I’ve seen three or four shoplifters get caught by store security at places like Best Buy, and they always get handcuffed and taken into a small back room by a group of burly guys.
Depends on what they stole. A CD, they most likely wouldn’t bother tracking you down. Finger some diamonds or watchs from the jewelery case and be captured on film and they are looking for you. I saw this on Detroit TV where they were looking for people who were playing a switch -a-roo like that and the posted there pictures on the news and offered a reward. Don’t have time to search for a cite right now, but why would it seem far fetched. Some shoplifting is very organized gang activity, not just petty theft.
I’m sure you’re correct that they’d go after somebody who stole something with a high value, but I meant to ask about misdemeanor petit larceny – in my state (Nevada), that means stealing a total of less than $250 in merchandise. If somebody stole a CD and you didn’t catch them at the time but saw them later on the security video, could you arrest them if they came into your store a week later?
Intuitively, it seems to me like this must happen all the time at places like Wal-Mart and Best Buy and other big retailers that people return to many times a year – somebody might steal a CD or some item of clothing or something, not get caught at the time, and come back a few days later perhaps intending to do it again or perhaps not. But I’ve never heard of somebody being arrested for shoplifting (at least the usual kind of misdemeanor shoplifting that tons of people do and that costs merchants billions because millions of people think it’s fun or okay or whatever) after the fact because they were caught on tape some other time.
But what if loss prevention is mistaken and you haven’t actually shoplifted anything? It can’t escalate robbery if nothing was actually stolen.
I would like to see some cited authority for the proposition that a shoplifter, during an attempt to leave the store, engaging in efforts to escape being detained physically, would be able to be charged with robbery successfully.
I don’t know where to find the cite. I have charged several people successfully with robbery in such cases. I don’t remember any that went to trial, all were pled out. None of the charges were thrown out.
The usual trouble with the scenario you hypothesize is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect actually left the premises with the unpaid merchandise. If you catch them with the unpaid merchandise on them, that’s easy to do. You use the tape to establish the attempt to secret the merchandise, then you use the fact of their having the merchandise, sans receipt, to establish they took it illegally. But, if the tape appears to show them secreting the merchandise, but you don’t catch them right then, it gets quite dicey being able to establish that they did, in fact, leave the store with the merchandise, without paying for it. It can be done, but it’s not as easy as catching them red-handed.
Usually, of course, a store won’t bother. It simply makes a determination that, should they see the same person in the future, they will either put that person under intense scrutiny while shopping, or, if they feel they have enough evidence to justify it, bar the person from the premises permanently.
Furthermore, wouldn’t this be grounds for a HUGE “wrongful imprisonment” lawsuit? I don’t know many in retail but from what I’ve heard the rule is almost universally, “let 'em go and call the police.”
Cyberhawk, Section D of the Arizona statute above is found in similar statutes across the U.S.:
Wow…so I can forcefully subdue someone with, “well I coulda SWORE he did some’m.” That’s kinda scary IMO. :eek:
Just saying you had reasonable cause isn’t enough. You have to convince a judge or a jury that you actually did have reasonable cause.
Interesting. Policy must have changed since I worked there in… 2002? May have been 2003.
Back then, when I worked shifts as Loss Prevention, our rule was to NEVER, EVER touch or detain a customer, even if we see them shoving CDs in their pants or smashing TVs with baseball bats. We were to always call the police and let them sort things out. We were told stories (which may or may not have been true, I dunno) about how an LP employee once trailed someone out to their car and stood behind it in the parking lot to prevent them from leaving until the police arrived – and how that employee was then fired because a civil suit wound up costing the company a bit of money. Again, I have no idea if there’s any merit at all to the story, but it’s just what we were told.
I’m glad their policy now allows them to take action to protect their assets.
This leads me to a similar question, and I apologize in advance for detracting from the OP. General consensus is that the store has no right to require you to stop for those “receipt checkers,” except in places like Costco where you have a membership agreement. Could a store post a sign outside to the effect of “by shopping here, you agree to submit to any and all receipt and merchandise checks upon leaving”? Would it be legally enforceable? How large would such a sign need to be?
Getting back to the OP a bit… Walloon, would those detector alarms that are positioned by the door be enough for reasonable cause, alone? I routinely continue walking when I’m leaving if they go off because I’ve read before that they have no right to stop me in that manner.
Just wanted to pop in and say that, at least in my state, it’s possible that the stores that actually handcuff and detain people suspected of shoplifting are employing off-duty police officers or other state-certified peace officers as security. Such people are empowered to arrest, detain, and search people suspected of committing a crime. To quote some caselaw on the subject, “whenever a peace officer sees someone about to commit an offense, it is the officer’s duty to prevent it, whether or not the officer is on duty.” Having someone on-site who can legally detain a person suspected of shoplifting would be a real boon to a business that suffers a lot of “five-finger discounts”.
And could you cite the case law? Because it’s not correct.
Many departments, including the one I currently work for as well as the one I retired from after 25 years, have written policies that dictate when an off duty officer may take action. Except in the case of violence or felonies, an off duty officer is nothing more than a witness. I have no duty to prevent petty offenses like shoplifting. Even within the jurisdiction I work in.
Your cite, please.
At Kroger 20 years ago they would tell us if you stop someone for stealing you better be sure they have stolen merchandise on them when you detain them- that means you had to keep constant eye contact after they pocketed something to be sure they didn’t put it back at some point, which I assume meant if you detain them and they don’t have anything, there’d be trouble for the store.
Well, “they” in this case being the police? I assume that’s what you mean. Clearly Target itself is not going to send loss prevention employees out to kick in doors and make busts.
Although that has a certain comedic potential…not sure I’d want to confront a desperate criminal while wearing a big red bullseye on my chest.
Sailboat
Cite please. Maybe this is a state-by-state thing, but I am 100% confident that this is absolutely not the case in California.
That’d be Blackwell v. Harris County, 909 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ denied) at 138-9. See also Moore v. State, 562 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) at 486. Or you can see some other cases and comments on the duties of peace officers in page 175 of the book I have open on my desk, Criminal Laws of Texas, 2007-2009 Edition, published by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.
Perhaps the law is different in the “Majikal Land O’ Cheeze!”, but I feel I did make it clear that I was only speaking for Texas.