The Rights of a Consumer vs. The Rights of a Private Business
Does a private business have the right to demand to see a receipt for the products we just purchased or is that infringing upon the our 4th amendment rights? I've been known to refuse to show my receipt to those guys with the highlighter in electronic stores, especially during busy holiday shopping seasons, and I have never run into a problem. I have heard of horror stories about people being detained for refusing to comply with these practices of these stores.
I'm pretty much pro business all the way, however, this is a very touchy subject for me. Part of me believes that private organizations have every right in the world to conduct business any way they please, but part of me believes that a business transaction ends at the moment that money is exchanged for goods; at that moment, those goods become my property. It seems absolutely crazy that an organization would force me to prove to them that I really did just purchase those items.
I think this is where I stand on this subject. A private organization has the right, to search me upon entry, to make sure I am not bringing in harmful items or whatever else they would not want in the store. They even have the right to request that I let them see my receipt, however, I do not have to comply with this. The store then has a right to detain me for shoplifting and then police can be brought in to settle the dispute. If the store does not claim that I have shoplifted, I have full right to leave the store and not be hassled after that. After this, the store would have every right in the world to refuse me service on every single one of my future visits to the store if they wished, because I refused to comply with their policies and they have the right to refuse service to anyone, for whatever reason. I think the police officer in the story was 100% wrong and out of line when he arrested the man for refusing to show his drivers license.
As for the story I just posted, linked here again for your convince, I think the police officer in the story was 100% wrong and out of line when he arrested the man for refusing to show his drivers license.
Am I mistaken with this? Should a private organization have the right to force people to comply with whatever zany policies they have there, simply because they chose to shop there? Should a private organization have the right to detain someone for another reason besides shoplifting? Do the consumers have the right to shop at private organizations having to worry about having their rights infringed upon? What are your opinions?
Comments
Like it is against Californian law to smoke in a bar, no matter what the opinion of the owner of the bar is. I think that is wrong and the decision on how to run your business should be left up to the owner of that business. Another example is that we, as American Citizens, are granted freedom of speech, however if we were, say, shopping at the Gap and we were saying overly vulgar things, they would have full right to ask us to leave.
Another question I have is should police have the authority of enforcing a private organization's policy. I say no. Going back to my example of shopping at the Gap, if we were to refuse to leave even though we violated their policy, the police would come and escort us off the premises not because we violated their policy, but because we were not welcome on their premises and we were trespassing, when is a real crime. So now back to the original question of should a company have the right to detain me for not showing a receipt. While it may be the policy of the private organization to do so, I would have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the state and therefore the police would not be able to side with private organization.
So I think from writing this comment I've almost solidified my viewpoint, but I would still really like to hear other people's opinion on this subject.
That said, unless there is suspicion of theft the store has no right to detain the person (under Australian laws, anyway). They have every right to refuse to serve someone, demand they leave, and then ban them for being a twit, though.
I used to work in a supermarket and at least once every month some smart-arse or another would refuse to open their bag for inspection. I'd point out that there were signs everywhere saying that it was a condition of entering the store that we could inspect their bags. They'd usually continue being an arse and refuse to move. I'd just end up wondering what the point was, because I'd call the store manager, he'd have the same argument with the guy (it was always a guy for some reason) and basically tell him that we wouldn't sell him anything unless he complied with the policies. I got paid by the hour, so standing around watching some idiot make a fool of himself rather than actually working the checkout was hardly a problem for me (if anything it was a nice break). The store manager got paid by the hour, so standing around being stubborn was no skin off his nose either. And a big multinational chain isn't going to change its policies over one guy cracking the shits and stopping one queue from moving. Especially since half the time they ended up relenting just so they could buy their groceries. I mean, if you want to make a stand stop shopping there. Send a letter to head office explaining why you've stopped shopping there. Companies care about dollars, not lofty ideals argued with a check-out chick who doesn't give a damn!
I agree that the police officer was out of line for arresting the person for not showing ID, though. If there's no law on the books that demands people to show ID on request then no-one should be arrested for it.
If there was no reason to suspect him of stealing something then he would not be allowed to purchase anything and would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be escorted off the property by the security guard. If he resisted, or threatened the workers in any way, I assume police would then be called.
Thankfully I never saw it get to that stage, and even if it did as a lowly check-out chick I wouldn't have had to get involved - beyond mildly amused spectating!
The store has a right to protect its interest. I agree that if you don't like being searched, then shop elsewhere. Also, if you have noticed, some type of stores put their products behind the counter. A clerk has to assist the customer with the purchase. That does not leave any room for shoplifting. Then you have stores where the inexpensive products are out in the open and the expensive ones behind the counter.
You're right, it would be amusing to watch the store manager deal with a customer who refuses to have his bags checked. I'm OK with my bags being searched.