understandable and fair. And for rights, what rights? You decided to walk into the store, you wanted the item, and you decided to pay for it. Therefore, you accept all the policies the store lays out. Now if it was a new policy and you did not know about it, fine, but all types of stores do this. The point is that he could have stood up for his right, sure go ahead, but its about timing. Why that day when a BDAY was involved, ppl were waiting etc.

[surge]

Who cares if he was supposed to show the receipt or not. He left the store.

If he walked outside, do they really have a right to make him show them the receipt or not? Are they allowed to prevent a car with 4 people in it from leaving even without any reason or proof that he stole anything? How far can they go? Are they allowed to punch the driver in the face if, let's say, he refused to stay?:cheesygri

Which is why hes going to get off scott free and then countersue successfully. Btw, nice ripoff of my name... just going 1 letter down in the alphabet on the first letter eh?:lol:

[Turge]

Which is why hes going to get off scott free and then countersue successfully. Btw, nice ripoff of my name... just going 1 letter down in the alphabet on the first letter eh?:lol:

You wish. :razz:

[Kasakato]

First, for costco, you cannot buy anything without a membership (giftcards too) so checking for non members is not why they do it. Second, time is relevant...this is self explanatory..seriously.....if they asked for the receipt days later, that's just crazy, 30 seconds after you check out is understandable and fair. And for rights, what rights? You decided to walk into the store, you wanted the item, and you decided to pay for it. Therefore, you accept all the policies the store lays out. Now if it was a new policy and you did not know about it, fine, but all types of stores do this. The point is that he could have stood up for his right, sure go ahead, but its about timing. Why that day when a BDAY was involved, ppl were waiting etc.

In terms of law, time is irrelevant. They could have asked to check when ever they wanted, up to the maximum of the statue in the US. Every Canadian has the right to not be subject to unlawful search and seizure, in the US its the same case, these are his "rights". The guy never officially agreed to any policy when he entered the store, he just entered, and accepted any laws that may apply there, a receipt check is not one of them. When Circuit City went and asked to see his receipt, he refused which he is legally allowed to do as there is no law that prohibits such. The man proceeded to walk out the store, something else which is legal. When he entered the car the manager stood in front of his car, something the guy charged the manager for. Simply put, the guy in this story did not violate any law. The cop charged him for "Obstructing official business," I highly doubt this charge will stick as the person being obstructed would have to be conducing "lawful duties."

[Bell Rep]

I didnt read the posts that everyone made but this is my 2 cent

He said that he dont regret it but regret the part where his family was crying hard when he could have prevented that anytime but chose not to but chose to be a hard head for no reason. Yes he knows his rights wow but would you rather go through all that hassle over nothing when he couldve just shown the bag and leave but nooooo. Oh and the police officer asked for his driver licenses for identification purposes it didnt have to be his driver licenses but that the most common thing to ask for when needing id.

I really think this guy deserves being arrested just for being a hard headed dumb ass.

Then again thats my 2 cent

[Kasakato]

I didnt read the posts that everyone made but this is my 2 cent

He said that he dont regret it but regret the part where his family was crying hard when he could have prevented that anytime but chose not to but chose to be a hard head for no reason. Yes he knows his rights wow but would you rather go through all that hassle over nothing when he couldve just shown the bag and leave but nooooo. Oh and the police officer asked for his driver licenses for identification purposes it didnt have to be his driver licenses but that the most common thing to ask for when needing id.

I really think this guy deserves being arrested just for being a hard headed dumb ass.

Then again thats my 2 cent

FWIW, the man decided to use his rights, big deal. State law does not require him to hand over a drivers license as he was walking on the sidewalk. What if he didn't have one? Sadly, being a general dumb ass is not illegal.

[Bell Rep]

FWIW, the man decided to use his rights, big deal. State law does not require him to hand over a drivers license as he was walking on the sidewalk. What if he didn't have one? Sadly, being a general dumb ass is not illegal.

The point is that he gave an impression that he did have a driver license on him. Yes being a dumb ass is not illegal but thats what got him into this whole situation and couldve easily been avoided.

[Nikita]

Wow, how did the Statute of Limitations find its way into this conversation? The S of L ONLY relates to the time between when a crime was committed and how long after that crime a person can be charged and prosecuted. Has nothing whatsoever to do with a private store exercising a search.

[Kasakato]

Wow, how did the Statute of Limitations find its way into this conversation? The S of L ONLY relates to the time between when a crime was committed and how long after that crime a person can be charged and prosecuted. Has nothing whatsoever to do with a private store exercising a search.

If not showing a receipt was illegal, the store could stop the man the next time he attempted to leave, however limited by the statue of limitations in the US. The point is if it was illegal, 30 seconds or 3 months is irrelevant.

[Nikita]

The point is if it was illegal, 30 seconds or 3 months is irrelevant.

It has no relevance under any circumstances, the store is not an agent of the state and the S of L is only relevant to a crime committed that engages the state e.g. police action or the criminal system. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding what you're getting at.

[grant]

I didnt read the posts that everyone made but this is my 2 cent
You must be a brilliant rep... "i don't care what anyone else said, i just wanna talk, blah blah blah"

[Bell Rep]

You must be a brilliant rep... "i don't care what anyone else said, i just wanna talk, blah blah blah"

Thats why I stated its just my 2 cents nothing more, its didnt need a reply

[dark169]

what would happen if you tell the cashier that you dont want a receipt? :lol:

A person being accused of theft doesn't have to prove ownership, the accuser needs to prove theft. I don't need a receipt to own something.

The guy could have saved himself some hardship but good on him for sticking up for something he felt he was right.

Would all the "if he didn't do anything wrong, whats the problem" crowd feel comfortable having your drivers license scanned into a store data base on entering a store? Its a security measure, surely if you have nothing to hide why not? Or how about mandatory biometrics on credit cards to prevent fraud?

How about having your finger prints/dna one record at birth? Chip in your arm, bar code on your forehead. Its all for security, increased profits and the greater good...

Once someone says "if you didn't do anything wrong, whats the problem" they've lost all creditability and I feel sorry for them, they blindly give up rights that people have/would die for, all because it makes some company a little more money.

[Bell Rep]

Once someone says "if you didn't do anything wrong, whats the problem" they've lost all creditability and I feel sorry for them, they blindly give up rights that people have/would die for, all because it makes some company a little more money.

That goes for everyone including you

[singhownethu]

Lol. Making a big deal of something very stupid.

This is PART of their policies, comply or shop somewhere else, simple as that

[Peckerwood]

Lol. Making a big deal of something very stupid.

This is PART of their policies, comply or shop somewhere else, simple as that
Who cares if it is part of their policies...just because it is a store policy doesn't make it legal.

Without a viable contract between the store and the customer detailing the permissed violation of such privacy rules, then the Charter still trumps...period...full stop.

[masterhapposai]

Who cares if it is part of their policies...just because it is a store policy doesn't make it legal.

Without a viable contract between the store and the customer detailing the permissed violation of such privacy rules, then the Charter still trumps...period...full stop.

Charter's there for a reason, to stop the mentally ******** retail employees from anal cavity searching young women for pure enjoyment.

[dark169]

That goes for everyone including you

very true, and I make a point never to blame someone for their actions on the idea of "if he did nothing wrong whats the problem".

To the policy thing, I was unaware I needed to read and agree to any store policy prior to entering and I'm pretty sure that a store open to the public can't force such a policy onto you. What if a store had a policy not to serve Asians/Jews/handicapped/blonds, if you dont like it shop somewhere else, see how stupid that sounds but its exactly the same thing, a store policy can't trump legal rights/requirements.

Couldn't a store have a policy and/or a sign that demands all customers pay $50 before leaving the store and have a cage full of the cheap-skates over in the corner...:lol:

[Nikita]

Charter's there for a reason, to stop the mentally ******** retail employees from anal cavity searching young women for pure enjoyment.

Umm no, the Charter has far more important and further reaching implications than that and it's meant to protect the weakest of our society. You've simplified the Charter to a ridiculous extreme and shown you know little if anything about such an important constitutional document. You've also insulted mentally challenged people by assuming their all a**holes and stupid.

[Peckerwood]

Charter's there for a reason, to stop the mentally ******** retail employees from anal cavity searching young women for pure enjoyment.
Charter stops A**holes from searching a**holes

Gotcha

[Ziggy007]

To those of you who think the receipt check is fine because:

a) If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, and
b) A store needs to protect its goods

Imagine this scenario, say in 10 years, they set up x-ray scanners you had to walk through, allowing them to see through your clothes for any potential stolen goods, would you accept this kind of search?

What if a store wanted some fingerprints off you as you walked in, just in case they would need to clear your name from a possible future shoplifiting case, would you give it to them?

The point is if you give them an inch they will take a mile, so you fight for the small rights before it just spirals out of control. If you are fine submitting to whatever some mindless teen at the door tells you to do at the store exit, that's fine, but don't flame anyone, ever, for using their charter rights in this country.

[Captin Howdy]

charges dropped....

here's the update
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/

[i6s1]

Too bad he won't sue the police, I hope he still sues Circuit City.

[surge]

charges dropped....

here's the update
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/

beautiful

[grant]

beautiful
What's beautiful? Neither the police, the state, nor circuit city has admitted or apologized for anything.

The guy is out $7,500 + a lot of time + upsetting his family... for what? To 'prove' that he can eventually back down?

He would have had EXACTLY the same result a lot quicker & cheaper if he'd shown his license when the cop asked for it.

[vladislav]

He took 5k+ from people, he is spending 10k on the case, he promised to not sue the state, he is not getting any apologies, his family has problems because of the case. All because he didn't want to show a receipt.

A sure winner in my book.

[Captin Howdy]

He took 5k+ from people, he is spending 10k on the case, he promised to not sue the state, he is not getting any apologies, his family has problems because of the case. All because he didn't want to show a receipt.

A sure winner in my book.


Finally, I would like to address the donations which I accepted over the past few weeks. I received a total of $5,197.23 USD after PayPal expenses. I’m still a little unsure of what my total legal fees will be, but I expect that they will be in the $7,500-$10,000 range. (I’ve already paid $7,500 to one attorney, and I’m waiting for a bill from a second attorney for related legal assistance.)

I am extremely grateful to the people that donated money. The donations represented more than just money to me. They represented emotional support in a time when it was much needed, and I’d like to thank everybody again who donated. The smallest single donation was 1 penny (a symbolic gesture), and the largest single donation was $200. Every contribution made was a pat on the back and it really helped me get through a tough couple of weeks.

That said, I have received a lot of flak over the money. Some people have accused me, an “upper middle class 26 year old”, of asking for money in the first place. Some people have gone as far as to accuse me outright of running a scam. I agreed to accept donations via PayPal because a number of people emailed me wanting to know how they could help, and I wanted to give them an easy way in which they could make themselves involved. I said from the beginning that I would donate any excess money to the ACLU. As it turned out my legal expenses were at least $2,000 more than the money donated.

In the end, I have decided to donate the entire $5,197.23 to the ACLU of Ohio.


People willing donated the money to him because they felt what he was doing was right and legally speaking he didn't do anything wrong.

I do agree with others, he should have just showed his receipt....

[nfnx]

The Circuit city employees had no right to detain him after he had left the store. They prevented him from leaving (one standing in front of the car, the other blocking the door).

The police officer had no right to arrest him for refusing to show his driver's license.

This case is pretty clearcut.

Sure, he could have made things easier on himself. But that's not the point.. he was standing up for his rights.


BTW: If you are being unlawfully detained.. do you have any right to use force (etc.) to get yourself out of that situation? I dunno how that works under Canadian law..

you're exactly right. i find it ridiculous that so many people here say "if you have nothing to hide, then why not show it?"

because its not even about that, its about the right to be protected from search and seizure.

[Nikita]

What's beautiful? Neither the police, the state, nor circuit city has admitted or apologized for anything.

The guy is out $7,500 + a lot of time + upsetting his family... for what? To 'prove' that he can eventually back down?

He would have had EXACTLY the same result a lot quicker & cheaper if he'd shown his license when the cop asked for it.

What's beautiful is he fought for his rights and he won. He would not have had EXACTLY the same result if he'd shown his license or his receipt, he would have lost his right to privacy. He determined what was important to him... his rights (which, btw people fought wars over), he fought for it, he won.....that's beautiful, and that's nowhere near the result he would have gotten had he caved.

Gotta love a happy ending!

[Mir]

He won

[Takada]

Haha, people actually donated $5000 to him.

[Nicotine]

If I were that cop I would have beat him down to the pavement and kicked him in the head for being a douche. Teach him a lesson. Fing terrorist.


Nobody Fs with Circuit City.



Ok, that was a joke. But has anybody asked themselves,
"Why didn't the circuit city employees just try not being douches and saved themselves all that trouble by just letting the guy, who they had no reason to suspect was guilty of anything at all, go on his way?"

or how about

"Why didn't the cop save himself all that time and hassle, by just being calm and telling the circuit city employees to stop being douches?"

You are all mostly a bunch of friggin' sheep. I'm going to be showing up at your houses soon and demanding that you hand over your front door keys and wedding bands, and leave.


In other words, if a cop (or even a Circuit City employee) is being an obnoxious douche to me for no good reason, I damn well am going to tell him so (while at the same time thanking him for doing such a strenuous job for us, of course). Or at least tell him to stop.

[grant]

What's beautiful is he fought for his rights and he won. He would not have had EXACTLY the same result if he'd shown his license or his receipt, he would have lost his right to privacy. He determined what was important to him... his rights (which, btw people fought wars over), he fought for it, he won.....that's beautiful, and that's nowhere near the result he would have gotten had he caved.

Gotta love a happy ending!
What did he win?? A $7,500 legal bill & half a day in the clink??

The police are the real winners... they got this guy to admit the police did nothing wrong. The next time the same situation comes up, the police are still going to arrest someone on the sidewalk for not showing ID.

He certainly didn't win any privacy, since police normally search people they arrest and therefore they'd have seen his ID anyways.

This is only a "happy ending" for the police department who had been holding their breath worried about being sued & bad publicity... but now the guy (through his lawyer) is admitting the police did nothing wrong.

[Kasakato]

What did he win?? A $7,500 legal bill & half a day in the clink??

The police are the real winners... they got this guy to admit the police did nothing wrong. The next time the same situation comes up, the police are still going to arrest someone on the sidewalk for not showing ID.

He certainly didn't win any privacy, since police normally search people they arrest and therefore they'd have seen his ID anyways.

This is only a "happy ending" for the police department who had been holding their breath worried about being sued & bad publicity... but now the guy (through his lawyer) is admitting the police did nothing wrong.

The police admitted they were wrong when they offered to drop the charges. If they had a case with merits, why would they even offer to drop them? The police/DA got a run for their money with this case.

[Nickelchow]

After reading this, I like to say that I hate how the reference library checks my bag every single time. I hate that. I want to refuse so many times.

[KnifeEdge]

They may touch upon common principles, but there's a very big difference between taking 5 seconds to show your receipt and shopping bag versus the invasiveness of a full search of your private household.

That's a poor analogy, and you can't make that comparison. Sorry, please try again... :razz:

no there isn't, not in terms of the law

[xg3]

i have nothing against him refusing to show his reciept... i personally always do when asked.

But if someone were to say no just for his rights i can't see why not. If a company can take the rights and/or convenience of individuals, why can't individual say no?

[KnifeEdge]

- The manager stopped the customer from leaving the premesis after he had been given good reason (in my opinion, refusing a receipt check is a good indication of guilt) to susppect that something had been stolen.



Saying refusing a receipt check is an indication of guilt is like me going up to you and demanding you to strip stark naked because i believe you have a bomb on your body. Then placing you under citizen's arrest because you refused to do so under the pretense that you refused to comply with my demands and thus is an indication of guilt.

You are not obligated to surrender your property to a non law enforcement individual in any circumstance. Even if they place you under citizen's arrest they can't search you, only a law enforcement officer can, they can make a deal with you but they cant search or lay a finger on you. Obviously complying with the law to the T is expensive so store managers and staff will try to bend it as much as it benefits them without outright breaking the law which is still wrong. But individuals who do not know their rights and those who do but do not protect their rights are even more wrong, this isn't complex legal loopholes which are hidden away in some obscure paragraph in some book that hasn't been opened since it was written. These are some of the most basic rights which we are entitled to under the charter of rights and freedoms. Those of you who were born in this country and take it for granted should think about those of who emigrated here because their home countries didn't even have these basic freedoms. Every time you present a waive your rights by complying with these ridiculous policies you are taking a giant crap on the charter and those who still believe in it.

In order to have indication or suspicion of guilt they must refuse to do something which is required by law or you must actually see them commit the crime or have obvious indication the crime occurred (caught red handed so to speak). Door Nazis obviously could not see you steal something even if you did as they are posted far from where the actual products are and have enough of their time checking receipts anyways. If a floor salesperson saw you steal or pocket something and followed you to the door (so visual contact is not lost) then THEY would be able to stop you, not the door Nazi (unless the door Nazi was contacted by an authorized individual who they themselves had beyond reasonable doubt evidence that you committed said crime, someone monitoring the video feeds who saw you pocket something for example).

[robertalan]

To those of you who think the receipt check is fine because:

a) If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, and
b) A store needs to protect its goods

Imagine this scenario, say in 10 years, they set up x-ray scanners you had to walk through, allowing them to see through your clothes for any potential stolen goods, would you accept this kind of search?

What if a store wanted some fingerprints off you as you walked in, just in case they would need to clear your name from a possible future shoplifiting case, would you give it to them?

The point is if you give them an inch they will take a mile, so you fight for the small rights before it just spirals out of control. If you are fine submitting to whatever some mindless teen at the door tells you to do at the store exit, that's fine, but don't flame anyone, ever, for using their charter rights in this country.

+1

Very well said!

(Perhaps the more submissive citizens in this thread are hoping for corporate security to develop an anal probe so they "have to" comply. ;) )

[i6s1]

I don't usually show my receipt. I don't do it out of principals, I do it cause it's annoying and I think it's pointless. If they saw me pay, and the cashier packed the bag, do they really think that I'm going to put something in my bag between the cashier and the door? There's typically no merchandise there anyways.

[gen.d00dz]

i wonder what would happen if you were the type of person who didn't use plastic bags. could you request no bag, then put the item in your backpack (purse if female)? i doubt that the security guard could say he has the right to search your back pack or any personal bag, or your pockets (you could fit a usb key or something in there).

[ndrew029]

To those of you who think the receipt check is fine because:

a) If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, and
b) A store needs to protect its goods

Imagine this scenario, say in 10 years, they set up x-ray scanners you had to walk through, allowing them to see through your clothes for any potential stolen goods, would you accept this kind of search?



Over exposure to x-ray radiation causes Cancer so they would only be killing the "Receipt Checker". Unless they provide him with a Dynex brand lead vest.