At what point can they claim shoplifting?

ISTM that most jurisdictions, you are not committing theft until you leave the store. After all, if you take something, put it under your shirt, and then ditch it in another part of the store (because LP is following you, maybe?) have you committed a crime? If I rip open packages and move part of the contents around inside the store, what other recourse does the store have (before I leave) other than making me pay for the ruined product?

Also, unless Loss Prevention are law officers, they are taking a huge risk (themselves and their employer) arresting or detaining someone unless they personally watched the theft all the way through. There have been numerous threads here on what are the processes, rights and risks of citizen arrests - a security guard has no more powers than an ordinary citizen wrt arrests. You can use “reasonale force”… A police officer should be labelled as such. However, in busy times it’s not unusual for stores to hire police officers on overtime. When the police ask you to stop, you stop…

The situation in the OP is one of those grey areas - if the store was even half as wild as they say, then the guy has created reasonable doubt. (Did he pick up the child as he claimed he needed to, etc.?) That’s why you wait for the guy to leave - then there’s no doubt.

Intentionally damaging the packaging is in many respects little different from stealing it, you have rendered it unsaleable under normal circumstances, which is effectively denying them the possibility of selling the item.

Since this took place in AZ, lets have a look at AZ statutes:

Bolding mine.

Looks like concealing merchandise in AZ can get you arrested even without leaving the store…Intent is not part of the criteria.

All it would take is

Concerned citizen: “Officer, that guy just hid a game in his clothing”
Officer: Sir, step over here {pat pat} {finds game} {applies cuffs}

Arizona Shoplifting Laws

13-1805. Shoplifting; detaining suspect; defense to wrongful detention; civil action by merchant; public services; classification
A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by:

  1. Removing any of the goods from the immediate display or from any other place within the establishment without paying the purchase price; or
  2. Charging the purchase price of the goods to a fictitious person or any person without that person’s authority; or
  3. Paying less than the purchase price of the goods by some trick or artifice such as altering, removing, substituting or otherwise disfiguring any label, price tag or marking; or
  4. Transferring the goods from one container to another; or
    5. Concealment.
    B. A person is presumed to have the necessary culpable mental state pursuant to subsection A of this section if the person does either of the following:
    1. Knowingly conceals on himself or another person unpurchased merchandise of any mercantile establishment while within the mercantile establishment.
  5. Uses an artifice, instrument, container, device or other article to facilitate the shoplifting.
    C. A merchant, or a merchant’s agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person who is suspected of shoplifting as prescribed in subsection A of this section for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.
    D. Reasonable cause is a defense to a civil or criminal action against a peace officer, a merchant or an agent or employee of the merchant for false arrest, false or unlawful imprisonment or wrongful detention.
    E. If a minor engages in conduct that violates subsection A of this section, notwithstanding the fact that the minor may not be held responsible because of the person’s minority, any merchant who is injured by the shoplifting of the minor may bring a civil action against the parent or legal guardian of the minor under either section 12-661 or 12-692.
    F. Any merchant who is injured by the shoplifting of an adult or emancipated minor in violation of subsection A of this section may bring a civil action against the adult or emancipated minor pursuant to section 12-691.
    G. In imposing sentence on a person who is convicted of violating this section, the court may require any person to perform public services designated by the court in addition to or in lieu of any fine that the court might impose.
    H. Shoplifting property with a value of two thousand dollars or more, shoplifting property during any continuing criminal episode or shoplifting property if done to promote, further or assist any criminal street gang or criminal syndicate is a class 5 felony. Shoplifting property with a value of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars is a class 6 felony. Shoplifting property valued at less than one thousand dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor, unless the property is a firearm in which case the shoplifting is a class 6 felony. For the purposes of this subsection, “continuing criminal episode” means theft of property with a value of one thousand five hundred dollars or more if committed during at least three separate incidences within a period of ninety consecutive days with the intent to resell the merchandise.
    I. A person who commits shoplifting and who has previously committed or been convicted within the past five years of two or more offenses involving burglary, shoplifting, robbery or theft is guilty of a class 4 felony.

Right, because that never happens.

listen to the comments by the other customers. one person was commenting why so much force was used for shoplifting - this was before the grandfather was turned around and the pool of blood was revealed.

I was once followed out of a grocery store by security when I was about 16-17 and stopped when I got to my car. The security guard said he thought I’d shoplifted some cosmetics and put them in my purse. In his defense, I had spent quite a long time hemming and hawing over in the cosmetics aisle, trying to decide if it was worth spending my meager allowance on something. I finally decided nothing jumped out at me enough to be worth getting, but in the process of looking I took several things off of their little hook/peg things and examined them. So I can see why they might have thought I slipped one into my purse. He asked to search my purse and I was young and naive and scared enough–not to mention innocent and so I knew he wouldn’t find anything–so I agreed. He went through my whole purse (a big one) right there on the hood of the car. He didn’t find anything and mumbled an apology and went back to the store, and I went on my way.

I have to come clean, though. I have shoplifted twice in my life. Both times when I was in high school and I regret it still. The first time I was with some friends at a KMart and at the urging of my friend Kym, I stole a pair of animal print mens’ bikini underwear to give to my boyfriend as kind of a joke. They weren’t expensive but we were too embarrassed to buy them. She stole a similar pair for her boyfriend. I was extremely nervous the whole rest of the night, even after we’d left the store.

The other time I had bought a used sewing machine from a flyer in a laundromat. It was missing the foot. I looked at a couple of stores but could not find a replacement for it. Now this is a cheap-ass little part that would probably cost 50cents to buy, had I found one for sale. This was in the 1980s, before such things as the internet and search engines and online retailers and ebay. I finally went to a Walmart, which at the time had a pretty good sewing department (but no feet for sale) and I found a machine of the same make as mine and took the foot off of the display model and pocketed it. I felt bad about that one, but rationalized it enough to myself that I got over it pretty quickly. If they ever got around to selling the floor display they probably had a way to get a new foot from the manufacturer for pennies. (And no, calling up the manufacturer never occurred to me at the time–I was a stupid kid!)

In those two cases I totally got away with it, but would have been surprised if, had I been spotted, they’d stopped me before I passed the checkout lanes. I have used my purse to hold items that I’m planning on buying and would have been annoyed at an accusation of shoplifting (though I would have understood if someone had come up and asked me if I planned to pay for those items.) The kind of thing I’m talking about is like this: When I shop, I keep my purse in the basket at the front of the cart. It’s big and open at the top. Say I’m buying something really small, like a bottle of fingernail polish or a stick of Chapstick. These things will easily roll through the openings on the cart and fall out. So what I’ll do is set them in the top of my purse. They’re still in plain sight, but they’re technically in my purse. They won’t fall out of the cart, though. When I get to the checkout I put them on the belt and pay for them.

I can understand in a Black Friday type situation where people are grabbing things out of other people’s hands and such… I can understand putting something temporarily in a coat pocket or tucking it into clothing in some way, or putting it in the top of a purse until safely at the checkout line. It WOULD be viewed suspiciously, but I’d give the person the chance to make good and pay before accusing them of stealing. (To answer the question in the title.) Also, I would never physically assault someone over shoplifting–that’s inappropriate and over the top unless the person started it by hitting first. Physical violence should be restricted to situations where a person is a danger to you or to others. But then, I don’t spank my kid, either, and am very anti-violence in almost every case, so I fully admit a bias.

Thanks for bringing that up. That phrase threw me as well but I wasn’t going to ask.
[hijack]

I do. All the time. Usually black socks with these black sandals (though mine are synthetic leather). I don’t think it’s very noticeable. The ZCoils are far more comfortable to walk in–less knee pain, for one thing–than any other shoes I own, so I wear them most of the time, until it gets too cold/snowy in the winter. But yes, sometimes I even wear gasp white socks with them. Mostly because I’m not going anywhere where I need to look fashionable and I don’t really care if people think my feet look funny. It’s the time of year when it’s too cold without socks, but I’m not yet willing to sacrifice the shock absorbency of my wonderful ZCoils. [/end hijack]
Sorry for the long post. Hope it wasn’t too tl;dr for too many people.

So the Arizona law considers concealment to be shoplifting - but it also allows a shopkeeper to sue the parents of a minor too young to understand shoplifting if the merchant is injured; and “reasonable cause” means you cannot even sue the store for wrongful arrest or detention; the laws go up to Class 6 felony; and 3 soplifiting offenses “commited or convicted” in 5 years means a Class 4 felony…

…Meaning you can only sue if you could prove the store security was totally unreasonable. Or slammed your head against the pavement until it formed a puddle of blood…

Plus - “removes the goods from the immediate display without paying for them”? Technically, every shopper who uses a cart is guilty. (Really, I see the logic - if the item is kept in a display case and you pay for it there. But the law does not seem to make that clear)

The lawmakers in Arizona seems to be very (insert appropriate adjective here) about their laws. No wonder the USA has 5 times the prisoners of any other first world society. These laws were totally written to appease a lobby group of store owners, it seems. They can detain you anytime with any pretext that they find “reasonable” and there’s not a lot you can do.

As for “damaging good is equivalent of shoplifting” - only if, when approached, I refuse to pay. Or leave the store with the little bits in my pocket. Obviously, if I have irreparably damaged the goods, they don’t have to wait for me to leave - once the damage is done, I can be asked to pay. Still, if I don’t try to remove the goods, it’s not theft; it’s a damage claim (civil action?), or possibly a vandalism charge if there is no good explanation and the Police and Prosecutor are in a cooperative mood.

Oh, I don’t doubt that that sort of thing happens. It’s just that it’s easiest to track it when it’s employees, once they are caught. Without an extraordinary employee theft ring or something in operation I still remain skeptical that it’s always them. You can steal a lot of stuff from Wallyworld without getting caught if you aren’t a complete idiot, especially as the employees can’t do a blessed thing about it.

I think you are misunderstanding why employees are the biggest source of shrink. Shrink is not limited to items that are stolen. Shrink is unexplained losses. Far more losses are caused by bad paperwork than people stealing things. Examples of things that cause shrink.

Employee shatters a pallet of dinner ware, rather then calling a manager and having it marked down as a loss they toss it in the dumpster before anyone notices.

Employee is asked to wash the front windows. He goes to the shelf and grabs a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels. He never marks those items down for store use.

Store A has a surplus of air conditioners. Store B has a shortage. The extra air conditioners get sent to store B. The transfer paperwork never gets filed.

The receiver is getting in TV’s the shipping slip says 200 TV’s on 10 pallets. Rather then doing her job and counting each she see’s that 10 out of 10 pallets were received and checks off they received 200 out of 200 when in fact they only got 190.

If no one discovers those errors, come inventory time the store is going to have have unexplained losses due to them. This results in shrink.

Employees are to blame for almost all the shrink that occurs in a store. The amount of shrink that is the result of theft is minimal compared to the accounting errors.

Employees also have access to locations and means of removing product that the general public don’t - back rooms, side doors, they bring their bags into the store and can be alone with them; and are there longer and have more opportunity to help themselves to the more expensive more desirable items, especially cash. Plus, when employees are caught, it tendsto often be large and long-term activity. It takes a lot of customers stealing CD’s to equal the damage of one employee figuring out how to abscond with an iPod.

My wife once suspected, years ago, an assistant manager was giving her parents free food since they always dropped in when she was managing the place in the morning. She reviewed the cash register record and found that nothing had been sold, but one transaction had been voided; watched the tape, and the mother actually paid for the food. The assistant pocketed the cash from her mother being honest, and then voided the open transaction when the cook produced the food. She did not just do this with her folks. Reviewing the records, we concluded the lady had been making maybe 20 or 30 dollars each morning that way. The overall loss was buried in the volume once lunchtime rolled around, but $20 a day is $400 a month, $5000 a year.

This was just “casual” theft. The worst horror stories are organized wholesale rip-offs that are accidentally caught and show massive losses. A transit worker in Calgary years ago was caught and charged, they suspected he was lifting coins from the fareboxes but at first could not figure out how. Apparently, he had a flat magnetic stick that he could slide in the gap into the (locked) coinbox while he had the ticket machine open to do his job and change paper; a few dozen coins at a time he is suspected to have lifted hundreds of thousands of dollars going from station to station. He only got caught because he kept doing it while they were tailing him. (Of course it helped him that Canada has $1 and $2 coins).

A long time ago I used to go to a 24 hour restaurant after working a closing shift at a bar. We always got the same waitress and she apparently liked us a lot, because almost every time we got our bill, it was for not even half of what we’d ordered. Sometimes it would just be for the coffee and not have any of the food on it at all. We always left her a big tip, bu still came away paying less than we should have. In this case the waitress wasn’t pocketing any money, but she was still effectively “stealing” from the restaurant. At the time we thought it was great, but I was very young then.

Well, you learn something every day.

I was going to call “bullshit” on this story, because as far as i was aware, most coins are not made of magnetic materials. American coins and Australian coins are completely unresponsive to magnets.

But i have a few Canadian coins around from my last visit to Vancouver, and sure enough, they stick just fine to the magnet i have here.

Another point (sorry)

What if I am walking out of a store and am approached by loss prevention associates…and I refuse. They then tackle me and handcuff me and break my arm. Are not the loss prevention associates legally/financially responsible for my injury…do they have the RIGHT to tackle and handcuff me?

It’s been years since I’ve been with Home Depot so have no idea how things work now, when I was with them LP was completely independent of the store. I didn’t know their schedules, if they left a mess in an office I had no authority make them clean it up, I’d have to call the district LP to make that request. The inside details of how they were allowed to function was outside my domain. I know from the back end of things we were never successfully sued over their antics. Such a loss would have shown on the stores books.

My assumption was they were granted legal authority to function as Leo’s for the purpose of patrolling the private property. They would have the right to tackle you.

So resisting would be the same as resisting any other lawful order.

In MA we also have armed security guards. They are allowed to shoot people if need be. Different quasi military organizations employ them. A defense contractor like Ratheon can have armed guards with orders to shoot trespassers with very limited parameters, Identify yourself as security, demand they stop, if they refuse open fire.

I think it’s clear that people other then Leo’s can be authorized by the state to use powers people like yourself may think limited to only Leo’s

Ok, assuming that is true…how do people KNOW this? I’m still not going to let someone not looking like a LEO handcuff me and lead me away into a private place…not going to happen peacefully. Do these security guards have proof of LEO-ness?

The defense contractor thing is different, IMO, as you are not supposed to be on their property to begin with, it will be clearly marked as such and it isn’t a place you need to have been going. Stores are not this way.

I’d really like to hear an attorney’s thoughts on this :slight_smile:

It seems with MA law even merchants are allowed to make citizen arrests, if they incorrectly do so they are still not open to charges of false arrest due to statutes such as this

Your defense would have to be their actions were unreasonable.

Handcuffs are not a magical police only tool, anyone can use them if it is reasonable to do so to control someone who is being detained for law enforcement.

If they got to that point, remember, much like cops, alot of security types have training and practical experience restraining people. In many cases all you are going to get is hurt and the cops are going to have zero pity for you. Most of the people I had to handcuff were very combative, unless you are some kind of mini Chuck Norris 3 experienced guards will take you down.

Alot of this comes down to reasonable to a judge. Cuffing a suspect being detained for PD is reasonable in my experience.

Like dealing with police, these kinds of issues are often best sorted out in court later. You cannot be charged with resisting arrest but will probably be charged with assaulting the guard if you did any real damage. What they do to you detaining you for a legit bust is going to have far more leeway than what you do to them attempting to evade detention for the police.

I was thinking specifically of theft-related shrink, actually, but you’re right. I just never appreciated the pre-emptive “you are thieves” attitude, and we all knew a lot of actual theft went on but that was never really mentioned to us. I still think that is because they could do things like search our bags without risking lawsuits.

Why yes, I am deeply cynical about that year and a half or so of my life.

At common law, a shopkeeper had a right to use reasonable force to detain you and conduct an investigation in “fresh pursuit” (He couldn’t come to your house later and beat your door down).

Most, if not all states, have codified this in their laws. There are many variables, and missing an element can open a shopkeeper up to liability, but so long as he reasonably believes you stole something, he can detain you to conduct an investigation for a reasonable period of time, and he can use reasonable, non-deadly force to make you comply.

Someone I knew who worked “loss prevention” as a security guard claimed that when CCW licensing came into play, it really changed the way they approach potential shoplifters. They try never to lay hands on someone, if someone resists, they try to just block them from leaving the store by putting their body in front of the person. He told me about a store (same chain, but not the one he worked at) where a teenaged security guard tried grabbed a woman and wrenched her arm, dislocating it at the shoulder. She managed to draw her CCW and stick it in the guard’s side, screaming at him to “get the fuck off me!” and demanding someone call the police. The story goes the guard wet himself; my friend thinks that part wasn’t true; however, the guard was pretty scared.

The police came of course, and the net settlement was that if she didn’t file a complaint about her injury, they wouldn’t arrest her for drawing her weapon in a situation where it (probably) should not have been drawn[sup]1[/sup], and everyone parted with bad feelings overall.

Oh yeah, turns out the police searched her, and she hadn’t shoplifted anything. However, the store banned her from ever returning. :rolleyes:

  1. She could draw her weapon legally to prevent serious harm or threat to her life or that of a third party. The question would be whether it was reasonable for her to assume she was at risk of deliberate serious harm or had suffered it, or if it was merely an accident as a result of a lawful action. She could argue that she had no idea who this non-uniformed large male was who grabbed her and dislocated her arm, so she had every expectation further violence was coming. I sure as shit wouldn’t want to trust the “good horse sense” of a jury made up of average American dumbshits.