No, I mean that you are wrong. Your statements concerning the law in California are wrong - specifically, your claim that “The buzzer says that something still magentized is going through. It’s not evidence of a crime.” is wrong. In California, the buzzer constitutes evidence of a crime. It is not prima facie probable cause as it is in Virginia, I grant, but it’s still evidence.
If you will direct my attention to the specific comments that the court in the .pdf file gave to the issue, I will be happy to explain it.
But the witness does not have to be the one to physically detain you, he would only have to fulfill the legal aspects. So a witness could request that a security guard “hold that man that I just saw committ a crime so I may arrest him”. The guard is not arresting you, the witness is. The guard is only assisting.
Bricker You’re well into hero in my book as well especially for your contributions here.
I was under the impression that this only applied to someone working for a government agency (police, CPS, US marshall, CPS investigator, etc) is this not the case.
I don’t know what the law in the Uk, but I know that someone who refused to stop at the local coop grocery store after being suspected for shoplifting just walked off. While the store did not call the police, they effectively banned him from the store from then on. As it was the only grocery store for 5 miles, he may have regretted his actions
I haven’t commited a crime, I caused the buzzer to go off for some other reason, per the OP. In Virginia, it doesn’t matter that I haven’t committed a crime, since the buzzer going off is sufficient cause for the store employee to stop me. In California, it is different, as I said in my first post. The person needs to observe the crime. Since I haven’t commited a crime, there is no crime to observe.
Bosda, I don’t go to WalMart, if that helps. In fact, I’ve never been in a WalMart. I also have no intention of going into a WalMart at any time in the forseeable future.
Technically nobody has committed a crime until charged and convicted by a court of law. The store felt you did and made sure that the police had a chance to chat with you.
its a fascinating read of some up and coming applications for RFID theft reduction. Including using 96bit EPC’s to create piece specific RFID tags so every item has a unique tag and and tracking. This way an item could be shown as purchased at checkout by the stores inventory system without any need for separate “disabling” step needed by the cashier.
Something I thought was nifty is the “shelf monitoring” features.
I have been reading this thread and waiting for a definitive answer. I have yet to find one. After searching the web, the only consistent item I have seen is that the detainment must be reasonable, or have probable cause… four state sites I visited said the term reasonable was not a clear bright line but they all recommended the following as a guiding to keep within the law.
see the shoplifter APPROACH, SELECT, and CONCEAL your merchandise;
maintain uninterrupted observation of the shoplifter;
see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise; and
approach the shoplifter OUTSIDE of the store (although some security experts claim that the shoplifter can be detained inside the store if they are past the cash registers).
Other state sites available.
I see no evidence that the buzzer would qualify as reasonable per the state statutes. But then again I see no evidence that it does not. It looks like a judge would determine which was correct during a civil trial.
What is the cite for this? Knowing that Bricker is a lawyer, I expect there is one, but I’m not just taking the word of words that happen to be typed on a message board.
If it’s been referenced and I missed it, please just point at it and skip all the immature insinuations that might go along with it.
What? 50/50? I thought you were some sort of special forces bad-ass, able to whip several asses in a single bound. My grandfather can do better than 50/50 with a retarded Wall-mart greeter.
So, you often see Wall-mart personnel tackling people in the parking lot?
Why fight anything if you haven’t done anything wrong?
If you’re being routinely searched, you’re doing something very wrong. Ask your friends how often they’re frisked at Wall-mart, If it’s nearly as much as you, there’s a problem with that security guy.
Don’t most people tend to not shop at stores that seem to have prejudices against them? I can’t think of one person that I know that envisions a boxing match in the parking lot every time the little buzzer goes off, we usually just wait for them to say “go ahead”. We never pack heat though.
Could be in the contract, yeah. I’m willing to take the risk, as I seriously doubt Costco would cancel a membership over that. Potential for bad press and all that.
One comment here. I’ve known several people who worked as store security. Basically, whether or not state law would allow them to physically detain someone was irrelevant. Basically, they were clearly trained NOT to ever try to forceably detain someone who resisted. The main reason why is if the person did get violent, there would be a risk of injury, and possibly even death, to the store employees. If this happened, the store could end up paying BIG money covering the medical bills of the employee. And maybe if they ended up disabled having to pay them to stay at home doing nothing for the next 60 years. NOT worth it over a $5 or $10 item of merchandise. Also, if the customer got injured by overzealous security people, and they were found not to have stolen anything, that person could sue the store for damages. Imagine how it would look to a jury if store security injured a customer who it was later determined didn’t steal anything. The jury would just award a large verdict against the multi-million dollar corporation. Plus imagine bad press from newspaper coverage…
Thus, these security people were trained not to physically detain the person, and just take down license plate number as they drove away, etc. and call the cops.
I am familiar with these guidelines, they are designed to create a “perfect catch” of a shoplifter. If you fulfull the above criteria, you should never end up trying to detain or arrest someone who has done nothing wrong.
No need to cancel, just put a hold on your account so a manager can stop by and see you, call floor security to buzz by get a quick look at you and let them know to keep any eye on you if they see you again. If you want to get belligerent with the management it would not shock me in the sligtest to see you get your membership cancelled and be told not to ever come back. That way you can go become a Sams Club problem if you wish to continue indulging your “warehouse shopping” need. Tossing pain in the ass customers to competitors is a time honored tradition of fun.
No, drachillix, I did not miss that. I doubt you missed the very next sentence he wrote:
prima facie means “Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.” In other words, in the continuing sentence you ignored, bricker said it is not sufficient evidence for the “presumption of fact” that a crime has been committed.
Apologies to bricker if I’m twisting the meaning of what he wrote, but I really don’t think I am.