|
First question I have is What do you think about the Discover Card RFID-Paypass? Hoping for any response. My other question... This is how Horatio catches everyone on CSI, it's not from the evidence as they all confess. They confess when no lawyer there, or even confess when lawyer is there and tells them to be quiet. |
|
|
|
That's a good question. I'm not sure what is the answer. I'll do some Googling and get back to you if I got an anything. You should email the people at Discover Card as they probably could answer your Discover Card question..
|
|
I have had people use 3 and 4 GIFT CARDS on a single transaction then pay the rest with CREDIT/DEBIT/CASH/CHECK.
(especially right after CHRISTMAS). I never once assumed they were BOGUS. The only issue we have from time to time is dead magnetic strips and they have to be manually entered. ...and if it is not a WALMART/SAMS GIFT CARD...you better know exactly how much is on the card to the last $0.01. (unless you spent less than is available). This post has been edited by GEORGE: 03 February 2010 - 05:29 PM.. |
|
That's why she was using 3 gift cards to pay for a bluray player...
|
|
Especially if she was the cashier who called the cops on the guy with the MC CG...
|
|
Using more than one single GIFT CARD in a single transaction is not in itself a RED FLAG..
|
|
Call the 5-0! I went to dinner the other night and paid part of it with 2 gift cards and then the small balance and tip on a credit card. My kids got Amex gift cards for Christmas and wanted the $$ on their Bank of Mom accounts instead.
I'm with the people who would be looking for damages. That is absolutely bogus and humiliating. What if that person had some small children along???.. |
|
Sad thing is nothing will become of this..
Best Buy will share a revolving door with the precinct. And since they are probably being taken into custody (not arrested) all she will get out of this is a cheap feel from the lady cop... |
|
People should not allow some Best Buy employee to detain them...
|
|
I hate to have to say it but their will be a lawsuit filed and Best Buy and the Police will settle even thought they were doing their due diligence. When Amex made the admission that the cards were legitimately purchased that is when Best Buys position because negligent to put it mildly. The whole thing could have been resolved in the store and not having to go through a pat down and humiliated by being hauled to a police station and being held in a drunk tank.
Best Buy you deserve what you get....even though I feel some lawsuits are just runamuck. This post has been edited by 800FICO1: 03 February 2010 - 10:04 PM.. |
|
Runamuck....
Like McDONALDS being responsible for stupidity. HINT>COFFEE IN THE LAP.. |
|
When did Amex tell Best Buy the card was legit? They told the police afterward, but when did they tell Best Buy this?..
|
|
If this goes to court...I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE IT A MEDIA CIRCUS when she wins.
Make THE POLICE CHIEF and THE BEST BUY STORE MANAGER and THE CASHIER donate some of their own money for a BIG SCREEN TV for the victim. ...and use the 3 AMEX GIFT CARDS and the 6 more that AMEX sent as a sorry message (court order) to pay for "MOST" of the purchase. This post has been edited by GEORGE: 03 February 2010 - 11:32 PM.. |
|
She won't win. At least not against BB, and especially not against the police. She MIGHT get a settlement (from BB), but she won't win in open court..
BB was told it was bogus and had no reason to disbelieve that. The police routinely detain people and let them go later when more facts come in. It's SOP for them.. This post has been edited by Uncle Leo: 03 February 2010 - 11:38 PM.. |
|
I think this person would win. First thing, Amex will report that they did not report the gift card as bogus. They will explain that the GIFT CARD simply had to be swiped by ANYONE and would get approval. Instead the cashier and BB "overzealously" singled out this customer.
Either Amex or BB, someone's accounting department WILL cut a check. Depends how it plays out. The police, probably not... they were just responding to the call from this "overzealous" cashier and store and simply performing their duty as it was reported - by Best Buy... |
|
AT THE VERY LEAST...have the POLICE escort the lady into the store and tell BEST BUY to take her VALID AMEX GIFT CARDS for the purchase.
(and tell BEST BUY they better be sorry about their error). This post has been edited by GEORGE: 04 February 2010 - 02:45 AM.. |
|
I SURE HOPE AMEX SENDS BEST BUY WRITTEN POLICY ABOUT AMEX GIFT CARDS.
ALL GIFT CARDS ARE PRE-PAID. MOST OF THEM USUALLY ARE $50 or $100. You may have to key in $50 or $100 on the register keyboard before running the card. This post has been edited by GEORGE: 04 February 2010 - 02:49 AM.. |
|
Most of them are that amount, however I know they go higher.
My employer gave me one for $2,000 in December as a bonus... |
|
Can she sue Amex for this?.
It is their fault too.. She should've ran before the cops got there.. |
|
I hate to belabor the point, but I will.
I'd bet a week's pay that it was the idiot cashier's fault, and that she told the Amex rep that she had a suspicious Amex card, NOT a suspicious Amex gift card. Do they still give reward bonuses for catching stolen/fraudulent cards? If so, she may have had incentive to try to get some Amex reward $. A millions years ago, they gave me $75 for spotting and reporting (and retaining) a stolen Amex Traveler's Check. (M/C's and Visa's "stolen card" reward were only $25 at the time.) This was back in the days when cashiers had too look up the miniscule numbers in a paper booklet that came out each week. $75 was almost a week's pay for me back then.. This post has been edited by cb_opus: 04 February 2010 - 09:30 AM.. |
|
I dont think she will have a case against the police. As leo said they routinely hold people and then let them go later. However she could attempt to go after best buy as they unjustly detained her. They had no right to hold her, they had her info and what not if they thought it was improper they could copy her id and contact her later or refuse the sale to her, but to take her in the back and detain her was false imprisonment because they had no right to even question her..
If I read it correctly the transaction was approved and completed. They were gift cards and for the most part gift cards are property of the person who holds them physically. Kind of like cash in most situations, if you drop cash and someone picks it up, unless you put a claim in for it it is theirs correct?.. |
|
IT IS A PRE-PAID GIFT CARD....
RUN THE CARD. IF IT IS APPROVED...THE CARD IS GOOD. Only issue you can have is you may need to know what amount is on the card if the sale is more than what is on the card.. |
|
This little theory you have about how two companies can just point the finger at each other and get off the hook doesn't work in the real world. You simply sue both of them, together with the police department, and the three of them can bicker amongst themselves over how to apportion damages..
If things worked like you apparently think they do, nobody would ever get paid for anything, ever... |
|
If Amex lies (presuming the story as known here is full and accurate), then yes, BB could lose. It would be a he said/she said type thing between Amex and BB. And I could see BB paying (with Discover card) a settlement just to make it go away..
I would imagine that BB could claim that they merely "asked" her to accompany them to the back room, and unless they physically blocked her from leaving when/if she tried to leave, I doubt false imprisonment would apply, either. Even if they admit they phrased it as a statement, "Come with us to the back room.", they'll claim she always had the right to say 'no' and didn't.. For every shady lawyer a plaintiff can hire, corporations hire shady lawyers to defend against stuff like this, too. The best hope, IMO, would be BB fearing a consumer-friendly "pick the deep pockets" jury and caving in to a settlement that way.. This post has been edited by Uncle Leo: 04 February 2010 - 11:39 AM.. |
|
Lawsuits like this do sometimes succeed, yes, but not as often as commonly thought. Settlements are probably more common, hence the erroneous public perception. When companies do vigorously defend themselves, the chances for success for the plaintiff go way down...
|
|
This is clear as day. Amex is at fault. They told the BB employee that the card was no good. Gift card or not, look it up for christ's sake! I don't see any grey area here. Police were just doing what they are supposed to; assume you are guilty until proven innocent...
|
|
I can see why some blame BB. I don't agree myself, but I can understand the reasoning. I so don't get why anybody thinks the police are to blame, though. Or, at least, why they would be held even partially liable in a lawsuit...
|
|
What happened to innocent until proved guilty?.
Yeah, she couldn't refused to go into the back room, but who knows what the cops woulda done had she refused to cooperate - they think nothing of tasering people for stupid reasons... |
|
It's a myth. It's always been a myth. It always will be a myth..
She can't refuse to go with the police. They can force her. BB employees and security people aren't the police. As long as she cooperated with the police once they got there, she would (should) have been ok... |
|
Umm...no..
With this fact scenario, anyone could recover. Gimme a break. They detained the woman with no basis (shopkeepers' privilege doesn't apply to a merchant's doubting without reasonable belief that someone is or isn't using their own credit card), then Amex screwed up, and then the police arrested her without conducting a proper investigation.. Best Buy most certainly is responsible, for wrongfully detaining her, and ultimately having her arrested, based on the unreasonable suspicion of some $6/hr employee who is not qualified in any way, shape, or form to determine the validity of gift cards. Actually, the way the whole thing broke down, Best Buy is the proper Defendant, and can then turn around and seek indemnification from American Express, but it was Best Buy who originally detained her and started the ball rolling. If anything, they're more liable than Amex, not less... |
|
Well, now there, you and I completely agree with each other...
|
|
Sadly it has only really existed in the appellate courts for some time now, which most defendants never get to ($$$$$$)..
At the trial level, there is really the reverse presumption, your average judge just doesn't care (they see the same thing over and over a million times, in fairness it's probably hard to be real excited about it) and your average juror figures the defendant must have done something wrong or they wouldn't be sitting there (though they are generally smart enough not to admit it in voir dire). It's to the point now where you have to prove your innocence, or at least completely destroy the state's case, rather than the burden being where it's supposed to be. There are just so many head-scratching verdicts that make no sense... |
|
Does anyone else smell money making scam? The odor is strong...
|
|
The article story is wrong as Best Buy did not send anyone to jail..
The police arrested her because they suspected her of a crime... |
|
Police are protected by the good faith exception in this case. They detained (which they are allowed to do), investigated then released her when they found out what happened. Best Buy did not have a right to detain her and what will happen is a determination as to whether she believed she was free to go or not. Even if they did not physically detain her, giving the impression that she could not leave is just the same. More than likely the burden of this falls on Best Buy as previously stated and she will get a nice out of court settlement..
This post has been edited by In Maryland: 05 February 2010 - 12:54 AM.. |
|
The police did not arrest her, they detained her for questioning. She was not charged, read rights etc. and the police were acting in good faith on the info given by the merchant. This falls on Best Buy and they will get sued...
|
|
Certainly, but these cops have pretty piss poor judgment and took the word of a crappy retailer as gospel...
|
|
Whatever book you read on shopkeeper's privilege, read it again. It doesn't apply to some $6/hr employee's interpretation of 'reasonable suspicion' of whether someone is using their own credit card. They had no right to detain her whatsover. Best Buy is liable. Then again WTF do I know...it's not like I actually have a law degree or anything...oh wait.....
|
|
UL, I'm tellin ya...that's not how it works in the real world..
When you get 3 parties all trying to point the finger at each other, you just sue all 3 and let them argue amongst themselves. But for the negligence of one or more, the situation wouldn't have happened, and so attach all 3 and let them bitch at each other over apportionment. Their bickering as to who is at what percentage of fault isn't the Plaintiff's problem, and here she has no issue establishing duty, breach, and causation. Best Buy illegally detained her, the police illegally arrested her, and those two want to point the finger at Amex, and at each other. Just sue all 3 and let them argue amongst each other. You think this is the first time a couple of defendants have tried this "gee...if we both blame the other, then neither one of us can be at fault!" B.S.? Like that's really something new?.. |
|
How can BEST BUY pay under minimum wage???.
THEY DON'T................... |
|
There is no good faith in this case, because the police did not perform a proper investigation. There was no evidence that would indicate the Best Buy cashier was any more credible than the woman they handcuffed and hauled off to jail, and if anything the cashier was less qualified than the victim to tell them whether it was her card or not. Moreover, they talked with her relative, the actual purchaser of the gift card, who told them it was rightfully hers. They still arrested her anyway. The police need probable cause to slap you in handcuffs and haul you off to jail, not just reasonable suspicion. They didn't have it...
|
|
Well, whatever minimum wage is now. You get the idea. You're not talking about someone with a masters in finance making the determination as to whether it was her Discover card or not, you're talking about someone unqualified to make that determination. That was my point...
|
|
If the police had her in handcuffs and took her to jail, you don't think that was an "arrest"? LOL.
It's either an arrest, or a temporary and brief 'investigation' like a Terry stop. Any argument about not being arrested goes out the window when someone's slapped in handcuffs and taken down to the police department. Also, I guarantee you there's about a 99.99% certainty she was mirandized. You can't say she was not mirandized simply because the article doesn't say she was. It doesn't say she wasn't, either... |
|
A GIFT CARD IS GOING TO HAVE A STATED AMOUNT.
It sure is not going to be $25,000 or $50,000 in the real world. Why would anybody "MAKE" a bogus $50 or $100 AMEX GIFT CARD. Even if it was $2,000 why spend time making a bogus card for only a $2,000 reward.. |
|
I never have understood the personality type that spends all this ingeniuty and time on making a living coming up with scams and schemes to get a little money here, a little money there. Just bite the bullet and go to school, and you'll wind up making 10X whatever you would have with stupid scams, legally. That whole thing has never made any sense to me George, and probably never will.
But that said, there are people who spend untold hours, I mean large portions of their lives, figuring out how to come up with these stupid Discover card scams, forgery, counterfeiting, etc., etc., and most of them wind up getting busted and they don't even make that much money. If they took the same time and effort and used it to get an education, they'd be much better off. I think it boils down to personality types, but I'm not a psychologist I really have no clue. It always does have me scratching my head, the stunts some people pull over a trivial amount of money... |
|
Sorry, but you are wrong. The police took her in and never charged her with a crime, they finished investigating and let her go. They decided to investigate further and then let her go. They are not at fault inthis case IMO...
|
|
The Supreme court says that people can be detained for a reasonable period of time if there has been reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. She was not charged, therefore she was not arested. She was placed in cuffs for the officers safety and for transport, not for punishment. Also, you do not have to mirandize until after you have been placed under arrest...
|
|
Good. these retailers need to learn how to train their $7 an hour lackeys...
|
|
They had no more information when they let her go than they did when they arrested her (and fwiw it WAS an arrest). They had already talked with the original relative who gave her the gift card, and had already talked to the woman who told them it was hers, prior to slapping her in handcuffs. Sorry, but IMO, this is a no-brainer. They made the wrong call, and are on the hook...
|
|
Good god man, I'm not going to go back and forth for the next 40 years over this. You're wrong. She wasn't "detained" this wasn't a terry stop, she was ARRESTED, e.g., slapped in handcuffs and taken downtown. What law school did you go to?..
|
|
But aren't they governed by the Amex TOS - if the card is is swiped and approved by the system, it's good - amex eats the costs, right? It's not up to the cashier to decide if a card amex approves is real or fake. If I understood the article correctly, the first two went through, then the cashier decided she didn't like the looks of the 3rd - she never swiped it. She had no right to question the card - heck, if it was a CC, the most the TOS allow her ot do is compare the signatures on the card to the reciept, not ask for id.
My vote for blame goes to the cashier for looking for trouble where none existed. She should be fired... |
|
Is this a typical store policy, not just this store's policy alone but in comparsion to other similar stores, to call the police if the cashier has doubts about the legitimacy of a giftcard? and if so is the policy "reasonable" (against the "crime"). Is it applied accross the board on a consistent basis?..
|
|
If Amex had not said the card was bogus when Best Buy called, then I could buy into that. But, whether right or wrong, Best Buy called for verification and was told it was not legit. Yes, we all know CSR are sometimes wrong, but at that point Best Buy wasn't unreasonable in being overly-cautious.... and that's all it really is on their part, overly-cautious..
Plus, I would expect that there's some language somewhere that puts the onus back on the merchant to take "reasonable steps" to thwart fraud, yada yada yada, but I don't know that for sure.. ETA: It is Amex's response that gets Best Buy off the hook, IMO.. This post has been edited by Uncle Leo: 03 February 2010 - 03:09 PM.. |
|
MAKES ME WANT TO GO BY SOME AMEX GIFT CARDS and SHOP AT BEST BUY..
|
|
Only if the beyond-stupid cashier actually told Amex CS that it was a gift card..
My bet is on her telling the CSR she had a suspicious "Amex card" (not an "Amex gift card) so of course there would be no account with that number. I would almost guarantee this is what happened. Had that gc been fraudulent, the customer would have been out the door as soon as the clerk began to dial. (Used to be a cashier in my much younger days.) Crooks don't stand around trying to explain - they just move on... |
|
The part of the story that is being missed here...MOST AMEX GIFT CARDS ARE $50 or $100.
Had this been a GIFT CARD that they were using to pay for $3,000 worth of stuff with no other way to pay.... I COULD CALL A YELLOW FLAG or RED FLAG THEN. This post has been edited by GEORGE: 03 February 2010 - 04:24 PM.. |
|
Why would the barely above min wage cashier even care? Card cleared call it good...
|
