Complaint Review: Wal-mart

consumer reports has covered this issue extensively. They have stated time and time again that Wal-Mart and its employees have no right or ability to detain someone. The customer has no signed contract with Wal-Mart that gives the company the right to search them or detain them. The agency has even received reports from off-duty police officers that were detained by the 'greeters.' The best thing to do if they attempt to search or detain you is to push on past them and go to your vehicle. Let them call the police. The police may (wrongly) take the store's side, but it is because they are lazy and do not want to be dealing with this. Let them detain you, hassle you or even arrest you. That's when you get a lawyer and sue the store and the arresting agency for harassment, kidnapping and unlawful arrest. It's going to take us standing up to them to stop this abuse by Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart has grey-haired old bats with highlighters stationed by the doors to check your receipts because we have become compliant and have volunteered to give up our rights. It is my right to not be inconvenienced by a door greeter, to not be further delayed for wherever I have to be because they want to search my cart. When I have no contract with Wal-Mart, I have not given up my right to exit the store with my merchandise.

Wal-mart tries to operate under the premise that I 'am guilty until proven innocent.' It doesn't work that way. My items are bagged, there's no reason to believe I stole, and I didn't set an alarm off. Yet Wal-Mart wants to search me. Well guess what--they are not allowed to do that. You have the right to refuse a search at Wal-Mart. If they want to take the chance that they are right, let them call the cops--but they'd better be right. Your lawsuit will be even better if they hit you or touch you. Get a young one that looks angry, and they'll be sure to assault you. We must stand up to Wal-Mart to stop this. We must sue and complain all that we can and get the store bad publicity to make them stop hassling people that aren't aware of their rights.

Wal-Mart's greeter policy is that they must check the receipt of any product leaving the store outside of a bag.  If you even knew how limited Wal-Mart associates are in what they can and can't do concerning theft and loss prevention you would wonder how anybody gets caught.  Or if you knew how many hundreds of thousands of dollars each Wal-Mart store loses per year in theft.  Is it really such a hard thing to show your receipt at the door?  By throwing this complaint around, you're giving thieves a way out of having to show their receipt.

And as far as throwing blame to the associate who was doing your carryout, what would you have had him/her do?  Theft isn't limited to customers (if the ones who steal can be called that), there are people who work for the company that take part in a fairly large amount of the theft.  If anything an associate taking merchandise out with you makes checking your receipt a -higher- priority.

I guess I look like a thief, I've been shopping there for years, and am always asked to show a receipt. Whether my items are bagged or not.

Now I'm not saying Walmart is right or wrong, BUT, did the DG physically put their hands on you Sherrie? As far as I know they CAN NOT do that. Who can thought, are the LP's (AP known to others) ONLY with very reliable proof (i.e video tape, they actually watch you)

BTW, im gettin a kick out of this 4th ammendment talk. LOL

Next time a greeter asks for proof of payment for your personal property, accuse them of stealing your pants. Explain that you had a pair of pants exactly like the ones that they are wearing stolen from your car in the Walmart parking lot. Demand that they immediately produce the receipt for the pants. If they are unable to do so, drag them into a bathroom stall and forcefully detain them and call the police.

When the police arrive, explain that no, you didn't actually see the greeter steal the pants, but, he also can't prove they're his, and that should be sufficient evidence to prosecute.

You undoubtedly will end up in jail, but perhaps Walmart will start seeing the folly of its ways and end this brown shirted and non-productive practice of checking receipts.

I don't shop at Walmart, but here is what I've wondered:

At Kroger, many people use the self-serve checkout. A lot of people also leave their receipts at the checkout stand. They either forget to get them or just maybe like myself just don't want to deal with them. So if the same people who shop at Kroger decide to shop at Walmart and don't take their receipts for their paid for, personal property, does Walmart send them back to go get the receipt? And if they can't can't retrieve their receipt, are they detained and arrested because they can't prove that their paid for personal property belongs to them? Or do they have to put the stuff back, because they can't prove they bought it?

Scenarios 2 and 3 would actually be criminal acts by Walmart. Maybe even scenario 1 if it were physical and against your will.

But no matter how crappy Walmart is, and how unethical and sleazy they are. There are plenty of losers in this country with absolutely no self-esteem or principles that need to find a nice facist nation to live in. You've seen a good sampling of them on this post. And the cops will ALWAYS side with a merchant.

The best message you can send to them is to stay out of their store.

Unfortunately, for every person who smartens up to the Walmart scam, there are two vacant drones to drink the koolaid for the "low prices".

To all those that failed to pay attention in high school civics class:

The Bill of Rights (that little document that contains the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) places limitations on activities of the GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT AGENTS, not civilians or private corporations.

Does the Fourth Amendment explicitly state that it doesn't apply to Wal-Mart or any other private entity? No. But the Preamble to the Bill of Rights DOES explicitly state that the amendments were adopted to ensure that the powers granted to the GOVERNMENT would not be misconstrued or abused.

Bottom line: Wal-Mart cannot violate your Fourth Amendment rights unless it is acting in conjunction with, and under the direction of, government officials (thus making it an agent of the government).

Private individuals/companies cannot violate your First Amendment rights unless they are acting under color of law (thus making them agents of the government).

Can Wal-Mart/a Wal-Mart employee falsely imprison you? Sure, but that's a pure tort, not a violation of a civil right.

As for me, I just keep on walking when the greeter asks me to stop or when the alarm goes off. Without a reasonable suspicion that I stole something, they have no legal right to detain me for any length of time. And the alarm of a machine with an 80% false alert rate does not, in my mind, allow for reasonable suspicion.

Walmart has the highest rate of theft in the industry. Perhaps its because they are checking the receipts of paying customers instead of monitoring the stores for actual criminals. Or maybe because they pay the lowest wages in retail and their employees are ripping them off. Probably both.

Maybe Walmart is just paranoid of crime because they themselves commit so much of it.

FACT: Items at Walmart ring up higher 8% of the time. The acceptable standard is 2%. Large retailers such as Safeway, Kroger, Target, etc, all meet this standard. Walmart has paid massive fines in CA and CT, and is under investigation in numerous other states.

Oh, I suppose the receipt check is ensure you didn't overpay since they can't seem to get their registers to work.

So next time you're in Walmart, check your receipt, and if you get overcharged, show the receipt to the greeter, and punch them right in the face and call the cops, because they just stole from you.

If you paid for an item, you certainly don't have to show a receipt. What's the difference between a pair of underwear you wore in or what's in your bag. Nothing.

However, the average d****e bag that shops at Walmart is pretty well represented on this post, so I would just advise you go to one of the 99.999% places that don't check receipts, and you won't run into d****e bags like this either. Do you really want to be around people with shaved heads and tattoos who beat their children? And the men are even worse.

There low prices are also a misconception. Their prices are really no lower than anyone else. You also need to factor in the abysmal customer service as a cost. Keep in mind that Target and Kroger's actually have a few employees that are literate and can almost tell you where to find something.

Why don't people show the receipt? I mean come on in these economic times businesses are suffering due to shoplifters. If you pay it, prove it! It would have taken you a lot less time and energy than this whole fiasco....get a life!

Charles...you don't need to blame the stores. You need to blame the actual thieves that ruin it for the rest of us. Nobody can be trusted on looks alone and those that are really guilty usually fuss and b***h about their innocence the most...

Here we go again with people telling me I lie. Thanks alot for helping the bad businesses, bad landlords get away with stealing from me & other people. You must feel very proud of yourself.

I haven't lied about anything thanks for your help, In helping the real liars, frauds & bad businesses landlords get away with what they have done to me & other people. You must feel real proud of yourself.

You are actually helping them victimize other innocent people.

...that some of these abused customers actually go to the extreme lengths to get the police involved! There are tens of thousands of people with outstanding warrants. Minor misdemeanor warrants aren't actively pursued by the police. They just wait until someone 'pops up' with a warrant when they're run through NCIC.
.
It's this manner in which the knot heads with warrants, even so much as an unpaid traffic ticket, are ultimately brought to justice.
.
Please keep it up, people! You're also demonstrating you don't have a life if your life revolves around such mundane matters. Just show the f***ing receipt. As far as rights', there's infinitely more to be worried about regarding the Federal government than Wallyworld! The US is virtually in a state of martial law with the sweeping authority given the d**n Homeland Security currently in effect.
.
Quit stumbling over ant hills when there are mountains in the way. Educate yourselves.

To the person who mentioned that the employee pushing the merchandise out should have spoken up...It has been pointed out that he/she might have been helping to steal something. And I have also seen cases in stores I have worked in where people dress in the uniform or get a actual piece of required employee dress and push large amounts of merchandise out the door and nobody questions them because they look to be working and providing good customer service.
And with the high turnover in some stores it's easy to not recognize all the new faces that appear.

Charles has the PRIVILEGE to post here, not a RIGHT to do so. The owner of this site could easily block Charles or me or anyone else from posting here.

The right to free speech simply means that Congress cannot pass a law that infringes on that right (in theory). It does not obligate anyone to provide us with a platform to speak on.

Yes Charles, you have the right to post here but you do not have the right to lie all of the time and try to start another pity party.

Yes Charles, you have the right to post here but you do not have the right to lie all of the time and try to start another pity party.

Yes Charles, you have the right to post here but you do not have the right to lie all of the time and try to start another pity party.

I have the right to post comments, just like the hateful comments you posted In my complaints. I have had nothing but problems from you patrick from the time, until I started writing my complaints.

Who are you to take my rights away, & tell me I can't post anymore. You just assume I post false complaints. I have rights has a human being to patrick just like you & you fellow bully friends.

I have a right to post comments to any complaint, just like the nasty things you say In my complaint. You are a heartless person.

Can you please point out to me where in this report I've been 'heartless' to the person reporting their problem with the Wal-Mart greeter? No? I didn't think so.

Go back to your own reports troll.

I too have been stopped by a greeter when I had purchased a large item that could not be put in a bag. I would assume and completely understand why they do that. I'm sure it is because they do not know for sure if I had paid for that item since it is not bagged. Walmart gets ripped off all the time and I think if it was your business you would check too!!! why is it all some people think about is sueing. I think our kids first words will soon be "just sue".

What is a "heartace"?

When I greet they expect us to stop every person without a bag, or everytime the alarm goes off. Most people show the receipt. But I feel uncomfortable doing this for two reasons. Once the alarm went off and the father immediately smacked his son and accused him of stealing. Then when he had nothing he blamed the cashier for having to hit his son(across the face).

A second time. I was more concerned about the five year old girl that walked out of the store. She walked out of the store alone, and the manager Helley, um cough cough I mean Shelly started to yell at me for not stopping someone when the alarm went off. I told her that It was more important to go after the child who was leaving the store and enter the parking lot at 9pm in the dark.(which some customers treat like a NASCAR racetrack). Anyways needless to say Shelly got mad and said that it is not up to me to babysit, the child would have eventually came back in the store and I just let a potential thief leave. I was like If I were off the clock I would have a few choice words with you and most of them are not words I would use in Church.

Anyways to make a long story short when someone refuses they can't force you to show the receipt unless they are security and have proof.

Patrick Is a heartless person. He doesn't want any of us to get justice. All he cares for Is himself. Why don't he just leave people alone, all he causes people Is nothing but heartaces.

my 'story' was just that, a story. It was a hypothetical situation that I put forward of something that could conceivably happen. It is not something that actually did happen to my wife.

All I was trying to do was show that this receipt checking by Wal-Mart is not infallible, and that machines should not be trusted to weed out shoplifters from law abiding citizens.

My friend Harold told the same story about his receipt being at home. He was arrested to. They caught him stealing Basebal cards. He too was arrested when he said he had the receipt at home. When his dad asked how the receipt was at home he admited he stole the cards. They found the empty wrapper in the washroom. The only difference is Harold actually stole and your wife didn't, but who knows perhaps she was not being honest with you. After all you trust those you love. Harold's dad believed him till they had proof against him.

Harold's dad wants him to write a letter as well apololgizing so wait for it.

Have you thought that perhaps checking the receipt also proves that you were charged for the right product? Stickers get confused, people don't always check, and coming home with an entertainment center isn't fun when you get charged for a couch.

Don't waste time filing a suit on this case. As people have already stated, you cannot assert 4th amendment rights against a private party. You're only possible causes of action would be false imprisonment or IIED. IIED you will lose because it is normal for people to be stopped on the way out of stores to check their receipt. False Imprisonment would be your best shot but you will lose that too. False imprisonment requires a sufficient act of restraint to a bounded area. Were you really afraid something bad would happen to you if you left? Were there any other ways of leaving the area? Even if you meet those requirements there is a shoplifter exception. Your refusing to show your reciept could give rise to a reasonable belief as to theft on the part of the greeter. The detention sounded reasonable and for a reasonable amount of time. Your state probably also allows temporary detentions to check reciepts by statute. Even if you could overcome all of that, what are your damages?

Once you enter the store, you agree to their policy. As with practically any website online, once you enter their website, you agree to their policy/tos. Obviously it has to be within reason of the law, so its not like they can make you strip or something, but the point is, they can ask you to show the receipt. If you did not, they will report you to their Asset Protection department for suspicion of theft. If you did not want to agree to this policy, you should not have shopped there. All their systems cannot monitor all theft. And for those questioning why the person assisting the customer didn't speak up, it wouldn't matter.

Walmart employees are supposed to have their receipts checked as they walk out the door even if they have stuff in bags (atleast at our store, yes I work at a walmart and i'm a cashier but i've had to stand at the door and be a door greeter multiple times before). Thats only to show that they aren't above the customer, so their word wouldn't really matter, as I've also assisted people out the door, or even had people purchase stuff at my register, and then only for them to come back to me telling me they threw their receipt away before they even got to the door, and now the door greeter wants to see their receipt and they want me to do something about it, which i cant.

When you shop at walmart you agree to abide by their policies. One of their policies is to check receipts on big items, you were not singled out as door greeters are required to check the receipt of all bigger items ( I used to work at walmart).

Why must you call the police over this? would it not have been easier to just show him the receipt? why must you be so difficult? no wonder the police told you what they did, you decided to just be extremely difficult and try to cause trouble over a simple matter of pulling out a piece of paper from your pocket.

Walmart puts money into their inventory, and they have every right to protect it.

You know, some of these get WAY off on tangents, others stick near the discussion topic. The long and short of it is this; Yes, Wal-Mart has the right to ASK to see your receipt. NO, they DO NOT have the right to detain you if you decline.

Here in California, once you get out the door, they CANNOT stop you. I also am a former L/P professional, used to work for CompUSA before the closings. As L/P, we could not even detain a person UNLESS we WITNESSED the theft, first-hand. (And no, security camera footage ex post facto did not count. All we could do with that was file a report with the local LEOs.)

As for the Wal-Mart defenders among the posters, do you all REALLY love Wally World THAT much? I suggest you all go watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price". This might prove an eye-opener to a lot of you as to just HOW WM conducts business!

There's an easy solution here, so simplistic in its design that angels would rejoice in its implementation; DON'T SHOP THERE! If memory serves me, there's another retailer, almost always in close proximity to WM, that has comparable prices. If WM was a "blue" state, this other retailer would be the "red" state, so to speak.

All of the WM business practices, policies and predilections have driven me over to the "red" side, and I'll never go back. Sherrie, you keep on keepin' on. BTW, there's one in Santa Maria! (wink!)

You know, some of these get WAY off on tangents, others stick near the discussion topic. The long and short of it is this; Yes, Wal-Mart has the right to ASK to see your receipt. NO, they DO NOT have the right to detain you if you decline.

Here in California, once you get out the door, they CANNOT stop you. I also am a former L/P professional, used to work for CompUSA before the closings. As L/P, we could not even detain a person UNLESS we WITNESSED the theft, first-hand. (And no, security camera footage ex post facto did not count. All we could do with that was file a report with the local LEOs.)

As for the Wal-Mart defenders among the posters, do you all REALLY love Wally World THAT much? I suggest you all go watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price". This might prove an eye-opener to a lot of you as to just HOW WM conducts business!

There's an easy solution here, so simplistic in its design that angels would rejoice in its implementation; DON'T SHOP THERE! If memory serves me, there's another retailer, almost always in close proximity to WM, that has comparable prices. If WM was a "blue" state, this other retailer would be the "red" state, so to speak.

All of the WM business practices, policies and predilections have driven me over to the "red" side, and I'll never go back. Sherrie, you keep on keepin' on. BTW, there's one in Santa Maria! (wink!)

You know, some of these get WAY off on tangents, others stick near the discussion topic. The long and short of it is this; Yes, Wal-Mart has the right to ASK to see your receipt. NO, they DO NOT have the right to detain you if you decline.

Here in California, once you get out the door, they CANNOT stop you. I also am a former L/P professional, used to work for CompUSA before the closings. As L/P, we could not even detain a person UNLESS we WITNESSED the theft, first-hand. (And no, security camera footage ex post facto did not count. All we could do with that was file a report with the local LEOs.)

As for the Wal-Mart defenders among the posters, do you all REALLY love Wally World THAT much? I suggest you all go watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price". This might prove an eye-opener to a lot of you as to just HOW WM conducts business!

There's an easy solution here, so simplistic in its design that angels would rejoice in its implementation; DON'T SHOP THERE! If memory serves me, there's another retailer, almost always in close proximity to WM, that has comparable prices. If WM was a "blue" state, this other retailer would be the "red" state, so to speak.

All of the WM business practices, policies and predilections have driven me over to the "red" side, and I'll never go back. Sherrie, you keep on keepin' on. BTW, there's one in Santa Maria! (wink!)

You know, some of these get WAY off on tangents, others stick near the discussion topic. The long and short of it is this; Yes, Wal-Mart has the right to ASK to see your receipt. NO, they DO NOT have the right to detain you if you decline.

Here in California, once you get out the door, they CANNOT stop you. I also am a former L/P professional, used to work for CompUSA before the closings. As L/P, we could not even detain a person UNLESS we WITNESSED the theft, first-hand. (And no, security camera footage ex post facto did not count. All we could do with that was file a report with the local LEOs.)

As for the Wal-Mart defenders among the posters, do you all REALLY love Wally World THAT much? I suggest you all go watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price". This might prove an eye-opener to a lot of you as to just HOW WM conducts business!

There's an easy solution here, so simplistic in its design that angels would rejoice in its implementation; DON'T SHOP THERE! If memory serves me, there's another retailer, almost always in close proximity to WM, that has comparable prices. If WM was a "blue" state, this other retailer would be the "red" state, so to speak.

All of the WM business practices, policies and predilections have driven me over to the "red" side, and I'll never go back. Sherrie, you keep on keepin' on. BTW, there's one in Santa Maria! (wink!)

What I find funny is that someone would insist you were a thief, when you were being helped by another associate.
Yeah, you know what? I'm going to go to Wal-Mart, and steal a bunch of furniture, and not only am I going to steal it, I'm going to get an associate to help me load it up, and go past the cashiers and not pay for my stuff. I am than going to take the associate and have them walk with me out the door with my loads of unpaid stuff!

A lot of times, they don't bother to check your bags if no manager is around. I've set the alarm off before, and they wavied me on out the door! Yeah, I was holding the reciept, but they didn't ask to see it. I think they slack off when the manager is not around, than over do it when they are around.

Most places, someone can walk in, steal something right in front of your eyes, and walk out, and if you chase them down, you get fired. Its too easy to get sued by a crook, so it shouldn't be an issue to sue Wally World.....

Is it worth the time and effort though?

They will still have the video as it is all digital now. I used to be a Loss Prevention Manager with Lowes and the digital video was usually available for about 3 months. Good luck. Although I would have just shown the reciept and got on wioth my life.

I say that as my own personal opinion. It is a machine, and this device cannot effectively identify shoplifters. In fact, I'm willing to bet that 90% of the time the alarm goes off, it's because the cashier forgot to deactive the RFI tag, or simply did not know the merchandise had a tag to begin with.

They say we need to stop so they can register the issue and deal with the offending cashier. Well, I say it's not the consumers job to help Wal-Mart ensure their cashiers are doing their job properly.

I've read numerous state laws regarding anti-theft devices and alarms. Most of them are fuzzy on what defines 'reasonable suspicion'. Even if only 51% of the time the alarm sounds because of a cashier problem, then reasonable suspicion would be the cashier is not doing their job properly, not that the person is shoplifting. I'm willing to bet any lawyer worth their salt could effectively argue this in court.

But, as I said before, the laws surrounding the alarm going off are fuzzy, and I'm not willing to 'exercise my rights' just yet on that issue. However, I did walk out two nights ago with 9 unbagged storage containers in a shopping cart with other various bagged items, and did not get asked for a receipt (and two door greeters watched me leave and said goodbye). I think Corporate has finally gotten the message out to the stores about not checking receipts for unbagged items (except maybe very large items like electronics and furniture, and again it should be an ask policy, not a demand).

Um, Patrick, you said, "Now, I still am of the opinion that sounding the buzzer does not provide 'reasonable suspicion' of shoplifting under most state laws". How is the alarm going off not "reasonable suspicion"? That alarm basically means someone is taking a product between the alarm towers with an active anti-shoplifting tag on it. Granted, it may not have been deactivated properly after you paid for the item, but I still think it's reasonable for them to ask for your receipt should that occur.

Joe,

You say that stopping people and asking for receipts is store policy, and they do it to everyone. That's fine and dandy, and I too have been stopped in the past and asked to show a receipt (but it's been quite a while since the last time I was asked). But guess what? I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW MY RECEIPT! Why? Because that property legally belongs to me, and none of the store employees have any reason to suspect me of shoplifting.

So my question to you is, does store policy stop at asking for a receipt, or does it also go on to state that the Door Greeter can detain anyone that refuses to show a receipt? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it only says you may ask, but you may not detain.

And I think I should make something clear here. I am in no way 'against' Wal-Mart. Hell, I shop there at least 3 times a week. On Sunday I left the store with a cart full of groceries, and a big 24-double roll pack of toilet paper under the cart. The greeter simply smiled and said have a nice day. As I said above, it's been quite a while since I've been asked for a receipt, and almost every time I shop there I'm leaving the store with something not in a bag. I think the stores in my area have gotten the message about avoiding illegal detainment.

In fact, the last time I was stopped for a receipt was when the buzzer went off (stupid cashier didn't do her job properly). Now, I still am of the opinion that sounding the buzzer does not provide 'reasonable suspicion' of shoplifting under most state laws, but it's such a grey area I won't push my luck there. The security alarm is simply a theft deterrent, not a device that can accurately single out shoplifters from paying customers.

But what I am against is any store, not just Wal-Mart, breaking the law by detaining folks illegally.

Joe,

You say that stopping people and asking for receipts is store policy, and they do it to everyone. That's fine and dandy, and I too have been stopped in the past and asked to show a receipt (but it's been quite a while since the last time I was asked). But guess what? I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW MY RECEIPT! Why? Because that property legally belongs to me, and none of the store employees have any reason to suspect me of shoplifting.

So my question to you is, does store policy stop at asking for a receipt, or does it also go on to state that the Door Greeter can detain anyone that refuses to show a receipt? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it only says you may ask, but you may not detain.

And I think I should make something clear here. I am in no way 'against' Wal-Mart. Hell, I shop there at least 3 times a week. On Sunday I left the store with a cart full of groceries, and a big 24-double roll pack of toilet paper under the cart. The greeter simply smiled and said have a nice day. As I said above, it's been quite a while since I've been asked for a receipt, and almost every time I shop there I'm leaving the store with something not in a bag. I think the stores in my area have gotten the message about avoiding illegal detainment.

In fact, the last time I was stopped for a receipt was when the buzzer went off (stupid cashier didn't do her job properly). Now, I still am of the opinion that sounding the buzzer does not provide 'reasonable suspicion' of shoplifting under most state laws, but it's such a grey area I won't push my luck there. The security alarm is simply a theft deterrent, not a device that can accurately single out shoplifters from paying customers.

But what I am against is any store, not just Wal-Mart, breaking the law by detaining folks illegally.

I HAVE BEEN SHOPPING AT MY LOCAL WALMART FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS AND I KNOW EVERYBODY.

THEY STOP ME AT THE DOOR AND CHECK MY RECEIPT.

THAT IS OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE FOR EVERYBODY.

BECAUSE. SADLY. PEOPLE COME IN AND WANT TO STEAL THINGS.

SOME PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE COMMON SENSE TO REALISE THAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY THE ITEMS, THEY NEED TO STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE STORE IN THE FIRST d**n PLACE.

OR THEY ARE HIGH ON DRUGS AND NEED TO BOOST SOMETHING TO PAY FOR MORE DRUGS...

SOMETHING IS WRONG.

IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS BECAUSE WAL-MART OWNS THE BUSINESS AND THEY CAN CONTROL WHAT TRANSPIRES ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEY HAVE A RIGHT T SAFEGUARD THEIR ASSETS AND STEALING IS AGAINST THE LAW.

IF YOU DIDN'T STEAL ANYTHING, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

THEY DO THIS TO EVERYBODY.

NO EASY MONEY LAWSUIT HERE.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE IN COURT THAT YOU WERE SINGLED OUT BASED ON SOME EASILY DSCERNABLE CRITERIA LIKE RACE, ETHNICITY, ETC.

WHICH WON'T WORK BECAUSE THE WAL-MART POLICY IS TO STOP EVERYBODY. NOBODY GETS SINGLED OUT.

HELL, THEY EVEN STOP ME AT THIS STORE WHERE I HAVE SHOPPED FOR 20 YEARS.

GO TO IKEA OR THE DOLLAR STORES OR BIG LOTS! INSTEAD IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WAL-MART DOES...

THESE GUYS WERE JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS OR THEY WOULD GET FIRED.

GO THROW THE YUPPIE SNIT FIT TO SOMEONE WHO CARES.

Wal Mart CAN ask to SEE the receipt BUT they can not, I repeat, CAN NOT DETAIN YOU!!! This is what Wal Mart's corporate policy states.

As to those that want to quote Supreme Court decisions, I suggest that you attend a Constitutional Law Class. Or ask an attorney.

Glanczoo states:

'I am a Wal-Mart Greeter and would like to give you a reason that we check receipts. The store I work at is not in your area, I just want to better explain the policy. Not all items in the store has a security device in it that will set the alarms off. There has been reports of employees helping steal larger items. As a precaution, the people greeter is to verify the purchase of large items. I apologize that you feel that you were violated. I even ask to check employee backpacks and purchases, I have been told to do this by managers of my store.'

Wal-Mart is responsible for the implementation its security equipment i.e. alarm systems. You do not have license to violate the rights of customers - who, as Patrick correctly pointed out, do NOT have a signed agreement to search and seizure upon demand as employees do - to compensate for the fact that your company is too cheap to put those pieces of equipment in place. Resonate some understanding, Glanczoo. If security for purchase items is such a concern that you feel the need to demand illegal and unconstitutional random searches of an innocent customer, why would the company refuse to implement security systems designed to catch true criminals in the act?

What the Wal-Mart defenders simply cannot (or refuse to) comprehend is the fact that once the lawful exchange of property has taken place, Wal-Mart has absolutely NO right to demand ANYTHING pertaining to the exit of such property from the premises. That merchandise is now MY PROPERTY - just as my shoes, clothing, and any other merchandise purchased at Wal-Mart in the past is MY PROPERTY. By the logic of Wal-Mart supporters, the store can detain me and demand to see a receipt for the clothes on my back or the shoes on my feet. Are we now to carry receipts for all items purchased from an indefinite number of years ago? Your logic and legal justification is not only incorrect, it is patently unconstitutional.

Ergo, in the absence of some tangible (i.e. video recording or corroborated witnessed theft) evidence that a crime has been committed, a customer is under no obligation to stop for any reason. Your decision to illegally attempt to detain me can and will be met with swift and absolute physical/civil/legal consequences for which you will 100% be responsible...guaranteed.

Becky,

You can ask to see my receipt until you're blue in the face. You have every right to do so. What you do NOT have the right to do is detain me if I refuse to show it.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp people? You can ask to see all the receipts you want. But unless you have reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, and in some cases absolute proof is needed, then you MAY NOT detain me. Carrying out an unbagged item through the doors IS NOT reasonable suspicion!


Glanczoo,

If your store has a problem with employee theft (and studies show MOST theft is committed by employees), then LP needs to do a better job at your store. And even though I've never worked in a Wal-Mart before, it's my understanding that a condition of your employment is that your personal bags will be checked every time you exit the store (heck, some places make the ladies carry a see-through purse), and your purchases can be receipt checked even if the items are bagged. It's not illegal because you agree to this as a condition of your employment. But this DOES NOT apply to normal consumers.

Go ahead and ask me for my receipt. But if I refuse to show it, you had better not attempt to detain me unless you have proof that I have shoplifted. Else you will be on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Since you are a greeter, it would behoove you to study your employee handbook further regarding receipt checking. And talk to your SM and LP as well.

I am a Walmart Greeter and would like to give you a reason that we check receipts. The store I work at is not in your area, I just want to better explain the policy. Not all items in the store has a security device in it that will set the alarms off. There has been reports of employees helping steal larger items. As a precaution, the people greeter is to verify the purchase of large items. I apologize that you feel that you were violated. I even ask to check employee backpacks and purchases, I have been told to do this by managers of my store.

But they definitely have a right to ask for your receipt. Also, I know someone else mentioned that the employee helping you should have told the greeter that it was all paid for--that is absolutely correct. However, the reason no one else was asked for their receipt is because your furniture was exposed merchandise. I work security at another retailer, and we can receipt check anything that is exposed--cases of pop, TV's, rugs, computers, etc. If it is in a bag, we absolutely can not receipt check someone unless the alarms go off. Even if we can see through the bag and know 100% the person did not pay for the item, we can NOT receipt check them unless the alarms go off (obviously we'd arrest them if we had all of our required steps). Next time, tell the other employee to vouch for you. And another thing, at least at my employer, there usually isn't someone watching the cameras all day, and if we are, we definitely aren't watching the checklanes. It would take longer for them to check sales on those particular items then it would for you to just show your receipt.

For the learning impaired (No need to name names...the readers can figure out who the Wal-Mart defenders are...), I will say this s-l-o-w-l-y...

Private citizens are NOT law enforcement. I worked armed security in the State of Indiana (no stranger to business-friendly security policies) for one of the state's largest private security companies for three years while I earned my undergraduate degree. From the jump, it was made clear to us that LEGALLY we were PRIVATE CITIZENS, not LAW ENFORCEMENT (even the armed guards). The only time we had a right to detain someone was if a criminal act was taking place that threatened the life or health of another on the premises i.e. some scumbag beating up his girlfriend. In the absence of that and defending ourselves, we were REQUIRED as private security guards to OBSERVE AND REPORT to LAW ENFORCEMENT a situation that involved theft, vandalism, etc., NOT take the law into our own hands.

Wal-Mart is not LEGALLY allowed to enlist their own "de facto private police force" to randomly and without just cause search other private citizens and/or detain anyone. If they suspect a theft has taken place, they may call LAW ENFORCEMENT. They cannot keep a law-abiding citizen against his/her will. In this case, I would have pressed charges against the "greeter" for Kidnapping. California Penal Code Section 207 defines kidnapping as the use of force or fear to take a person. By disallowing this private citizen to exit the establishment subsequent to the lawful transfer of property as a result of a sale, Wal-Mart's PRIVATE CITIZEN security team committed a criminal act - for which the company itself can be held liable.

The days of acquiescing to Bush Administration era violations of privacy, laws and constitutional rights are over. If I was a Wal-Mart "greeter" paid next to nothing for doing this pitiful job, I might think twice about putting my health/life/freedom on the line to treat a customer like this - especially in CA, where progressives have appointed most of the judges who adjudicate these matters. You might find yourself on the working end of a criminal complaint and/or civil suit that you will spend decades paying for.

You said 'Was it really that hard to show the receipt? I think you made a mountain out of a molehill.'

No, it's not hard to show a receipt. But that's not the point of this report. The point is that unless the door greeter had reasonable suspicion of shoplifting (wheeling out unbagged merchandise is NOT sufficient for 'reasonable suspicion'), then Sherrie should have been able to refuse showing said receipt and not been detained.

If we all show our receipt to the door greeters when asked, we are setting a dangerous precedent for Wal-Mart. Where does it stop? Are they then allowed to ask to see a receipt for the clothes you're wearing? For the things in your pockets or purse? For everything in your cart, bagged or not?

Look, I can go back to electronics, purchase a 42-inch plasma TV, put it in a cart and wheel it out the front door. If I want, I can even open it right there in the store and put a hammer through it. Once I hand over payment, it becomes my personal property and I can do with it as I please, even if I am still on Wal-Mart's property. And I am NOT required to produce a receipt for it as I exit the store, Wal-Mart policy be damned. They can ask for it, but I am NOT required to show it unless LP has reasonable suspicion that I did not pay for it.

Wal-Mart cannot rely on the door greeters to deter theft. Theives are much smarter than to take something out the door in plain site. And those that do are more than likely working with an employee to accomplish the theft (it is a proven fact that the majority of shrink comes from internal theft).

Ask me for a receipt all you want. But if I refuse to show it, you had better not detain me or you WILL be facing a hefty lawsuit.

Sherrie, why are you searching the internet for legal advice?? Call a lawyer if you want the straight dope! Don't take advice from here!!

Was it really that hard to show the receipt? I think you made a mountain out of a molehill.

'That is your interpretation of the constitution, not established case law.'

That is absolutely NOT my interpretation- that is the interpretation and decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

'Once again, please read prior posts before commenting. There has been absolutely no discussion on my part of this issue regarding a civil case brought for suit. Implicit accusations of theft constitute CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS.'

Sure, if they choose to press criminal charges then it becomes a criminal complaint, which would mean taking time from work to appear in court. Unless it's a serious amount of product that was stolen or the offender is a repeat shoplifter, I just don't see store managers taking the time to really following through. The usual case is that the product(s) is/are retrieved, the police are called, they run the shoplifter's information, and if there are no wants the person walks. A police report is filed and then the offender receives a ticket and is 'trespassed' (I assume we all know but in case, read a statement from an authorized store employee that the shoplifter is not allowed on property again). Then the company who owns the store can simply retain an attorney and request a CIVIL penalty- a civil demand. This is supposed to compensate the store for time employs involved spent dealing with the shoplifter and for the time and money involved with the company dealing with said shoplifter.

'As a paralegal, you know full well that depends on which judge is hearing the case. Given the current power structure and the judges they are appointing, I wouldn't bet the farm on that assertion...'

Hence the word 'probably', not 'definitely'. And it's not hard to learn how a judge behaves and decides if you spend enough time working with, in front of, or behind the scenes with or for one. This is one reason that many judges respect public defenders- they see the same judge(s) so often they know what they're going to say and decide before the judge(s) do/does.

TD wrote:

"That is your interpretation of the constitution, not established case law."

Can you cite the established case law that you are referring to?


TD wrote:

"If it weren't, most states in this nation wouldn't have laws against private citizens tape recording conversations of other private citizens without prior consent and/or notification."

That's separate legislation, not part of the Constitution. If it were, then why is it legal in states such as Nevada to record phone calls without informing the other party?

TD wrote:

"Implicit accusations of theft constitute CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. Therefore, the measures put in place requiring property owners (i.e. checked out customers) to produce a receipt for said property makes this issue applicable to criminal law."

This is a civil case at best. No crime has been committed in simply asking a shopper to display a receipt. Unless you know of a law in the OP's state that prohibits this?

Any employee of the store actually has the right to ask you to provide a proof of purchase at any time, you being on *private property*. HOWEVER, said employee, unless hired by the security division or a member of law enforcement, does not necessarily (and in most cases does NOT) have any authority to detain you *unreasonably*.

Many businesses have a strict policy when it comes to theft or suspected theft, that if someone has possibly defrauded the store, the ONLY things they are allowed to do is ask for proof of purchase, and if they are dissatisfied, they are to leave the person alone (if delaying tactics fail), LET THEM GO, and call the police with a description of the individual and direction of travel. THAT'S IT.

This is actually for the safety of the employee, because if the person in question is packing a gun or blade, the typical employee is completely untrained and unprepared to deal with such a circumstance and may wind up injured or dead.

The other employee may well have been *prevented* from "vouching" for the buyer by policy. Imagine for a moment that the OP *had* pilfered something. The employee vouching for her would have put the company in an awkward legal situation and could have put the job of the employee at risk as an accomplice after the fact, as an opposing attorney could use this as leverage in a court, claiming he was complicit in a "set up" or was in collusion with the OP in committing an act of theft.

The whole situation could have been avoided if the OP had simply shown her receipt, that Wal-Mart has the full legal right to ask for, and then been on her way. In fact, she could have used the instance to act *smug*, having proven unequivocally that the "Greeter" screwed it up (HA! HA! Take THAT!)

'The Fourth Amendment DOES only apply to governmental actors. At first it only pertained to federal government, then it was decided that it also applied to state governments (Mapp v. Ohio) in 1961. This decision was reached through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Check any state constitution- they all have such a clause. Any substantive Constitutional law class will delve into detail regarding just that.'

That is your interpretation of the constitution, not established case law. That the 4th Amendment would apply to state governments in that singular case does not mean it is not applicable to the rights of private citizens against other citizens. If it weren't, most states in this nation wouldn't have laws against private citizens tape recording conversations of other private citizens without prior consent and/or notification.

'The 4th Amendment does NOT protect any citizen from an unreasonable search conducted by a private citizen or PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. It applies to searches, seizures, stop and frisk, arrests, reasonable expectation of privacy, warrants, the exclusionary rule, etc. The 4th Amendment DOES only apply to criminal law. It does NOT apply to civil law, as the Supreme Court in decided 1855 in Murray v. Hoboken Land.'

Once again, please read prior posts before commenting. There has been absolutely no discussion on my part of this issue regarding a civil case brought for suit. Implicit accusations of theft constitute CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. Therefore, the measures put in place requiring property owners (i.e. checked out customers) to produce a receipt for said property makes this issue applicable to criminal law. Your SCOTUS case is irrelevant.

'Apply any of this and Wal-Mart can probably defeat any violation of rights claim.'

As a paralegal, you know full well that depends on which judge is hearing the case. Given the current power structure and the judges they are appointing, I wouldn't bet the farm on that assertion...

Despite the Constitutional debate brewing here, I think we just need to back up and consider one thing: It takes two seconds to show the slack-jawed nimrod at the door your receipt. Is it annoying? Yes. Is it something someone should "make a stand" on? No, it's not worth the energy. Save your thunder for protesting human rights violations in Darfur or something. It's really not a big deal, people. I find it more annoying when people are selling things outside the doors; like Girl Scout cookies or candy bars for local sports teams. I suppose that's "illegally detaining" someone too, if they stop you to peddle their products.

'There is nothing illegal about them asking to see a receipt. Embarassing? Yes, but illegal, no.'

Yes, that's absolutely correct. But then you've completely missed the point of this report. The Door Greeter had ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY to detain her on the way out the door. This is the illegal part. Didn't matter if they suspected her of shoplifting because she was taking something out unbagged. The Door Greeter had absolutely no evidence of shoplifting enabling them to detain her.

You gonna start carrying receipts for everything on your person whenever you go into a store just to prove it belongs to you?

TD wrote:

"You not only wrote essentially the same garbage you did last time, but you even added a few more incorrect assertions. Did you somehow believe that it would be any less correct the second time?"

Actually, I was correct the first and second time. You're simply wrong on this one and getting nasty won't change that.


TD wrote:

"Hyperbole is useless in an intelligent discussion. There are no separate constitutional rights for private/public entities unless explicitly laid out within that text. Kindly show us all where the 4th Amendment distinguishes between private and public protections against unreasonable search and seizure - if you can..."

No hyperbole at work here. The Constitution only applies to government. It has never in our nation's history applied to WalMart. Government may make laws that apply to WalMart, but that is separate legislation, not the Constitution.

Page 32 of "The Government And The People" explains it accurately:

http://books.google.com/books?id=twFJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=constitution+only+apply+government&source=bl&ots=tyeSZ0XTNI&sig=Z3_XrhLrlnT2ZQCg5vAZ-4ffgqs&hl=en&ei=MoLaSZiEB5L8tgPbgYHSBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10

Now... kindly show us where it says that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution apply to WalMart - if you can...


TD wrote:

"I love it when supply-siders try to assert that private companies are not subject to the protections explicitly laid out in the constitution. That certainly is your OPINION, but it doesn't come close to constituting a statement of fact. Except where distinguished by the Supreme Court or repealed by congress, the constitution is absolute...period (Government 101, Edgeman...)"

Actually, it is a fact. The Constitution limits the government. It simply does not apply to WalMart. That would be up to separate legislation. If you took Government 101 from a decent school, you'd know this.


TD wrote:

"Apples and oranges, Edgeman...we're talking about unreasonable search and seizure based on the 'possibility' that someone is a thief. NO ONE can initiate an unconstitutional search, privately or publicly. By your logic, I can strip search my neighbor's wife when she visits because I reasonably believe she has stolen my silver spoons or demand to see a receipt for her blouse and detain her until she does because my wife has one just like it. I'm not an agent of the government, so it passes constitutional muster, right? WRONG...I'd be violating her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS...just as Wal-Mart would be if they fail to let me pass based SOLELY on refusing to show a receipt for something I already own without just cause."

You're the one resorting to apples and oranges. If you detained and strip searched your neighbor's wife, you'd probably be guilty of your local laws regarding kidnapping but unless your a government agent you are not committing an unconstitutional act, merely an illegal one. If an FBI, IRS, local police officer or a CIA agent came to your house and detained your neighbor's wife, then we'd potentially have a violation of her constitutional rights.

TD wrote:

"Again, please state precisely which law allows a private citizen, employed by Wal-Mart or not, to demand proof of purchase for an item that, by law, I already own. By your convoluted logic, Wal-Mart can stop and detain ANYONE wearing clothing being sold at Wal-Mart and ask for proof of purchase. Not only is that blatantly unconstitutional, but it would preclude any reasonable person from even walking through the doors at Wal-Mart."

Actually, the burden is on you to show that there is a law against companies asking shoppers to show a receipt. By way of example, there is no law against me leaving my house and going for a walk on the sidewalk. In this case, I wouldn't have to prove that there is a law allowing me to do this. However, if I were to get in the car and drive and I couldn't show my registration or proof of insurance, the government would have to show which laws I violated.

So please... tell me which law says that WalMart cannot ask shoppers to show a receipt. Remember that the OP is in California.

TD wrote:

"Regarding your Costco reference, again you show you do not belong at the big-boy debate table. Costco is a MEMBERS ONLY club, with members agreeing to such a policy before they plunk down the money to exclusively shop there. Wal-Mart has no such consent to search from the general public. Ergo, your question is irrelevant and moot."

Actually, you're incorrect. You can't legally ask someone to sign their rights away. If it's illegal for one store to ask shoppers to show a receipt, then it's illegal for the other store to do it. By the way, WalMart does regulate who can enter their property. For example, they give a license to shoppers and the general public to enter for the purposes of purchasing merchandise or price checking, but they have a policy against competitors entering the store for price comparisons. I'm not joking, it's in their store policies.

TD wrote:

"It is obvious to me that I am debating someone who has absolutely no constitutional knowledge whatsoever. If you would like to continue to embarass yourself, please continue to do so. I gain no personal gratification from humiliating you on a regular basis, so I'll just let my points stand and let the readers judge for themselves."

Your having to resort to insults is a signt hat you do not have a credible argument. You have also failed to show how the COnstitution applies to WalMart and you have failed to show what law prohibits WalMart from asking a shopper to display a receipt.

And I am familiar with the Constitution. I worked for the feds for five years and am well aware of how the Constitution impaced my job.

the Fourth Amendment DOES only apply to governmental actors. At first it only pertained to federal government, then it was decided that it also applied to state governments (Mapp v. Ohio) in 1961. This decision was reached through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Check any state constitution- they all have such a clause. Any substantive Constitutional law class will delve into detail regarding just that.

The 4th Amendment does NOT protect any citizen from an unreasonable search conducted by a private citizen or PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. It applies to searches, seizures, stop and frisk, arrests, reasonable expectation of privacy, warrants, the exclusionary rule, etc. The 4th Amendment DOES only apply to criminal law. It does NOT apply to civil law, as the Supreme Court in decided 1855 in Murray v. Hoboken Land.

Apply any of this and Wal-Mart can probably defeat any violation of rights claim.

Sherrie,
You stated "When I called the police, they ran me in their system and proceeded to stand in support of Wal-mart's illegal "policy"."

There is nothing illegal about them asking to see a receipt. Embarassing? Yes, but illegal, no.

You stated "Please remember, that this whole time the employee who had pushed my purchase through the cashier's was standing idly by."

The fact that the employee was pushing the cart doesn't carry much weight here. It should, I agree, signify that you indeed paid for the merchandise, but Walmart employees have been found stealing too. There have been incidents where emplyess have taken merchandise (which is stealing) by letting those who "look like" customers take it out the doors. Varoius situations of course would be slightly different from each other, but the end result being employees helping to steal for which they received something in return... part of the merchandise, money, or whatever. Some didn't ring up the items at the register, some just simply push it through the doors so it looks like they have paid, etc. We as customers may just be used to shopping in smaller stores where the clerk is set up right beside the door so it is obvious to the store that you paid before leaving. Walmart is laid out in such a way that they cannot know for sure if a person has paid before exiting through the doors. The idea of having the greeter check receipts is just a way they have come up with to help prevent theft. Is it a great way? Maybe not, but it is one that works for them and they will likely continue to use this method until they come up with one that works better for them. I agree that it is embarassing to be the one singled out as I have gone through this a few times myself. And although I didn't like it one little bit at the time as it does makes people look at you like you did something wrong, takes up (or wastes) some of your time, etc. What it does do though, is help keep their loss down which in turn makes prices lower for consumers like yourself. Had the items you purchased been 20% higher, you very well may have decided not to buy them there at that store. Walmart has low prices for a reason, and this is just one small part of that reason. You could have easily purchased the items somewhere else for more $ but you didn't... you went to Walmart. This may have been in part due to the particular item you wanted (shape, color, etc.), but also probably alot of it was because of the lower price.

Bottom line... it's annoying but if you don't like it, don't shop there. It's their store and you have no control over how they run it in this instance any more than you do with what uniforms or colors are worn by employees, what benifits employees receive, attendance policies, or even what products are available for sale as well as how they arranged inside the store. No more control over their store than they would have if you owned a retail store and they wanted to come into your shop and tell you how you should do things... or to make it even more realistic, to come into your home and tell you how things should be done. It is yours, you do things the way you want to do them for a reason... others don't have to understand why they're done entirely, only that they ARE done. Make sense?

Hope this helps...
~dale

You not only wrote essentially the same garbage you did last time, but you even added a few more incorrect assertions. Did you somehow believe that it would be any less correct the second time?

'TD, you're way off here. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution applies to government, not Wal-Mart. The Fourth Amendment tells the government that it cannot perform unreasonable searches and seizures. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents someone at Wal-Mart from asking you to show your receipt. A textbook on government from a decent high school will explain this.'

Hyperbole is useless in an intelligent discussion. There are no separate constitutional rights for private/public entities unless explicitly laid out within that text. Kindly show us all where the 4th Amendment distinguishes between private and public protections against unreasonable search and seizure - if you can...

I love it when supply-siders try to assert that private companies are not subject to the protections explicitly laid out in the constitution. That certainly is your OPINION, but it doesn't come close to constituting a statement of fact. Except where distinguished by the Supreme Court or repealed by congress, the constitution is absolute...period (Government 101, Edgeman...)

'Now, would you care to show me where it says that the Constitution of the United States applies to Wal-Mart? Out of curiosity, if ED chose not to allow a post to be published in this thread would he be violating one's rights to free speech?'

Apples and oranges, Edgeman...we're talking about unreasonable search and seizure based on the 'possibility' that someone is a thief. NO ONE can initiate an unconstitutional search, privately or publicly. By your logic, I can strip search my neighbor's wife when she visits because I reasonably believe she has stolen my silver spoons or demand to see a receipt for her blouse and detain her until she does because my wife has one just like it. I'm not an agent of the government, so it passes constitutional muster, right? WRONG...I'd be violating her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS...just as Wal-Mart would be if they fail to let me pass based SOLELY on refusing to show a receipt for something I already own without just cause.

'As for your second question, an employee who is acting on a company's behalf who stops a customer on that company's property and asks to see a receipt is not a criminal matter. Please tell me what crime is being committed here. Is Costco violating my rights?'

Again, please state precisely which law allows a private citizen, employed by Wal-Mart or not, to demand proof of purchase for an item that, by law, I already own. By your convoluted logic, Wal-Mart can stop and detain ANYONE wearing clothing being sold at Wal-Mart and ask for proof of purchase. Not only is that blatantly unconstitutional, but it would preclude any reasonable person from even walking through the doors at Wal-Mart.

Regarding your Costco reference, again you show you do not belong at the big-boy debate table. Costco is a MEMBERS ONLY club, with members agreeing to such a policy before they plunk down the money to exclusively shop there. Wal-Mart has no such consent to search from the general public. Ergo, your question is irrelevant and moot.

It is obvious to me that I am debating someone who has absolutely no constitutional knowledge whatsoever. If you would like to continue to embarass yourself, please continue to do so. I gain no personal gratification from humiliating you on a regular basis, so I'll just let my points stand and let the readers judge for themselves.

TD wrote:

"Direct text of the 4th Amendment:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Please tell us all where this amendment states that it only applies to the government and its agents. Please also tell us why the implicit assertion that the customer has stolen goods via a random receipt search is not a CRIMINAL matter."


TD, you're way off here. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution applies to government, not WalMart. The Fourth Amendment tells the government that it cannot perform unreasonable searches and seizures. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents someone at WalMart from asking you to show your receipt. A textbook on government from a decent high school will explain this.

Now, would you care to show me where it says that the Constitution of the United States applies to WalMart? Out of curiosity, if ED chose not to allow a post to be published in this thread would he be violating one's rights to free speech?

As for your second question, an employee who is acting on a company's behalf who stops a customer on that company's property and asks to see a receipt is not a criminal matter. Please tell me what crime is being committed here. Is Costco violating my rights?

TD wrote:

"You struck out on this attempt to justify Walmart's actions. Care to step up to the plate again, Edgeman?"

Actually, you're wrong again. I didn't defend WalMart's actions. In my first post in this thread I even pointed out that I would let others debate whether the store was right or wrong. I only pointed out that the store didn't violate the OP's rights and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to WalMart.

You normally post quite intelligently but in this case you are off.

Direct text of the 4th Amendment:

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

Please tell us all where this amendment states that it only applies to the government and its agents. Please also tell us why the implicit assertion that the customer has stolen goods via a random receipt search is not a CRIMINAL matter.

You struck out on this attempt to justify Walmart's actions. Care to step up to the plate again, Edgeman?

Direct text of the 4th Amendment:

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

Please tell us all where this amendment states that it only applies to the government and its agents. Please also tell us why the implicit assertion that the customer has stolen goods via a random receipt search is not a CRIMINAL matter.

You struck out on this attempt to justify Walmart's actions. Care to step up to the plate again, Edgeman?

I am so tired of hearing this sad, lame response of "Why didn't you just show your receipt?" OK, for all the weak-minded zombie's who inquired, here is the answer: Because you are under no obligation to show your receipt upon exit. Your receipt was "shown" when the cashier handed it to you.

If the greeter asks you to kindly "remove your clothes" before you leave, you are also under no obligation to do so.

This is no more ridiculous that the Wal Mart policy of demanding to see a receipt. Under no circumstances should you show it to them unless you CHOOSE to do so.

I had to deal with this ungawdly situation about a year ago. I was leaving Wal Mart and as I went out the door, the bells and alarms went crazy, for the SECOND time in two months at the same store.

For the record it was later admitted that the scanner in the electronics checkout had a glitch and was not de-activating the code, but the rest of the story ...

This second time, as I was stopped just short of the exit and asked for receipt, it appeared everyone in line at every checkout counter turned heads at once to stare straight at me, the "shoplifter". The humilation and anger grew together to form rage, but I kept my cool.

I informed the greeter that "NO, I do not have time to stop and show you my receipt right now, however you are welcome to follow me to my home about six miles from here, and after I have arrived there and taken care of my pressing buisness I will be glad to show the receipt as I unload these Wal Mart bags.

I proceeded to my vehicle and departed, the greeter rushed back into the store, and that was the end of that. I have been in that store many times since and not a word has ever been mentioned of it.

The Fourth Amendment applies to the government and its agents, not WalMart. It also applies to criminal law, not civil law.

You said: 'I dont work for a wal-mart store, but a sam's club but technically its still a 'Wal-mart' company. In any wal-mart I have ever been in, if you are heading through the exit with any merchandise that is not in a bag, they ask to see the receipt.

Your rights were NOT violated. The company has a right to protect itself.'


You are correct about one thing. Wal-Mart does have the right to protect itself. It is perfectly fine for the door greeter to ask for a receipt upon exiting the store. What they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO is detain you illegally without proof of theft. And this is exactly what happened here (assuming the OP is telling the entire truth).

I really wish Sherrie would update this report and provide more details.

The 4th Amendment protects consumers against unreasonable search and seizure. Constitutionally and legally, in the absence of tangible evidence I have committed the crime of theft (and NOT your 'hunch' or 'gut feeling', but rather a video/witness proving theft or the alarm sounding off), I am under NO obligation to show you or anyone else my receipt once I have paid for that item. Being a private company does not allow you or anyone else to circumvent the U.S Constitution.

I'd be VERY careful about handing over that right. Suppose Walmart suddenly asks you for a complete list of all the men you have ever slept with for fear of an STD outbreak among its employees. As ridiculous and irrational as that sounds, under your logic, you should just 'shut up and take the test'! After all, you have no 'right' to work there and Walmart DOES own the company. If you don't like it, find another place to work.

Believe me, this is not a slippery slope you want to slide down...

The 4th Amendment protects consumers against unreasonable search and seizure. Constitutionally and legally, in the absence of tangible evidence I have committed the crime of theft (and NOT your 'hunch' or 'gut feeling', but rather a video/witness proving theft or the alarm sounding off), I am under NO obligation to show you or anyone else my receipt once I have paid for that item. Being a private company does not allow you or anyone else to circumvent the U.S Constitution.

I'd be VERY careful about handing over that right. Suppose Walmart suddenly asks you for a complete list of all the men you have ever slept with for fear of an STD outbreak among its employees. As ridiculous and irrational as that sounds, under your logic, you should just 'shut up and take the test'! After all, you have no 'right' to work there and Walmart DOES own the company. If you don't like it, find another place to work.

Believe me, this is not a slippery slope you want to slide down...

The 4th Amendment protects consumers against unreasonable search and seizure. Constitutionally and legally, in the absence of tangible evidence I have committed the crime of theft (and NOT your 'hunch' or 'gut feeling', but rather a video/witness proving theft or the alarm sounding off), I am under NO obligation to show you or anyone else my receipt once I have paid for that item. Being a private company does not allow you or anyone else to circumvent the U.S Constitution.

I'd be VERY careful about handing over that right. Suppose Walmart suddenly asks you for a complete list of all the men you have ever slept with for fear of an STD outbreak among its employees. As ridiculous and irrational as that sounds, under your logic, you should just 'shut up and take the test'! After all, you have no 'right' to work there and Walmart DOES own the company. If you don't like it, find another place to work.

Believe me, this is not a slippery slope you want to slide down...

The 4th Amendment protects consumers against unreasonable search and seizure. Constitutionally and legally, in the absence of tangible evidence I have committed the crime of theft (and NOT your 'hunch' or 'gut feeling', but rather a video/witness proving theft or the alarm sounding off), I am under NO obligation to show you or anyone else my receipt once I have paid for that item. Being a private company does not allow you or anyone else to circumvent the U.S Constitution.

I'd be VERY careful about handing over that right. Suppose Walmart suddenly asks you for a complete list of all the men you have ever slept with for fear of an STD outbreak among its employees. As ridiculous and irrational as that sounds, under your logic, you should just 'shut up and take the test'! After all, you have no 'right' to work there and Walmart DOES own the company. If you don't like it, find another place to work.

Believe me, this is not a slippery slope you want to slide down...

I dont work for a wal-mart store, but a sam's club but technically its still a "Wal-mart" company. In any wal-mart I have ever been in, if you are heading through the exit with any merchandise that is not in a bag, they ask to see the receipt.

Your rights were NOT violated. The company has a right to protect itself.

They are simply covering their bottom line in asking to see receipts for merchandise that was not bagged. Get over your self and show the receipt next time.

DON'T SHOP AT WALMART. If you don't go in the store, they won't stop you on the way out.

Without arguing if the greeter was right or wrong...
I'll leave that up to the others to debate but the OP's rights were NOT violated. Let's not toss around the concept of violated rights so casually.


Edgeman,

OK, I'll agree that no 'rights' were violated, if you'll agree that the OP was illegally detained by the door greeter.

"And I still don't understand why the employee assisting her out with the item didn't speak up and say yes, she paid for it."

That's actually what I'm most curious about in this situation.

The debate over whether this is a violation of rights and what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" of shoplifting can rage on and on here. I certainly don't think I have the exact correct answer. I really hope, though, that eventually this policy of theirs is investigated and ruled on, once and for all. Be a while for that to happen if it ever does, but I'm waiting for that day.

I'll leave that up to the others to debate but the OP's rights were NOT violated. Let's not toss around the concept of violated rights so casually.

for all those who say 'why not just show the receipt', please consider the following:

Let's say my wife likes to read Nora Roberts books (which in reality she does), but waits until they come out in paperback to purchase them. She keeps the current book in her purse at all times to read during those times when she is in a waiting room, waiting to pick up the kids from school, etc. OK, so one day she goes to Wal-Mart with a shopping list in hand, gets everything on the list, picks up the newest book, checks out and heads home.

When she gets home she puts the book in her purse, but did not pull the price sticker off of it (she never does that sort of thing). After unloading the bags, she discovers she missed adding a few things to the list and heads back to the store (because she has time before school lets out).

She gets the rest of the items, pays for them, then heads for the door. She walks through the detector simultaneously with someone who just purchased a CD in Electronics, and of course the clerk forgot to deactivate the anti-theft tag and the alarm sounds. Tony is the greeter and demands that both of them stop. The person with the CD doesn't stop because they know their rights, but my wife does stop. Tony has a dilemma, go after the person who didn't stop possibly losing them and my wife, or give them up and detain my wife only. Of course he chooses my wife as he doesn't need to make any effort here.

They go through the usual checking of the receipt, pass the bag through the detector, etc. He can't find anything in the bag that set the alarm off. What's his next step? You guessed it, search her purse. In it he discovers a brand new book with a Wal-mart sticker on it. The book obviously looks brand new/never read (because it is), and our overzealous greeter demands to see a receipt for the book. Of course, my wife left the first receipt at home next to the computer so that I can add the amount into our bank register.

Next thing you know, Tony decides my wife is a shoplifter and has her arrested. My wife, although completely innocent, now has a criminal record. Is this the kind of power we're willing to give a retailer simply because we've become complacent and submit to their policies? Where will it end? Will you have to constantly carry a receipt for the clothes you're wearing to prove they belong to you? What about those sunglasses that you bought the other day? Gonna keep that receipt in your wallet?

Food for thought.

Okay Patrick...
what rights were violated in this 'open and shut' case?

Um, her right to leave the premises with HER OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY maybe? Unless the door greeter had 'reasonable cause' to detain her, she has every right to continue on about her business unhindered. And I still don't understand why the employee assisting her out with the item didn't speak up and say yes, she paid for it.

Wal-Mart has no legal right to detain a person unless said person is suspected of theft. Simply exiting the store with an unbagged item DOES NOT constitute probable cause for shoplifting, no matter what the store's policy is. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

The ONLY recourse Wal-Mart has in this situation is to ask the person to leave their property and not come back. If the door greeter were doing their job properly, they would know that although they can request to see a receipt upon exiting the store, they CANNOT detain someone for refusing to show it. I'm sure LP was watching this, and determined that she had paid for the item and had no reason to detain her at the door. This is just another case of an over-zealous DG overstepping their legal bounds.

And I'd still like to know if she was physically touched by the DG. Big payday for her it they did.

what rights were violated in this 'open and shut' case?

Why wouldn't you just take the seconds to show your receipt if you had nothing to hide?

YET, you pay club membership at the other place and have no problem showing your receipt there.

Why didn't you just show your receipt? Was it really worth your time and energy to deal with all of that rather than hold up a receipt for a few seconds?

Sherrie,

As previously stated, your rights were violated. Hire an attorney and file a wrongful detention lawsuit against them immediately! Make sure the attorney subpeonas the security tapes ASAP, they will still have them available. And don't worry about a retainer. Any attorney worth his salt will immediately recognize that this is an open and shut case against Wal-Mart, and would most likely take it without any fee up front.

And while I understand that store policy at most Wal-Marts is that the Door Greeter is to ask for receipts for un-bagged merchandise (especially large ticket items like furniture), I absolutely cannot believe the staff helping you out the store did not speak up. And where was the CSM during this? Also, did the Door Greeter touch you at all when they were blocking you from leaving? Even if all they did was put their hand on your person, that is considered assault. Get those tapes! That will be the icing on the cake for your case!

Now, having the police called out was a little drastic, but actually might help your case in the long run, especially if a report was written. Make sure to get a copy of the report as well.

Good luck!

please tell us exactly what rights were violated? Since rights are established by the Constitution and I know Walmart is not mentioned in the Constitution, enlighten us as to the rights.

Security tapes will prove that you paid for your merchandise as does your receipt for those items, the cashier who was pushing your furniture purchase should have had the cashier that was helping you with your other purchases should have made sure that they scanned the furniture first, before your other items. In this way, the problem with a greeter would not have happened at all and you can go your merry way. But if the person pushing your furniture did not have your cashier scan the items, then it is their fault for putting you in a bad situation. The police officers' behavior was reprehensible to say the least, in saying that you are wasting their time when it is Walmart's employee that caused your predicament in the first place. Always make sure to tell your cashier that you have furniture or some other large item when you first get to their station and ask them to scan that first, before anything else. Bada bing, problem solved.