Marysville, California
Not resolved

I purchased a subwoofer in wooden box package from Marysville, CA Walmart. I paid in the automotive department in the back of the store with cash then put my receipt and change away in my wallet.

It was fairlyv large requiring both hands to carry. It also weighed a good 30+ lbs. I proceeded to the front of the store and attempted to exit out the front exit door. The Walmart people greeter steps in front of me and blocks my attempt to leave the store.

He rudely says, uht uht, i need to see a receipt. I started to go around him stating that i had just purchased the speaker in the automotive department and that i had my hands full but my receipt was inside my wallet. I was in a hurry and didn't feel like wasting more time to prove i had paid for my item (which by the way was only available inside a locked display case for purchase), and if he wanted to be sure of my purchase he could check the cameras. He proceeded to try and grab the box out of my hands while pushing the box into me in an attempt to keep me inside the store.

He also radioed a store manager who was now showing up to his side immediately agreeing that i had to show them my receipt.(with a disgusted look on her face)

I said i was in a hurry and it was inconvenient for me to do so and that it was unacceptable for him to unlawfully detain me from leaving and i was not required to prove that i had paid for my speaker. They both continued to attend in my way and block my attempts to walk around them. Finally i said fine since you're obviously an improperly trained Manager and people greeter to avoid getting physical i sat the box down got in my wallet and showed them my receipt. They said see that wasn't so hard why wouldn't you just show it in the first place?

I explained to them i had no obligation to do so and they should learn how to do there jobs properly and learn the law. The manager looked at me like i didn't know what i was talking about, and the two of them kinda were laughing at what i was saying. They had illegally detained me for approx. 20 min.

And technically the people greeter kidnapped me by moving me more than three feet against my will. What should i have done?

What would you do? Pissed off in Cali, Dustin Hensley

Product or Service Mentioned: Walmart Manager.

Reason of review: Poor customer service.

Do You Have Something To Say ?
Write a review


Post Comment

You sound like a God *** ***--what's the big deal....


You should have set the box down and shown him the receipt when he first asked. You were not unlawfully detained, you were not kidnapped. Proof of payment is one of those things people are legally entitled to ascertain. You were held up for 20 minutes because you were being a ***

You do not have a "right" to not show proof of ownership. You should count yourself very lucky that the police weren't called and that you weren't tazed or shot. You think it's normal to walk out of store with a huge package and not have someone ask to see the receipt?

What planet do you live on?


Those opinions of yours sound very much like your opinion. Learn some law before you go and sound like an ***.

Too late. Just because you say or think something doesn't make it true. I do have the right because I'm an American living under the US constitution and if you don't have something half intelligent or even somewhat informative them please refrain from commenting all you idiots sound the same.

It's very obvious you have no idea what the *** ck you are taking about. Some peoples kids I swear...


So, you are walking out the door with a big box and the only thing that shows you paid for it is tucked in your wallet. Of course you should be stopped.

How on earth would they know you didn't just pick it up off the shelf and decide to walk out the door with it? Keep in mind that when people steal from a store they end up raising their prices to cover the cost of lost merchandise. Be thankful someone is checking to be sure people aren't stealing.

All you would have had to do is show them the receipt and you would have been on your way. You caused your own delay by being a stubborn ***.


Because you have to have an associate unlock the case they are displayed in. They have about a 1000 cameras there is 2 ways they could have known.

2 way to radios are another good way I can think of. That's just to name a few. Better than stereotyping me and assuming I stole something because I am exercising my right not to have to show proof of ownership after purchasing something.

Walmarts policy is against the law. Bottom line.


Walmarts policy is against the law and is costing them 100s of thousands of dollars in lawsuits for unfairly treating their customers and treating people like criminals. When will they fix this issue and avoid all the problems they are causing so people like me aren't criticized for expecting to be treated fairly without prejudice and stereotype.

I broke no laws Walmart did. So *** ck anyone who disagrees with my choice.


So - I could go to any store, grab a few items off the shelf as long as an employee didn't see me, and just walk out with it and the store can't ask me to prove I bought it. That may be technically correct but it's just plain ***.

I expect you would see it differently if you owned the store and experienced the amount of shoplifting that goes on.

A normal honest person would find the request more than reasonable and would be prepared to show a receipt.

You sir, are an *** and should be ashamed of yourself.


Stop That Paying Customer! The Legality of Compulsory Receipt-Checking

Posted on March 12, 2008 by Articles

Written by: Steve Glista

Researched by: Matthew A.


Edited by: Lauren E. Trent

When Michael Righi heard someone running up behind him, he thought he knew what would come next. He expected a difficult conversation, maybe even some shouting or threats. He certainly didn’t expect to get handcuffed — but that’s exactly what happened after Righi walked out of a Circuit City in Cleveland, Ohio withoutHandcuffed Consumer showing his receipt to the security guard at the exit.

He’s not the only shopper in recent months who has experienced frustration or met with open hostility after refusing to show a receipt on the way out of a store. Customers like Righi claim that the Fourth Amendment protects them from unreasonable searches, that it’s wrong for stores to treat all customers as suspected criminals, and that stores have no right to demand a receipt or anything else from every customer. Since so many stores are checking receipts, it can’t be illegal…can it? The American system of law values few things more highly than the freedom for people to come and go as they please.

The idea that retailers may deny that freedom to paying customers over a simple matter such as refusing to show a receipt offends privacy advocates in a fundamental way. One of the beautiful things about the law is that it seldom identifies an offense without creating a corresponding legal remedy. When a person is wrongly held prisoner, the victim can seek redress against his captor in a civil suit for false imprisonment. Why check receipts?

Before considering whether detained customers like Michael Righi have grounds to sue, it helps to understand what motivates retailers to risk such liability. Today, nearly every retail outlet from Wal*Mart to Neiman Marcus offers at least one pocket-sized digital toy worth several hundred dollars. The 32 GB iPod Touch for instance, which Apple has priced at $499, is smaller than a pack of cigarettes. Without loss-prevention measures, a store like Costco could not afford to display an open rack of iPods without exposing itself to daily risk of substantial theft.

One approach retailers take to combat shoplifting is to keep small but valuable products in a locked display case. This method has the disadvantage that it may reduce sales, as customers are forced to obtain assistance before they can purchase the product. Another common approach is to wrap small and valuable items in large, difficult-to-open packaging. Unfortunately, packages designed to prevent theft can also frustrate legitimate buyers.

The tough plastic used has proven dangerous enough that inventors have created specialized tools to help people open their new possessions without injuring themselves. Receipt-checking is an increasingly popular loss-prevention method which retailers use to stymie would-be thieves. The brief stop discourages shoplifting by forcing each person to face down a guard before exiting the store. Unlike the locked display case, it doesn’t interfere with the customer experience until after the purchase is complete.

The drawback to aggressive receipt-checking programs is that unless they train their employees carefully, retailers can quickly find themselves on the receiving end of a civil complaint. Just Keep Walking The customer who objects to showing a receipt wonders, “I haven’t done anything wrong, so why is this store treating me (and everyone else who shops here) like a suspected thief?” Many shoppers have a vague sense that mandatory receipt checks intrude upon some kind of Constitutional right. While a general right to privacy may emerge from the “penumbras, formed by emanations” of the Bill of Rights, one Amendment is frequently cited as protecting citizens from compulsory searches. Many people believe that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution always requires agents of the U.S. Federal and State governments to obtain a warrant before making an arrest or searching personal property. However, the Supreme Court has found leeway for law enforcement officers to act without a warrant in some common-sense situations. For example, an officer can arrest and search a suspect without a warrant when there is “probable cause” for the officer to believe that the suspect is in the process of, or has just finished, committing a crime.

Since the Supreme Court’s 1967 Terry v. Ohio decision, police officers must merely identify “specific and articulable facts” which motivate them to apprehend a suspect. After an officer has made such a “Terry stop,” he may conduct a cursory search of the suspect, generally including a pat-down for weapons and an examination of any personal property not concealed in the suspect’s clothing. Searches incidental to Terry stops are justified on the grounds that police officers have a compelling interest in their own personal safety, and the failure to discover a weapon could present an unacceptable risk.

If the receipt-checker were a government officer the Fourth Amendment would generally allow customers to refuse to show a receipt, because presumably at least some customers visit Circuit City but don’t try to steal anything. If the officer detained every customer and conducted a search, a court would bar the use of any evidence obtained, unless the officer had probable cause to believe either that he was personally in danger or that a particular customer had taken a five-finger discount. In reality, the responsibility for checking receipts usually belongs to a store employee rather than a police officer. Consequently, the Fourth Amendment does not restrain those private citizens as it would agents of the government.

Some members-only discount stores require their customers to give consent to be searched by an employee as a condition of membership. For example, the Costco membership agreement contains an unconditional consent to search on page 29. Customers who sign such an agreement (as all Costco customers must) would seem to have no grounds to complain if they are later required to submit to a receipt-check. You’re not going anywhere!

As all first-year torts scholars know, “false imprisonment” is a legal term that describes the act of unlawfully confining a person against their will. Unfortunately for retailers with a nationwide presence, the actual details of the law vary by state. In most states a plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to make out his case. The offender first must have the intent to confine the victim, and second, must take action to actually confine them.

Third, the offender must act without a legal justification for doing so. Fourth, the victim must be aware of the confinement while it’s happening, or be harmed by it. Finally, there must be no reasonable means for the victim to escape (or at least no means that the victim is aware of). If the offender physically blocks the exit with his body and refuses to move, that may be enough of a confinement to satisfy a jury.

Even if an accused shoplifter can prove all the elements of a false imprisonment claim, the retailer might have an out: most American jurisdictions recognize a limited “shopkeeper’s privilege” exception to the false imprisonment tort. Many states have enacted the common-law privilege as positive law (for example, Oregon’s law is ORS 131.655). In either form, the shopkeeper’s privilege allows a retailer to detain suspected shoplifters and inspect their personal property for stolen items. Such a detention will not be punished as false imprisonment as long as it is limited to a reasonable (short) time, takes place in the store, if the force used to detain the suspect is reasonable, and if the retailer had the reasonable belief (often defined in this context as equivalent to probable cause) that the suspect was attempting to steal or had already stolen something from the store.

In practice, this last condition generally means retailers must actually see someone take an item and exit the store without paying for it before they attempt to confront the suspected thief. So where does this leave Mr. Righi and other potential plaintiffs? In Mr.

Righi’s case, he actually made it into his car before the security guard accosted him. Once he was in the car, the guard told him he couldn’t leave the premises, which is evidence of the guard’s intent to restrain him. The guard prevented him from leaving the parking lot, which satisfies the second element. Mr.

Righi was also aware that the Circuit City employees were physically preventing him from leaving (element three). Before the police handcuffed him, he might have been able to escape from the Circuit City parking lot without injury to himself or to the security guard, but if he believed that he was effectively restrained, that may be enough to prove the fourth element (no reasonable means of escape). Assuming Mr. Righi gave a true account of all of the facts, it would seem his situation meets all the necessary elements for a false imprisonment claim against Circuit City.

What of the shopkeeper’s privilege? Most of the circumstances satisfy the conditions necessary for Circuit City to claim the detention was privileged. The defense would turn on whether the guard had probable cause to detain and search Mr. Righi for stolen goods.

However, Circuit City does not have the power to forcibly search all of its customers, and the only specific and articulable fact that brought Mr. Righi to the guard’s attention was that when offered the opportunity to submit to a search, Mr. Righi politely declined. It is circular reasoning to suggest that the refusal to submit to a voluntary search is itself justification for subjecting a customer to one that is compulsory.

Should you show? Or should you sue? Even though typical customers who refuse receipt checks might have the law on their side, it seems odd that a consumer electronics store was the place where Michael Righi chose to draw a line in the sand. Picking a fight with a retail security guard over a $20 receipt seems quixotic at best.

Righi’s resistance stands out because, for most customers, the injury suffered from such a minor intrusion just isn’t significant enough to incur the cost of failing to comply with the guard’s request. But how should a customer who refuses to show their receipt expect to be treated by the law? Litigious customers facing off against the police or Costco might not have much luck. Police need probable cause to conduct a search, and Costco members have voluntarily agreed to submit to searches.

The question of law is more interesting when a retailer like Circuit City attempts to implement a receipt-check policy without the benefit of a member agreement.

In states where the shopkeeper’s privilege exists, stores like Circuit City may only claim the privilege to search customers when the store agent has a reasonable belief that a customer has engaged in unlawful activity. It seems implausible that store agents could honestly claim they need to check every receipt on the grounds that they have a reasonable belief that every one of their customers is a thief.


Dude you need to grow up.

The door greeters at walmart are required to ask for receipts, if they don't and something walks out of the store they are the one that gets in trouble.

I was a door greeter at walmart due to being injured on the job and was placed on light duty. I got my *** chewed several times for not checking receipts on items not bagged. So yes they are REQUIRED by the company to ask if your item is not bagged.

Just because an item is kept in a sealed case doesn't mean the person didn't break into the case.

I can not count how many times talking to LP they have caught people that have stolen games out of the case, stolen TV's after cutting the metal alarm wires off them, or broken into the plastic cases.

You asked what I would have done (in general of the people here) I would have taken the 20 seconds to set the woofer down, pulled my receipt out and shown it to the man. I sure a *** would not have sat there, caused a scene for 20 minutes and made myself look like a complete and utter ***.


really? You are seriously stretching for anything and everything you can to make yourself out to be the victim in all of this.

You weren't stereotyped, you weren't kidnapped, you weren't illegally detained. The only thing anyone is guilty of here is you being a complete dumb *** on a massive high horse.

(also because you keep screaming it in replys. Before you even post by law you don't have to show a receipt.

Find me the RCW that states you don't have to show proof of purchase when asked. I want the RCW, a link to the RCW and paragraph where it is stated.)


Thank you, I agree with you, Anonymous. But this unfortunate incident is moot because only masochistic *** shop at Wal-Mart; then only when they want second or third rate junk....


Oh I agree completely, I despise walmart. At the time it was the only job in the area hiring and frankly I wouldn't step foot in a walmart but only so many options where I am now. I do love how this *** is still playing up he was the victim in all of this.


As someone with years of retail experience, I do know that the only people authorized to detain someone are members of loss prevention. As the store manager of a Kohl's store, even I don't have the authority to detain people. The Walmart greeter and the manager were not members of LP, therefore they were wrong to detain this young man.


Wrong. If the store does not have an lp associate, then any member of management can step into the role as long as they've had the same training.

Not allowing any one other than lp actually has to do with the safety of the associates, not an actual law. Maybe it was a store policy at kohl's, but that doesn't apply everywhere.


Thank you Nancy finally another person with an education and no stereotypical judgment. Thought there was just idiots posting comments.


Walmart didn't break any laws, ***. Loss Prevention has every right to detain you if they suspect you of shoplifting. Get a job in retail, you might actually understand a few things.


Learn to read and interpret what you read. It was not loss prevention.

It was a fifty year old people greeter. Walmarts employee broke the law making them accountable. Yes I was illegally detained and technically kidnapped. Last I checked those were both criminal acts.

Thank you very much next time post attention before making such an uneducated comment. FYI I am an undergrad in retail management just for the record.


You were the one to created a scene. I don't get why you can't seem to get it through your head that checking receipts is part of the greeter's job.

You also don't seem to understand the definition of kidnapped. By the way, if you're an undergrad in retail management, as you claim, that would require having brains, something you were obviously born without.



The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will. Now what were you saying? I hate ***


"The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will." You seem to have (conveniently?) missed the last part of the definition;

"with an intent to carry that person away at a later time."

Surely the Police explained this to you when you contacted them about the kidnapping. I assume you contacted the Police about this criminal offence.


Stores like that reserve the right to demand evidence of a purchase. What they did was not illegal.

You keep saying you have this right, well they have that right to keep something illegal from happening. You sound incredibly dumb and like you need to learn what 'rights' are.