Home Depot customer detained by DC police for not showing receipt
Anonymous BB reader says,
A DC man was recently detained, in violation of his fourth amendment rights, by a DC Metropolitan Police officer who was present at the time the customer didn't stop to show a receipt to a Home Depot security guard. He's posted an open letter to Home Depot's CEO (the illegal detainment was the straw that broke the camel's back) as well as a copy of his official complaint to the police department.Similar summaries from other cities have been posted to Boing Boing before involve Tiger Direct, and Circuit City.
the latest
latest episodes
Oh, please. His fourth amendment rights? You leave a store with merchandise -- and almost uncertainly this was a store with a big, bold sign visible as you enter that tells you that you may be required to show a receipt -- and refuse to show proof that you've paid for it, whether you have or not. That's probable cause by any reasonable standard.
Remember that probable cause does not require a better-than-even chance of a crime having been committed, merely a 'fair probability' as per Illinois vs Gates (1983). And hearsay can even supply probably cause.
Look, I'm as much a supporter of civil liberties as the next Canuck, and I agree that it's annoying showing your receipt. I don't like doing it, either. But the idea that you can do so without fear of a run-in with the law is frankly ridiculous.
So I don't know the law in Canada - but in Texas once my transaction with the cashier is complete the merchandise is now mine and the store has no right to inspect it or me. A store is a public space and in no way does a sign saying 'packages may be inspected' or somesuch give the store the right to inspect my person or belongings without clear evidence of a crime. (Membership clubs like Sams and Costco are an exception as they may have forced you to agree to a search in writing when signing the membership agreement) Refusal to stop for an unnecessary inspection is not probable cause.
I agree that the best course of action is to vote with ones wallet - don't shop at places where this practice is in place and make it clear to management of those stores why you refuse to shop there - but the law, at least in these parts, is on Matt's side.
I keep reading about these incidents and always say to myself that I would totally stand up to the "man" :/ if it ever came to be. Truth is, I go to two local Best Buy stores somewhat frequently and have never been asked to show a receipt, same with Home Depot (this is actually the first time I've heard of Home Depot doing this.) The only shop thats ever asked me has been Fry's, and honestly, at least at my local Fry's all they do is look at the receipt and slash it with a pink highlighter, never even look in the bag. I find this rather lame & somewhat of a funny tradition of going there. This is a shop that sells deodorant next to the candy near the checkout, just sayin'. I only hit them about twice a year due to the distance and the unfortunately as of recent, sub-par stock that I am interested in. I have more to say, but this is not my soapbox. Carry on.
I've been to that Home depot, it's the only one in the city. My breaking point came when I saw a guy get shot down by off-duty police officers in the parking lot. Don't feel too bad for him though, he was waving his gun around the store first.
I think the reason they ask to see a recept there s that they put the self checkout lanes closest to the door (smart move huh) I can vouch though, I've never seen a sign there saying "Have your receipt ready"
@jim.cowling: when the police are involved, constitutional rights apply; signs don't revoke constutional rights (though i admit that failure to ignore tham might constitute probable cause -- for police, not rent-a-cops).
@kgodfrey: right, though keep in mind that the worst such agreements can do is lead to, e.g., costco revoking your membership.
#1
Surely the point here is that the police officer saw fit to detain the man. He committed no crime, he simply refused to "obey" an opt-in security measure.
Putting a sign on display in a store does not waive the law of the land, and in this case there was no sign.
The only place for the police officer in this incident, was to be the mediator in this civil dispute. No law was broken, so he should not have taken the side of the store.
@Jim Cowling, you cannot be required to show a receipt, it's still a voluntary task, they can _ask_ you to hand it over. Not force it from you.
And detainment is certainly not allowed, if there is NO reason to do so.
What exactly does this 'security theatre' measure stand to prove? Do you think it diminishes on shoplifting?
I too was shocked when I read the letter. How anyone could complain about being illegally detained and the unavailability of CPVC 1/2" elbows at Home Depot in the same letter is completely beyond me.
I don't understand the reluctance; what's wrong with showing a receipt?
Also, Madjo said "What exactly does this 'security theatre' measure stand to prove? Do you think it diminishes on shoplifting?" Well, I would expect it to diminish shoplifting, is this not the case?
which home depot is this though? If this is the one on rhode island ave, this doesnt surprise me :) i wouldnt say it is the *best* neighborhood. if i ran the store i would check receipts too ...
another reason i shop at lowes. better selection, and people seem to actually know answers to my home improvement questions.
Seems like a simple fix to me. Refuse to show the receipt, if they make a fuss, walk straight over the return counter. Maybe you'll even pick up a sputtering floor manager along the way.
Can anyone point to any legal documentation (federal or state -- I am in California) that can back the 4th ammendment claim up? Something that could be printed and carried around.
I hear alot of opinion but havent really seen anything backed up from any court cases, laws, etc.
That sign ("We reserve the right to inspect your bags" is meaningless in the United States.
What probable cause was there that a crime had been committed?
IIRC, if a Security type is going to make an arrest, several things have to happen:
The seven steps of the Retailer's Law of Arrest are:
Require that in all cases the apprehending employee be positive that a person has committed a crime. Do not take unnecessary chances; it is not worth the risk. You must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect did commit the shoplifting crime.
The apprehending employee must have the suspect under observation prior to the taking of the merchandise--a very important guideline.
I first learned the importance of this strategy 20 years ago when one of our store's best detectives reached the top of an escalator just as a woman was removing a blouse off the rack and placing it into her purchase bag. This suspect was apprehended as she left the store. On investigation, however, we found that this customer had purchased a blouse two days earlier, and had returned to exchange her blouse for one she liked better. Since there were no employees in the blouse department when this customer arrived, she decided to exchange her blouse for the one on the rack. As she was doing this, the detective arrived just in time to see her place the blouse in her bag. This mistake cost our store $30,000 because the detective did not have this woman under observation prior to seeing her take the blouse.
The apprehending employee must see the suspect take the merchandise and be able to prove that the suspect did not pay for it or have any intention of paying for it.
The apprehending employee must know where the stolen merchandise is, be able to identify it, and not lose sight of the suspect.
The suspect must always be given ample opportunity to pay for the merchandise. If possible, it is best to make the apprehension after the suspect has passed the last point where the item can be paid for.
A suspect should never be apprehended in the area where the merchandise was taken. While it is true that some state statutes have concealment clauses, over the years there have been too many instances in which a customer for some reason has placed an item in their pocket or purse and later paid for it. The last thing you want is to unjustly accuse anyone of committing a crime.
An apprehension should never be made based on someone else's word. The apprehending employee must be required to observe the suspect take the merchandise. Any other person giving this information could be mistaken, or the suspect may have seen this person contacting your employee and then "ditched' the merchandise.
From HERE: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n22_v26/ai_6087617
I haven't shopped at Best Buy or Menard's for 5 years because of this practice.
I'm sure I'm not the only one. Maybe retailers should take notice.
If a sign is clearly posted stating the fact that a receipt will be required to exit the store with any merchandise, case closed.
Just as with whenever something is sold "as-is", as long as it states that anywhere within the contract...seller is relieved of any return obligations. Look it up.
Think about it, you are telling a customer that that toaster will cost $20. If you give the store a $20 bill, they will give you a toaster. That is the agreement you made. You agree that swiping your credit card and scribbling your signature will be a fair trade for that toaster. If you try to break that rule, you agree to being arrested.
This receipt stuff is common sense. It sucks, but that's what happens in a system of checks and balances when society's bad apples spoiled the bunch.
I'll bet the law trade workers won't find it that simple.
@15: Judge Judy, is that you?
If their in-store security is so bad that Best Buy needs to check bagged items, that's just lazy, and I shouldn't have to pay for that with my time.
Reminds me of the days when grocery stores would have a person there to bag your groceries at every register and the bagger would then walk you to your car, or at least to the door. It was service for you and security for the store.
Of course, stores have to pay baggers. And these days, I'm lucky if I don't have to scan my own damn groceries. Fact is, retail companies in the US just don't care about anything but making the most by using the least. That's the longtail of free-market capitalism in an unregulated democracy, and it's only going to get worse--at least until online sales outpace b&m, and the b&m's amp up their customer service to make you like shopping there.
Man, people love to get enraged around these parts (and by these parts, I mean "the internet"). Guy was a douche, refused to show his receipt, security guard went too far. Case closed. I just can't muster up the energy to be angry on behalf of somebody else who could have saved himself a whole lotta hassle just by taking 30 seconds to show his receipt, but I commend you guys for being up to the task.
Today they ask for your receipt. Tomorrow your ID. Next week, you find yourself shackled in the back stacking boxes.
Seriously, insolent merchants had always better be bitch-slapped whenever they cross the line.
I agree that it makes no sense for stores to check ALL bags and receipts. However, since the guy has shopped there before, I'm inferring that they don't always ask for receipts at this store (or else this might have come up before), so maybe there's more going on here than the one side of the story we're getting.
Without knowing Home Depot's side of the story, I suppose it *could* be that someone in store security thought he saw something hinky with this customer. That could be the reason for asking to see the receipt. Failure to produce the receipt for merchandise leaving the store in such a situation certainly could lead the store personnel to think something something was amiss.
Saying that once people go through the checkout process, the store has no control over people, gives the store no opportunity to deal with suspected shoplifters - because up until the items are or are not paid for they haven't been stolen.
How would others suggest stores deal with suspected shoplifters?
Just another reason I avoid Home Despot and shop at my local indy/Ace hardware store.* They don't reward my business by treating me like a potential criminal, I'm helped in seconds if I need it, and they actually know what they're talking about. It's worth whatever savings is to be had at the big box.
*They're franchises owned by the people running them.
#11 - I like that idea, except that at most stores, the returns counter treats you even more like a criminal, and requires several pieces of ID and a page of signed paperwork to handle a return even if the receipt shows you paid cash.
It might be inconvenient, but a couple of big-ticket returns where the reason given is dissatisfaction with the store's attempted unlawful search, is more likely to make the people who actually make the decisions change their policies, than any amount of complaining about it to the "only following orders" ground level employees and rent-a-cops.
#21: actually, you technically haven't shoplifted anything until you leave the store. At least, that's the way my security guard friend here in Toronto explained it to me. So even if you're standing right at the door with unpaid-for goods, until you step outside you are technically still in the good. But that was at department stores where the cashiers are in the middle of the store, not at a place like Home Depot where the only way to get out of the place is to walk past a cashier.
Home Despot should have figured out by now that half their damaged-on-shelf goods that are unsaleable are deliberate sabotage from annoyed customers. There is shrinkage and there is shrinkage.
When a police officers flashes his reds-and-blues at you on the highway, do you think that's just opt-in? Are you allowed to just floor it since you're absolutely positive that you haven't done anything wrong? Newsflash, Sherlock. The fact that you're refusing an officer's request raises giant suspicion red flags. You can file a complaint AFTER you show your receipt. Failing to cooperate with an officer is immediate grounds for attempt to detain you, because you're being a complete anusclown. Just fork out your blasted receipt like the other 2.38 fillion dillion of us think is a perfectly legitimate request. You won't be treated like a criminal anymore, one you stop wearing huge overcoats and skulking around like you're hiding something. That's like going to trial and refusing to show any evidence for your case and insisting that you're innocent just because you're some special crybaby. Case closed.
"an officer's request" , mall cops, stock clerks and renta-cops are not "officers" and merit no special treatment. If a a real cop wants to shake you down, sure , they are the gang with control of the street.
I love it when BoingBoing covers these... it reminds me of an experience I had leaving a store...
Way back in the days of yore, when PlayStation 2's were the hot commodity I walked into a store hoping that maybe, just maybe, they'd have one on the shelf...
They didn't...
Finally resigning myself to the fact that there'd be no bleeding-edge gaming at my house that night, I turned to leave. But as I walked out the second set of doors I felt a heavy hand clamp down on my shoulder and spin me around...
Fortunately I had heard the heavy breathing and wheezing coming up behind me a mile away and knew what to expect- typically a hand clamping down and spinning me around would have been met by a propelled right hand to the chin...
Instead I had to endure this gorilla with stale coffee and cigarette breath wheezing into my face telling me that he had already called the police and that he was "escorting" me to their "security room"- a broom closet with an empty desk, a mop and a half dozen milk crates.
The better part of an hour later the same gorilla returned with his manager and 3 uniformed officers and instructed me to empty my pockets out onto the desk, I was then patted down and interrogated as to where the "merchandise" was. At my insistance that I had not, nor attempted to, lift anything from their shop I was treated to a rather pathetic attempt at "good cop, bad cop" from the manager and guard while the "officers" stood idly by thumbing the catch for the mace compartment on their belts...
After 10 minutes of "We know you did." "No I didn't" "We KNOW you did." "No, I didn't." "Yes you did. We KNOW you DID." "Dude, no I fucking didn't..." "We have security cameras in place for situations like this." "Good, lets see the tapes so I can prove I FUCKING DID NOT DO IT."
30 minutes later, after they finally found someone with access to the "camera room" (do they build anything other than broom closets in these places?) with another desk (this one actually had a TV on the desk... judging by the other room I was thinking we were gonna be watching this tape in the electronics department) and a locking cabinet with VCRs'...
So after another 20 minutes of taking tapes out of machines, playing through them, swapping for the tapes in other machines, swapping tapes some more, and still more swapping tapes it was determined that indeed- At no point while I was inside the store did I even come close enough to any merchandise to be able to pretend to pick it up off the shelf.
The tapes showed me walk in, walk to the electronics department, stand dejectedly momentarily, turn and leave following the same route I entered through...
After it was all said and done I did not even get an apology. From anyone.
The manager simply opened the door and gestured for me to leave through it.
I guess I should just be thankful that the officer was willing to remove the handcuffs without detaching my hands at the wrists...
But the point.... The true kicker... the reward for reading through all that, is this...
When the officers first arrived, as I was going through the "empty your pockets" spiel- as the officer was looking over what I took out of my pockets he asked where my identification was. To which I replied, "Probably at home as I wasn't expecting to have to prove my identity today..."
To which the "Officer of the Law" rebutted that "... it is your ***Constitutional Obligation*** to carry picture identification with you at all times."
I shit you not, and that is as close to an exact quote as I can manage considering the flood of thoughts that crashed into that mental barrier that prevents all thoughts from becoming spoken words... But I shit you not, the words "Constitutional Obligation" were used in that context...
Give me Liberty or Give me Death, my ass...
Most stores don't require you to show a receipt as you exit, nor have they until recent (last 15 or so) years. If they think you shoplifted something, they need to have witnessed you shoplifting and catch you as you leave the store. Automatically questioning one's guilt (or innocence) is a waste of your time and a theatre at best (I say this because the times I've let them check my receipt they haven't even carefully checked it against the contents of my bags). Therefore, it is actually waste of both parties time.
Even if you perceive it as a reasonable thing, there are many people who don't and who find it invasive as well as offensive. I find it disrespectful. If there's a legitimate security problem at a store, then, as a customer, that is not your problem and you should not be required to pay with your time. There is nothing wrong or illegal with refusing to comply with store policies such as this after you've given your money to them and done no wrong. We do not need to waste our time to suit a company (that doesn't have their security program together) 's wishes.
Detaining people unlawfully IS a crime, however.
I got into an e-slapfight with Cory over this issue once before, but it boiled down to this.
Someone carrying a personal revolution against Best Buy... absolutely pointless.
The scene that he generated with his "I do not want to show you my receipt" merely gave everyone else the reason they needed to show their own receipts.
Guy says "Lemme see your receipt" and me, I say "No thank you" and keep going. I am therefore detained and the request is made again.
During my microscopic revolution, the rest of the paying customers see the Best Buy response team swing into action like atomic ninja, and
therefore, not wishing the wrath of the Best Buy's best, they begin to pre-produce their receipt, so that the nice man with the highlighter
doesn't need to wait.
What makes this equally ludicrous is that it's not like the staff is ridiculing the customer. It's a simple procedure that checks to make sure that what you're carting out is what you paid for.
This is done for all customers because just like you can't tell if someone's a check kiter, you can't just "tell" whether someone's a
shoplifter, either. It's basic retail.
Oh, for heaven's sake. Tht cut and paste got all sorts of messed up.
Take two!
I got into an e-slap-fight with Cory over this sort of issue, the full test of which is forever preserved here:
http://www.stupidhappy.com/coti/forum/viewtopic.php?t=647
and with which I end with:
[Someone carrying a] personal revolution against Best Buy... absolutely pointless.
The scene that he generated with his "I do not want to show you my receipt" merely gave everyone else the reason they needed to show their own receipts.
Guy says "Lemme see your receipt" and me, I say "No thank you" and keep going. I am therefore detained and the request is made again. During my microscopic revolution, the rest of the paying customers see the Best Buy response team swing into action like atomic ninja, and therefore, not wishing the wrath of the Best Buy's best, they begin to pre-produce their receipt, so that the nice man with the highlighter doesn't need to wait.
What makes this equally ludicrous is that it's not like the staff is ridiculing the customer.
...
It's a simple procedure that checks to make sure that what you're carting out is what you paid for.
This is done for all customers because just like you can't tell if someone's a check kiter, you can't just "tell" whether someone's a shoplifter, either. It's basic retail.
I can kind of understand Home Depot doing it because it's really busy, but Best Buy? There's a guy who does nothing but stand at the door to prevent theft. He's five feet from the registers. He watches you when you come in and when you go out. Even though he's not a security guard, he's doing a security job. Couldn't he just observe what's happening, like someone doing a security job is supposed to? If you just bought something big, like a TV, you're probably holding your receipt and service contract on top of it as you wheel it out. If you just stole a DVD, you've got it in your purse/murse or shoved in your pants/skirt. So what's the point.
This is starting to sound like the eternal TSA discussion. How about hiring workers who pay attention instead of annoying the customers.
any merchant that disrespects me, pays.
#30 / #31
I disagree with your analysis.
If I'm standing in line, and see the door staff man-handling someone into a back room over receipt checking, I will probably decide that this store isn't particularly customer-centric (whether or not I choose to show my receipt to get away painlessly this time) and choose not to shop there again.
Where do you get the assumption that people will cower AND return to patronise the store?
I think people need to see the disproportionate reactions of stores/staff toward people exerting their legal rights. Some people have never really stopped to think about what's going on in terms of civil rights being exchanged for security (and for the convenience of stock-watchers).
Other people have never thought to question whether or not they even had to show a receipt and stand in line just to exit with their legally purchased goods.
Maybe people will think the first couple were just punks causing trouble, but when people they respect, or identify with, start getting harassed by Shrinkage Monkeys - maybe they will start to think and question.
Civil resistance is a good and powerful thing, and nobody should ever be persuaded or cajoled otherwise, no matter how much your government or vested interests would wish it to be so.
And as to the ""you can't just "tell" whether someone's a shoplifter, either. It's basic retail"" comment.
As detailed in more than one comment above yours, to accuse someone of shoplifting, you have to have witnessed the before/during/after of the actual act.
So really, if you are saying this is a way to tackle shoplifting, then stores employing receipt-checking are actually bypassing the 'retailers law of arrest' (#13) and even further impinging on your stated (by the retailer) rights..
This happened to me once at Home Depot. I am the type of person who just walks past “The Gatekeeper” and leaves the store. However, I encountered an overly aggressive security man in uniform who asked for my receipt so I decided to have some fun.
The security guard looked into my bag, glanced at my receipt, and proceeded to mark it with a yellow highlighter. When he was done I asked him what was in my bag. He could not tell me one thing (there were only three items) and started going on the offensive of how I could have stolen something. I told him how would he know if I had stolen something when you don’t even know what’s in the bag? Did the items on the receipt match those in the bag?
We both exchanged a few more words as I was walking towards my car. He needs to be patrolling the parking lot for car thieves/vandalism and not harassing customers.
I assure you this is an American thing .
"The land of the Free"
I would like anybody in the uk to write hereof
there experiences in England. This does not happen and if it does the security better be right before the check you bag or they will get
in alot of legal trouble.
If shopping in London and some security guy stops
you on the way out the door and asks to check
your bag then he better have seen the person
stealing. I could not belive it when I moved here
that the store would request to see your receipt
my 80 year old mother came here last summer for a holiday and she told the guy to get out of her way and walked on out the the door. That was the end of that. Please do not send comments telling me to go back to England if I don't like it here.
It just a basic civil liberty thing that we the people need to preserve in an effort to save us all from the over intusive forces that surround us every day.