Why Best Buy Checks Your Receipt

Nettwerk said:
Its to make sure no one steals those $2,000 HDMI cables.
Click to expand...

lol!

I have no problem with it... whoopty doo! it takes about 10secs out of your day with your new toy. I guess I shouldn't be talking really, every BB here in Oregon i go to, they just stare you down when you leave, I'm pretty sure its because the checkouts are close to the door. But, still when i got to Fry's I get this, and frankly i don't mind.
 
kirbyrj said:
^^^ I don't think YOU are catching on. As many times as people in here proclaim, "I'm innocent and I don't let people stop me," there are far more people who actually deserved to be stopped and are actually trying to steal. They aren't out to get YOU, they are out to catch the people trying to steal. If it weren't an effective means of stopping shoplifting, they wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

If they think I am stealing something, they can call the police. Plain and simple. They can take my license plate number and send an Officer over to my home.

No average citizen or BB receipt checker has the right to detain me if I haven't done anything wrong. Asking to check my receipt is fine, stopping me or blocking my path is not fine. If I walk around them and they grab my arm because they thing I stole something based not he fact that I didn't show them my receipt, I would have them arrested for battery.

And it's not an effective means, just because it stops some people, doesn't mean it's effective. It might have been the first month they did it, but the shoplifters would then count on it and come up with a method to modify the risk.
 
Once at Fry's the checkout lady forgot to scan an LCD at checkout but they caught it as we were walking out by checking the receipt. We never would have known we hadn't paid for it, and they didn't treat us like we were trying to steal. This isn't a big deal, anyone making it a big deal is generally someone that spends too much time being angry for pointless reasons. They have a very valid and reasonable reason to do this, and the only reason to be against this is you're Mr Angry McHufferson who doesn't like to fit well into society.
 
In fact making it about yourself and "your rights" is kind of ridiculous and a bit narcissistic.
 
Steve_010 said:
Allowing your constitutional rights to be trampled on. 3 seconds.
Click to expand...

I really don't think many people get what "constitutional rights" even are anymore. To everyone here citing "constitutional rights", please enlighten me when it actually was that you read (and obviously comprehended) the constitution? Please, quote to me the part where a merchant is violating your "rights" by asking to see your receipt after making a purchase? Really??? This is a constitutional rights violation???? Please, bitch and moan about something that actually matters.
 
kirbyrj said:
I love the random court precedent citations as if anyone here is going to use it. Few of you complaining have the time or resources to push the issue of "your rights" vs. probable cause. You're going to get stopped, put up a fight, get a $25 gift certificate for being a douche, and the issue goes away.
Click to expand...

You assume that people are even going to stop for something you don't have the authority to do... :rolleyes:
 
I honestly dont think ive ever had a Best Buy check my receipt. Walmart/Sams/Guitar Center only ones i really notice doing that.
 
Blown 89 said:
Here you go:
CPC. 490.5
(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/490.5.html
Click to expand...

wow I will admit I was wrong, I find it insane that california allows people to be kidnapped just if you suspect someone is doing something wrong.

Oh wait the fourth amendment says otherwise and federal law supersedes state law, especially when it has been ruled by the supreme court that this applies to the states as well.
 
Steve_010 said:
Allowing your constitutional rights to be trampled on. 3 seconds.
Click to expand...

If the receipt-checker were a government officer the Fourth Amendment would generally allow customers to refuse to show a receipt, because presumably at least some customers visit Circuit City but don’t try to steal anything. If the officer detained every customer and conducted a search, a court would bar the use of any evidence obtained, unless the officer had probable cause to believe either that he was personally in danger or that a particular customer had taken a five-finger discount. In reality, the responsibility for checking receipts usually belongs to a store employee rather than a police officer. Consequently, the Fourth Amendment does not restrain those private citizens as it would agents of the government.

Some members-only discount stores require their customers to give consent to be searched by an employee as a condition of membership. For example, the Costco membership agreement contains an unconditional consent to search on page 29. Customers who sign such an agreement (as all Costco customers must) would seem to have no grounds to complain if they are later required to submit to a receipt-check.

http://www.thelegality.com/2008/03/...-the-legality-of-compulsory-receipt-checking/
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
wow I will admit I was wrong, I find it insane that california allows people to be kidnapped just if you suspect someone is doing something wrong
Click to expand...

The litmus test there is roughly the same as it is for police. Simply suspecting wrongdoing is not reason enough for detainment. What you described is reasonable suspicion.
Having articulable reason to believe that the crime took place is probable cause. If you see someone stuffing a usb jump drive in his pants, or hear someone on another aisle say "Here, stuff this drive down your pants," that's probable cause.
Now it may turn out that it was his jump drive after all. Maybe it already had his data on it and the store didn't even sell that model. But you acted with an articulable belief that he had committed a crime, and you were within your rights to detain that person.
 
verncat05 said:
I really don't think many people get what "constitutional rights" even are anymore. To everyone here citing "constitutional rights", please enlighten me when it actually was that you read (and obviously comprehended) the constitution? Please, quote to me the part where a merchant is violating your "rights" by asking to see your receipt after making a purchase? Really??? This is a constitutional rights violation???? Please, bitch and moan about something that actually matters.
Click to expand...

Actually the Constitution doesn't apply because BB receipt checkers are not the Government, search and seizure laws only apply then. However, battery or unlawful detainment laws can apply if they grab you or refuse to let you leave the store.

I tend to look at it this way. Lose prevention is there to keep lose down and profits up. If they are doing something like checking receipts and catching $1000 worth of stuff a year and pissing off people who are not buying stuff at BB at a lose of $5000 a year, it's a totally ineffective means. It would would benefit them to the tune of roughly $4000 to let people just go ahead and steal things.

Rights or whatever doesn't really apply in my case, they didn't hold me or touch me. I don't steal ever, and I reduced my shopping at Best Buy as much as possible. They are losing business because of their policy. If they start demanding to check receipts, the first time I will simply return the item right then and there and no longer shop there. I am in Double Income/No Kids family and LOVE electronics, I am their target market.

I honestly don't give a shit what people think of me on my decision to allow/disallow BB to check my receipt, if you want to them to, go for it, if you don't, also fine. But cause me to be part of their lose prevention program, not my problem.
 
Mathemabeat said:
I am just surprised that so many people will freely give up their rights.
Click to expand...

I am just surprised we have so many a--[H]oles on this site.

Its funny, I rarely shop at best buy, but I never remember anyone checking my receipt. They do it in Guitar Center. The little old man that works as a security guard @ Directron sometimes checks my invoice. At walmart, it almost seems to be random.

I worked @ Circuit City for a while. There was a story about a guy that ran out with some product. It was something small...maybe a camera or something. An employee chased after the guy...all the way out to the parking lot. He ended up getting hit by car and broke his arm. The thief got away.

When the employee came back to work - arm in a cast and everything - everyone told him how brave he was. Then the manager called him into the office and wrote him up for chasing after the person.

It didn't happen at my store, so I don't know how true the story is, but I've always found it hilarious. That is soooooo Circuit City.
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
wow I will admit I was wrong, I find it insane that california allows people to be kidnapped just if you suspect someone is doing something wrong.

Oh wait the fourth amendment says otherwise and federal law supersedes state law, especially when it has been ruled by the supreme court that this applies to the states as well.
Click to expand...

furthermore some might point out that this only applies to officers/other government agents which is right in the sense that they themselves (police) have a right to do a reasonable search. It really means they have no right as private citizens to detain unless they are protected under citizens arrest laws, which are only meant to be used under extreme circumstances.
 
LightningCrash said:
No, it doesn't. Refusing a search is not probable cause.
Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Click to expand...
Terry vs Ohio deals with unwarranted search and seizure, specifically for weapons, and receipt checking isn't considered to be applicable in that case for a number of reasons. One of which being that the reason for questioning directly pertains to the reason you're being stopped by security/police.
 
Blown 89 said:
Terry vs Ohio deals with unwarranted search and seizure, specifically for weapons, and receipt checking isn't considered to be applicable in that case for a number of reasons. One of which being that the reason for questioning directly pertains to the reason you're being stopped by security/police.
Click to expand...

Terry v Ohio specifically deals with probable cause which is completely relevant to the issue at hand.
There is no authority to check the receipt unless you have PC for shoplifting, at which point you also have authority to check the belongings of the person.
 
LightningCrash said:
Terry v Ohio specifically deals with probable cause which is completely relevant to the issue at hand.
There is no authority to check the receipt unless you have PC for shoplifting, at which point you also have authority to check the belongings of the person.
Click to expand...

Probable cause has nothing to do with this issue. Probable cause is only obtained by an officer or agent of the government, period.

No BB receipt checker can ever claim probable cause.

If a BB receipt checker thinks that you stole something because you didn't show a receipt, all they are allow do to is call the police and report you. In some states, if they KNOW you stole something, they can place you under citizens arrest, and if they hold you, they better have damn good proof that you actually stole something.
 
Vagrant_Zero said:
Time spent giving BB your recipe to be checked. 3 seconds.
Time spent being a dinglefairy. More than 3 seconds.

Oh ya...you're just brilliant.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to know when to fight the bullshit. Why don't you just go back out to your pasture and re-integrate with all the other sheep you can bah with.
 
RoGuE1230 said:
It's necessary. I work at a home improvement store and almost ALL of theft is simply by walking out with the item on a cart. When they see associates asking to check receipts if they didn't check out on that side of the store, then they think twice. I have no problem being asked to show it.
Click to expand...

Being asked to show it is completely different then complying and showing it. I've been asked many times to show my receipt, I just tell them no and keep on walking. Theft is the problem of the store, not me as an individual. I don't like being suspected of being a thief the minute I walk into a store or the instance I decide to leave.
 
a little off said:
Probable cause has nothing to do with this issue. Probable cause is only obtained by an officer or agent of the government, period.

No BB receipt checker can ever claim probable cause.
Click to expand...

Bolded below

California penal code:
CPC. 490.5
(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.
Click to expand...

If a BB receipt checker thinks that you stole something because you didn't show a receipt, all they are allow do to is call the police and report you. In some states, if they KNOW you stole something, they can place you under citizens arrest, and if they hold you, they better have damn good proof that you actually stole something.
Click to expand...
It's explicitly defined in Texas that they're not required to prove or refute anything. They're only required to have probable cause, then they can detain you for a reasonable time and turn you over to the authorities. That's all they are authorized to do.
 
Blown 89 said:
The Texas Supreme Court disagreed with you. There's not much more I can do to prove to you that it's legal than to cite the Supreme Court's own ruling on the matter.
Click to expand...

Please do show me a case, where being forced to show ones receipt (without probable cause) when leaving a store is indeed legal. Because receipt checkers are normal employees and as such, only have the right of citizen's arrest, which citizen's can only do when it involves a witnessed felony, and you better be right, because citizen's are still held under strict liability for the actions they take or any rights they may violate in the process. Because again, checking receipts is not the same as a probable cause stop/detention from LP. You seem to be mixing the two.
 
The BB's letter was pretty well written. We have to credit him with that.

I don't have a problem w/ BB checking receipts. If people don't like that, they can shop elsewhere that doesn't check receipts or just shop on-line.
 
You know, the thought just hit me why some people here and out in the world feels so offended by being asked for their receipt? It's because it ruins their feeling that their neighborhood is safe. Lower class people live in areas where people steal or cause harm in their eyes and putting the fact that this isn't true in their faces breaks their perception of reality.
 
I think the bigger issue is people never worked in retail, have never seen the way that people will try to steal anything that's not chained down, have not been lied to their face so the customer can save $0.50, have not seen loss statistics to demonstrate why it's worth checking receipts, or any number of other issues.

If you want to be treated with more "respect" from a retailer, tell the other half that do lie, cheat, and steal to cut it out and then we'll cut out the receipt checkers.

Furthermore, you can whine all you want about calling the police, etc. But the police will almost always side with the retailer, as usually they are there several times a week and know the loss prevention people on a first name basis.

I don't know how this deteriorated into an issue of personal rights. All they are asking you to do is show your receipt. Mutual respect goes a long way toward resolving and preventing misunderstandings.
 
Methadras said:
Being asked to show it is completely different then complying and showing it. I've been asked many times to show my receipt, I just tell them no and keep on walking. Theft is the problem of the store, not me as an individual. I don't like being suspected of being a thief the minute I walk into a store or the instance I decide to leave.
Click to expand...

You win the battle, the prize is nothing. You aren't being suspected as a thief, you are criticizing an effective barrier to theft for literally no valid reason other than a perceived accusation of guilt that nobody is making.
 
One other thing. If you walk out of the store and the electronic sensors go off, that is probable cause even if it is caused by your cell phone or something else.
 
Nobody lock your doors at night because then you're accusing your neighbors of theft and infringing on their rights! It's that dumb.
 
As said earlier, it is a requirement of membership at Costco. However, I will usually show my receipt at Fry's, Best Buy and the like. Doesn't really bother me.

Unless then is a big line; then I just pass everyone and walk out. Sorry, my time is more important and they can do nothing to enforce it.
 
LightningCrash said:
Bolded below

California penal code:



It's explicitly defined in Texas that they're not required to prove or refute anything. They're only required to have probable cause, then they can detain you for a reasonable time and turn you over to the authorities. That's all they are authorized to do.
Click to expand...


With the exception of my statement about probable cause only for Officers, I stand by what I said. A receipt checker has ZERO probable cause to stop or detain you because you didn't let them check your receipt. It still doesn't apply.

They have more probable cause to call the law on me, or detain me when I enter the store and set the alarms off when I leave and didn't buy anything. Which happens about once a week when I when I have my Audi key in my pocket.
 
a little off said:
With the exception of my statement about probable cause only for Officers, I stand by what I said. A receipt checker has ZERO probable cause to stop or detain you because you didn't let them check your receipt. It still doesn't apply.

They have more probable cause to call the law on me, or detain me when I enter the store and set the alarms off when I leave and didn't buy anything. Which happens about once a week when I when I have my Audi key in my pocket.
Click to expand...

and I agree with your statement.
Your Audi key setting off the alarm is PC and they can detain you.
 
So what I understand is, a receipt checker CANNOT stop you because he would not have seen you take an item in the back unless he somehow was able to see you take it/overhear you take it. However, a LP employee who saw you take it can detain you. Am I getting this right?
 
soulesschild said:
So what I understand is, a receipt checker CANNOT stop you because he would not have seen you take an item in the back unless he somehow was able to see you take it/overhear you take it. However, a LP employee who saw you take it can detain you. Am I getting this right?
Click to expand...

Yes, LP can only stop you with probable cause, and a receipt checker does not have this because they are stopping people at their own whim and for no other reason. If LP decides to meet/stop you at the door, with probable cause, that is something else, and then yes, they can stop you.
 
LightningCrash said:
and I agree with your statement.
Your Audi key setting off the alarm is PC and they can detain you.
Click to expand...

And they have never stopped me nor questioned me. I just hold up my key and say this was it, and keep walking with the alarms going off. I have been stopped for purchasing an item legally, when there was a chance that I was stealing, waved through. And that is the main problem I have with them.

So kids, if you want to steal from Best Buy, get yourself an Audi key. :D
 
kirbyrj said:
The only place you have privacy in a retail store is the bathroom. Everything else is on video. And you wouldn't believe the product packaging that is left in the bathroom from people stealing.

At the end of the day, my job and my bonus is worth more than your privacy. So I will insist on seeing receipts and directing those under me to do the same.
Click to expand...

I have no problem trying to stop theft but you can't blindly go around fishing for people stealing. If you see someone pocket something or something else fishy by all means go for it. Choosing not to show a receipt and just walking past a receipt checker isn't enough reasonable cause to detain someone or other such action.

Do whatever the fuck you want and I'll do the same.
 
Bejebus...

Of course they can ask. Of course I can say no thank you. Clubs like Costco are different, I agreed to show my receipt on exit. Frys, Walmart, or even Best Buy do not require 'memberships'. They can ask, but any more action taken on their part when I say "no thank you" is them wasting everyone's time. Feel free to show yours, if you feel obliging. This is very much a non-issue.

To be honest, I've never had someone do anything but look at me with a deer in the headlight look as I pleasantly said no thank you and kept on walking. The employees who decide to assault or illegally detain someone, heh. The company deserves the lawsuit that should result.
 
We had some idiot stuff $220 worth of office supplies into his jacket the other day, he came back a 2nd time and he got caught and was arrested. Theft is a massive problem in retail.
 
beowulf7 said:
The BB's letter was pretty well written. We have to credit him with that.

I don't have a problem w/ BB checking receipts. If people don't like that, they can shop elsewhere that doesn't check receipts or just shop on-line.
Click to expand...



yeah, it was well written....... by a college graduate.

it's too bad a college grad has to resort to working at Bust Buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top