09-06-2007, 02:50 AM
Quote:You put magnetic security tags on merchandise, which may or may not be removed upon checkout. Then all customers go through the machine on their way out. Is it not also a loss prevention search? The person could own something that would trip the device, possibly including something they just legally purchased. It is probably less intrusive and more effective, but legally I do not see any distinction whatsoever. Like you said, people don't put their own posessions into a store bag other than what they just bought. What they just bought is already known to the store, so what privacy rights should they against the store double-checking?
There is actually a large distinction between the two. If a magnetic security alarm goes off as you are walking out of a store it is denoting that something is out of the ordinary of normal purchasing procedures. Now most likely, as roland points out, this is going to be a false alarm but it is still in the consumers interest to have it rectified. It may be that the sales clerk failed to remove a magnetic tag. In this case it is in the consumers interest to have that fixed on the spot. If they were to wait until they got home and then discovered that the tag was still on, they would have to come all the way back to the store to have it removed (and even with a receipt that would raise far more eyebrows than if they just fixed it at the time of purchase.)
Checking peoples reciepts as they leave, however, is an entirely different beast. In that situation customers who are taking part in the normal purchasing procedures are being singled out with no reason for suspicion. How would you feel if the next time you bought something from Best Buy the manager was standing at the door and asking each customer, as they left, "Are you a thief? No? Well, Prove it."
The first method of loss prevention offers assistance to customers as they purchase from the store while also working to limit theft, the second method leaves the customer feeling bullied and untrustworthy.