Posted on 12/22/2012 5:17:32 PM PST by traumer
FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS (KMOX) - An East St. Louis couple is charged with beating an elderly employee at a Metro East Best Buy.
It’s considered normal procedure by most to be asked for your receipt while leaving a busy store like Best Buy with expensive items. But Latoya Greenwood, 38, didn’t take kindly to the request.
Police say she began shouting obscenities at the 61-year-old Fairview Heights Best Buy employee at the exit door. Her husband got into the act and smacked the man across the face, sending him down to the ground while his wife didn’t flinch and kept the curse words flying.
The husband, 39-year-old Hickey Thompson, is charged with felony aggravated battery and is held on $20,000 bond. Greenwood is charged with disorderly conduct.
As for the 61-year-old victim, he was treated at the store and declined to go to the hospital.
However, if I am in "one of my moods" as my wife likes to say, I will hand them my receipt and ask specifically (and nicely) that they do not make any marks on it. When they take their marker and scribble on it, I then ask that they print me a new one without any marks. Really gums up the works, but the receipt is mine and I want it in pristine condition; it's part of the sale and once paid for, it's my property.
pay attention to the discussion....of course they have no right to search you within the shopping area or rest rooms....you are still shopping. However, once you attempt to leave the store, they have the right to ascertain that the items you are carrying have been paid for....simple logic here...
I work for the Indiana Department of corrections and I see a whole lot of people who think that they have rights that they don't...Sometimes they press the issue and end up in the slammer anyway. Society is getting sick of ne'er do wells that try to play the system....they are getting away with it far fewer times than in the past...FAR FEWER!!!
“An East St. Louis couple...”
I got the picture without reading the rest of the article.
“They treat you like a criminal when you leave their store demanding to inspect your bag and receipt.”
This is one of the reasons that I shop on-line elsewhere. Guilty until proven innocent.
I also love Lowe’s asking for your phone number on a cash transaction. I am a dirty old fart, and if a cute check-out girl under 30 asks this, I ask them if I can have theirs first. Shuts them right up.
One night outside my hotel in San Francisco I was offered the services of one of those.
Somebody walked out of the local Best Buy with an Apple Computer a few years back because the guy checking Receipts was distracted by another Customer, possibly a diversionary plant.
They have since changed their Procedures. In fact, I shop at Costco and they always check Receipts at the door. No big deal, takes a few seconds. I don’t mistake their procedures with a TSA Body Cavity Search.
Whether a Big Bad Corporation or a little Electronics Store, you are on their Property and are subject to their security rules.
Don’t like it, shop at Amazon.com. (Well, come to think of it, around here we call Best Buy the Amazon.com Showroom)
Having worked in retail management, I can tell you that employees are the #1 source of theft.
Gosh, you don’t even realize how wrong you are. The store can ask you for a receipt and check it against purchases made in the store. <- period.
Damn, I'd hate to hear the conversations at the City Council meetings!
They are married, but his name is Thompson and hersis Greenwood? Whats with that?
61, elderly??!! This article had to be written by a 20-something. I am not far from that age, and am a fitness trainer (became certified at 52). I am a woman. I out press people 30 years younger and am in better shape. This really burns me!!!
61 is not “oldish” either.
To all: Merry Christmas!
I challenged several of you to provide the specific law that grants the Best Buy broad rights that ursurp your invidiual rights and freedoms. Last I checked, my local Best Buy (although private property) was still in America.
WE HAVE A WINNER!!! Congradulations Steve86!
However, don’t celebrate yet. It wasn’t a complete answer, only partial credit. Here’s why.....
“Shopkeepers Perogitive” is only employed when the managment, employees or loss prevention personel directly observe theft.
This gives the shop owner rights just short of police, the right to detain, question and effect citizen arrest(most states). In most cases, it does not extend to search of the person, they need to wait for police. However, during questioning they can request to search and if granted, conduct the search (again, some states). Documenting all very carefully since this will be the basis of a criminal charge.
It does not extend to generalized warrantless searches of all shoppers.
Example: The restroom at the store is private property. The stalls are where some criminals go to hide store property on their body. Are you suggesting the store has a right to place a camera in each stall to watch you?
No, the courts have ruled that their is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Personal rights, your civil rights, are more important to the court than the shopholder’s rights to protect his property at all costs.
I am very respectful of the jobs the Loss Prevention folks at the store try to perform in the face of overwhelming odds... Their success or failure has a direct impact on the cost of goods all of us law abiding customers pay.
This discussion has been good since I hope it has raised some understanding of your personal freedoms and rights, the very precious commodity that many have paid in blood to protect.
We have been conditioned over the years to gradually voluntarily surrender these rights by government and in this case, private business.
In the case of private business, we empathise with the shop owner and being decent people, try to help them prevent theft. In most of the posts here, some Freepers defended the shopkeepers right to proptect his property over the right of the individual.
Never in this discussion did I ever promote being rude, overtly agressive or anything close to what the jerk did in the actual article that promoted this discussion. That kind of behavior has no place in our society.
God Bless you Terycarl for the job you do at the Indiana Department of Corrections. Tough job, I wouldn’t want it....
Again, to all....A very Merry Christmas to all of you and your families and a Happy New Year!
Let’s all work to get conservatives elected to all levels of office to protect our freedoms.
This is a long-standing and legal practice, not only at Best Buy but also at Sam’s, Costco, Walmart and depending on where you live, Target. The club stores’ membership agreements contain specific language. If people don’t like showing a receipt, they can shop somewhere else. They are on private property and the owner gets to set the rules (such as showing ID when using a credit or debit card.) The specificity: a store is a public space but it is private property, this is the same principle that allows people to be ejected from movie theaters for multiple reasons at the operator’s discretion; in addition, the Fourth Amendment only applies to police officers and other state actors. It doesn’t apply to private citizens, such as store owners and greeters. Big picture: shop-lifting costs innocent consumers billions a year, because someone has to pay for what is stolen. At Walmart alone, the tab for theft is $3 billion a year. It annoys but does not kill me to show a receipt when I leave a store. Suck it up.
They do it as part of their loss prevention procedures. Which BTW, I'm sympathetic to..
Sam's, Costco and alike are not retail stores but membership clubs, you sign an agreement (contract) when you join which in the fine print states that you agree to the search.
If you refuse there, their recourse is they can revoke your membership.
Since I signed the agreement (contract) with them I have no problems showing my receipt and having them inspect the goods. I always honor my contracts
The case of ejecting someone off private property has no relavance to a warrantless search. The private property owner alwasys retains that right.
Nor does your agrument regarding ID request for a credit card. They don't force you to provide it however if you want to pay with credit, they have a right to validate the payment method..
In short, your argument is not valid. Refer to my post #114 for a more detailed explanation.
Regardless, I do not need to “suck it up”, the law, Constitution and Bill of Rights is on my side.
Merry Christmas!
Oh I am sure you are right!!
Do I detect a little pre-Christmas sarcasm?
Regardless, have a very Merry Christmas!
Here is the skinny.
I don’t know why you keep insisting about something that is pretty well much defined and searchable for sources on the internet.
First off, shoplifting is governed by State Laws, so they vary from state to state, however there are common themes. One being you cannot detain anybody without reasonable suspicion, which means ‘witnessed’, or you’ve triggered electronic sensors.
Once you have reasonable cause, you may detain for a reasonable amount of time and restraint. As you wait on the police.
You can (and almost always will by trained personal) be asked to present a receipt for items you are leaving the store with. Failing to produce a receipt may lead to reasonable suspicion. At the least, expect store security to ask for the merchandise.
But all this is not definitive because it goes by State by State unless the items in question are above ‘petty theft’ levels. I cannot be definitive, you cannot be definitive, we can only talk state by state, so stop trying to be authoritative and definitive.
Above and beyond that, there are ample ‘case law’ established. Go read some.
“Once you purchase the merchandise at the register it is your personal property, no longer the stores..”
Hmmmmm...so the guy at the front door just has to take your word for it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.