Was What Happened to Me Legal?

[BOR]

A better analogy would be if the police stopped you walking down the street and demanded to see your ID. You are under no obligation to show it to them.

Not always true!!

[BOR]

They get sued for a violation of something like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964). NOT for 'violating the constitution.' How about you stand on Walmart property and start protesting - you'll find out VERY quickly if they will honor your freedom of speech.

Actually it is Title 2, discrimination in a public accomodation.

There are a "few" states, under thier constitution's free speech clauses that permit, not demonstrations per se, but the distribution of literature, etc., (specifics here) on private property, such as a Mall, regardless of whether the Mall desires it or not.

[Scruit]

Again, that's not what happened. This person had a receipt. They were not stopped for shoplifting, or because they didn't have a receipt - from what has been shared, they were stopped because they exercised their legal right to leave the store without complying with an arbitrary demand to present their receipt.

In case you weren't paying attention, in the state at issue, the store's conduct as described is not legal. You don't need a law outlawing something that is not legal.

Compare this to the other thread on this forum wherein a person tried to leave the store with a cartful of merchandise directly to the door from some location other than the checkout line, and "couldn't find" their receipt. Looking from the store's perspective it's easy to see that a "no thanks" and "I can't find it" are just excuses for someone who never had a receipt in the first place. One was shoplifting, the other wasn't? How does the store tell which is which?


If the OP feels there is a case to answer then they should pursue that case.

[Security Consultant]

As I wrote is it exactly as it occurred.


I have been shopping at Wal-Mart for ~20 years. This has never happened to me before. So if I don't know before I enter the store, what then? I should submit to a voluntary search, that isn't really voluntary, because if I refuse, I give them reasonable cause to believe I'm a shoplifter. Also, by declining to show my receipt, I should be submitted to forceful detention, and be openly accused of shoplifting in front of who knows how many other customers? That doesn't seem right..

rr

In your particular case, declining to show a receipt does not give the retailer "reasonable cause" to detain and treat you like you have written. I suggest you sit down to talk with an attorney in this matter who is well versed with: 1) retail security policies, practices and procedures, and 2) illegal detention.

[Scruit]

In your particular case, declining to show a receipt does not give the retailer "reasonable cause" to detain and treat you like you have written.

'Reasonable' "is in the eye of the beholder"

[aaron]

Compare this to the other thread on this forum wherein a person tried to leave the store with a cartful of merchandise directly to the door from some location other than the checkout line, and "couldn't find" their receipt. Looking from the store's perspective it's easy to see that a "no thanks" and "I can't find it" are just excuses for someone who never had a receipt in the first place. One was shoplifting, the other wasn't? How does the store tell which is which?

If you take the time to think about the two cases, it should be obvious to you that in the former case the person was stopped on suspicion of shoplifting, and in this case the person was stopped for having the audacity to try to leave the store after making a purchase.

If you just want to bicker, take it over to a social forum.

[Scruit]

If you take the time to think about the two cases, it should be obvious to you that in the former case the person was stopped on suspicion of shoplifting, and in this case the person was stopped for having the audacity to try to leave the store after making a purchase.

If you just want to bicker, take it over to a social forum.

I'm not gonna argue this with you - there's a clear emotional bias involved for you and it's not worth my time.

[ragedracer]

In your particular case, declining to show a receipt does not give the retailer "reasonable cause" to detain and treat you like you have written. I suggest you sit down to talk with an attorney in this matter who is well versed with: 1) retail security policies, practices and procedures, and 2) illegal detention.

regardless of the ultimate outcome, where would I find an attorney like that? Ive never been to an attorney, nor do I know any.

Thanks!

[aaron]

I'm not gonna argue this with you - there's a clear emotional bias involved for you and it's not worth my time.

My interest is intellectual, and I'm sorry if I'm making you think too hard. Emotional? You're projecting.

[aaron]

regardless of the ultimate outcome, where would I find an attorney like that? Ive never been to an attorney, nor do I know any.

A problem in terms of interesting a lawyer in litigating is that the damages don't appear to be substantial. (That may be something the store took into consideration when it set its policies - "we can do this because people won't sue.") It's also a bit esoteric - in my experience cases involving mere detention by store security, as opposed to physical injuries, aren't often litigated.

The Arizona state bar offers a lawyer directory, but they do not appear to offer a referral service. You could also try the AAJ directory.