This raised my ire a bit last week, but in the grand scheme of things, there seemed more worthy issues to discuss than some poor lady who was unlawfully detained and verbally abused by TigerDirect. Yet, with yet another incident occurring within the same week - this time at a Circuit City in Ohio, I can hold my tongue no longer. Like shoes at the airport, the increasingly common practice of public retail outlets demanding receipts at the door is a pet annoyance of mine.
Of course, anyone who shops at one of the so-called 'wholesale' outlets has long been accustomed to the practice. 
After all, such warehouses are members-only and, as part of your membership, you explicitly and contractually agree to this kind of treatment. I have made no such agreements with Best Buy, CompUSA, TigerDirect, or any other public retail outlet and on that basis routinely decline to show my receipt at the exit.
There is an interesting discussion happening on this right now over at BoingBoing. People seem to be coming down on both sides of the issue, including an attorney who seems to feel that stores have the right to ask. On this, I am not in dispute - anyone has the right to guard against loss. But in no way does this right extend to the power of arrest. As far as I - and I believe the law - is concerned, the moment you exchange money for goods, those goods legally belong to you and your business has concluded. Just because some corporate automaton in a cheap security costume asks to see your receipt does not mean that you are under even the slightest legal obligation to do so. If they have reasonable suspicion that you have shoplifted, then they are welcome to contact the authorities.
In the larger sense, the reason such outlets are resorting to these methods is a side-effect of a much larger problem in corporate America. As someone who worked many formative years in retail, I can attest first-hand that large retail outlets train employees on the principle that the only defense against shoplifting is good customer service. It's hard to shove an ipod down your pants when there are employees everywhere trying to make themselves helpful. But given the ubiquitous crisis that CEO's might make a few million less than their golf buddies, such chains are chronically understaffed. Which increases shoplifting. Which is why we all have to deal with this nonsense.
Surely I'm not the only one annoyed by this new trend. So how 'bout it? Stop acting like a sheep and start exercising your legal right to decline. There is no reason to be anything but polite about it - trust me, the dude making 8 bucks and hour is not really going to care unless you get rude with him. But be firm. Explain your position and keep right on walking. And don't sweat it - they know that putting their hands 
on you is against the law and 99.9% of the time have already been instructed by management not to interfere. If you're really concerned, try carrying one of these in your wallet:
To the General Manager:
I have handed this paper to your security employee who has requested to see my receipt following a purchase, a request I politely refused. I recognize that this employee is doing the job you have assigned, and this should not be seen as an indication that this person has done anything but a fine job.
However, I am insulted by your practice of treating every customer as a potential thief. Note that this lack of goodwill results not only in my future choice of other, more customer-oriented stores over your own, it also results in significant negative word-of-mouth advertising regarding my shopping experience. Consider that you will have to spend substantial amounts of revenue in advertising for new customers with each customer you lose to this charade.
I sincerely hope you will reconsider your policy of checking receipts at the door. I recognize that shoplifting and other forms of loss are a challenge to retail establishments, and I encourage you to take measures?including increasing the number and training of sales associates?to reduce loss. Insulting your customers is the wrong approach.
fact-checking, some of us even taking the time to source a few stories. But mostly, the only threat bloggers pose to journalists is in pointing out what we see as the most undesirable aspects of bias and dishonesty. If others judge our arguments to be persuasive, why should that result in anything but an opportunity for journalists to remain true to impassioned discourse?
would decide whether Mr. Rove had been "good or bad for American politics," and that the assessment would depend largely on the outcome of the Iraq war.
