Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Why American Retailers Believe You All Are Thieves

Before I get on with posting, let me ask a simple question; when you leave a store after shopping, and the security guard at the door asks to see your receipt and check your bag, do you comply with his or her request?

Well, the answer to that question leads up to today's subject. Two cases have made the net about this very thing. The two retailers in question regarding this issue are Tiger Direct and Circuit City. In each case, the situation arose when store security performed what is known as an "exit bag check." This retail theft (or shoplifting) control procedure is becoming more and more common in stores across the country. The idea is that a guard is placed at the physical exit of the store and he or she asks (or in some cases, demands) the exiting customer to present their receipt of purchase and their shopping bag to be examined by the guard.

Before I state my thoughts on this item, allow me to post the text of Illinois state law in regards to the "presumption of retail theft." According to the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961, this is stated as follows:

720 ILCS 5/16A 4) (from Ch. 38, par. 16A 4)

Sec. 16A 4. Presumptions.
If any person:

(a) conceals upon his or her person or among his or her belongings, unpurchased merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment; and

(b) removes that merchandise beyond the last known station for receiving payments for that merchandise in that retail mercantile establishment such person shall be presumed to have possessed, carried away or transferred such merchandise with the intention of retaining it or with the intention of depriving the merchant permanently of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value of such merchandise. (Source: P.A. 80 352.)

Now, with that being said and according to the above text, the management, the store security guard, or any other duly appointed employee of the store, are required to have a more than reasonable suspicion of the first part and according to the second part, they have to witness you having walked past the cash register and toward the exit of the store to be able to act upon that suspicion.

So, if we assume the above is true and at this point, our assumption is based upon a logical interpretation of the above legal text, then by asking you to inspect your bags and check your receipt, any store in the state of Illinois that institutes such a policy is by definition of state law, convinced that you, the customer are potentially guilty of retail theft and only by your presenting your receipt and bag, you are therefore proving yourself innocent of said crime.

Welcome to Police State USA.

One of the individuals in the above mentioned cases, Michael Righi has posted his encounter in his blog.

(http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/#comments)

Now, the link that I just posted will lead you to his article, but also will contain the comments that were posted by his readers. Furthermore, you can find links to the article on reddit.com and other sites.

Righi declined compliance with a Brooklyn, OH Circuit City's request to perform an exit bag check, while he was out with his family. The altercation eventually resulted in his being arrested for failure to comply with a police officer's (which by the way, Righi called, not the store) request to present his identification at the scene of the incident. Righi was booked, released on bond and is being charged with "obstruction of justice" by refusing to provide his identification, even though he openly gave the officer his name and identified himself as the person who called the officer to the scene. Righi is fighting the charge and plans on bringing unlawful arrest charges against the Brooklyn, OH PD and civil charges against the Circuit City store for his ordeal.

What I find amazing and disturbing about the commentary to Mr. Righi's case is the number of posters who castigate and condemn him for his stance. In both cases, Righi refused by right to be labeled as a potential criminal and was punished for it. While a majority of people applauded Righi for his dedication to his rights and principles, many people made comments like:

"Quite simply, if you don’t like the idea of having your purchases checked before you leave a store, don’t shop there. For a store such as Circuit City, they face a high level of shoplifting as hi-tch items are in demand and carry high prices. If you would prefer to shop at an alternative establishment that does not have any sort of shoplifting prevention thus leading to higher rates of theft, then by all means do so. The loss of the store will be passed on to you the consumer in the form of higher prices."

or:

"He’s going to waste a lot of time and money on a something stupid. As a tax payer I hope they throw his ass in jail for a week or two."

As for the first comment, I am glad to see that the person who made that comment is willing to sell his civil rights for lower retail prices, and as for the person who posted the second comment, well...I hope that he remembers that when he's stuck with a "quota" parking or traffic ticket that he did not deserve. I mean really, he'll be wasting a lot of time and money trying to clear his driving record on "something stupid."

Most likely, I'll be rescuing the first guy from the internment camps when they go up, and I'll be saying the last rites for the second guy after he has been shot as a collaborator when the revolution comes.

The other case came from my own backyard, in Naperville, IL.

(http://consumerist.com/consumer/civil-rights/tigerdirect-unlawfully-restrains-and-verbally-abuses-customer-for-not-submitting-to-receipt+showing-demands-292688.php)

Shaneal Manek went to the local Tiger Direct outlet and upon refusing an exit bag check, was harassed and detained by Tiger Direct employees and a contracted security guard. Like Righi, Manek called the police, and informed them that he was being unlawfully detained. Upon hearing the situation, the officer informed the Tiger Direct manager that they could not detain Manek. However, when Manek demanded redress for the illegal detention, the attending officer refused and stated that he should seek redress via the State's Attorney office. Furthermore, Manek attempted to contact Securitas, the contract firm that employed the security guard involved in the incident, with no results.

Since then, according to The Consumerist, Tiger Direct has offered Manek an apology, though it was a "tongue-in-cheek" one, at best. When questions regarding the situation were put to the Tiger Direct executive speaking for the company, he subsequently accused Manek of "...trying to bait the store after being detained a week prior for also refusing to show a receipt." They also claim that Manek was told not to return to the store, if he did not want to adhere to store policy by a Naperville, IL police officer.

Again, in the comments section of the page, for every couple of posters who decry what Manek went through, there one who felt that he should have just complied and "saved himself the trouble."

AMERICA, WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT IS BEING DONE TO YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS!

As a child, I stole a $0.03 "Jolly Rancher" candy from a corner store. My mother found out about it and beat my behind until it was blacker than I was. I never stole again and I still remember that whipping as a 43-year old. Most of you probably had similar experiences, so as such, guess what; you did not grow up to become a thief. Most Americans are "law-abiding" citizens. There are nothing wrong with laws in a well-informed society. When applied properly, they act as guidelines to prevent other people from violating your rights; the right to own property, the right to collect legally-earned wealth, the right to spend said wealth on legal pursuits, and others.

What most Americans forget is that those rights were earned by those before them who had the responsibility to be willing to fight for them. Most people, like those people who posted negatively against Mr. Righi's situation, at best, only see "RIGHTS" not "rights." I have news for those people; there cannot be "RIGHTS" without "rights." If they take away the little rights, they in turn erode the foundations that the big rights rest upon.

What these stores are doing is wrong. They are ignoring your rights to make their job easier. I read a reason (spelled e.x.c.u.s.e.) that this technique is meant to help catch cashiers who aid in theft by allowing their friends to take extra items out of the store past their register inside of a shopping bag. Fine- NOT! That is not my problem, nor should it be yours as an honest American consumer.

"You have to stand for something, or else you'll fall for anything."

This next part is specifically for any retail store managers or chain executives who happen to see this blog.

There is a very popular and very true adage in business; "to make money, you have to be willing to spend money." Stores that practice exit bag checks need to remember that fact. Instead of insulting and harassing your customers as they leave the store with this high-handed, low-brow policy, spend a little more to hire more security guards, put in a few more cameras, train all of your employees in loss prevention observation techniques. Using these draconian methods for loss prevention are only giving informed consumers that you do not want their business.

As a retailer you need to check yourself and realize the following things:

It is not my fault as an American customer that you are afraid that you may have hired a thief. If you are that worried then perhaps you should use more stringent procedures to screen your potential cashiers.

It is not my fault as an American customer that your store has been robbed before. By following this policy, you are telling me that you feel that the average American consumer is a criminal and they are only waiting for the opportunity to steal from you. If you do not trust your consumers, then why should we trust you, the retailer. How do we know that you are not out to cheat us? Think about the message you are putting out to your customers.

It is not my fault as an American customer that your management does not engender honesty and loyalty from your employees. While a higher paycheck is a sure way to inform an employee that they are valued, there are other ways and means to make your staff feel appreciated and worthwhile as a member of your business. You should work to discover them. If an employee feels that they are valued and trusted, then they often will work hard to help you guard what is yours, because they will also feel some ownership and responsibility for your business/team.

To quote the late President Richard M. Nixon; "I am not a crook." You have no right to treat I or any American consumer as such. Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you? Just asking....

And just in case you were wondering, I do not even have to ask the question. This is most certainly a case of dementia...we as a country are suffering from many of the symptoms:

• Failure to carry out ADLs (everyday tasks) without (government) assistance like, driving, raising our kids, choosing which books and movies we want to see, and more. According to many people, we need more and more help (from the government) to just make it through the day.
• An inability to stand up (for ourselves) without help.
• Experiencing delusions and seeing things and a general failure of awareness of what is going on around us.

Whatever are we going to do?

In the words of Charlie Murphy; "We've got to do better...."

And to answer the first question I started this post with; I'm going to do some serious thinking as to whether I will comply from here on out or not. Before hearing about those cases, I did, simply because as an African American male, I am already considered 90% criminal by American standards.

At my local theater, I always comply with the security there when they ask to check my bag (I normally carry my diabetes supplies with me wherever I go), as I have nothing to hide and less law-abiding patrons have carried handguns (which are illegal to possess according to Chicago law) into the theater in the past. The security there are also off-duty Chicago police, so it pays not to give them a hard time.

Here's another question; under the above standards in my post, is it unethical for the theater management to ask their patrons to submit to a bag search before entering their establishment?

I already have an answer to that one, but I would like to see what you think.

Take care and be aware, America!