Probable cause have no real application outside of criminal cases. Or are you saying that there is a presumption of innocence in civil cases?
So might unicorns. There is nothing that you can point to that supports the notion that she intended to steal that sandwich. I on the other hand can point to the fact that they left the wrapper in the cart.
Yes we have statements from both Nicole and Safeway. They both contradict you and you were nowhere near the supermarket or had an opportunity to talk to people that were there. Nicole and Safeway have.
I really hope you are making this up because you don’t seem to give way too much deference to cops.
They are also taking the supermarket’s word for it. And when it comes to determining whether the cop did something wrong the police report is simply the cop’s recollection of events taken on the cop’s word.
In any case where one side has to prove something , there is essentially a presumption of innocence. When Nicole wants to sue the store. police department etc, for false arrest she has to prove that the arrest was unlawful , not just that she didn’t commit a crime. When the police department wants to take disciplinary action against the officer, they have to prove the allegations.
And what statement did the supermarket make that I contradict? That they “accept” her story? No, I accept their story that they accept her story.Doesn’t tell me anything about the facts, nor about whether the officer had probable cause.
I am assuming nothing except that the people who were present know more than we do. Believe it or not, sometimes the evidence you have before you isn’t enough to make a decision and this is one of those cases.
As I said before , a judge who only knew that the ate the sandwich, didn’t pay and said she saved the wrapper would not find probable cause because there’s not enough evidence. You can’t make that determination because the police officer/prosecution had no obligation to come before you with all of the evidence.
The fact that there was a wrapper somewhere in the cart is not enough to determine that there was not enough probable cause for detainment by the store or arrest by the police. There are many ways in which Safeway employees and police acted appropriately with a wrapper in the cart. There’s also another sandwich involved. We’ve gone over this multiple times.
This has also been rebutted multiple times. The supermarket spokesperson says that proper procedure was followed , “but Safeway regrets not foreseeing that doing so would cause a child to be separated from her parents.” That’s not the admission of a fuck up that you claim.
I never said that. False dichotomies will get you nowhere on this board.
This has also been rebutted. The spokesperson for the supermarket said they accept her assurance that she simply forgot to pay. That’s the right thing to say after a bunch of negative press and dropping charges. The spokesperson was doing her job to negate the bad press. This is still different than coming out and saying they don’t believe there was intent to steal.
I never said that. Knock off the bullshit.
So, you’re going to ignore my question and throw it back on me when I never said anyone was lying? YOU are the one that said “proof is entirely lacking” without knowing much at all about what Safeway employees witnessed, what the two people that were arrested did, and what evidence the police were presented with and what was said to the police.
No, they argue against you, since you are the one claiming police should never have arrested them, the store should never have called the cops, and that proof is “entirely” lacking.
I’m a little confused here. Is your argument that she did indeed shoplift by eating the sandwich {or two?} but it can’t be proved she didn’t intend to pay, and just forgot to.
What is it you’d expect anyone to say if they were caught leaving the store without paying? Of course they’re going to say they forgot. They can eat something every time they go in the store and only pay for the times they get caught.
It’s seems like a bad call for the store to push it, but I think once the act has been committed then technically a crime is there, and “oops I didn’t mean to” is not much of a defense.
IOW, you don’t have to prove she intended to shoplift , after she actually did it. You have to decide whether to believe her and how to handle it.
Someone intending to skip might eat and then hide the wrapper in an aisle. I’ve found plenty of empty boxes from shoplifters. However, it might also be her/their , out in case she’s spotted eating something.
That’s what I mean about chronic behavior that stores have to react to and create policies about. Do you think a store employee is going to ask, “what’s that loose plastic in your cart?” Not likely, although they may need to start.
A friend of mine is a McD’s manager. You’d be amazed at the petty scams people run over a freakin burger and fries. Latest one.
Someone comes in and places an order. He takes his receipt and drink cup and wanders away. When the order comes up his partner picks it up. Then he comes back with the receipt and drink cup and asks where his order is and insists on a refund.
As strange as it seems I’ve seen a lot of bizarre behavior in retail. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover people eat stuff in the store all the time and only pay when specifically asked about it. I’d be willing to bet this store had an issue with just such a thing and that’s why they reacted the way they did.
I remember a thread here a while back about people trimming the stalks off of broccoli and asparagus in store and still expecting the lower price.
True but you’re talking about pressing charges. sadly most of the time it cost way more than the merchandise to press charges. Most stores try to just discourage shoplifting rather than prosecute.
I’m with you on this. My policy has always been to give the customer the benefit of the doubt unless it’s blatant and/or provable. I can also make a note of who potential petty thieves are and deal with them in the future if the behavior is repetitive.
Yep, that’s a possibility, but you combat that by training employees to look in the cart for wrappers and politely asking a question, rather than calling the police. If, over time, you recognize a chronic offender, you deal with it then.
Personally , I think the big super stores with policies set by people who may never have worked at the eyeball to eyeball with customers level, encourage bad behavior among customers.
Both. The only difference is to what standard you need to prove it. For conviction it is beyond a reasonable doubt, and for arrest that it is probably true.
How 'bout this? You should have confidence in their intent to a similar extent that you have confidence in the guilt of a generic suspect arrested for a generic crime.
Which, I hope, is somewhat greater than “I don’t have to investigate or gather any evidence towards their guilt/intent, because I don’t have to prove their guilt/intent to arrest.”
treis, I think part of this may be a semantic problem. You keep saying the police need to “prove” intent to arrest. Proving intent implies that it is being proven to another person- you certainly don’t mean the officer has to prove to himself that he has probable cause to arrest someone and there’s no one else to prove it to at the time of arrest . The officer (or really the prosecution) might need to establish that there is probable cause at a hearing a few days later, but it’s common for the defendant to waive the probable cause hearing, in which case probable cause need never be proven. Generally, a probable cause hearing is held within a few days of arrest (in Hawaii, it’s as soon as practicable and no later than 48 hours after arrest for a defendant held in custody). Since the articles report that this couple returns to court Nov 28, a month after the arrest, my guess is that they either waived the probable cause hearing or it was held at the same time their bail was set.
None of which means the officer doesn’t need to have evidence establishing intent at the time of arrest- just that he’s not proving it to someone at or before the time of arrest.
If by “probably true”, you mean “more likely than not” , that’s “preponderance of the evidence” , a higher standard than probable cause.
The Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) states
I see your point, but I’m saying that when she walked out without paying that’s shoplifting. The fact that she left the building without paying implies intent or at least the strong possibility. She , or anyone, can say, oops I just forgot, and at THAT point, the store and the police make a judgement call on how to handle it. In many states concealing an item in the store is intent. Certainly by eating something in store it was concealed.
I had the wrapper in my cart , that proves I intended to pay for it. No it doesn’t. It only proves you were prepared in case you were called on it.
It seems obvious no store should call the cops over a sandwich or two unless some dumb upper management insists. The store may have had reason to believe it was habitual behavior and only backed down because of unforeseen bad PR.
Let’s assume the store had some ongoing issue with people helping themselves in the store and then “forgetting” to pay. How many times would they forget before you called it intent?
Chronic bad , even petty behavior by enough people translates into loss for the store.
That said, based on limited information, if this woman and her So were not pegged as habitual offenders it was an incredibly bad call by the staff and possibly the police, although I think technically the police had just cause to arrest.
It would be a crazy circumstance to go to court over unless you had evidence they pulled that scam on a regular basis, but as I said, actually eating the item and then leaving without paying implies enough intent.
From my experience in retail, you make allowances for people and eventually enough people go to far and take advantage that it becomes an issue and has to be addressed. My guess is that people eating food in the store has become an issue for that store. Technically, eating the food before you pay for it could be considered stealing.
right, and when she walked out without paying that certainly implies intent. That’s why concealing merchandise is considered intent to shoplift even before you leave the store.
“Oh, I still had the tag in my pocket, I meant to pay for it”
I think eating food you haven’t paid for , and then leaving without telling the cashier implies intent to deprive.
OK, I get it. The mere fact that Nicole ate the sandwich is a primae facie case for shoplifting but the mere fact that she didn’t commit a crime would not be a primae facie case for unlawful arrest. Is that what you are saying?
The supermarket said more than “we accept her story” they said they do not believe she was shoplifting not simply that they choose to believe Nicole. Probable cause does not exist in the mind of the officer, it is a subjective standard. Based on all evidence available to us, he didn’t have it.
No, you are assuming that the police officer is infallible.
Based on the evidence we have before us, the officer did not have probable cause. Perhaps more evidence will surface later that will move the dial one way or the other but right now, this is where we are. You are presuming facts not in evidence to conclude that the officer must have been correct and everyone involved in the situation has decided to keep it quiet.
In all of this you are going on assumed facts that NOONE is presenting. I am going on facts presented. Sure there are ways the facts presented can be modified to make you right but as they stand, you are simply looking for reasons to justify arresting two parents for forgetting to pay for a sandwich which resulted in thier child being separated from them and living with strangers for a day.