Several years ago there was a court ruling, I believe in California,
regarding the necessity of showing a receipt upon exiting membership
type shopping clubs such as Costco.  As a flip side of the ruling, the
judge stated that non-membership places of business were not legally
able to require that receipts be shown to exit because there had not
been a barrier to entry such as club membership.  While a google
search results in quite a number of anecdotal references to the law in
this matter, I am in need of the actual case that set the precedent. 
A link to the ruling would be perfect.

That's a funny ruling if true.  What is the justification for barring
a store from asking to see your receipt?

The ruling did not bar stores from asking, it barred them from
REQUIRING.  The basis was that if there was no barrier for entry, such
as showing a membership card, they could not create a barrier for
exit.

That's California for you!  Surely it is in the public interest to
prevent shoplifting.  The judge is an idiot and should be flogged.

It is good to have an opinion, but in this case I am looking for a
specific fact.  Your comments have contributed nothing in support the
'answers' functionality of this website.

I am not a researcher, just a member of the general public, and you
will see that this has been posted as a comment, not an answer.

Hi Boheme,
I quess we are having difficulty visualizing the situation  - because
it seems so surprising, not from your question.
Do you mean by "non-membership places of business were not legally
able to require that receipts be shown to exit" that they could not
have a sign at the exits saying:  "All receipts must be shown when
exiting the premises"  or the like?

Hmmm!  Yes!  Seems to me a bit strange that a judge on Costco case
would go to the extent of describing or defining the other situation,
and I don't know if his statement would then be binding or create a
precedence, since that was not the issue  - but then I am not a
lawyer.
Of course, the house detective could ask an individual to show a receipt.

I can understand the judge's logic  - with a little effort.  Since
only members can enter Costco, there can be no browsers wandering in
and out, Costco can insist from members that they show their receipts,
as a condition of membership.  A member who didn't buy anything would,
of course, have no receipt, but would also be empty-handed.

I hope someone can find the rule for you.  As Nelson-ga points out,
these are just comments, they don't cost anything, but sometimes by
showing active interest in a question they incite/inspire a researcher
or a more knowledgeable commenter to post an answer.

Maybe one of the anecdotal references you found would help narrow the search.

Good luck, Myoarin

If my memory serves me correctly, the judge defined the 'flip side' of
the ruling because it pertained to the case.  The consumer, who lost
the case, was fighting against Costco (or some other membership club,
but Costco keeps coming to mind) because they did not feel they needed
to show their receipt.  The judge ruled against the consumer,
explained that it was because it was a membership club and the
consumer had agreed to their rules before making their purchase.  The
judge further explained that had the consumer been in a store open to
public entry their claim would have been valid.  So, while it may seem
odd that the judge covered both bases, it was becuase the consumer had
been arguing on that angle from the beginning and the judge was
explaining why it wasn't relevant but where it would have been.

I know these are comments, and I know it doesn't cost anything to
comment; and I appreciate any relevant comments.  But... I am a strong
believer in civil rights, especially the 4th ammendment; and I think
anyone willing to trade their freedoms for security is short sighted. 
I was just trying to say that in a 'nice way' to nelson-ga.  nelson-ga
is welcome to their fasciest political belief that "it is in the
public interest" to treat every customer like a shoplifter, but they
didn't necessarily have to use my question as their pulpit.

If I hadn't lost my outbox in a computer crash last year I'd still
have the text of the ruling...  :(

-Chris

Thanks.  Anyway, it seems an extremely hypothetical situation.

Hmm.  Maybe I should become an anarchist instead.

What civil rights, exactly, are being violated by a store allowing you
to enter their privately-owned premises, then requesting to prove that
you did not steal anything?  There are many liars and thieves out
there.  It is naive to think otherwise.  While the majority of society
is made up of law-abiding citizens, not everyone is.  If one does not
like the policy, one should not shop at these stores.  That's freedom!

The person who brought the suit obviously has nothing better to do
with her time.  She wasted the courts time and the taxes we pay.  She
should have be fined for filing a frivilous suit.

By the way, I think the judge mentioning the "flip side" was
non-binding commentary.  It was not an issue in the case, therefore,
it was not a ruling.

Besides being a fascist, I am a sexist, too, in assuming the customer was a woman.

This is a very interesting question.

the first two things that you need to understand are (1) if a court
makes a ruling in the state of California and you are in Arizona that
ruling has no bearing on you unless it was in Federal Court. (2) You
are on PRIVATE PROPERTY, unless the laws in your state, county or city
make provision for Pseudo-Public space it is possible for a business
to require reciept.

There are a couple of things that are against private property owners
in making this kind of requirement. There are fire codes that may, in
your area, prohibit a business from limiting or controlling exit. It
is also very common to see local laws that prohibit Unlawful Detention
(if you break a law and they detain you for it this may be lawful
detention)

So in a word it is unlikely that a business, unless it is membership
like Costco, will make this kind of requirement. If this happens there
could be a lot of trouble for them.

On the flip side, if your concern is of the civil rights nature you
should understand that this tactic is a common method of thwarting
theft. Basically helping to cut costs and keep prices low for you.

In the end if the business has the right to set this requirement and
you disagree, you should stop doing business with them and ask that
your friends and relatives do the same. This is the true power of the
consumer.

Good luck!