In effect, Costco does this, except for the brutish thugs part. It’s an understood-in-advance condition of membership. If someone refused to show a receipt, I doubt Costco would do anything physical to restrain him (absent other probable cause to detain), but I’m confident that his membership would be cancelled.
I’m okay with this. I like Costco, it’s personnel are polite and efficient, I’m willing to endure the minor inconvenience to get the many benefits of a Costco member.
I’m not as cooperative at certain other places, such as Home Depot. There’s no advance agreement, and not everyone is stopped. It’s personnel are more demanding and less polite. I will generally show my receipt, but I am less patient, and will leave without showing it if there are undue delays.
Sxyzzx: The “Crimedoctor.com” link you provide doesn’t mention electronic alarms at all. What is the basis for your belief that the theft alarm falls far short of establishing probable cause?
I’ve always wondered about this – Costco’s usually a busy place, and they’re not going to know who you are in order to cancel your membership. But still, if you’re bound by the membership, there’s really no cause to complain about being searched. However, in Michigan, “members only” warehouses that sell alcoholic beverages must allow the public at large to purchase alcoholic beverages. So in theory, I guess you could go buy some wine and then blow off the checker person without risking losing your membership, since you’re not a member.
Ahh, the key. It already sucks having to wait like a rube in the two lanes (of the 15 that there are) that are actually open, and then have to suffer the slow poke taking forever to look at every single purchase? And even then, this is only a show – they’re not mentally capable of verifying everything on the receipt with what you have, unless (1) it’s only a couple of items, or (2) Wal-Mart has a secret program of recruiting idiot savants to do their checking at the doors. So, yeah, I usually cooperate, but if they’re busy with someone else I just sail on by. It’s never been a problem anywhere.
Can somebody with more legal background than me elaborate on what “reasonable means of detention” means in this case?
Case scenario: I did not steal anything. I walk through an electronic detector, it goes off. I keep going. The theft prevention security guard of the store catches up with me, tells me to stop. I ignore him. He grabs my shoulder (Say this is still allowed under the law). I keep going. Now at this point, continuing to restrain me will most likely end in injury. Most likely to both of us. Who’s guilty of assault, if anybody?
Yes, I was out of line. I was fired up about some other things last night, and unfortunately, my temper got the best of me when I was in the middle of a perfectly good discussion.
I’ll humbly submit that the act of “detainment” in and of itself is not illegal: you’re just keeping someone in one spot. It’s the reason behind it’s application that makes it illegal: i.e. detainment on Saturday morning because you threw a spitball at the teacher, versus detainment for monetary gain (kidnapping for ransom). You’re basically detained at a roadside sobriety checkpoint, for the purposes of finding any drunk drivers. We were detained when our mother put us in the corner for being a bratty little kid. Anyone can detain anyone or anthing they want–it’s just the reasoning behind the detention is where people get upset.
In my particular case, I’ve got legal authority to do that, in a military environment. Downtown, no. On base, yeah. I remember a scuffle once broke out between two airmen, and I basically had to seperate and hold them there until the SPs showed up. [sub]. . . you gotta keep 'em seperated![/sub]
You also have the natural right to detain people as you deem necessary: For example, a fistfight breaks out in the grocery store between two ladies. Granted, you could let 'em go at it, but in all honesty, someone would hold them back. That’s detainment. Legal? Maybe, maybe not. Done for public safety? Yup.
My basic point is this: Anyone can detain anyone else, for any given reason. “Detention” is just the act. It’s the motive behind it that makes/breaks a case.
Tripler
I’m not a lawyer, but I ought to play one on TV.
Well in that way “ending someone’s life” is just an act too, since you can be an executioner for the state.
I think what most of us are arguing is that if you are not an officially sanctioned government agent, on private property, you have extremely limited rights to detain that probably stop at being able to say “Stop. Do not leave until the police leave here.”
Any store employee who attempts to detain someone who they think is a shoplifter must necessarily:
#1) Run the risk the person will resist violently. What if the customer is packing heat?
#2) Be damn sure the person did shoplift something.
Consider #2. A store dick tries to detain me outside the store. I get in a violent fight with the store dick. Cops spot us, and break it up. Store dick says I stole a specific item. Let’s say music CD. I say to cop: “Hell no I didn’t steal a music CD from that store. Officer, please search me.” Cop searches me and finds I am not in possession of a music CD.
I then accuse the store dick of assault and battery, and ask the officer to arrest the store dick. I then also file a massive civil suit against the store. Perhaps I suffered serious medical injuries fighting with the store dick. Now, WHAT jury isn’t going to take my side, when I can put a cop on the stand that testifies he searched me and found I had no stolen merchandise on me?
Plenty of juries will find against you, when the lawyer for the store explains the definition of probable cause and how it applies to the facts of your case.
The question is not “Did you do it?” The question is: “Did the store’s agents or employees have probable cause to believe you did it?” If the answer to that is yes - in Virginia - they are immune from civil suit.
This goes against everything I’ve ever been taught about citizens arrest. (I realized citizens arrest is not the same thing as detention or merchants privilige). As I’ve been informed in a case of citizens arrest if the person did not in fact commit the crime, EVEN if you had probable cause to believe they did, you can, in some cases, be charge with assault.
So yes, they might have probable cause. That does not mean they are law enforcement agents or can use violent force or injury to detain me in case I’m innocent.
Why would the jury tend to think they had probable cause when there is absolute proof I didn’t steal anything? In my specific hypothetical, it seems more likely the store dick either is lying or was hallucinating.
I can think of many hypothetical answers. Perhaps you stole and concealed merchandise, but then realized you were under observation, and, out of sight of the employee, ditched the stolen merchandise.
If the facts support a determination of probabale cause, then the law - in Virginia - says that the merchant is immune from civil suiit for reasonably detaining you. Probable cause does not, of course, mean utter certainty. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the detaining individual’s knowledge and of which he has reasonable trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to suggest to a reasonaly prudent man that an offense has likely been or is likely being committed.
Your hypothetical was completely silent on the basis for the store dick’s belief. If he saw you slip the music CD under your shirt and saunter towards the exit, he has probable cause – EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE IT ON YOU. If he formed his belief because he was next to you in the music aisle and heard you say, “I’d like that CD, but I don’t think I can afford it,” then he doesn’t have probable cause – EVEN IF YOU DID ACTUALLY STEAL IT AND THEY FIND IT ON YOU.
Probable cause is not determined by looking at the final results of the search. They are, in fact, irrelevant. Probable cause is determined by what the detainig individual knew at the time.
But the merchant is going to have to prove they had probable cause. Good chance that if the store dick testifies he saw me slip the music CD under my shirt and sauntered toward the exit, the jury will think he was just lying. (Now if they have this on videotape this would be another issue.) It just isn’t worth it for the merchant to take the risk of a jury finding in my favor over a music CD. Particularly when you consider in my hypothetical scenario, if I seriously injure (or maybe even kill) the store dick, even if I lose my civil suit the store will still have a huge worker’s comp bill to pay.
Even the theft alarm doesn’t make them completely immune. If their employees have a known habit of being negligent in deactivating the alarms or if the employees routinely ignored the alarm- but made a special case out of you- then you might have a case, still.
Because if having the alarm go off made them immune- then some idiot company would just arrange it so that the alarm always went off, so they could always search your stuff and check your reciept.
What law are you relying upon in forming this conclusion?
In Commonwealth v. Brooks, a suspected shoplifter was apprehended outside the store by a loss prevention officer who had probable cause. The shoplifter physically resisted, and the pair fell to the ground struggling. An accomplice drove up in a car, striking the store employee. The suspected shoplifter leapt into the car, which drove off, dragging the employee eight to ten feet. The employee was able to physically and forcibly remove the shoplifter from the car and effect her detention.
The employee was not charged with assault. The shoplifter was, and was convicted.
The existence of probable cause is a threshold legal question. If they can prove to a judge that they had probable cause, the jury is never going to hear the case.
Now, why would a judge believe the store detective was lying?