Merchant vs. Shoplifter questions

You know, if it’s a question of Virginia law, I happen to know someone who knows a bit about it… :slight_smile:

Here’s the statutory part: a merchant, agent, or employee of the merchant may detain a suspected shoplifter for up to an hour, pending the arrival of the police. They must have probable cause to believe the person they detain has stolen or concealed something. See Va. Code § 18.2-105.1.

Any merchant exercising that privilege is absolutely immune from civil liability for the following torts: unlawful detention, if such detention does not exceed one hour, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest, or assault and battery. See Va. Code § 18.2-105.

In Virginia, in addition to petit (under $200 value) and grand (over $200 value) larceny, it is illegal to conceal merchandise about your person or alter price tags on merchandise. Code § 18.2-103 provides that this gives rise to a prima facie intent to steal it, and this law makes you guilty of the theft even if you’ve not left the store.

So…

He cannot physcially detain you without probable cause. If he tries to unlawfully detain you, you are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself. Bear in mind that this doesn’t give you carte blanche to empty a .44 Mag into the guy if all he does is place his hand on your shoulder and say, “Excuse me, sir.”

  • Rick

Dammit! Once again, my rights are being infringed upon!

Someone get the ACLU on the phone…


Yer pal,
Satan

I heard it was to prevent employees to double team with a shoplifter and ‘forget’ to ring up an item. Checking the receipt against the items would detect this scam.

opus, That sounds like a good explanation for the mark on the receipt. I have always wondered about that practice.


A point in every direction is like no point at all

so, if the guy is detaining me, he can say that i f*** goats and he can kick my ass? that sucks. i’m glad i don’t live in VA.
eggo

Not as bad as it sounds. Case law has held that the immunities arise only as to otherwise tortious acts arising from the detainment and alleged theft. In other words, his accusations about your predilictions for barnyard animals, if otherwise actionable, would still be so. But if he accuses you of being a thief, and turns out to be wrong, he’s covered.

  • Rick

get aquainted with your local laws and visit the aclu web site.

Re: What can stores that are (see Virginia law courtesy of Bricker) immune to some charges do…

As Bricker said, I’m sure their immunity goes only so far as to the reasonable execution of their duties. If they say “I suspect you may have stolen something” then that would likely be okay, to proclaim loudly “Aha! You are a shoplifter, I have proof” would likely not, if they didn’t have such proof.

I also imagine their rights would apply only if they had reason to suspect you. If they tried to detain every 500th ‘X’ where ‘X’ is a group deemed likely to shoplift, I’d imagine their rights would be significantly (ie, totally) lessened. Also, if they detained you without telling you why.

Similarly, if they touch your shoulder and tell you they saw you steal something and that the law allows them to hold you, and asked you to come, that touch, though potentially assault in some cases, would be allowed. If they clubbed you with a can of beans and dragged you off, it wouldn’t. Much like self defense is a defense against assault charges, provided it was provably self defense and the actions taken are appropriate (ie, no .44 magnum, as mentioned).

These rights actually seem similar to what I recall as being citizen’s arrest laws. If you are right, and you detain with a minimum of force, someone fleeing a crime, you can’t be held (and this is all ‘I think’) liable, but if you’re wrong, wow, you’re in for a world of legal hurt.

But, on the general rights of the stores… If they don’t stop you going in, they can’t do anything except ask you to leave, with the possible exception of laws that let them detain you when they have proof of shoplifting. Behaving in a suspicious manner is not proof. They’d have to actually have seen you pocket something, preferably on camera.

As for your specific case, once you bought the items, you can do anything, or place them anywhere. (With due regard to public decency laws.) They could ask you to leave the store and not return if you don’t comply with their voluntary (ie, no legal force) measures, but they can’t search you or detain you just for refusing…

Allowable force would, IMHO, be any necessary to remove yourself from the area, or any force comparable to what they used. If he grabbed you, moving his hand forcibly would be okay, breaking his arm would not. If he struck you, striking back would be okay, etc. At this point it’s basically standard self defense rules. (Assuming you don’t fall under a specific law, like the ones Bricker quoted. But, even so, they would likely have to inform you of the law, just hauling you off, even with proof, and holding you, without telling you why, would likely go far beyond any exemption they might have.)

But, the best way, that I’ve seen, of dealing with these people, is to demand that they search the bags of everyone. This works for me because I am in a target area (young males) and I’m often asked to check my bag, or to show the contents, when they’ve just let an older woman with a purse walk through without being searched. I point out that small items are valuable and a purse could conceal a large ammount of stolen goods, and that I’ll make a big deal out of the discrimination angle (“Why are you letting her through, you didn’t search her. Are you saying only young men steal? I want to talk with a manager, NOW”) and basically make it not worth their time, without actually refusing. That makes it hard for them to kick me out, because I haven’t actually refused to comply, and also makes enough of a scene that they usually drop it. Without needing to resort to any legalities. Just shame them into being quiet.
Yes, it is a pet peeve of mine when I’m searched and other people aren’t, just because my shoulder bag isn’t standard, yet a purse is.

What??? Ever heard of consumer rights? When you buy something at a store, this is not a government interaction, and the consumer DOES have rights!

Beyond this, it is true that they can search your bags, etc. If you don’t wish to be searched, then don’t bring it in the store with you! As for shoplifting, you should know that they can always accuse you of such.
It could be your word against theirs. Then again, you can sue them for defamation of character…

[quote]
If you don’t wish to be searched, then don’t bring it in the store with you!*quote
So I should just hang my daypack with my address book, checque book, other items, on the handlebar of my motorcycle? In L.A.?

It would be nice to hear from some accomplished shoplifters.

::sigh::
Yes, I have heard of “consumer rights”. I have also heard of “smokers’ rights” and “patient rights” and all kinds of other “rights”. They do not exist. Non-governmental interactions are controlled by laws, not rights. The problem is that people have so confused the two terms that they are often used as synonyms, especially by people with an agenda. “You violated my rights!” or “I have a right to…” sounds much more powerful and personal to most people than “You violated the law” or “I am legally entitled to…”. Just because the majority use the terms interchangeably does not make that usage true.

Sorry for the highjack, but this is a sore point for me.

WhiteNight’s post agrees with an article that showed up here a few weeks ago in the San Jose Mercury News (I’ve tried to find a reference to the article, but I can’t).

Locally, there’s a store called Fry’s which sells electronics and has the “search-on-exit” procedure. Since I read the article I now ignore the person at the door and walk right on through. I’ve never been challenged.