Illegal Imprisonment, after Shoplifting

[whiterabbit]

I was going to add what Wee Bairn posted; during my tenure at Wal-Mart if we saw somebody take something, we or other employees had to keep a constant eye on them, the theory being that if they got out of sight and then dropped the item there would presumably be legal problems for the store.

And we floor people, at least, weren’t supposed to lay a hand on them (as if I would!) but we were allowed to make helpful pests of ourselves or whatever to let them know that Big Brother was watching.

Now, how to keep a continuous eye on them and alert management, that was the tricky bit. I wonder just how much stuff walked out that we never even had an idea about, let alone the stuff that we did know about.

[Bricker]

@Max Torque

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.

I fully and freely admit I have no expertise in Texas law… but as I read Blackwell, it seems to stand for the proposition that even when a police officer is privately employed, he is acting in the course and scope of his public duty for the purposes of tort immunity. I just had time for a quick skim, but I didn’t quite get the “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…” sense. If the officer CHOOSES to act, it’s within the scope of his duty to do so, but he’s not mandated to act.

Again, I’m just seeking clarification of the law in Texas; as I read the case you cite, it doesn’t seem to square with the interpretation you’re urging.

[pkbites]

@Max Torque

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.

Not about the case law part you weren’t.

And yes, it is different here.

[Baffle]

@treis

You can only perform a citizen’s arrest if you suspect a felony is taking place.

I can’t speak for the USA, but Section 494 of the Canadian Criminal Code gives agents of property owners the ability to arrest for criminal activity (not just indictable offenses) when a crime is committed on or in relation to that property. Security guards routinely arrest (and handcuff and detain in small rooms) for shoplifting and trespassing. Trespassing is a great crime that covers all manner of annoyances and disturbances, if your disturbance or annoyance refuses to leave.

[alphaboi867]

@Walloon

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.

Would the plaintiff in the wrongful imprisonment suit need to prove that you didn’t have reasonable cause?

[Max_Torque]

@Bricker

I fully and freely admit I have no expertise in Texas law… but as I read Blackwell, it seems to stand for the proposition that even when a police officer is privately employed, he is acting in the course and scope of his public duty for the purposes of tort immunity. I just had time for a quick skim, but I didn’t quite get the “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…” sense. If the officer CHOOSES to act, it’s within the scope of his duty to do so, but he’s not mandated to act.

Again, I’m just seeking clarification of the law in Texas; as I read the case you cite, it doesn’t seem to square with the interpretation you’re urging.

Oops. When I was quoting earlier, I was quoting from my TDCAA book, and not directly from the cases; I didn’t make that clear, so sorry for the confusion. Anyway, here are what I believe are the relevant sentences, from page 139 of Blackwell:

Additionally, “it is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within his jurisdiction.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.13 (Vernon 1977). Whenever a peace officer observes a “person is about to commit an offense against the person or property of another . . . it is his duty to prevent it.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 6.06 (Vernon Supp 1995). Peace officers are not relieved of this responsibility simply because they are “off-duty.” Moore v. State, 562 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

I left the citations in the quote so that y’all can see that the rule has some history and authority behind it (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. is the annotated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, in case someone’s wondering). So, yeah, peace officers, as persons licensed and entrusted by the state with keeping the peace, are bound by statute to act when they see an offense about to be committed.

[Max_Torque]

@pkbites

Not about the case law part you weren’t.

And yes, it is different here.

The first sentence of my post was,

@me

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.

Emphasis added. And my location is pretty plain over there in the sidebar.

[pkbites]

@Max Torque

The first sentence of my post was,

Emphasis added. And my location is pretty plain over there in the sidebar.

You noted Texas when you spoke about off-duty cops working as security. You didn’t say the rest pertained only to Texas.

[Cardinal]

In California, you need to see the commission of a misdemeanor. My friend Greg (really) is security at a Target, and he has arrested a good number of people because he knew they were walking out with CDs and such. If he only suspects, he doesn’t have the right to detain, which a real cop could do, just on suspicion. He’s had to let those people go.

The Stater Brothers (grocery) clerks were just telling me a story last month about how they saw a guy headed out with a case of beer, and (I think) three of them jumped on him and held him for the police. Just another data point that you can do this for misdemeanors in CA.

Since simply walking out of the store with merchandise and a receipt does not give reason to know a crime is being committed, in CA you don’t have to stop to get your receipt checked. I’ve walked straight out about five times. Just don’t look them in the eye, and don’t slow down. Most of the time they don’t even say anything.

[Walloon]

@alphaboi867

Would the plaintiff in the wrongful imprisonment suit need to prove that you didn’t have reasonable cause?

No. All the plaintiff has to prove is false imprisonment. The prima facie case:

1. Act by defendant (for example, a security guard).
2. Intent (he intended to confine the plaintiff)
3. Confinement
4. Causation (the confinement must have been caused by the defendant’s intentional act)

“Reasonable cause” is a defense the defendant may offer against the plaintiff. The burden of showing “reasonable cause” is on the defendant. The plaintiff does not have to prove “no reasonable cause”, although he is free to offer evidence in that direction if he wishes.

[Lust4Life]

Shouldn’t the O.P be entitled legal imprisonment after illegal shoplifting by thieving bastard but never mind lets try and get him off the hook by a technicality anyway?