[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If you bother to do the research you will find that it varies state by state, where some states talk about "reasonable cause" while others talk about "reasonable suspicion", two totally different standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have done a little research and have never seen any mention of "reasonable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" especially where refusal to submit to a bag check would constitute either. Your authoritarian fantasyland doesn't count. To detain someone, you must have probable cause which you do not have based solely on the refusal to show a receipt. To establish probable cause:
*You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
*You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
*You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
*You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
*You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
*You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

An exit bag checker could not possibly have done all of those things.

[ QUOTE ]
virtually all states allow shopkeepers to detain under one of those two standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. I'm sure there are some stores that would be glad to not have you advising them on LP.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't link to discussions on bulletin boards because they are extremely unreliable. If you want to use that as a standard there are several discussions on lawyer boards that render the opinion that if a sign is conspicuously posted or there is a reasonable expectation on behalf of the shopper that a receipt must be shown, then the store has the right to inspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course evidence that contradicts your viewpoint is unreliable. At best the store has the right to consider you a trespasser and ban you from the store for life, which I have no problem with. They cannot force you to show your bags and they cannot detain you legally without probable cause.