As **DrDeth **pointed out, shoplifting as a crime involves intent. Accidentally walking out of a store with an unpaid item may be a bad thing to do, but there is no intent involved. It seems to me that you are creating a straw-man definition of shoplifting to make your case.
According to FindLaw,
I had no such intent, and still do not. Nonetheless, I agree that I am liable; that’s why I will go back and pay for the stuff.
I’ll refrain from the obvious *tu quoque *argument.
Actually, I got curious and did a little researching. It appears you do have to show intent for it to be considered shoplifting. What wasn’t clear was, if you leave the parking lot after realizing your mistake, is that intent?
I would say yes, if the store owned the parking lot. But that’s just my best guess and has no basis in fact.
Wouldn’t that presume that I would need to know whether the store owns the parking lot? In this case, I’d guess not, since the Wal-Mart is in a plaza with three other stores.
It may have been more confusing.
I once did this at a grocery store – both I and the checker missed the case of pop that I had put on the bottom shelf of the grocery cart. She had rung up the rest of the items, I had bagged them, paid her, gotten my receipt & a bunch of coupons, and then I pushed the cart out to my car in the parking lot. As I was loading all the bags into my car, I noticed the case of pop, so after I finished loading the car I went back into the store and up to that checker to tell her about the unpaid case of pop.
She looked annoyed, said to wait a minute, and then (after several minutes) a stockboy came up with another case of pop and she gave that to me. I said No, I already had the pop in my car, I just had to pay for it. She looked real annoyed, and told me I would have to go to the customer service desk to handle this. I looked at that desk, which was way at the other end of the checkout stations, and also serve as the small items checkout/cigarette sales counter, and looked at about a dozen people already in line there, said forget it and walked out to my car, leaving that second case of pop there.
I suppose that was shoplifting too, but I did make 2 attempts to pay for it, and waited for several minutes in the process, and was treated rudely. So too bad for them.
No, but his defense of “they didn’t charge me for it” would. He didnt attempt to conceal it. No intent to steal. No crime here at all.
It was never shoplifting. No intent, no knowledge. How many times do we have to explain this?
Perhaps **Bricker **can explain better.
I once had an alarm go off at me at RiteAid, when my purchases weren’t items likely to be security tagged in the first place. The store was pretty dead at that hour, so a cashier, DH, and I spent a few minutes trying to sort that out. Weirdly enough, no individual item I was carrying set it off, but when I put all my purse debris back and passed the whole bag in front of the sensor, it went off. Never have figured that out.
Being (hopefully) on the way out of retail, and having worked in a thrift store for the last 2 1/2 years, I second comments about sticky-fingered customers and larcenous employees being willing to make off with just about anything they can. Any store that doesn’t make at least some anti-theft effort (locking up high-value or restricted items such as alcohol, sensors on smaller higher-priced items, etc.) is just asking to go out of business as inventory toddles out the door.
As for WalMart, the locations I wind up going to aren’t in great parts of town, so I can understand higher security there. I normally only get stopped if my cart includes unbagged items, and have never observed other customers being treated otherwise. (Middle-aged white female, for those who insist it’s a race issue)
Agreed, a lot of the attitude over how terrible it is to check a receipt is just not the hill I’d place my flag in. I’ve had far too many encounters where I’m followed around a store while shopping, never mind the courtesy of a fairly routine receipt check when leaving. It’s definitely less personal.
One point of argument I haven’t seen addressed is that, if you’re exiting a store carrying your newly acquired personal property in their shopping cart, they might have more of a “right” to search its contents. At Costco, at least, nothing is ever bagged, but sometimes rather nakedly boxed using discarded product shipping/display containers. If you look at it from the angle of, “they just want to see what you’re carrying out of the store in their cart”, it seems much less a privacy invasion.
I don’t see that at all. It’s not like you’re taking the cart home. It’s just a convenient device for getting the store’s property to the cashier so you can buy it, and then getting *your *newly-acquired property to your car. If that were the rationale they used, then you ought to be able to remove the stuff from their cart and carry it by hand without a receipt check. Just because I give you a ride somewhere in my car doesn’t mean I’m entitled to perform a body search on you to see what you might be carrying with you at the time.
For the record, I went back to the Wal-Mart today to pay for the item I accidentally lifted a couple of days ago. I had intended to find an identical item on the shelf and bring it to a cashier, then explain the situation and offer to pay for it and leave the item with them. As it happened, the item I got the other day was no longer on the shelf. So I took an identically-priced item (though a different brand) from the shelf, brought it to the cashier, explained the situation, including the fact that the item I was showing her bore the same price, but wasn’t the exact item I had taken. She was OK with just letting me pay for the new item and leave it with her to put back on the shelf, and she thanked me for my honesty. So my conscience is now clear; I have my cooking spray, and they have their money, as I intended from the start. 
Well some people resent paying for the stuff they put in the cart…thus the checks.
You are perfectly free to bring your own bags to Costco and the baggers will put everything in them for you. Costco even sells great big cooler bags so if you live an hour-plus away from one, your meat stays cool for the trip home. We do this all the time and I can think of once in the past two years the receipt people have ever even bothered to peek into one of the bags.
I usually just ignore those alarms and keep on going. I’m under no legal obligation to detain myself because I hear some machine beeping at me, and I refuse to do so.
…but you have the right to search your car as I exit to see if I left anything behind (or stole something). Similarly, Costco is able to search their carts to see if something isn’t accounted for.
This is why I limited my post to the contents of their carts. If they’re your bags in their cart, it’s still reasonable for them to check the cart for anything un-bagged.
Much of the invasion of privacy argument seemed to stem from the idea that your right to privacy begins once the transaction ends. However, you’re still in their store often using their equipment when any such reconciliation attempts are made. The best defense, therefore, seems to be to bring your own bags and never buy more than you can carry :rolleyes:. Then, Lawd help them if they try to accost you!
Grocery stores especially operate with razor-thin profit margins, other retail stores to a slightly lesser extent, but it’s not exactly a mystery that there’s an intense amount of competition in retail. I would say retail in general, and grocery in particular is an area where the free market is most evident. People comparison shop for groceries all the time, will decide whether or not to buy a cake mix because there’s a 30 cent coupon for it this week, or because the other store will sell them a box of mac and cheese for 99 cents instead of $1.19. There’s a reason that Walmart has been successful with their strategy of keeping prices down, even at the expense of poor service and long lines.
So what if I’m walking out carrying a bunch of bags and not using a cart? Then there’s no store property at all for them to search.
I still don’t buy your cart argument. I’m only taking the cart as far as the parking lot, not removing it from their premises. They can search the cart all they want, but they’d better leave my property alone. It’s not theirs to rummage through just because I’m using their cart to transport it. I’ve often seen women put their pocketbooks in the kid seat of shopping carts while they shopped; would you argue that they have thus given the store’s employees the right to search through their pocketbooks?
That doesn’t seem like a reasonable argument to me, as I noted in my comment just prior. When I walk into the store, my wallet is in my pocket. It’s in their store. That doesn’t give them the right to search through my wallet, just because I’m on their premises. The wallet is *my *property. And the stuff I just bought from them when I checked out is also *my *property. They have no more right to search the property that I just bought than they do the property I walked in with. It’s all equally *my *property, and all equally not theirs.
I can try.
The elements of larceny were listed above: basically, larceny involves a taking (technically, a caption and an asportation) with the intent the permanently deprive the owner of the property.
So when he picked up the spray and placed it in the cart, he had every intention of paying for it. And even after he discovered it was unpaid, his intention was to return and pay for it. So he never formed the required intent to steal. Without that intent, there is no larceny.
However… part of the reason we can say this is we have perfect knowledge of what’s in his mind.
Let’s imagine the greeter did call the police, and they arrive just as he’s loading the items into the car. He explains that he saw the spray once outside, realized he had taken it by accident, and have every intention of returning to the store in a few days to pay for it.
The police officer would have probable cause to arrest him for larceny, because the officer doesn’t have to believe his story.
And if his case went to trial, the finder of fact (the judge or the jury) would be entitled to reject his testimony about his intentions as well, because these facts support an inference that he was lying. So there would be a legally sufficient record to convict him, even though he was innocent and telling the absolute truth about his intentions.