Target security guard fired for stopping shiplifter

[ronnieb]

Something needs to change at Target IMNSHO:
http://www.myfoxmilwaukee.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=5D8377F3BB0C3D966CB98E1A848D6CC2 ?contentId=6139449&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=736202

LAKE GENEVA, Wis. — A security guard at Target Corp. says he was fired after he stopped a teenager from stealing alcohol, an apparent violation of corporate policy that allows only designated supervisors to confront suspected shoplifters.

Dean Babcock, whose age and hometown weren’t immediately available, said he just wanted to do the right thing.
On March 1 a 16-year-old customer slipped a bottle of rum in her bag, according to Babcock, who added that he verified the incident on store security cameras.

Six days later the same girl put a bottle of tequila in her shopping basket, which Babcock said he again verified on the cameras.

This time Babcock approached the girl and asked if she had taken a bottle of rum the previous week. She said yes, according to Babcock. He asked whether she had taken a bottle of liquor that day too and she said yes, Babcock said.

He saw the bottle was no longer in her shopping basket. He asked whether it was in her bag, and she opened the bag to reveal the bottle there, Babcock said.

He took down her information, called her father and let her go.

“I couldn’t call the police, and I thought I could handle it low-key, without the bosses finding out,” Babcock told The Janesville Gazette.

Two weeks later, the store manager called Babcock into her office and asked him to explain his version of the events, which he did.

“(She) said, ’You weren’t supposed to do that,“’ he said.

The manager told him he should have approached the girl and asked if he could help her find something, Babcock said. Only certain supervisors can stop suspected shoplifters, a step that security guards aren’t empowered to take.

“I could not ask her to put the alcohol back,” Babcock said. “I could not accuse a guest of stealing.”

The store had no one on duty that day who had the authority to stop a suspected shoplifter, he said.

Babcock was briefly suspended, and was then fired on March 25.

“I figured they were going to chew me out, but I didn’t think I’d get fired,” he said.

A message left with Target’s headquarters on Saturday evening by The Associated Press was not immediately returned. A phone listing for Babcock could not be found.

In a statement, Target said the company’s first priority is safety.

“While we take theft seriously, we also respect and value the comfort of our guests,” the statement said. “To ensure a safe shopping experience while preventing crime in our stores, we require that our apprehension guidelines be upheld and apprehensions be made only when a situation meets our stringent criteria.

Babcock said he doesn’t regret the actions that cost him his position.

“My job was not to stop her. I knew that when I was hired,” he said. “But I think any reasonable adult who sees a kid take a bottle of alcohol would do something about it.”

[Johnny JJ]

“To ensure a safe shopping experience while preventing crime in our stores, we require that our apprehension guidelines be upheld and apprehensions be made only when a situation meets our stringent criteria.

Durr, like maybe when someone is witnessed stealing on property?


“My job was not to stop her. I knew that when I was hired,” he said. “But I think any reasonable adult who sees a kid take a bottle of alcohol would do something about it.”

What is his job then, if not to secure property? Trade the badge in for a greeter's vest Bucko, at least you'll get more respect

[olivera]

The store had no one on duty that day who had the authority to stop a suspected shoplifter, he said.


Isn't that ridiculous? No one on duty with authority....



“While we take theft seriously, we also respect and value the comfort of our guests,” the statement said. “To ensure a safe shopping experience while preventing crime in our stores, we require that our apprehension guidelines be upheld and apprehensions be made only when a situation meets our stringent criteria.


How they imagine that? Ensure safety? By helping shoplifters to find something? "Like excuse me did you found all items you where intending to steal? Oh,you did?ok,have a nice day then.."

[Badge714]

“My job was not to stop her. I knew that when I was hired,” he said. “But I think any reasonable adult who sees a kid take a bottle of alcohol would do something about it.”

What IS their job then? Window dressing? I hope he finds a real security job soon.

[mjw064]

Well it does sound like the security guard knowingly violated his company's policy. Even in police work, we sometimes have to ignore crimes being committed in our presence for one reason or another.

Once the security guard initiated the stop, it was in fact a citizen's arrest, as I am certain that the girl felt as though she did not have the freedom to walk away. So one could also assume that the security guard may also be guilty of wrongful arrest and if he moved the girl to another spot in the store, kidnapping. I will admit that I am not famailar with the laws of Wisconsin, but it does sound like the security guard messed up ... he might have been trying to do the right thing, but that doesn't always count.

His job wasn't to stop shoplifters ... it was out of his scope of practice. Like how I am licensed as an EMT-B. I have Tactical Medic certification and can perform Advanced Life Support procedures (the same stuff as a Paramedic, minus ACLS) while in a tactical setting. But if while working my part time job on the ambulance, if I see a patient that clearly needs intubated, I legally cannot do it; even though I am trained to do it and can do it while working in a tactical setting in my police job. I know if I do it, I could in fact loose my EMT license; although I am fortunate enough to be a civil servant, so my employer being the government is much more likely to look at the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, than a private sector employer like Target would.

[N. A. Corbier]

He's a TPS, his job is uniformed deterrence. He's basically a uniformed Wal-Mart exit greeter.

So, yeah, he was terminated for exceeding his authority (making stops, something only the plain clothes APS can do.)

[Badge714]

Well it does sound like the security guard knowingly violated his company's policy. Even in police work, we sometimes have to ignore crimes being committed in our presence for one reason or another.

We have a policy that says we cannot pursue someone off client property. It's very frustrating to chase a burglar on an alarm and have to stop chasing him when he hits the sidewalk, but that's the way it is...
My attorney told me that if I chased a bad guy down the street, and he got run over, or fell and broke a leg or something, I'd get sued and lose. Because even though the law says I can chase the guy, violating our own policy would open us up for all kinds of problems.
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, if officer Jones hadn't been chasing my client, in violation of his own company's policy, my client wouldn't be disabled today."
Have I ever violated this policy? I'm not telling. :p

[mjw064]

much like how i have "kept under observation" a car that was refusing to stop, once the Watch Commander ordered a chase stopped.

[N. A. Corbier]

We don't chase cars. We simply accelerate briefly to observe the vehicle's tag.

[Curtis Baillie]

Well it does sound like the security guard knowingly violated his company's policy. Even in police work, we sometimes have to ignore crimes being committed in our presence for one reason or another.

Once the security guard initiated the stop, it was in fact a citizen's arrest, as I am certain that the girl felt as though she did not have the freedom to walk away. So one could also assume that the security guard may also be guilty of wrongful arrest and if he moved the girl to another spot in the store, kidnapping. I will admit that I am not famailar with the laws of Wisconsin, but it does sound like the security guard messed up ... he might have been trying to do the right thing, but that doesn't always count.

His job wasn't to stop shoplifters ... it was out of his scope of practice. Like how I am licensed as an EMT-B. I have Tactical Medic certification and can perform Advanced Life Support procedures (the same stuff as a Paramedic, minus ACLS) while in a tactical setting. But if while working my part time job on the ambulance, if I see a patient that clearly needs intubated, I legally cannot do it; even though I am trained to do it and can do it while working in a tactical setting in my police job. I know if I do it, I could in fact loose my EMT license; although I am fortunate enough to be a civil servant, so my employer being the government is much more likely to look at the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, than a private sector employer like Target would.Just a couple of points about your post. Wisconsin has a 'merchant statute' like every other state, which allows a merchant to stop a suspected shoplifter in order to acertain if they, in fact, did shoplift. I don't see, in the video link or media link, or any other post here where she was 'moved to another location'. This case is exactly why I don't recomend hiring retired police officers to do LP work. Retailers, for what ever reasons, have rules and policies they expect to be followed. Sometimes it's hard to change from the black and white law enforcement world to the corporate grey world.

What this guy should of done is 'burn' her.

[darkenna]

Isn't that ridiculous? No one on duty with authority....

That is unfortunately the case most of the time in most major retailers. Many stores (big box and department) don't even have LP in the store. Budget-gurus won't pay for it, "because those guys don't bring any money in."

Which is, of course, silly, as LP's purpose is to prevent the bottom line from getting smaller, not necessarily to make it bigger. I've found that understanding this is what makes the difference between a bean-counter and a businessman.


I feel for the guy. He did the right thing, even tho it was in violation of policy. The company did the right thing, even tho they probably didn't really want to. Unfortunately in our lawsuit happy society, doing the right thing is sometimes the wrong thing. And if I were in Wisconsin, I'd probably offer him a job... on the condition that he followed policy this time round. :p



Like how I am licensed as an EMT-B. I have Tactical Medic certification and can perform Advanced Life Support procedures (the same stuff as a Paramedic, minus ACLS) while in a tactical setting. But if while working my part time job on the ambulance, if I see a patient that clearly needs intubated, I legally cannot do it; even though I am trained to do it and can do it while working in a tactical setting in my police job. I know if I do it, I could in fact loose my EMT license; although I am fortunate enough to be a civil servant, so my employer being the government is much more likely to look at the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, than a private sector employer like Target would.

Wait... EMT-Bs can't intubate in DC? That seems backwards. Sometimes, up here, all the EMT-Bs can do is intubate, read vitals, and transport.

[mjw064]

Intubation is an Advanced Life Support skill. An EMT-B cannot intubate within their scope of practice. It is possible that the EMT is either an EMT-Intermediate Paramedic or EMT-Paramedic and/or is receiving instructions from the Med Control Doc, who could authorize an EMT-B to perform it under his medical licensure in some states (but not in DC for sure).

Just making sure we got the right procedure down. Intubation is where we take away your ability to breath on your own, usually with the use of 3 drugs (such as in Rapid Sequence Intubation) and then secure your airway with a plastic tube. If this is done, you are bagged enroute to the hospital and on a vent when you get to the hospital and it sucks.

[HotelSecurity]

His job wasn't to stop shoplifters ... it was out of his scope of practice. Like how I am licensed as an EMT-B. I have Tactical Medic certification and can perform Advanced Life Support procedures (the same stuff as a Paramedic, minus ACLS) while in a tactical setting. But if while working my part time job on the ambulance, if I see a patient that clearly needs intubated, I legally cannot do it; even though I am trained to do it and can do it while working in a tactical setting in my police job. I know if I do it, I could in fact loose my EMT license; although I am fortunate enough to be a civil servant, so my employer being the government is much more likely to look at the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, than a private sector employer like Target would.

In Canada it is different. I took EMT-A courses in the 70's based on the US program. At that time Quebec, was using an Emergency Medical Service where First Aid trained Ambulance Attendants would respond to emergencies in an ambulance while Doctors would respond in cars. It was a very very expensive system based on what they were doing in France. (We believe the reason why Quebec was behind in the "Paramedic" field was because the TV show Emergency! was never translated into French). Anyway after we finished our course it was not recongized by the government. People I know working on ambulances used their skills anyway. There is an article of the Canadian Criminal Code that says 'if you have been trained to provide an emergency service & a person needs that service, you MUST provide it'

BTW Quebec finally learned that having Doctors on the road attending to each incident instead of supervising from a hospital was too expensive. We don't have full Paramedics yet, but are getting there.

[HotelSecurity]

At the time the Montreal Police had an "ambulance" service. Each district had one or two vans with stretchers, oxygen & a bare first aid kit. The constables that worked on them were first aid trained. In a lot of the cases they'd swoop, scoop & run. They'd put the victim on the stretcher. Put it in the back of the van, Both Officers would then get in up front & they would race to the hospital. Some of the Officers working on the "ambulances" took the EMT-A course. They tried using their new skills but were not stopped by the city but by the strong police union. They would not let them use their better skills unless they city paid them more. As a better EMS system was set up the police gave up their ambulance service.

[darkenna]

Intubation is an Advanced Life Support skill. An EMT-B cannot intubate within their scope of practice. It is possible that the EMT is either an EMT-Intermediate Paramedic or EMT-Paramedic and/or is receiving instructions from the Med Control Doc, who could authorize an EMT-B to perform it under his medical licensure in some states (but not in DC for sure).

Just making sure we got the right procedure down. Intubation is where we take away your ability to breath on your own, usually with the use of 3 drugs (such as in Rapid Sequence Intubation) and then secure your airway with a plastic tube. If this is done, you are bagged enroute to the hospital and on a vent when you get to the hospital and it sucks.

Interesting... this definitely points out how differently states regulate medical services. Intubation is part of basic EMT training and scope up this way, but not usually done (in my experience) unless the patient is already not breathing in their own (if breathing, mask-n-O, if not, tube-n-go). It is not considered an ALS-only function.

Also interesting is that states each have different levels of requirements. In MA, there are virtually no EMT-Is (I've only met one); you're either a Basic or a Medic. But then, MA requirements for Basic go way beyond the National standard (meaning that even if you're a B and registered with the National Registry, you don't meet the minimum requirements to get a B cert in Massachusetts).

[NRM_Oz]

Badge - you are correct as the liabiity goes through the roof as you chase someone, they knock an old lady over, knock someone into traffic or run off and are hit by a bus or a combination of all 3. Getting it through the heads of some old school LP was like splitting atoms until a competitor's LPM came to see about a liability case of someone being hit by a bus when chased. I helped him out as a friend but it almost cost him his job.

The TPS in Target is the same as in Australia - a visual detterent and to direct people to the service desk for refunds and check bags on exit (unless a staff member is present). Agree with Curtis - if you can't get the arrest, then you burn `em and get the item back. Defined roles are there for a reason and if a Target contract S/O acts like an LPO then it is fair to say he is seen as an agent of the company.

I am just curious what would have happened to Target if the girl had bought the alcohol twice without being 21 ? Massive fines for the staff and store involved ? Just noticed today on a sign: underage sales of cigarettes are $5,000 US per offence for the store.

[LPGuy]

Once the security guard initiated the stop, it was in fact a citizen's arrest, as I am certain that the girl felt as though she did not have the freedom to walk away. So one could also assume that the security guard may also be guilty of wrongful arrest and if he moved the girl to another spot in the store, kidnapping.

Incorrect. I'm quite sure that in Wisconsin, similar to Washington State, merchants and their agents can lawfully make a citizen's arrest for the purpose of investigating a shoplift. Which was the case, so such an investigative detention would be neither unlawful detention or kidnapping.

There are others here who know Wisconsin law fairly well, so I'm sure they can confirm whether or not Wisconsin allows private citizens in general to make a citizen's arrest for misdemeanors committed in their presence.

Kudos to the security officer. He did the right thing.

[darkenna]

943.50 Retail theft.

...


(3) A merchant, a merchant's adult employee or a merchant's security agent who has reasonable cause for believing that a person has violated this section in his or her presence may detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time to deliver the person to a peace officer, or to his or her parent or guardian in the case of a minor. The detained person must be promptly informed of the purpose for the detention and be permitted to make phone calls, but he or she shall not be interrogated or searched against his or her will before the arrival of a peace officer who may conduct a lawful interrogation of the accused person. The merchant, merchant's adult employee or merchant's security agent may release the detained person before the arrival of a peace officer or parent or guardian. Any merchant, merchant's adult employee or merchant's security agent who acts in good faith in any act authorized under this section is immune from civil or criminal liability for those acts.
(3m)

(a) In any action or proceeding for violation of this section, duly identified and authenticated photographs of merchandise which was the subject of the violation may be used as evidence in lieu of producing the merchandise.

(b) A merchant or merchant's adult employee is privileged to defend property as prescribed in s. 939.49.



For any who are interested, a consulting company run by Walter Palmer and Chris Richardson called PCG Solutions (http://www.pcgsolutions.com/index.htm) compiled a reference guide to the retail theft laws of all 50 states, and they have made this list available online (http://www.pcgsolutions.com/shoplifting_statutues.htm).

[mjw064]

Incorrect. I'm quite sure that in Wisconsin, similar to Washington State, merchants and their agents can lawfully make a citizen's arrest for the purpose of investigating a shoplift. Which was the case, so such an investigative detention would be neither unlawful detention or kidnapping.

There are others here who know Wisconsin law fairly well, so I'm sure they can confirm whether or not Wisconsin allows private citizens in general to make a citizen's arrest for misdemeanors committed in their presence.

Kudos to the security officer. He did the right thing.

Ok, thats fine, but had she committed a crime yet? Generally, they need to make it past the last point of sale to have committed a crime. She could have been placing the alcohol in her bag because it was easier to carry it there and she was afraid of dropping it on the ground and breaking glass which could cut people and she was going to meet her uncle at the front of the store in 10 minutes and hand him the bottle of alcohol so he could make the purchase, but she was never able to make it to the register to pay for the alcohol because the security guard stopped her.

If no crime had yet been committed, then the citizen's arrest was an Unlawful Arrest, and if he moved her to the security room or whatever, it becomes Kidnapping as well. A defense attorney would eat this up. Target will probably pay out.

And if Target wants to make a business decision to not go after shoplifters that is ok. Target is not a law enforcment agency, they are a business and they probably want to keep people happy and not be known as a mean and greedy corporation.

[Curtis Baillie]

Ok, thats fine, but had she committed a crime yet? Generally, they need to make it past the last point of sale to have committed a crime. She could have been placing the alcohol in her bag because it was easier to carry it there and she was afraid of dropping it on the ground and breaking glass which could cut people and she was going to meet her uncle at the front of the store in 10 minutes and hand him the bottle of alcohol so he could make the purchase, but she was never able to make it to the register to pay for the alcohol because the security guard stopped her.

If no crime had yet been committed, then the citizen's arrest was an Unlawful Arrest, and if he moved her to the security room or whatever, it becomes Kidnapping as well. A defense attorney would eat this up. Target will probably pay out.In Wisconsin, as in many other states, once the merchandise is concealed, the intent to deprive the merchant is presumed. They do not have to pass the last point of sale. What a lawyer can, or cannot, convince a jury of is another matter. FYI - Washington D.C. also has a concealment law.

[mjw064]

In Wisconsin, as in many other states, once the merchandise is concealed, the intent to deprive the merchant is presumed. They do not have to pass the last point of sale. What a lawyer can, or cannot, convince a jury of is another matter.

Ok, it's that way in the District too, I wasn't sure about Wisconsin. Here, it is Shoplifting upon concealment and Theft 1 or Theft 2 once they walk out the door, and possibly Burglary 2 if you can proove they entered the business with the intent to commit a crime.

[SecTrainer]

Incorrect. I'm quite sure that in Wisconsin, similar to Washington State, merchants and their agents can lawfully make a citizen's arrest for the purpose of investigating a shoplift. Which was the case, so such an investigative detention would be neither unlawful detention or kidnapping.

There are others here who know Wisconsin law fairly well, so I'm sure they can confirm whether or not Wisconsin allows private citizens in general to make a citizen's arrest for misdemeanors committed in their presence.

Kudos to the security officer. He did the right thing.

I think you misunderstand "agency". An agency relationship is not legally quite the same thing as an employee relationship. Agency is a specific arrangement between an employer and his employee that grants the employee the right to perform certain acts on behalf of the employer, i.e., as his surrogate. Agency can arise out of the employment agreement, and can sometimes be legally inferred from it under certain conditions, but there is a very real and formal distinction.

In other words, the employer has the right to determine exactly who their "agent" is with respect to any particular duty. Employee A might be my designated agent for confronting shoplifters, while Employee B is not. Just because you are an employee of a company does not mean you have "agent status" to do anything you want, or anything that the employer has not specifically designated or directed that you may do on his behalf.

Furthermore, even as my agent in one matter, I can also specifically direct that you NOT do something with respect to another matter, and that is the case here, as it often is in cases where an employee has acted outside his assigned duties. It is very important that people in security work operate strictly within the policies provided to them, and it is obvious here that the security guard knew he was violating the policy.

It's really no different from LE or a million other jobs where agency exists - in the old English common law language, the "master" has liability for the actions of his "servant" and as such has relatively unfettered authority to say what and how his "servant" is to act on his behalf.

[Don of the Dead]

"Hi! Welcome to Target Security! Please palce your balls in this briefcase, they will be returned to you upon quitting/termination! Now, get out there and get laughed at by some shoplifters!"

The fun part, in this world we live in? Had that girl gotten away with the booze, drank it, drove, killed a busload of 5th graders and someone had found out that she had stolen it from Target, in view of security and had not been stopped. Someone would have sued Target.

[rmd08]

The fun part, in this world we live in? Had that girl gotten away with the booze, drank it, drove, killed a busload of 5th graders and someone had found out that she had stolen it from Target, in view of security and had not been stopped. Someone would have sued Target.

Exactly!
I remember I had applied at Target for a LP position with no experience so they offered the TPS position. I asked the lp/ap manager straight up if I could stop shoplifters she said "No, you are a visual deterrent." I feel bad for the guy because I know how it feels to get burnt, and you can do nothing about it sometimes. The way of the world I guess.

[darkenna]

In this particular case, the target employee is protected by law from criminal and civil liability (concealment is accepted as prima face evidence for the crime of shoplifting in WI; he is an adult employee of the company; he is also a security agent of the company; he detained her for a reasonable period of time in a reasonable manner in order to turn her over to a parent/guardian... all of which is covered iin the Retail Theft Statute quoted way up above). He committed no crimes and was within his rights and responsibilities as defined by law. However, he did exceed his authority as defined by company policy, and was therefore subject to disciplinary action.

Personally, I think termination was a bit heavy-handed (how is one to learn from one's mistakes if one is immediately terminated?), but it's their company, they can discipline to the level they see fit.

Someone mentioned that she might have been carrying it in the bag until she reached a POS, where she might have paid for it. Even if this was the case, she would then have been guilty of attempted possession of alcohol by a minor and would have been subject to detainment anyway.

LP... we'll either get you coming or going, but one way or another, if you steal, you'll have to come with us. :cool:

[mjw064]

Possession of a sealed bottle of alcohol by a minor is a crime in Wisconsin? Hell, not only is that not a crime in DC but Underage Consumption of Alcohol is only a civil offense ... not even a criminal matter.

[LPGuy]

I think you misunderstand "agency".

Regardless of whether or not the security officer is the specific agent authorized by the merchant to detain shoplifters, any employee may also act under the color of a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor committed in their presence (if legal in Wisconsin as it is in Washington; I'm not interested in researching Wisconsin law).

However, they also (obviously) risk being fired for it if the merchant doesn't like it.

The point remains that the security officer was not acting unlawfully. He was well within the scope of the law to detain the shoplifter.

[N. A. Corbier]

It is not legal in WI to arrest for anything but a felony or a breach of the peace (element of violence required.)

[Don of the Dead]

Exactly!
I remember I had applied at Target for a LP position with no experience so they offered the TPS position. I asked the lp/ap manager straight up if I could stop shoplifters she said "No, you are a visual deterrent." I feel bad for the guy because I know how it feels to get burnt, and you can do nothing about it sometimes. The way of the world I guess.

I've turned down job offers for more money simply due to the fact it was a "hands off" company. I also quit a company that I had worked for for 8 years and they finally told us one day "No more chasing, no more handcuffs, if they refuse tom come back inside you have to let them walk"
Why bother having security if you won't let them do what is nessesary to stop shoplifter? It's like buying a guard dog and pulling out its teeth.:mad:

[LPGuy]

It is not legal in WI to arrest for anything but a felony or a breach of the peace (element of violence required.)

That still changes nothing; the security officer was well within his right to detain the shoplifter even if Target didn't consider him "authorized" to do so.

As darkenna already posted:


943.50 Retail theft.

(3) A merchant, a merchant's adult employee or a merchant's security agent who has reasonable cause for believing that a person has violated this section in his or her presence may detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time to deliver the person to a peace officer, or to his or her parent or guardian in the case of a minor. [. . .] Any merchant, merchant's adult employee or merchant's security agent who acts in good faith in any act authorized under this section is immune from civil or criminal liability for those acts. (Emphasis added.)

[HotelSecurity]

It is not legal in WI to arrest for anything but a felony or a breach of the peace (element of violence required.)

Thanks Nathan. Canada has a similar law & I never knew exactly what breach of the peace meant. (Fortunately Security Officers have extra powers in that owners of property or their agents can arrest for any criminal offfense they obsere occurring on or to their property-it does not have to be a felony).

[BoyInBlue]

At the time the Montreal Police had an "ambulance" service. Each district had one or two vans with stretchers, oxygen & a bare first aid kit. The constables that worked on them were first aid trained. In a lot of the cases they'd swoop, scoop & run. They'd put the victim on the stretcher. Put it in the back of the van, Both Officers would then get in up front & they would race to the hospital. Some of the Officers working on the "ambulances" took the EMT-A course. They tried using their new skills but were not stopped by the city but by the strong police union. They would not let them use their better skills unless they city paid them more. As a better EMS system was set up the police gave up their ambulance service.

I was talking to a old-timer San Diego Police Officer, and he said this used to happen in San Diego, CA as well. Around the 1970s.

[N. A. Corbier]

That still changes nothing; the security officer was well within his right to detain the shoplifter even if Target didn't consider him "authorized" to do so.

As darkenna already posted:

(Emphasis added.)

Oh, trust me, I'm quite familiar with WI's merchant detention statute. BTW, if you don't follow it? Nothing happens, the police refuse to take a report.

[darkenna]

Possession of a sealed bottle of alcohol by a minor is a crime in Wisconsin? Hell, not only is that not a crime in DC but Underage Consumption of Alcohol is only a civil offense ... not even a criminal matter.

Not possession, attempting to purchase. Which is, I believe, a crime for a minor anywhere to try. In NH, not only are purchasing, attempting to purchase, and possession of alcohol a crime for a minor (under-21)... but internal possession is also a crime. Class B misdemeanor. Up to $5000 and 1 year.

And they arrest on it all the time, Liquor Commission and police. Why? Cuz it keeps a drunk teenager off the road.

[rmd08]

I've turned down job offers for more money simply due to the fact it was a "hands off" company. I also quit a company that I had worked for for 8 years and they finally told us one day "No more chasing, no more handcuffs, if they refuse tom come back inside you have to let them walk"
Why bother having security if you won't let them do what is nessesary to stop shoplifter? It's like buying a guard dog and pulling out its teeth.:mad:
Heh, seem to be agreeing with each more and more! Can anyone else confirm that Target took most of their APA's out of the stores? I read that on another board..Didn't know if it was true or not.

[SecTrainer]

Regardless of whether or not the security officer is the specific agent authorized by the merchant to detain shoplifters, any employee may also act under the color of a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor committed in their presence (if legal in Wisconsin as it is in Washington; I'm not interested in researching Wisconsin law).

However, they also (obviously) risk being fired for it if the merchant doesn't like it.

The point remains that the security officer was not acting unlawfully. He was well within the scope of the law to detain the shoplifter.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. There are many things that I can do lawfully, but that my employer may still forbid me from doing in my capacity as an employee. I might have a driver's license so that I can drive legally, but the company can still forbid me from driving their vehicles. Or, it might be perfectly legal in the community to burn trash in open barrels, but the company can certainly forbid the janitor from doing so on company property and no one here would support him saying "Hey! It's LEGAL for me to burn this trash and you can't stop me!"

Just so, the company is perfectly entitled to forbid certain security personnel from doing many things that might be "legal" for them to do, up to and including the exercise of "citizen's arrest".

In keeping with that, the question here is a long way from whether the security officer was acting lawfully. He was NOT charged with a crime; he was discharged from his employment for failure to abide by company policies. There is an enormous difference.

[souperdave]

Possession of a sealed bottle of alcohol by a minor is a crime in Wisconsin? Hell, not only is that not a crime in DC but Underage Consumption of Alcohol is only a civil offense ... not even a criminal matter.

It pretty much wasn't until this, the 28th post, that the age of the subject was pointedly brought up. She's 16 year old and this was the second time he'd seen her commit the same offense.

This guy looks like he went with his "gut" and did what he thought was not only the right thing to do, but also the morally right thing to do.

Any one of us could Monday-morning-quarteback this incident to death; he should've notified a CSM, he should've went for the "burn", he could've just walked near her and stopped and stared, or any of a variety of 'should-haves' and 'could-haves'.

BUT, they went by the letter of their policy and termed his backside. I wholeheartedly disagree with it simply due to the circumstance of it. The morally right thing for Target to do would've been to slap him on the hand and in no uncertain terms tell him that will never happen again. THEN, shut the office door after he signs his write-up and shake his hand and pat him on the back for potentially keeping another young individual from becoming another statistic...at least on that day she probably wasn't.

I'm with Darkenna, the guy can come work for me!:cool:

There's volumes to be said for "the totallity of the circumstances"..........

[LPGuy]

Oh, trust me, I'm quite familiar with WI's merchant detention statute. BTW, if you don't follow it? Nothing happens, the police refuse to take a report.

I knew you were already very familiar with Wisconsin law; I just wanted to make sure other readers weren't confused by the following:


Sorry, but you're mistaken. There are many things that I can do lawfully, but that my employer may still forbid me from doing in my capacity as an employee.

No, I'm not mistaken, we're just miscommunicating here. The point I was trying to make clear for other readers was this: Your employer can forbid anything they want, but they can't make it illegal for you to do it. If you break your employer's rules (such as in the Target case), you're not going to be held criminally liable for anything unless what you did was unlawful to begin with.

The security officer acted lawfully, but broke a company rule. He can be fired, but he won't be held criminally liable for anything.

[SecTrainer]

One thing I'd like to remind everyone with respect to the decision of Target to terminate this employee rather than discipline - we don't know anything at all about this individual's work history otherwise. This incident might just have been the cherry on top of other problems.

Another thing is that Target's policy and past actions with respect to other employees who violated this policy might have required them to do as they did in this case. If you have a "zero-tolerance" position embedded in a policy, for instance, and it specifies that violation is a termination offense, you cannot then simply pick and choose who it will apply to without laying yourself open to many other lawsuits from former employees you've terminated under the policy (which is why I'm not a big fan of zero-tolerance policies, because they really do tie the company's hands).

[SecTrainer]

I knew you were already very familiar with Wisconsin law; I just wanted to make sure other readers weren't confused by the following:



No, I'm not mistaken, we're just miscommunicating here. The point I was trying to make clear for other readers was this: Your employer can forbid anything they want, but they can't make it illegal for you to do it. If you break your employer's rules (such as in the Target case), you're not going to be held criminally liable for anything unless what you did was unlawful to begin with.

The security officer acted lawfully, but broke a company rule. He can be fired, but he won't be held criminally liable for anything.

I getcha. You're absolutely right, and thanks for the clarification.

[Justice_Hound]

I knew you were already very familiar with Wisconsin law; I just wanted to make sure other readers weren't confused by the following:



No, I'm not mistaken, we're just miscommunicating here. The point I was trying to make clear for other readers was this: Your employer can forbid anything they want, but they can't make it illegal for you to do it. If you break your employer's rules (such as in the Target case), you're not going to be held criminally liable for anything unless what you did was unlawful to begin with.

The security officer acted lawfully, but broke a company rule. He can be fired, but he won't be held criminally liable for anything.


In my state it would be considered False Arrest, which is a criminally punishable offense. The merchant investigative detention statute states that only merchants, merchant agents, and peace officers can "detain" someone for shoplifting. The TPS would not be considered an "agent" under this statute because company had never gave them direct, express, or implied consent to act as an agent under these laws. Due to that, the stopping of the girl would be under the citizens arrest laws and those laws state that you MUST transfer an arrested person to a peace officer or judge. The fact that he released the girl to the father doesn't meet these requirements unless he was told to do so be a peace officer or judge. If I did what the TPS did I would be in the slammer right now.

[Curtis Baillie]

In my state it would be considered False Arrest, which is a criminally punishable offense. The merchant investigative detention statute states that only merchants, merchant agents, and peace officers can "detain" someone for shoplifting. The TPS would not be considered an "agent" under this statute because company had never gave them direct, express, or implied consent to act as an agent under these laws. Due to that, the stopping of the girl would be under the citizens arrest laws and those laws state that you MUST transfer an arrested person to a peace officer or judge. The fact that he released the girl to the father doesn't meet these requirements unless he was told to do so be a peace officer or judge. If I did what the TPS did I would be in the slammer right now. In Alaska "merchants agent" means a private person or employee of the merchant. (Malvo v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 512 P. 2d 575 (Alaska 1973)

[Justice_Hound]

In Alaska "merchants agent" means a private person or employee of the merchant. (Malvo v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 512 P. 2d 575 (Alaska 1973)

Yes, I am very familiar with this case. This is where civil and criminal law collide. While a merchant's agent can be ANYBODY (private person or employee of the merchant), just because your are an employee of a merchant does not mean that you can hide behind the merchant detention statute. In creating an "agency" relationship the principal MUST imply (either directly or expressly) that a person has the authority to act as an agent. So, if you as an employee signed a legally binding document stating that you understand the "rule" of not apprehending shoplifters, you are in no way under the color of law an authorized agent. This also means that the principal would not in any way be responsible for any actions taken by you in this regard.

Example. You authorize your best friend to act as your agent in an auto purchase and only an auto purchase. Later that day you find out that your friend not only purchased the auto for you, but also signed you up for an auto insurance policy, and registered your vehicle with the DMV. If you did not imply in any way to the friend that they could do these extra tasks then YOU would not be legally responsible for any debt in your name incured.

Justice_Hound
LP Manager

[LPGuy]

If I did what the TPS did I would be in the slammer right now.

Not likely. I doubt you'd find any jurisdiction willing to prosecute a store employee for detaining a shoplifter.

[Justice_Hound]

Not likely. I doubt you'd find any jurisdiction willing to prosecute a store employee for detaining a shoplifter.

Thats not what I am saying. It would not be about "detaining" a shoplifter in Alaska. Because he was NOT authorized to make detentions in the first place this situation would have to be followed under our state's private person arrest laws. If he had the girl in custody for ANY amount of time and then released her back to her father without contacting a peace officer or judicial officer is considered false arrest under state law.

Our local prosecutor would file charges against ANY person (peace officer or private person) who violates the consitutional rights of the shoplifter (whether the shoplifter was guilty or not). I have had to personally arrest a fellow peace officer on a formal warrant for not delivering an arrested person to a judge or magistrate.

[LPGuy]

Our local prosecutor would file charges against ANY person (peace officer or private person) who violates the consitutional rights of the shoplifter (whether the shoplifter was guilty or not). I have had to personally arrest a fellow peace officer on a formal warrant for not delivering an arrested person to a judge or magistrate.

Good thing Alaska State law is not applicable to this situation then. And in my humble opinion, any prosecutor willing to pursue charges against someone for stopping an actual criminal is extremely nearsighted and too overzealous. False arrest laws should be reserved for renegade vigilantes who violate people's rights without any sort of probable cause.

[Justice_Hound]

Good thing Alaska State law is not applicable to this situation then. And in my humble opinion, any prosecutor willing to pursue charges against someone for stopping an actual criminal is extremely nearsighted and too overzealous. False arrest laws should be reserved for renegade vigilantes who violate people's rights without any sort of probable cause.

Yep... ur right. D' em darm criminals don't haf no rights:D. They can be falsely denied their right to due process of law. Sorry that I posted. I will be sure to send out a memo to all of the lifters in my area that we are no longer arresting them, just keeping them as long as it suits us, then letting them go. Also, I will be sure to clear all of my "false arrest" comments through you in the future. Will a PM suffice?

Jeesh,

Justice_Hound
LP Managers

[LPGuy]

Yep... ur right. D' em darm criminals don't haf no rights:D. They can be falsely denied their right to due process of law.

That's all very interesting, but not what I said or even implied. Just what does it mean to "falsely deny" something anyways? I can't even understand it, so I must not have wrote it.

[SecTrainer]

That still changes nothing; the security officer was well within his right to detain the shoplifter even if Target didn't consider him "authorized" to do so.

I wouldn't be so sure. First of all, there is no "right" to make a citizen's arrest. Especially so in states that have enacted legislation regarding citizen's arrest, this is a statutory grant of privilege, not unlike the privilege of driving a car, and is by no means unconditional, nor is it absolute. Rights, on the other hand, flow from constitutional guarantees. Just as an employer may forbid an employee from driving on company property, irrespective of any grant of privilege to drive by the state, an employer may forbid an employee from making an arrest on company property irrespective of that grant of authority. The court would almost certainly recognize the supremacy of the employer's interests with respect to liability, etc. over the general grant of citizen arrest privilege.

The above pertains to general statutes granting citizen arrest privileges. It gets even worse for this employee, however, under the specific statute cited, because that statute is based on the legal principle of agency, which in many ways grants the "master" (merchant) even more specific control over the agent's activities than does a general employment relationship. Agency is a legal concept that implies a certain relationship between the "agent" and the "master" (merchant) and establishes, for one thing, that the agent may assert ONLY those privileges and conduct ONLY those activities that he is permitted or directed to do by the merchant. By the same token, he may NOT do, as an agent, anything that he is forbidden by his master (merchant) from doing. That is the legal essence of agency...i.e., the agent must act on behalf of the master and may only act as the master directs. The minute the agent acts otherwise, or "on his own hook", so to speak, and especially if he acts in a way that is contrary to the master's interests, he has stepped OUTSIDE the agency relationship and is not protected, covered nor granted any authority by any statute that is based on the agency relationship, as this statute most certainly is.

If you're my agent, you'd better not do what I explicitly forbid you from doing. Only if I should give you a directive that is unlawful may you refuse to carry it out, and that is certainly not the case here for there is no state law that commands citizens to arrest anyone.

Might a prosecutor then find that the employee, who in this situation IS NOT COVERED BY THE MERCHANT-AGENT STATUTE because he has acted contrary to the master's explicit instructions, has then acted unlawfully as a private citizen? Conceivably so, although it might seem overzealous to us. One would have to believe that it would depend very much on the circumstances, i.e., what civil rights of the arrestee were curtailed by the arrest, for how long, any requirements imposed on persons making a citizen's arrest that were not followed, etc.

I hope everyone understands this, because this is what your employment is all about. For your own protection, follow your company's policies, or if you don't like them have the grace and good sense to quit your job before you get your whozit caught in the wringer good and proper. If agency is the basis for your authority, such authority can ONLY flow from the master (employer) to you, and if you act in a way that is contrary to those directions just flop it on out, 'cause it's gonna get cut off one way or another - if not exposing you to criminal liability (overzealous prosecutor or not), then almost certainly subjecting you to civil liability. Meanwhile, your employer will likely dodge the bullet completely because you decided that your way was better.

[Ewfr 'Gomulee]

What is the point in having a Store Security Officer if you're not going to let them perform their duties as a Security Officer!

Some companies are amazing, the Company I have been assigned to want security but don't want me to patrol outside of the building even though they say they want Internal and External security. URGH!

This shop sounds like a real... dump... and as someone else said, trade the guard uniform for a greeter's vest.

It's amazing how management in places is so lacking in common sense.

[darkenna]

I wouldn't be so sure. First of all, there is no "right" to make a citizen's arrest. Especially so in states that have enacted legislation regarding citizen's arrest, this is a statutory grant of privilege, not unlike the privilege of driving a car, and is by no means unconditional, nor is it absolute. Rights, on the other hand, flow from constitutional guarantees. Just as an employer may forbid an employee from driving on company property, irrespective of any grant of privilege to drive by the state, an employer may forbid an employee from making an arrest on company property irrespective of that grant of authority. The court would almost certainly recognize the supremacy of the employer's interests with respect to liability, etc. over the general grant of citizen arrest privilege.

There is, I have found, much confusion in the general populace about the differences between Rights, Privileges, and Authorities. A Privilege is something that the State says you can do for yourself after you meet certain requirements, and can be taken away at the whim of the State for any cause it deems appropriate. An Authority is something the State says you can do which affects others after you meet certain requirements, which can only be taken away by the State for specific reasons. A Right is something that you are automatically entitled to, which the State cannot take away for any reason save those specifically covered by statute.

As examples, driving is a privilege, arresting is an authority, assembling in a group is a right.


The above pertains to general statutes granting citizen arrest privileges. It gets even worse for this employee, however, under the specific statute cited, because that statute is based on the legal principle of agency, which in many ways grants the "master" (merchant) even more specific control over the agent's activities than does a general employment relationship. Agency is a legal concept that implies a certain relationship between the "agent" and the "master" (merchant) and establishes, for one thing, that the agent may assert ONLY those privileges and conduct ONLY those activities that he is permitted or directed to do by the merchant. By the same token, he may NOT do, as an agent, anything that he is forbidden by his master (merchant) from doing. That is the legal essence of agency...i.e., the agent must act on behalf of the master and may only act as the master directs. The minute the agent acts otherwise, or "on his own hook", so to speak, and especially if he acts in a way that is contrary to the master's interests, he has stepped OUTSIDE the agency relationship and is not protected, covered nor granted any authority by any statute that is based on the agency relationship, as this statute most certainly is.

I have to disagree here, as far as this particular case is concerned. The WI Retail Theft statute, which grants the detention authority (not arrest, unless WI is one of those states the equates detention with arrest... which I cannot find evidence of after a limited search, so I'm going to operate under the assumption that the state does not define them as equal, unless someone can find otherwise) covering this particular instance, specifically states "A merchant, a merchant's adult employee or a merchant's security agent"... His "agency" status is a moot point, from a legal standing, as he was an employee of the corporation of legally recognized adult age (as Target does not hire AP personnel under the age of 18). Legally, the statute protects him and the company from civil and criminal liability. However, as he stepped out of the bounds of company policy, Target could discipline him as they saw fit, which is why he was terminated.

There are many instances in the world where you can be legally safeguarded... but you still have to answer to the Boss.

[N. A. Corbier]

What is the point in having a Store Security Officer if you're not going to let them perform their duties as a Security Officer!

Some companies are amazing, the Company I have been assigned to want security but don't want me to patrol outside of the building even though they say they want Internal and External security. URGH!

This shop sounds like a real... dump... and as someone else said, trade the guard uniform for a greeter's vest.

It's amazing how management in places is so lacking in common sense.

Rule #1: Your duties, as a security officer, are whatever the client and contracting agency (your guard firm) decide on. Your only duty could be to stand out front, ignoring anything illegal going on, and hold open the door for anyone over 65.

[darkenna]

What is the point in having a Store Security Officer if you're not going to let them perform their duties as a Security Officer!

Some companies are amazing, the Company I have been assigned to want security but don't want me to patrol outside of the building even though they say they want Internal and External security. URGH!

This shop sounds like a real... dump... and as someone else said, trade the guard uniform for a greeter's vest.

It's amazing how management in places is so lacking in common sense.

Because the retired folks who get hired as greeters usually demand a higher rate of pay than the security guards do... :rolleyes:

[LPCap]

Hey darkenna the retailspy forums are back up and running. A couple old buddies (kawi, thermo) are back online..you should join.

[LPGuy]

The WI Retail Theft statute, which grants the detention authority [. . .] specifically states "A merchant, a merchant's adult employee or a merchant's security agent"... His "agency" status is a moot point, from a legal standing, as he was an employee of the corporation of legally recognized adult age (as Target does not hire AP personnel under the age of 18). Legally, the statute protects him and the company from civil and criminal liability. However, as he stepped out of the bounds of company policy, Target could discipline him as they saw fit, which is why he was terminated.

There are many instances in the world where you can be legally safeguarded... but you still have to answer to the Boss.

Exactly.

Sometimes the law is not quite as complex as we'd like to make it out to be.

[darkenna]

Hey darkenna the retailspy forums are back up and running. A couple old buddies (kawi, thermo) are back online..you should join.

I'll have to wander back over that way. Who's running the show these days?

[Echos13]

From 1985 to 1995 I worked for the now gone Mass Brothers. We where in house and had one of the most dynamic LP divisions in Florida. We stopped a lot of people and had bad stops now and then. But the SAO had a decent understanding (at that time) of "bad" stops. If you made a mistake but had PC to believe you had a suspect the case may have been dropped against the alleged offender but you still had a job. However you did have a ceiling that you where allowed measured by the degree of the failed stop. If you where just not any good you where let go. If you got to that degree of allowance you where sent back to LP school and on probation regardless of your position. LP agents (in-house) where according to the SAO of that time considered merchants. So under the Florida retail merchants law you could detain.

Florida State Statute 812.015

Retail and farm theft; transit fare evasion; mandatory fine; alternative punishment; detention and arrest; exemption from liability for false arrest; resisting arrest; penalties.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Merchandise" means any personal property, capable of manual delivery, displayed, held, or offered for retail sale by a merchant.

(b) "Merchant" means an owner or operator, or the agent, consignee, employee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises or apparatus used for retail purchase or sale of any merchandise.

(c) "Value of merchandise" means the sale price of the merchandise at the time it was stolen or otherwise removed, depriving the owner of her or his lawful right to ownership and sale of said item.

(d) "Retail theft" means the taking possession of or carrying away of merchandise, property, money, or negotiable documents; altering or removing a label, universal product code, or price tag; transferring merchandise from one container to another; or removing a shopping cart, with intent to deprive the merchant of possession, use, benefit, or full retail value.

(e) "Farm produce" means livestock or any item grown, produced, or manufactured by a person owning, renting, or leasing land for the purpose of growing, producing, or manufacturing items for sale or personal use, either part time or full time.

(f) "Farmer" means a person who is engaging in the growing or producing of farm produce, milk products, eggs, or meat, either part time or full time, for personal consumption or for sale and who is the owner or lessee of the land or a person designated in writing by the owner or lessee to act as her or his agent. No person defined as a farm labor contractor pursuant to s. 450.28 shall be designated to act as an agent for purposes of this section.

(g) "Farm theft" means the unlawful taking possession of any items that are grown or produced on land owned, rented, or leased by another person.

(h) "Antishoplifting or inventory control device" means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure, or from a protected area within such an enclosure, of specially marked or tagged merchandise. The term includes any electronic or digital imaging or any video recording or other film used for security purposes and the cash register tape or other record made of the register receipt.

(i) "Antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure" means any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device.

(j) "Transit fare evasion" means the unlawful refusal to pay the appropriate fare for transportation upon a mass transit vehicle, or to evade the payment of such fare, or to enter any mass transit vehicle or facility by any door, passageway, or gate, except as provided for the entry of fare-paying passengers, and shall constitute petit theft as proscribed by this chapter.

(k) "Mass transit vehicle" means buses, rail cars, or fixed-guideway mover systems operated by, or under contract to, state agencies, political subdivisions of the state, or municipalities for the transportation of fare-paying passengers.

(l) "Transit agency" means any state agency, political subdivision of the state, or municipality which operates mass transit vehicles.
(m) "Trespass" means the violation as described in s. 810.08.

(2) Upon a second or subsequent conviction for petit theft from a merchant, farmer, or transit agency, the offender shall be punished as provided in s. 812.014(3), except that the court shall impose a fine of not less than $50 or more than $1,000.

(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time.

(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.

(c) The taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

(4) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises and without warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe unlawfully possesses, or is unlawfully using or attempting to use or has used or attempted to use, any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure or has committed theft in a retail or wholesale establishment or on commercial or private farm lands of a farmer or transit fare evasion or trespass.

(5)(a) A merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent who takes a person into custody, as provided in subsection (3), or who causes an arrest, as provided in subsection (4), of a person for retail theft, farm theft, transit fare evasion, or trespass shall not be criminally or civilly liable for false arrest or false imprisonment when the merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent has probable cause to believe that the person committed retail theft, farm theft, transit fare evasion, or trespass.

(b) If a merchant or merchant's employee takes a person into custody as provided in this section, or acts as a witness with respect to any person taken into custody as provided in this section, the merchant or merchant's employee may provide his or her business address rather than home address to any investigating law enforcement officer.

(6) An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, transit fare evasion, or trespass, resists the reasonable effort of a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent to recover the property or cause the individual to pay the proper transit fare or vacate the transit facility which the law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent had probable cause to believe the individual had concealed or removed from its place of display.

(7) It is unlawful to possess, or use or attempt to use, any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise. Any person who possesses any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any person who uses or attempts to use any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[just joe]

The guy knew he was violating policy and he hoped that by keeping it "low key" he wouldn't get caught. Policy is policy.

[SecTrainer]

There is, I have found, much confusion in the general populace about the differences between Rights, Privileges, and Authorities. A Privilege is something that the State says you can do for yourself after you meet certain requirements, and can be taken away at the whim of the State for any cause it deems appropriate. An Authority is something the State says you can do which affects others after you meet certain requirements, which can only be taken away by the State for specific reasons. A Right is something that you are automatically entitled to, which the State cannot take away for any reason save those specifically covered by statute.

As examples, driving is a privilege, arresting is an authority, assembling in a group is a right.



I have to disagree here, as far as this particular case is concerned. The WI Retail Theft statute, which grants the detention authority (not arrest, unless WI is one of those states the equates detention with arrest... which I cannot find evidence of after a limited search, so I'm going to operate under the assumption that the state does not define them as equal, unless someone can find otherwise) covering this particular instance, specifically states "A merchant, a merchant's adult employee or a merchant's security agent"... His "agency" status is a moot point, from a legal standing, as he was an employee of the corporation of legally recognized adult age (as Target does not hire AP personnel under the age of 18). Legally, the statute protects him and the company from civil and criminal liability. However, as he stepped out of the bounds of company policy, Target could discipline him as they saw fit, which is why he was terminated.

There are many instances in the world where you can be legally safeguarded... but you still have to answer to the Boss.

Sorry, but agency status is NEVER a moot point when the law in question is based upon agency, your "disagreement" notwithstanding.

Folks...do what your employer tells you to do, and do NOT do what they tell you NOT to do. If I could make it any simpler than that I would, but I think everyone gets it. And if you don't like whatever restrictions or conditions your employer imposes on your duties, get another job. Ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing, no rocket science needed.

[LPGuy]

Sorry, but agency status is NEVER a moot point when the law in question is based upon agency, your "disagreement" notwithstanding.

Folks...do what your employer tells you to do, and do NOT do what they tell you NOT to do. If I could make it any simpler than that I would, but I think everyone gets it. And if you don't like whatever restrictions or conditions your employer imposes on your duties, get another job. Ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing, no rocket science needed.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

No one is saying it's okay to break your company's policies. What I've been saying (which you agreed with me earlier when I clarified it) is that despite the fact that the security officer broke his company's policy, he didn't break state law, and in fact, acted lawfully. The "agency" issue is moot because the merchant detention law in question is not solely based upon agency. There is clearly an exception (merchant's adult employee).

The only reason this was brought up was because someone said the security officer was "lucky" that he didn't get charged with a crime. He didn't get charged with a crime because he didn't break any laws. Period.

Why is this discussion continuing?

[davis002]

What I've been saying (which you agreed with me earlier when I clarified it) is that despite the fact that the security officer broke his company's policy, he didn't break state law, and in fact, acted lawfully.

Lawful or not, he violated company policy and was terminated by said company for that reason. I am fully in agreement with Sec Trainer. If you do not like the restrictions set by your employer, go find a new one.


Why is this discussion continuing?

You are not the authority to determine when a thread should no longer be discussed. If the members of this forum see fit to discuss it further, then they may do so.

[Justice_Hound]

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

No one is saying it's okay to break your company's policies. What I've been saying (which you agreed with me earlier when I clarified it) is that despite the fact that the security officer broke his company's policy, he didn't break state law, and in fact, acted lawfully. The "agency" issue is moot because the merchant detention law in question is not solely based upon agency. There is clearly an exception (merchant's adult employee).

The only reason this was brought up was because someone said the security officer was "lucky" that he didn't get charged with a crime. He didn't get charged with a crime because he didn't break any laws. Period.

Why is this discussion continuing?

LPGuy,
If you go back through this thread and RE-READ it maybe it will shed some light. All that was stated was that it a different state (3,500 miles away from WI, a wonderful place called ALASKA) this incident would not have met the requirements of the state's laws, meaning that the TPS could have been prosecuted. I couldn't care less about the TPS action or WI law. READ before you post.

Take a chill pill,

Justice_Hound
LP Manager

[darkenna]

I believe we're actually all in agreement on this one, concerning the TPS's discontinued employ. If you don't like the top dog's rules, don't play in his yard. Or, to quote, ummm... myself, "There are many instances in the world where you can be legally safeguarded... but you still have to answer to the Boss." :rolleyes:

The reason this "debate" continued is because there appeared to be some differences of opinion as to whether or not the kid was also liable for criminal or civil charges. I think that it has been established that he isn't, and why.

I also think there can be good arguments made on both sides of the issue concerning that particular policy. But the final determination was made by the company involved. I don't personally agree with it, but my name's not on the side of the building.

[LPGuy]

Lawful or not, he violated company policy and was terminated by said company for that reason. I am fully in agreement with Sec Trainer. If you do not like the restrictions set by your employer, go find a new one.

As others have already noticed, no one is debating this point.


If you go back through this thread and RE-READ it maybe it will shed some light. All that was stated was that it a different state (3,500 miles away from WI, a wonderful place called ALASKA) this incident would not have met the requirements of the state's laws, meaning that the TPS could have been prosecuted. I couldn't care less about the TPS action or WI law. READ before you post.

I've read this thread since the beginning. The only point I've been making all along was that 1) The security officer violated company policy, but 2) his actions were lawful per Wisconsin State law (this was brought into question on page one). Others have incorrectly read the state law and muddled the issue with the question of "agency," which is moot.

Anything pertaining to Alaska State law is entirely irrelevant to this case.


I believe we're actually all in agreement on this one, concerning the TPS's discontinued employ.

After seven pages, I'd sure hope so. Unfortunately, there are members here who somehow equated my comments of "the security officer acted lawfully" to be "he didn't do anything wrong!!111oneone!"

Yes, he did. He broke his company policy. That can lead to the lack of a job.

Clear enough for everyone?

[LPCap]

Clear enough for everyone?

Yes very clear and what you wrote is correct on all accounts.

[LPCap]

Video about this story.

http://cbs2.com/video/?id=63326@kcbs.dayport.com

[LPAjh9558]

Thought this might relate some to the Target SO, (they were just associates). I found this after reading a different post earlier and happened to see the link for the story. Believe this happened last May sometime and was at the local Home Depot where I worked!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=532_1181209349

[Norseman]

Valid points were made across the board. In the last analysis, the employee knowingly violated store policy.

Below is a 2006 version of Target’s apprehension policy.

APPREHENSION GUIDELINES
Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
This section lists the steps that MUST be followed in order for an AP team member to make a shoplifting apprehension. All steps must be observed, unless otherwise noted, and a detailed description of each step documented in the CIRS case narrative.
B. Certification
Only certified AP team members are authorized to apprehend or assist in the apprehension of shoplifters. Certification is received upon the completion of the following AP Academy courses:

1. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention R - must be completed within 30 days of hire date.
2. Position's Basic Training Courses
3. External Apprehension Certification
C. Five Steps for Apprehension
Certified AP team members must observe all five steps prior to making a shoplifter apprehension.

NOTE: If local law enforcement takes independent action and makes an apprehension before all five steps are met, the details must be documented in the CIRS report.

1. Initiation of Observation - The subject must enter the store/area without possession of Target merchandise.
2. Selection - The subject must be observed selecting Target merchandise from the display location.
3. Concealment - The subject must be observed concealing the merchandise, or the AP team member must have NO reasonable doubt based on observations that the merchandise has been concealed by the subject.
NOTE: If the merchandise is not actually concealed, it must be exposed as the subject exits or attempts to exit the store.
4. Maintain Observation - The AP team member must maintain sufficient surveillance of the subject in order to know the location of the merchandise and ensure the subject does not discard the merchandise.
NOTE: A Productive Merchandise Recovery (PMR) shall be attempted if surveillance is broken for any reason, or the AP team member can not maintain sufficient surveillance. (See PMR Directive).
5. Failure to Pay for Merchandise/Exiting the Store -AP team member(s) must observe the subject attempt to exit the store without paying for the merchandise.
NOTE: Some jurisdictions allow variances from the exiting requirement to allow apprehensions of concealed merchandise before an individual reaches the building’s exit. In these cases, the requirements must be documented and approved by the Director or Vice President of Assets Protection using the “Variance from Exiting Form” (found on the AP Zone).

[MRSE_S3]

This case is exactly why I don't recommend hiring retired police officers to do LP work.


I don't agree with this "policy". I worked for Sears who had the same mentality about current or former police officers. The explanation was that we could not adapt to undercover work. I followed direction and policy to the letter as I was the LPM. I have had several "retired" Officers work for me and they do not take short cuts or have issues adapting to policy or change. I find that they do what they are told or they leave. This thought process of not hiring "retired" or current LE is backwards thinking and a detriment to the industry!

[bpdblue]

I also work at a site, one day a week, that requires that I walk around a grocery store to hopefully scare off any prospective shoplifters prior to their taking anything.

I am not allowed to deal with customers in any way, including intensive looking at anyone, for any reason dealing with shoplifting.

Does this bother me, not in the slightest.

I'm working that site under a contract between the (security) company I work for, and the grocery store I have a post at. I know that the instructions from the store state they want us to just be a visual deterant (ie- looking pretty, which I do so well :eek: ) and actually act more like an advocate for the store.

Is it boring, YES. But, it has its benefits, as it is a healthy foods type store, and the eye candy types that shops there are quite nice, making the 8 hours go by a little faster. :D

[LPAjh9558]

(ie- looking pretty, which I do so well :eek: )
But, it has its benefits, as it is a healthy foods type store, and the eye candy types that shops there are quite nice, making the 8 hours go by a little faster. :D

That's just too funny:p Yuk, Yuk, Yuk:D Good to know that you stay well entertained for those 8 loooooong hours!

[Nauticus]

I don't agree with this "policy". I worked for Sears who had the same mentality about current or former police officers. The explanation was that we could not adapt to undercover work. I followed direction and policy to the letter as I was the LPM. I have had several "retired" Officers work for me and they do not take short cuts or have issues adapting to policy or change. I find that they do what they are told or they leave. This thought process of not hiring "retired" or current LE is backwards thinking and a detriment to the industry!

It's not that I WOULDN'T hire a retired LE, but I'd sooner hire somebody with more relevant experience for loss prevention work.

[LPGuy]

It's not that I WOULDN'T hire a retired LE, but I'd sooner hire somebody with more relevant experience for loss prevention work.

Yeah, common sense, handcuffing/apprehension skills, reporting writing, and knowledge of fraud investigations (just to name a few) are definately not relevant at all to LP work.

It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to ever hire a former police officer for that kind of work. :rolleyes:

[Nauticus]

Yeah, common sense, handcuffing/apprehension skills, reporting writing, and knowledge of fraud investigations (just to name a few) are definately not relevant at all to LP work.

It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to ever hire a former police officer for that kind of work. :rolleyes:

Reading comprehension. I didn't say they had no relevant skills, but I'd sooner take somebody who works/has worked in the private security industry first. It's VERY DIFFERENT to arrest somebody as a regular citizen than it is a peace officer. And, in Canada, it's generally illegal for security to use handcuffs. Plus, to figure that police have more common sense than a non-LE worker is kind of silly.

[darkenna]

Yeah, common sense, handcuffing/apprehension skills, reporting writing, and knowledge of fraud investigations (just to name a few) are definately not relevant at all to LP work.

It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to ever hire a former police officer for that kind of work. :rolleyes:

The best "relevant" experience for LP: working customer service in a retail environment. Not something most LEOs have. To be sure, those things you mentioned are indeed useful skills, but private sector investigations and management are completely different ballgames from public sector. A lot of time, those who have spent many years in the public mindset have trouble adjusting to the differences, even some of the simplest ones, such as (but certainly not limited to): we don't need to, and hardly ever, Mirandize a subject that we are questioning; we can begin an investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, but instead on only the vague idea that one might sometime occur; we are rarely looking for statutory wrongdoing or criminal malfeasance, only deviations from stated policy; we do not necessarily approach, question, or detain upon witnessing a criminal act; liability is foremost in our minds when considering possible courses of action, and we will gladly take a "lesser" road if it reduces that liability even by a hair's breadth; and sometimes the best way to handle a situation is to give the subject what they want and walk away.

I've hired and worked with LEOs-turned-LPs. Some worked out, some didn't. More did not than did, simply because of the different mindset required for the job. If given two nearly identical applicants for an LPO, with the only difference between the two being that one spent the last five years selling clothes in a department store and the other spent the last five years as a patrolman, I would probably choose the salesman over the LEO; his work experience is better preparation for the position.

[MRSE_S3]

If given two nearly identical applicants for an LPO, with the only difference between the two being that one spent the last five years selling clothes in a department store and the other spent the last five years as a patrolman, I would probably choose the salesman over the LEO; his work experience is better preparation for the position.



I certainly disagree. I knew the difference and was able to differentiate between company policy and what I learned as an LEO. I did not have any difficultly working as an LPM. If anything, an LEO has a little more attention to detail for a report that needs to go to court etc.

I've hired both associates from with-in the store and criminal justice students and the CJ student had a better handle on what to do than the in store associate. It also took longer to train the in store associate.

[Nauticus]

I certainly disagree. I knew the difference and was able to differentiate between company policy and what I learned as an LEO. I did not have any difficultly working as an LPM. If anything, an LEO has a little more attention to detail for a report that needs to go to court etc.

I've hired both associates from with-in the store and criminal justice students and the CJ student had a better handle on what to do than the in store associate. It also took longer to train the in store associate.

Fair enough, but neither of us claimed that NO LEO are good at transitioning to the private security industry. In our experiences, simply most do.

[LPGuy]

If you think that there isn't a "customer service" aspect to law enforcement, you're absolutely wrong. There's a lot more to the job than what you see on COPS. As a patrol officer in a busy city, I'm involved in customer service each and every day. When citizens come to the police station to file a report on mundane things like annoying telephone calls or the neighbor's barking dogs, I sit down with them and gather information to assist them or point them in the right direction of an alternate resource. When I get dispatched to an apartment complex to speak with an elderly resident about the noise coming from upstairs, I get to put on the customer service hat again.

Just because private security doesn't generally make arrests does not make them more well-versed in customer service issues. Having spent time in LP before being hired as a police officer, I don't see any major difference in the type of approach to "customer service"--all you're really referring to is "people skills," which you need in police work just as much, if not more, than in LP.

Darkenna speaks of LEOs-working-as-LP as reckless liabilities to the company who can't understand policies (believe me, we deal with our share of them in police work), who can't understand how investigations work, and who act in a way that puts the company at risk for being liable. I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know many retired police officers. They aren't the ones you read about that are chasing shoplifters five blocks down the street and jumping onto the hood of the shoplifter's car in an effort to retrieve that $6.99 pair of socks that was stolen. Enough said on that matter.

The Dillards company is a large department store chain in the Midwest who (as I understand it) hires only current/former police officers for their LP program. If you can somehow find evidence that their LP program causes more liability for the company than another store's that hires only ex-sales associates, then I'll concede the issue. Otherwise I say you're working under a stereotype of what you imagine that most police officers must be like. I've also seen many former retail employees go through the LP hiring process and most don't get very far because they simply can't grasp the concept of what LP work entails. If your LP program makes apprehensions, you're asking "sheep" to go out and perform "sheepdog" work (such as apprehending shoplifters and potentially using force to defend themselves if appropriate). Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Combat if you're not aware of the reference. This type of job, and security/police work in general, requires a pre-existing mindset and type of person besides "retail experience."

[LPGuy]

To clarify before I get attacked and my point mis-represented:

I'm not saying every police officer can make a great LP officer, no more than I believe no retail employee can ever be successful in LP. I'm just tired of hearing the old stereotype that most police officers inherently can't do LP work because they're "liability risks" and too "gungho." That's a stereotype that's based only on someone's personal views.

I believe that LE work naturally gives one relevant experience that will transition into LP work such as the skills I listed (safe apprehension tactics and report writing being two major ones). Anyone without these skills will be getting trained from scratch and these are difficult skills that are only gained over long periods of time. Your typical ex-sales associate will not be writing great reports that stand in court or learn safe apprehension tactics overnight.

[HotelSecurity]

It's VERY DIFFERENT to arrest somebody as a regular citizen than it is a peace officer. And, in Canada, it's generally illegal for security to use handcuffs.

1) In Canada the onloy difference in arrest powers is that Security must witness the crime. The only extra powers police have is that they can arrest with reasonable & probable grounds.

2) What law makes it illegal to use handcuffs in Canada?

[Nauticus]

1) In Canada the onloy difference in arrest powers is that Security must witness the crime. The only extra powers police have is that they can arrest with reasonable & probable grounds.

2) What law makes it illegal to use handcuffs in Canada?

1. Canadians have citizens arrest, and they have to witness the crime AND the crime has to be indictable. 'Arrest' is also not defined with clarity, and the act of arrest is then referring to the detainee's mindset, and not the actions of the arrester.

2. Contract security companies in many provinces in Canada are prohibited from carrying and/or using any restraints. For example, in B.C., the Private Investigation & Security Act (PISA) governs the private security industry and restricts what a S/O can carry while on duty. Granted, the new Security Services Act may change some of the 'rules', but we'll see when it comes.

[N. A. Corbier]

You're in BC, the worst province for security in Canada. Please do not think that the rest of Canada has such a hard-on and pure hatred for security guards that BC does.

Its illegal for you to possess handcuffs, batons, and other weapons. Its illegal for you to not have SECURITY GUARD in huge print on your uniform. Its not that way in every province.

[HotelSecurity]

1. Canadians have citizens arrest, and they have to witness the crime AND the crime has to be indictable. 'Arrest' is also not defined with clarity, and the act of arrest is then referring to the detainee's mindset, and not the actions of the arrester.

2. Contract security companies in many provinces in Canada are prohibited from carrying and/or using any restraints. For example, in B.C., the Private Investigation & Security Act (PISA) governs the private security industry and restricts what a S/O can carry while on duty. Granted, the new Security Services Act may change some of the 'rules', but we'll see when it comes.

Re read the criminal code section on citizen's arrest. The owner of property or his agent (SECURITY) can arrest for ANY criminal offense he witnesses on or to his property. As Security we have more powers than a regular citizen, the crime does not have to be an indictable offense.

[Nauticus]

Re read the criminal code section on citizen's arrest. The owner of property or his agent (SECURITY) can arrest for ANY criminal offense he witnesses on or to his property. As Security we have more powers than a regular citizen, the crime does not have to be an indictable offense.

Section 494 in the Criminal Code of Canada reads:


(1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Additionally, I'd argue we DON'T have more rights than a citizen, in that they are allowed to carry batons (openly) and handcuffs, and security in B.C. are not. We, in fact, have our citizen's rights' restricted as a security officer.

[MRSE_S3]

Fair enough, but neither of us claimed that NO LEO are good at transitioning to the private security industry. In our experiences, simply most do.


I would still rather give a CJ (criminal justice) student or LEO a shot at LP over a current store associate. I have done both and found that the CJ person is able to wrap his brain around store policies and procedures 96% better than a regular store associate.


Currently I have 2 people that work for my company that are retired law enforcement. One from a local PD and the other from the US Treasury. Both of them work private security (for my company) and love it. Of course my officers are all armed. One of them told me the other day that he would never work private security if he wasn't armed.:D

[MRSE_S3]

You're in BC, the worst province for security in Canada. Please do not think that the rest of Canada has such a hard-on and pure hatred for security guards that BC does.

Its illegal for you to possess handcuffs, batons, and other weapons. Its illegal for you to not have SECURITY GUARD in huge print on your uniform. Its not that way in every province.


N.A. where havn't you been? and what don't you know?:D

[darkenna]

If you think that there isn't a "customer service" aspect to law enforcement, you're absolutely wrong.

...

Darkenna speaks of LEOs-working-as-LP as reckless liabilities to the company who can't understand policies (believe me, we deal with our share of them in police work), who can't understand how investigations work, and who act in a way that puts the company at risk for being liable.

What? I never stated any of these things. Go re-read my post, please.

The customer service aspect I stated is retail customer service, which is an animal all it's own. I did not state that police officers do not have a customer service aspect to their job; I did state that only a few have ever worked in a retail environment. Retail is very different from every other work environment (with the possible exception of food service, which I have no experience in aside from observational and anecdotal, and one month when I was 15 at a pizza shop) that I have ever encountered or worked in (retail, warehouse, on-site service, office, nightclub/bar, IT, and the aforementioned pizza shop).

If you think I wrote of LEOs being "reckless liabilities", you need to practice your reading comprehension. What I said was that LP operates in the same field but under a completely different set of rules, and that many current and former LEOs have a difficult time making the adjustment. As an example, liability to the company is the chief concern on our minds at all times. Is liability to the department the chief concern on a LEO's mind? If it is, how often? I asked this of an officer this evening; he responded with, "I don't think I've ever considered it. I've worried about stuff that I've done affecting me and my future and my stakes... but the department's? They put me out here to think about other things, like keeping the peace. So that's what I think about." (Thanks, RS. And if you did find your way here, please comment! :cool: )

Police investigations and inquiries must have certain impetus behind them before they can begin (reasonable suspicion, probably cause). This is "tort and Court"; the sheer number of legal decisions, at all levels, defining this rule is staggering. LP does not. We can look at something within the store just because we feel the need to, or because of random chance, or because we don't like the color of someone's hair, or for no reason at all. I've worked with several LEOs-turned-LPs who have had a problem with the fact that we could start delving into an associate's activity and begin constant surveillance of the associate based upon what the associate ate for lunch. One once compared it to "pulling over a car because it was blue."


They aren't the ones you read about that are chasing shoplifters five blocks down the street and jumping onto the hood of the shoplifter's car in an effort to retrieve that $6.99 pair of socks that was stolen.

A situation like this has occurred 3 times on my watch. Twice, by LEOs-as-LPOs (both active, one with 6 or 7 years part-time experience on the job, the other a police reservist 6 months out of academy). Once by a non-LEO-LPO (now, incidentally, a LEO with a local PD). None of the half-dozen LPOs I've had who came from the sales floor have ever done this. I know this is not a generalization nor does it necessarily reflect the entire industry, but I think it speaks for itself.


This type of job, and security/police work in general, requires a pre-existing mindset and type of person besides "retail experience."

Agreed, and also not what I stated. One could just as easily say the same thing about retail LP needing a completely different mindset than "police experience." Experience at policing does not prepare someone for working in a retail environment. The ideal candidate would have both retail and CJ experience. However, given that this is a rare thing, decisions need to be made case-by-case. My statement about the two nearly identical candidates stands as is (because if the only difference between the two is their previous work history, that means they have identical mindsets, doesn't it... otherwise their attitudes and outlooks would be different, leaving them no longer identical).


I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know many retired police officers.

Depending on what you define as "many", I'd say you were probably correct... about retired officers (I only know 2). I do, however, know, am friends with, and have day-to-day outside-of-work interactions with many current and former POs, of levels ranging from part-time locals to A-I-C Feds. I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know many career LPs.

[darkenna]

I would still rather give a CJ (criminal justice) student or LEO a shot at LP over a current store associate. I have done both and found that the CJ person is able to wrap his brain around store policies and procedures 96% better than a regular store associate.

I, too, have done both. I've found the ideal candidate is one who has both CJ and retail training/experience. I'm also not saying I would take any store associate into LP. It takes a certain mix of cynicism, logic, drive, and observational skill to do the job. In my experience, I have found it more efficient (not to mention faster and easier) to teach policy awareness, investigative technique, and reporting skills to an experienced retailer than it has been to teach a LEO about how the retail industry works.


One of them told me the other day that he would never work private security if he wasn't armed.:D

This illustrates the difference in mind-set between LP and LEO about which I was referring.

I would never wish to be armed when at work; I deal with too many idiots daily (sometimes ranging into the hundreds, daily), I'd be sorely tempted to use said weapon. I don't think I would, but I wouldn't want to risk the temptation... just in case I'm not as strong as I believe I am.

[LPGuy]

The customer service aspect I stated is retail customer service, which is an animal all it's own.

As I previously said, what you're really referring to is "people skills." The same "people skills" that I developed doing fast food, office/warehouse security, LP work, and school security (I've done them all) are the same ones being put to use in police work, albeit it with its own unique spin. Having spent a decent amount of time doing LP, I don't recall any unique type of customer service that can only be learned in that setting and nowhere else.


If you think I wrote of LEOs being "reckless liabilities", you need to practice your reading comprehension.

Forgive me if I mis-represented your opinion, but it appeared to be the implied theme--the same tired argument* I've heard on here for years, that LP is a job that is mysteriously too difficult for cops to understand. The ones who are saying that generally have no true idea what police work is really about, coincidentally.


As an example, liability to the company is the chief concern on our minds at all times. Is liability to the department the chief concern on a LEO's mind? If it is, how often?

I hardly ever thought of liability when I was an LP officer. I knew the rules to play by and didn't need to worry about anything else other than doing my job to the best of my abilities. In police work liability just comes with a different blend--avoiding complaints, trying to make a favorable impression in the public's mind of the department and police in general, etc. Those concerns influence how I do my job as well.


Police investigations and inquiries must have certain impetus behind them before they can begin (reasonable suspicion, probably cause). [. . .] LP does not. We can look at something within the store just because we feel the need to, or because of random chance, or because we don't like the color of someone's hair, or for no reason at all.

Not really. You're wrong on several accounts. Conducting LP surveillance because of something such as "not liking the color of someone's hair" is called grounds for a civil suit which brings liability into play. Any LP program I know of teaches having an articulable reason to begin surveillance of a subject. If your defense in civil court to the question "Why did you begin surveilling my client?" is "Because I felt like it," be prepared to hear that nasty L word again. There's nothing illegal about it, to be technical, but it sure won't hold water when you try to use it as a reason to watch people. You also don't begin internal investigations on sales associates without an articulable reason.

It's no different in police work. I can watch any person I want. Every day I watch all kinds of people whether I'm in a car or on a foot patrol. I can't detain or arrest anyone without anything more, and neither can LP.


A situation like this has occurred 3 times on my watch. [. . .] I know this is not a generalization nor does it necessarily reflect the entire industry, but I think it speaks for itself.

Really, no offense to reserve police officers (who I have the utmost respect for), but I don't think the actions of two part time police officers is indicative of how a retired or former officer would approach the job. That's like saying the actions of a guy I (theoretically) hire to do LP work every other weekend as a side job are typical of a career LP officer.

*In an attempt to avoid us going off on some new tangent for pages and pages, this is really the only central issue I wanted to address. I'm tired of hearing career LP people saying "cops can't do LP work" when they have no idea what it even takes to be a police officer. It would be just as silly for a cop to say "LP officers can never make it as a cop, they're just wannabes," etc. They're both stereotypes with no real basis in fact.

[darkenna]

As I previously said, what you're really referring to is "people skills." The same "people skills" that I developed doing fast food, office/warehouse security, LP work, and school security (I've done them all) are the same ones being put to use in police work, albeit it with its own unique spin. Having spent a decent amount of time doing LP, I don't recall any unique type of customer service that can only be learned in that setting and nowhere else.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe to be an incomplete observation, based upon my own experiences. Retail (not just retail LP, but all of retail) requires a certain level of finesse in its customer service, both internal and external, aspect that I have never seen anywhere else.


I hardly ever thought of liability when I was an LP officer. I knew the rules to play by and didn't need to worry about anything else other than doing my job to the best of my abilities.

If you were not constantly seeking out any liability to the company to correct it, then you were not doing the complete job, only a part of it. LP is not all about apprehending shoplifters, it's about discovering potential loss to the company and preventing or correcting it.


Not really. You're wrong on several accounts. Conducting LP surveillance because of something such as "not liking the color of someone's hair" is called grounds for a civil suit which brings liability into play. Any LP program I know of teaches having an articulable reason to begin surveillance of a subject. If your defense in civil court to the question "Why did you begin surveilling my client?" is "Because I felt like it," be prepared to hear that nasty L word again. There's nothing illegal about it, to be technical, but it sure won't hold water when you try to use it as a reason to watch people. You also don't begin internal investigations on sales associates without an articulable reason.

For external surveillances, yes, the first part here is correct, and every policy I've encountered states that general surveillance can only become specific based upon an articulated reason. However, I was very clearly not discussing externals, but internal surveillances. Your last sentence indicates a lack of experience conducting pro-active internal surveillance. We do not require any reason to look into an associate's activity. They work within the store. That is everything that is needed for us to watch them.


Forgive me if I mis-represented your opinion, but it appeared to be the implied theme--the same tired argument* I've heard on here for years, that LP is a job that is mysteriously too difficult for cops to understand. The ones who are saying that generally have no true idea what police work is really about, coincidentally.

*In an attempt to avoid us going off on some new tangent for pages and pages, this is really the only central issue I wanted to address. I'm tired of hearing career LP people saying "cops can't do LP work" when they have no idea what it even takes to be a police officer. It would be just as silly for a cop to say "LP officers can never make it as a cop, they're just wannabes," etc. They're both stereotypes with no real basis in fact.

Which is not what I said at all. I forgive you for the narrow reading, and I agree with you. However, I disagree with the opinion that police officers automatically make better LP and security people because of their experience. They do not. Just like LP and security people would not automatically be better police officers. I've known plenty of good officers in each field that were unable to make the adjustment to the other, just as I've known plenty in each field that were successful in both.

Clearly we are going to continue to disagree on this topic. I'm sure it appears to you as if I have an ax to grind against police officers, just as it appears to me that you do not consider LP to be more than just "watch & bust the shoppies"; I'm sure both appearances are incorrect.

[Curtis Baillie]

I don't agree with this "policy". I worked for Sears who had the same mentality about current or former police officers. The explanation was that we could not adapt to undercover work. I followed direction and policy to the letter as I was the LPM. I have had several "retired" Officers work for me and they do not take short cuts or have issues adapting to policy or change. I find that they do what they are told or they leave. This thought process of not hiring "retired" or current LE is backwards thinking and a detriment to the industry!Just speaking from my experience (22 years of LP hiring experience). I found that the longer the LEO spent in LE and then tried to make the change to the corporate grey world, the harder is is for them to adjust. I'm not saying everyone failed - I didn't and know of many who were successful.

[MRSE_S3]

This illustrates the difference in mind-set between LP and LEO about which I was referring.

I would never wish to be armed when at work; I deal with too many idiots daily (sometimes ranging into the hundreds, daily), I'd be sorely tempted to use said weapon. I don't think I would, but I wouldn't want to risk the temptation... just in case I'm not as strong as I believe I am.


Yes, I see your point. However, the comment was made by the employee in a uniformed officer role and not an LP role. As this officer was on the road for 28 years and runs into the same trash at his current account as he did when he was on the road. He is very laid back and is not a gun ho!

My point is that the LEO should be able to turn it off like a switch and revert to retail as I was able to without any issue. I realize that not everyone is that way but most can understand the difference.

Believe me, there are many LEO's that would love to brandish their firearm and thin out the gene pool. :D But it is called restraint.

[MRSE_S3]

Just speaking from my experience (22 years of LP hiring experience). I found that the longer the LEO spent in LE and then tried to make the change to the corporate grey world, the harder is is for them to adjust. I'm not saying everyone failed - I didn't and know of many who were successful.


Well when it was thrown into my face by the territorial LPM and the regional LPM in a time when I was contemplating a degree change it didn't give me the warm fuzzies. It certainly made me consider getting back into law enforcement, which I did.

I would have loved to work in corporate America but they didn't obviously welcome me with open arms.

I still think that this mentality should be re-thought and qualified candidates should be given an opportunity.

Did I also mention that I was a Firefighter, EMT, Police Officer. Perfect for that asset protection role dealing with fire prevention, safety, LP.

[N. A. Corbier]

1) I haven't been to British Columbia, yet. This will be rectified in May, when I go to Vancouver as a part of a cruise.

2) To me, police officers having to fit into the grey area of private security (including loss prevention) means that they have to be retrained. The rules are different, and there are times when you want to do something but "its not your job."

I think LP is a better fit for current LEOs than Passive Observation and Reporting security. LP, at least, has something for them to do more than deter criminals and then ignore them.

Its the POAR that is the biggest problem. You have someone who's been trained and has acquired situational memory to DO SOMETHING, and then you tell them... No, that's not your job, you are to ignore it and flee the area after you report it to your client/supervisor/police.

I think there's a middle ground for LP hiring current or newly separated LEOs. If they can understand the grey area and work in it, then great. If they can't, then there is the fact you have to rehire someone.

I wouldn't automatically rule a current/newly separated LEO out of hiring for private positions. But I'd have some questions, including situational questions, and I'd flat tell the guy: This isn't police work. Your job is the stand there and watch while some guy lifts a car. Your job is to call the client and let them decide if they'll call the police, and when. Your job is to walk away.

How many of you can say they'd do that?

Granted, if I was in charge of that security company, their job would be that.

[Nauticus]

You're in BC, the worst province for security in Canada. Please do not think that the rest of Canada has such a hard-on and pure hatred for security guards that BC does.

Its illegal for you to possess handcuffs, batons, and other weapons. Its illegal for you to not have SECURITY GUARD in huge print on your uniform. Its not that way in every province.

This is true, but it's not that bad. You don't need guns, batons, handcuffs, OC spray, etc, to do your job.

Plus, Citizen's Arrest is defined the same in every province, so that remains unchanged.

[HotelSecurity]

This is true, but it's not that bad. You don't need guns, batons, handcuffs, OC spray, etc, to do your job.

Plus, Citizen's Arrest is defined the same in every province, so that remains unchanged.

In some provinces private security spend a lot of their time arresting under the provincial "Trespass to Property" Acts. Quebec does not have one. Does BC?

[LPGuy]

We do not require any reason to look into an associate's activity. They work within the store. That is everything that is needed for us to watch them.

Watch, yes. Conduct elaborate internal investigations/surveillances, no, not without anything articulable. Which one are you talking about? In LP, I could poke around in associates' register histories or in-store charge card transactions without a reason but to me that's no different than running people's license plates and their names to see if they have warrants while they're driving down the road. A more elaborate investigation generally does not begin until there is actually something to base it off of. The example you gave of police "pulling over a car just because it is blue" is a detention, which you can't do in LP either without a good reason (you don't pull customers or employees in for interview or interrogation without an articulable reason).


However, I disagree with the opinion that police officers automatically make better LP and security people because of their experience.

I believe I already clarified this earlier. This is obviously not true, but I would give someone with this prior experience a closer look during hiring than someone who was selling hot dogs for the last 5 years.


Clearly we are going to continue to disagree on this topic. I'm sure it appears to you as if I have an ax to grind against police officers,

Not at all. I just felt you were espousing a stereotypical viewpoint that happens to be the prevailent opinion here, which I wanted to address.

[Nauticus]

In some provinces private security spend a lot of their time arresting under the provincial "Trespass to Property" Acts. Quebec does not have one. Does BC?

No. BC has an 'assault by trespass', which is an assault charge made via trespassing, but no such trespass to property. One of my coworkers is from Ontario, and says he lived by that Act.

[darkenna]

Watch, yes. Conduct elaborate internal investigations/surveillances, no, not without anything articulable. Which one are you talking about? In LP, I could poke around in associates' register histories or in-store charge card transactions without a reason but to me that's no different than running people's license plates and their names to see if they have warrants while they're driving down the road. A more elaborate investigation generally does not begin until there is actually something to base it off of. The example you gave of police "pulling over a car just because it is blue" is a detention, which you can't do in LP either without a good reason (you don't pull customers or employees in for interview or interrogation without an articulable reason).

Running a license plate is a quick check, a "short look", as it were. It's quite different than, for example, spending 4 or 5 hours closely examining all the transaction data related to a particular associate. One is a surface investigation, one is an in depth investigation. If I choose, I can install a single or series of covert cameras to observe a specific associate or department, not because I've noticed anything out of the ordinary, but simply to see if there is anything out of the ordinary. That can be a fairly elaborate course of surveillance and investigation. At any time I could, if I chose, pull an associate aside and interview them about general policy and procedure, just to be certain they understand it. Such a general interview could quickly become a very specific interview if the answers are out of line. Remember, we do not usually "interrogate" internally in LP... and associates are always free to leave if they choose.


I believe I already clarified this earlier. This is obviously not true, but I would give someone with this prior experience a closer look during hiring than someone who was selling hot dogs for the last 5 years. ... Not at all. I just felt you were espousing a stereotypical viewpoint that happens to be the prevailent opinion here, which I wanted to address.

...and I feel the opposite, that you were supporting a stereotypical view that those with LE training are better at security because of it. I give all candidates who meet the qualifications of a position equal consideration... but there are certain things that can lend more weight to their potentiality as an employee. Retail experience is a big factor, and it carries more weight than CJ experience.

Our job is not criminal investigation and security control; those are but small elements of it. The job of LP is to maximize profits by ensuring the bottom line doesn't decrease. If that means one day we need to be out there selling exercise equipment and fine jewelry, we do. Along with the extended warranty and care plan.