Your papers please? Circuit City edition

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:22 am

Civil Rights? I guess not, at least when it comes to our favorite Electronics Box store.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:13 am

I am continuously glad that people willing to do these things exist. These are modern day heroes, in my book.

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:20 am

I've never had a bit of trouble, but as a general practice, I refuse to allow the stores to look at my receipts when I leave the store. The only exception to this is Costco, and I don't understand why I allow it in that context.

Post by **eddiecanuck** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:20 am

Wow, that's really interesting. I too don't really mind Costco taking a peek as I leave, but do mind places like WalMart, Best Buy (back when I shopped there), and such. I also had no idea about showing ID to the police. But it's true, what if I didn't have a driver's license, or what if I just didn't have it with me at the time. You'd think they would have done more "investigating" before just arresting. But I guess that's kind of the point, that some times the police rush to accuse without cause. So much for innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Post by **bio** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:24 pm

Don't be so quick to refuse when they ask to see your reciept (at least in Washington State).

From the Washington State Legislature website:

RCW 4.24.220
Action for being detained on mercantile establishment premises for investigation — "Reasonable grounds" as defense.

In any civil action brought by reason of any person having been detained on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a mercantile establishment for the purpose of investigation or questioning as to the ownership of any merchandise, it shall be a defense of such action that the person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a peace officer or by the owner of the mercantile establishment, his authorized employee or agent, and that such peace officer, owner, employee or agent had reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit larceny or shoplifting on such premises of such merchandise. As used in this section, "reasonable grounds" shall include, but not be limited to, knowledge that a person has concealed possession of unpurchased merchandise of a mercantile establishment, and a "reasonable time" shall mean the time necessary to permit the person detained to make a statement or to refuse to make a statement, and the time necessary to examine employees and records of the mercantile establishment relative to the ownership of the merchandise.

In a nutshell... they can ask for your receipt and detain you if you refuse... and the courts will uphold it.

Apparently Wal*Mart has used this as a defense several times after they've detained and/or searched people, and thus said people filed suit. They've won every time.

Don't try this at home, kids!

ironpants · Post by **ironpants** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:56 pm

That says "In any civil action..." so he couldn't sue if he was here, but he could still lay down criminal charges as property rights and the right to privacy are gaurenteed by the constitution and no state law can say otherwise without an amendment. I think this nutball could have gotten away with it here too. Moreover, there's nothing there that indemnifies the store or it's employees from illegal detainment, just civil suit.

I've been spending far too much time with lawyers lately, I blame the FTC, numerous nefarious software publishers, a bunch of pirates and congress.

ROb