# Legal hypothetical involving store theft **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 2, 2025, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676 "2025-09-02T13:26:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/1 "2025-09-02T13:26:32Z")
Let us say a store prominently posts this sign: “WARNING SHOPLIFTERS! ALL ITEMS IN THIS STORE ARE MARKED $1000. NON-CRIMINAL DISCOUNTS APPLIED AT CHECKOUT FOR ALL PAYING CUSTOMERS ONLY. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITH PROSECUTE ALL SHOPLIFTERS UNDER CA PENAL CODE 487 PC-GRAND THEFT”. For example, the price of a pack of gum can be marked on the shelves a “$1000” and if it is brought up to checkout they will “discount” it down to $1.59, but if you try to steal it they will charge you for stealing under Grand Theft laws. Is this legal and, as an aside, which price would you be paying any sales tax under? ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/2 "2025-09-02T13:40:24Z")
Wouldn’t work. I believe California penal specifies fair market value as the proper metric. Arguably, for the same reason, thieves don’t get the benefit discounted prices. In fact, I’m pretty sure I read a case in law school to that effect, but do not have my notes at hand. See, for example, California Penal Code § 484(a) PC ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/3 "2025-09-02T13:45:54Z")
Is it a “discount” if it is permanent, applies to everyone, and is a non-stated and floating percentage of the price? I thought there were laws against sales that never went away, marking something at a “price” that is never actually real. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/4 "2025-09-02T13:47:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is this legal and, as an aside, which price would you be paying any sales tax under? The general rule (which can vary by state however) is that sales tax is based on the final price you pay as it was set by the store. This means if you have a manufacturer’s coupon, for example, that discount isn’t figured into the amount of sales tax. So you go into a store and see an item that’s marked as ten dollars. But the store is having a sale where all the ten dollar items are a dollar off. And you have a coupon from the manufacturer saying you get two dollars off this item. You buy the item and pay seven dollars. What the store is doing is collecting the seven dollars from you and then they will collect two more dollars from the manufacturer as reimbursement for the coupon you used. So as far as the store is concerned the item was sold for nine dollars and your sales tax will be based on that amount. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/5 "2025-09-02T13:47:54Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > California Penal Code § 484(a) PC For folks who want to see: > **[California Code, PEN 484.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=484.&lawCode=PEN)** > > California Codes Text Search > [@](#): > > Every person who shall feloniously steal … the personal property of another…is guilty of theft. In determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test (Removed a lot of other things considered theft). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/6 "2025-09-02T13:49:47Z")
So the sales tax is covered. What about making the stealing of a pack of gum Grand Theft by use of artificial prices and permanent discounts? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/7 "2025-09-02T13:50:45Z")
With that answer, I also think the spirit of the law supports the thief here. We’ve decided as a society what the penalties should be for stealing certain values of things. A store that tries to do an end-run around the laws that our elected legislators have enacted shouldn’t be able to use the state’s mechanisms in this fashion. If they think stealing a pack of gum should carry a heavier penalty than it does, they should advocate for different laws. For similar reasons, I’ve heard rumors of stores that track shoplifters and don’t intervene until they have, over the course of several trips, stolen enough to qualify as grand larceny. That practice should be thrown out: it’s also an attempt to do an end-run around the law, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/8 "2025-09-02T13:51:31Z")
Separate issue. How would this affect the store’s insurance coverage? I’m assuming the insurer would take the value of the inventory into account when they were setting the price of coverage. Would they base their calculations on the sticker prices or on the discounted prices that were charged? ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/9 "2025-09-02T13:57:01Z")
In Transporter 3, Jason Statham and the female principle role wore devices that would explode if they were separated by more than a certain distance. Adopting that idea, all packaged items could be rigged to explode once you were, say 30 feet outside the store. Scanning the item legally would render the packaging harmless. If you scarfed the item, however, you would immediately get a loud, beeping warning once you left the store. You could either return the item with no legal consequences, or you could continue walking. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/10 "2025-09-02T14:00:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > For similar reasons, I’ve heard rumors of stores that track shoplifters and don’t intervene until they have, over the course of several trips, stolen enough to qualify as grand larceny. That practice should be thrown out: it’s also an attempt to do an end-run around the law, in my opinion. Oof–withdrawing this comment after actually reading the law: [https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-487/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-487/) > [@](#): > > (e) If the value of the money, labor, real property, or personal property taken exceeds nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) over the course of distinct but related acts, including acts committed against multiple victims or in counties other than the county of the current offense, the value of the money, labor, real property, or personal property taken may properly be aggregated to charge a count of grand theft, if the acts are motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan.Evidence that distinct acts are motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan may include, but is not limited to, evidence that the acts involve the same defendant or defendants, are substantially similar in nature, or occur within a 90-day period. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/11 "2025-09-02T14:03:05Z")
I don’t really think that illegal and very dangerous act has much to do with what I am talking about. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/12 "2025-09-02T14:50:59Z")
I’ve seen a few of those signs like the OP cites. Seems to be MAGA posturing against the perceived thief-friendly laws of the wokey-woke people’s republic of California. Separately … > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > > Evidence that distinct acts are motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan may include, but is not limited to, evidence that the acts involve the same defendant or defendants, are substantially similar in nature, or occur within a 90-day period. That seems to be aimed at the now-common practice of organized shoplifting of specific goods to provide inventory for online sales. i.e. Go out, steal a couple [whatevers] from 10 different e.g. Walgreens locations, then you have 20 to sell on eBay. Lather rinse repeat tomorrow. But any one theft is so _de minimis_ that neither police nor prosecutors would bother with it. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/13 "2025-09-02T18:11:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t really think that illegal and very dangerous act has much to do with what I am talking about. Dangerous, no, but there is no way a court wouldn’t overthrow your price fixing methodology. That would, by definition, make it “illegal”. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/14 "2025-09-02T18:34:50Z")
It wasn’t _my_ price-fixing methodology, because it was based on a sign already being posted in California, and I was _asking_ if it was illegal as opposed to your idea which was obviously both illegal and highly dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/15 "2025-09-02T18:55:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > For similar reasons, I’ve heard rumors of stores that track shoplifters and don’t intervene until they have, over the course of several trips, stolen enough to qualify as grand larceny. That practice should be thrown out: it’s also an attempt to do an end-run around the law, in my opinion. How do? Does the law say you have to steal the whole amount in one go? If not, I don’t see how this goes against the original law? Doing your stealing in small discrete chunks that are each below the legal limit for serious punishment seems more like an attempt to “do an end-run around the law” than prosecuting people who steal more than the grand theft limit does. Eta: never mind, looks like on reviewing the law you came to the same conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/16 "2025-09-02T18:59:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Separate issue. How would this affect the store’s insurance coverage? I’m assuming the insurer would take the value of the inventory into account when they were setting the price of coverage. Would they base their calculations on the sticker prices or on the discounted prices that were charged? Wouldn’t the store’s insurance look at _the cost of acquiring the inventory for the store_ rather than _the price the store sells the inventory at_? Or at the very least, cost to replace inventory? ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2025, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/17 "2025-09-03T15:42:48Z")
Chap with actual wide ranging retail experience chiming in here. These types of schemes were considered jokes with no effect. Now in the MAGA world who knows? In all the states my various employers and clients have operated in, this would not work. The value is what a normal customer would pay. Defining a “non criminal” customer as something special wouldn’t fly any more than claiming that the $29.99 pair of shorts o bought from TJ Maxx gave a value of $69.99 (the “Compare at” price) The retail value is the price at which you intend to sell it. To answer the different question raised, insurance coverage would be the fully loaded cost of the product (the cost you paid to the supplier and some costs added for delivery to the store and putting on the shelf). Almost all retailers large and small have insurance coverage with deductibles high enough that $500 or $1500 makes no difference. There are smaller retailers who will try to inflate their losses both to get over their insurance deductibles and to increase the restitution ordered. That’s garden variety fraud. I suspect the pricing schemes described in the OP would also be considered fraud if used for insurance claims or restitution. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2025, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/18 "2025-09-03T16:00:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > it was based on a sign already being posted in California That wasn’t clear from your OP, I thought you were musing about a possible anti-shoplifting idea. Is it legal… the store owners do have a 1st Amendment right to post just about whatever nonsense they like, as long as it isn’t fraudulent or otherwise prohibited. Now, of course, the impression is that a kid who steals a candybar will be _prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law_, which means the store manager will have to call the police about the stolen candybar. They will then have to make a formal complaint to the police where they say “this candybar is valued at $1,000”, in a sworn statement of fact. This part may not be quite as legal as the sign because it’s a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2025, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-hypothetical-involving-store-theft/1022676/19 "2025-09-03T16:37:26Z")
Well, retail price labeling is also regulated, though there are often exceptions for the hallowed mom and pop operators. But even so, a big sign that says every item at the store is priced at $1000 would probably be deemed to have no impact at all. Any more than a sign that said they reserve the right to shoot shoplifters.