georgerussia

This is actually the fifth time you are _guessing_ something about what I think or know. Just wonder when you are going to stop your speculations about everyone else? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then it does not work. At least in Bay Area the prices in the stores which want to check receipts usually are not lower at all than the prices in the stores which do not do so. Even Costco prices are not always the lowest comparing to other local retailers. And if you compare with online retailers, "in order to keep our prices low" sounds like a joke. I think you are misleaded here. If I do not steal anything from the store, how can checking my receipt/bag help them to keep prices low? They would actually have to increase the prices to pay salaries to the people who check bags and receipts. This is not the issue of politeness. I know that I did not stole anything from the store. Therefore the store has no loss because of me, and it should not affect store prices. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

is From what I see the "majority" is doing pretty well representing themselves at least in small claims courts. Maybe that is YOU who are the exception, and, by far, is better off paying for their legal services - no matter how small? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You should have looked carefully. No, this one does not work - the unlawfully taken property was not recovered. This one does not work either - the peace officer was not called by store management to cause an arrest. You should try something else. This is not interpretation. This is what is written in the law in plain English. And if you consider it interpretation - than your own interpretation means nothing as well, so then I have no idea why you even quoted the law, and commented it like "did the kid know it?". Sir, you seems to have no basic understanding of how the legal system works. Could you please get some knowledge? The law only grants the store employee a permission to detain the kid for one of three purposes. The store employee detained him for the purpose which is not granted by law - to search his bag. The judge cannot grant the store employee the right to examine the bag - even if the judge believes there was a probable case. Only lawmakers could do so. I wonder why after several pages of discussion you still cannot understand the simple fact that the receipt alone cannot prove he didn't take anything? But it doesn't really matter. He was not required by law to prove he didn't take anything. He asked the store employee to call the police to arrest him if they have probable cause, or let them go if they do not. You may not like it, or may consider it unreasonable, but what he did was completely legal, and what store employee did was not. What part of this is not clear to you? So when you quote and apply the law, you are "just post how you see". And when others do exactly the same, they are "trying to play lawyer". Should I say "hypocrisy?" You could doubt whatever you want. But it does not matter. What I am seeing is that the people are discussing the story the way it was published, not the story how the user willard thinks it happens. I wouldn't discuss the last one either. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, I definitely do not want the airport security going through my luggage. I also do not want any police officer to search me, no matter whether there is a probable cause or not. But all of this does not matter, because this is a law. Which not only allows, but _requires_ them to do so without your permission. When you have a law you do not like, it is usually unlawful just to act against it. There are, however, other - legitimate - actions you can try to have it struck down, like writing to your senators or bringing the case to the court. The store story is completely different. There is no law in effect, which requires, or even allows the store to have my bags searched when I leave it. Therefore they need my permission for it, and it could only be a matter of explicit written agreement between you and store (otherwise they will have hard time proving I did give them such permission). Obviously the agreement should be in effect before you have paid for the goods, and you should not be allowed to pay for the goods, or to enter the store, if you do not explicitly agree. However if there is no agreement, the store can only do what the law allows them to do, like detain you on citizen arrest, and call the police. Imagine the dropzone forgets to check that the tandem student signed the waiver, took him up, and he got hurt. Could he sue the dropzone? Obviously, because he did not give up his rights to sue. Could the dropzone ask him to give up his rights to sue after he got hurt? Yes. Is the student required to give up those rights? No. Would they get him up if they knew he wouldn't give up his rights? No, but it does not matter, because they already did it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There are cases where the lawyer is needed. But not all the cases are like that. And there is a lot of people actually practicing law every day using the same websites - have you ever been in small claims court? Obviously you do not know all the ins and outs of medicine. Does this mean that you go to a hospital and demand surgery and intensive care every time you got a scratch or a splinter? Again, it depends on case. Even in U.S. I have won my traffic ticket in a traffic court without a lawyer, and I was not the only one. Does this mean I know ins and outs of legal system? Obviously not. Does it mean that I have some knowledge of it? Yes, it does. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

They have legal rights to _enforce_ it (by accusing you of shoplifting, making citizen arrest, and calling the law enforcement). They are not allowed to do it themselves, unless you let them do. No, it does not. "Being polite" means replying "no, thank you" when they ask to search your bag instead of "go f@ck yourself". What you are talking about, is giving up your legal right, which is not an issue of politeness. It might be ok for you, and completely inappropriate for someone else - after all, we all are different. It does not matter whether it is for "allowing the retailer to keep prices low" - their prices are already not low, and some people just don't care. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I think I miss your point completely. Are you trying to say that because we stop on traffic lights and pay 25% of our income in taxes, we should have no problem letting a store employee to search our bags? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Have you ever looked in the (C)? (C) An officer, agent, or employee of a library, museum, or archival institution pursuant to division (B) of this section or a merchant or employee or agent of a merchant pursuant to division (A) of this section may detain another person for any of the following purposes: (1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft; (2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer; (3) To obtain a warrant of arrest. As you see, the law does not grant the permission to detain someone just to ensure there is no property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft. No, it will not, because the store employee told him explicitly that he does not accuse him of anything. This obviously meant he did not have a probable cause. Otherwise he would tell him plain straight that he had probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by this person. I bet he did, because he asked right questions. The better question, IMHO, would be to ask directly about whether they have a reasonable case to believe I stole anything, and if they do, ask them to call a police. Personally I'd have no more reasons to trust the store employee than they have reasons to trust me - what if the store employee puts something in my bag during "comparing the list of items"? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Pal, I have to say you completely misread the thread. No one here is ever discussed whether you should be politely enough to show your receipt, and the issues discussed are not related to politeness at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There are a lot of them. 1. Despite what you said, you are not giving up your rights just by entering the private property. While some (but not all) rights could be given up, the current situation is that it has to be done explicitly. And, unless you're dealing with government official, in writing. 2. The store has the right to set up the policy, and enforce it by not allowing the people who do not agree to the said policy to enter the store (and have to be able to prove it later in a court that the person has agreed to it). However the store has then the responsibility to enforce this policy, because if you lawfully enter it without agreeing with the policy, their right to refuse you to enter has been already waived. 3. There are some rights which are protected by law, and some which are not. Your right to enter the store is not protected, but your right not to be searched unlawfully is. You could give it up voluntarely, but it does not go away just because the store has some policy. I hope we're clear with those three issues now. Let's move on. Because the store employee violated his right by detaining him. I do not bitch about it, because when I tell the store employee that I will not show him a receipt, he goes away, and my rights are not violated. His rights were. So what IS a search then in your terms? Is checking your pockets or purse also just a verification that there is nothing more in your pockets than just what you paid for, and you didn't forget something in the store (your cell phone, for example)? And if I put everything in my backpack, should it be checked too, and should I explain why those snacks I have here are not mentioned in receipt? I have no problem with this as long as they have a policy, informed the customers about it BEFORE they enter the store, and refuse entry to the store to those who does not agree with the policy. It could be done - for example, Costco is doing this through the membership agreement, and they only allow the Costco members inside. I don't like it, and I don't shop there. I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not see anyone crying. I do see, however, the legal rights violated - not by asking a receipt, of course. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is no law which says so, and you are not giving up any rights. The rights have to be given up explicitly, not implicitly. Otherwise no dropzone would ever need waivers - just have a sign posted like "by entering here you give up your rights to sue". It doesn't work this way though because of various reasons - you'll have to prove that the person has seen the policy, has understood it (what if he doesn't read English?), and has agreed to it knowing what he is doing. You could damage (piss on) your rug in your home, or you can break your iPod apart because you own it, and this is your property - not because the law gives you the right to piss on your rug, or break your iPod. If you buy an iPod in a store, you could break it right there the second after you paid for it. There is, however, a law against unlawful search, which gives you certain rights. So if you come to my house (private property), it does not mean that you have given this right, and I could search you whenever I want. See a difference? Since receipt became your property as soon as it is printed and given to you, requiring to see a receipt might be considered search. Asking for receipt is not, as asking to drop your pants. It is up to you to do so. They have the rights to refuse you to enter the store. However by allowing you to enter the store they have implicitly waived this right. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But the store layout is something the store decides for themselves! So, according to you, the store itself makes it more vulnerable to theft? There is exactly the reason if the cashiers were crooked. A typical crook case is that Mike is buying one 1Gb iPod ($50) and two 30Gb iPods ($250 each). His buddy Tom, working as a cashier there, scans the same 1Gb iPod three times. Mike pays $150 (instead of $550), packs his goods, and goes away. This is most typical store theft with crooked cashiers, and checking the receipt without cheching the bag content will not help to prevent it anyway. It will be much harder to prove the intention to steal if the person hasn't left the store yet, as the theft hasn't been completed. After all, there is a lot of time you're walking in the store carrying the merchanidse you haven't paid for yet, and it does not make you a thief. He could always say he was just about to look outside to see whether his buddy's car is still on the parking lot, and then return to the cashier, and pay for his stuff. So to have a valid shoplifting case they actually need to let the person to leave the store anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So the guy grabbed an item off the shelves he passes on his way to the door. He put it in a purse, in a pocket, or even in the bag. The receipt checker was busy and did not see this. Then the receipt checker asks to see his receipt. How seeing the receipt is going to help to prevent theft if the guy in question shows the receipt, but does not allow them to search him? How could it ever help if he shows the receipt, but does not allow them to look into his bag (which is definitely search)? I never shop in Walmart, so I wonder what will happen if you pay, tell the cashier you don't need a receipt (like I do in Safeway all the time), and go out? Should you also keep the receipt on the parking lot? Maybe when you go home too - after all, how could you prove to this nice police officer that you did not steal those chicken wings from your neighbor? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This question has been answered more than five times. They have the right to ask you whatever, from showing the receipt to clean up the store for free. The point is that you are not required to do so, and you do not have to disclose the reasons. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It definitely depends on country - and, probably, on the officer skills. I have personally won three cases against police officers in Russia, and one case was dismissed. Maybe it is different in England, but it is not the same everywhere. The truth is, most officers I've seen only know a little bit of law, and their knowledge most time is based on what other officers tell/suggest them. They do not track changing laws, and might have no idea the law they were taught in the police academy five years ago (and applied it during all those five years) last year has been struck down by a court decision. Which is understandable though. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The merchanidse cannot be in his bag, because this bag was just given to him by the cashier, and supposed to contain only things he paid for (or the cashier was satisfactory explainted he brought them with him - this is the case if the merchanidze is in open). So, as I said, the receipt inspection would not prevent anything like that. It only could prevent the "crook cashier" plan, but it is not my problem if a store hires crook cashiers. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You are talking about the "show receipt" policy. In that case there is no receipt, and therefore "show receipt" policy does not prevent anything at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's what I mean they have this right. Obviously they do not have the right to do it under any circumstances. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Maybe because the stuff the thief stole before coming to cashier is usually not hidden in the bag the cashier hang to him? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't think the store could prosecute for theft anyone who just passed the cashier line. At least on Safeway there is a lot of stuff behind the cashier line - so you actually have to pass cashiers to get them. Our local Safeway sometime even has stuff _outside_ the store (watermelons are common), with price tags. What I heard was actually completely different: the theft is not completed until the thief leaves the store. True, there is nothing illegal to ask for proof of purchase. Even I can ask for proof of purchase for everything you have in your car or home, there is nothing illegal with this. The point is that whether you have to comply this request, or you can/should just deny it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is correct. I have no rights to check whether you paid for it. I do not have right to search you to check whether you are carrying illegal gun, and I have no right to wiretap your Internet connection to check whether you are molesting children online. That is why we have the police, and the police has those rights. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I suspect that journal was "Why should you believe in Jesus". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So who created your god? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *