I saw this interesting story on an increasingly common practice--the examination of receipts when exiting a retail store. The gentleman in question refused to show his receipt when leaving a Circuit City, which resulted in the manager preventing him from leaving the premises--but refusing to accuse him of anything (this will be important in a moment). The gentleman in question then called the police to enforce his right to leave, but the police officer immediately sided with the shopkeep and asked for the man's driver's license, though he was not operating a motor vehicle. When he identified himself by name but declined to produce a driver's license, he was arrested. When the officer discovered that the man had not actually done anything wrong, he went ahead and charged the gentleman with a vague but (in my view) inapplicable violation.

Now, I have personally walked past the "receipt checkers" at Fry's Electronics and Wal*Mart many times, though only once has anyone threatened to call for security--and he did not actually carry through with that threat (small wonder, considering the three items in my cart were clearly visible, none of them cost more than $2.00, and I held up my receipt for him to see the moment he asked to see it--he was just mad that when he ordered me to "stop," I declined. He didn't appreciate having his power trip interrupted). I do show my receipt when leaving Sam's Club, but I have a contractual relationship with them.

At any rate, not only did this guy run into stronger opposition to his departure than I have ever encountered, he ended up in the back of a police cruiser even though (1) he had done nothing wrong and (2) he was actually the one who called the police to enforce his rights! Of course, many readers at this point are thinking, "what's the big deal?" or "why rock the boat?" The answer is more of a question, namely, just what are your rights?

Because there are actually several interesting legal issues that contribute to the discussion of Circuit City's foolish display and the police officer's ill-considered response. The first is known as the Shopkeeper's Privilege. Basically, if a store employee reasonably believes that you are stealing from them, they have a limited right to detain you until reasonable investigation can take place. Now, if they see you putting something in your pocket, or slipping items into bags, there is reason to believe that you're trying to get away with something. The question that this man's false imprisonment lawsuit (should he so file) will turn on is whether refusing to produce a receipt while leaving a store creates a reasonable degree of suspicion. This is not a question that has been answered (as far as I can tell) with any authority, which makes it a very important question indeed.

Because under (a basic oversimplification of) contract law, once you've paid your money and taken your items, they belong to you. The deal is done. Whether or not you have a receipt for those items may be an interesting question of fact should someone claim the items were stolen, but as the accused, the burden of proof is not initially on you. In other words, a store that demands to see your receipt on the way out, with no other reason to believe that you have stolen something, is adopting a stance of "guilty until proven innocent," which of course violates the most basic principles of justice.

Here's the rub. If most people meekly produce their receipts, though they have no reason to do so beyond the vague authority every business likes to pretend it possesses, then there may be a presumption of reasonableness read into that behavior. In other words, the facile and erroneous argument "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" could actually become part of the law of shopping in public places. This is one reason I generally decline to produce my receipt--simple conformity in this regard could become legally mandatory through the "reasonableness" standard. The great value of nonconformity is that it preserves choice in the face of every court's favorite undefinable term: reasonable.

Yes, stores have to take measures to prevent shoplifting et cetera ad infinitum. But if they are going to ask me to prove that I am not a shoplifter, they must first prove with some degree of certainty that I am. That is their burden, not their mine as the customer, and they need to be held to that.

As for the police officer, I'm disappointed that an officer of the law would so casually disregard the law in performing his duties, but I can't say I'm terribly surprised. I have an uncle who works in law enforcement, and he's great. My daughter (then aged 3 and prone to wander) was once returned home by a kind officer who handled a very tense situation very, very well. I know some really phenomenally good cops, and I am sad to say that while they are a significant minority, they are nonetheless a minority in their profession.

(Aside: Much like lawyers--it seems that anyone who works with the law is vulnerable to these ridiculous power-trips, and (perhaps) small wonder.)

The simple fact is, our country has largely sacrificed a presumption that once existed toward individual liberty. This is a well-documented trend on the national level; where the national government once had the burden of proving that they possessed the power to do something (and rest assured, if the national government is doing anything it is probably diminishing your liberty, whether properly or no), the presumption today is that the government may do as it pleases, with certain limited exceptions. But this trend has bled into other areas; police officers believe that if they don't like what you're doing, there's probably a law against it. If you have been accused of something by someone with a name-tag, you probably did it. And if you don't obey their every command, you've broken the law.

Because they don't seem to understand the difference between enforcing the law, and being the law. The officer in this story clearly failed to enforce the law by telling the Circuit City manager to either make an accusation or let the accused--and totally innocent--customer leave the premises.

Would it be too radical to suggest that we ought to presume liberty and freedom, instead of presuming that everyone is a threat to society? To say that liberty is not something you earn, but something you are born to? You might lose it or regain it, both at a high price, but born to it you are nonetheless. A society that so excessively burdens its constituent individuals with rules and regulations (even in the name of order or safety or any other "preventative" measure) will soon collapse, and then come the bloody revolution. Frankly, I'm not interested in a bloody revolution. I like my blood right where it's at! Let's correct our course now, before things get so bad that only the blood of patriots can atone.

I recognize that it may strain even the boundaries of hyperbole to suggest that refusing to show your receipt at the door or your driver's license to a cop (when you aren't operating a motor vehicle, of course) is a revolutionary affair. But do not underestimate the value of these little revolutions in forestalling a big one.