Elements

[Bill Warnock]

Spoken like a person who should not be speaking on shoplifting. When you see it in real life, it is not so breath taking.

You are right on top of the activity. I find it breath taking knowing that each time these folks work their magic, all of us pay a little more each and every time these folks strike.
And what of the retailers who cannot afford the services of professionals such as yourself, they just go under. You have better statistics for that type of theft than I could ever hope to have. And your job is never ending, bust up one gang and another one takes their place. The eastern corridor from North Carolina to New York seems to be their happy hunting ground.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Lynch Mob]

You are right on top of the activity. I find it breath taking knowing that each time these folks work their magic, all of us pay a little more each and every time these folks strike.
And what of the retailers who cannot afford the services of professionals such as yourself, they just go under. You have better statistics for that type of theft than I could ever hope to have. And your job is never ending, bust up one gang and another one takes their place. The eastern corridor from North Carolina to New York seems to be their happy hunting ground.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

It is hardly magic, and it is not affecting retail prices. Do you really believe that if shoplifting were eliminated completely retailers would lower their prices? Pricing markup is pretty consistent for industries regardless of the shrink each individual company faces. Shoplifting is not affecting prices.

Many, many retail companies do not have LP and do quite well. They don't go under because they don't have LP. Do you think that the first Wal Mart stores had LP? No, they did not. The same applies to every major retailer out there. When they first started they did not have LP and they did fine. When a retailer goes under, it is almost never due to shoplifting.

You are right that as soon as you bust one group another takes their place, which is why the most effective LP programs are not apprehension driven,they are prevention driven. They are the ones that support sales and look at all sides of a problem before trying to make a determination such as flyers being bad because they help a few shoplifters.

[Lynch Mob]

Critique accepted. However, you might have missed what I said in another post to the effect that I know stores will never do away with these flyers, and I certainly understand why.

Have a good day!

You said that in the same post. I didn't miss it. Saying that you know stores will not do away with flyers is not the same as saying stores should not do away with flyers because they are good for business.

[SecTrainer]

You said that in the same post. I didn't miss it. Saying that you know stores will not do away with flyers is not the same as saying stores should not do away with flyers because they are good for business.

That's what I meant to imply by saying that I understood why the flyers wouldn't go away. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Certainly, the flyers are good for business.

Perhaps, though, stores should consider the format of the flyers. Some stores, for instance, use smaller "booklet" formats (I don't know what else to call them) that I'm sure you've seen. These can't be used for concealment or visual obstruction in the same way the large newspaper-sized flyers can be used.

[Curtis Baillie]

I'd be interested in the source of the sixth step - I haven't read of it anywhere and it isn't mentioned, for instance, by Chris McGoey, one of the nation's leading experts in LP, in any of his work or in numerous other articles I just looked at to try to find this step. If it's referenced in a court case, the case obviously has not acquired the provenance of forming case law (many case decisions never acquire this status).

What usually happens, in fact, is that the individual is returned to the store, to some private area, and is asked to empty their own pockets/bag/purse, and I doubt seriously whether it will matter in the slightest whether the stolen merchandise is produced from the exact location where you believe it was concealed because shoplifters have many ways (and devices) deliberately designed to obscure this particular aspect of the theft from view. I might see the hand disappear into a coat that has been altered or designed in such a way that it allows the merchandise to be placed into a pants pocket out of view, for instance. I'm hardly stymied from making my arrest merely because I believe the merchandise was secreted within the coat but it turns out to be in the pants pocket instead!

Indeed, as McGoey specifically points out, there are situations such as fitting rooms where you will not be able to see exactly where the merchandise is concealed, so this obviously cannot be a requirement for a shoplifting arrest.

McGoey does, in fact, offer six steps, but they are basically a restatement of the "basic five" steps published elsewhere:

* You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
* You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
* You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
* You must maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter
* You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
* You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

See Shoplifting: Probable Cause.

The sixth item in McGoey's list (where to stop the shoplifter) is the subject under particular discussion, and even McGoey does not consider this step "mandatory", noting that only a few courts have held it necessary for the shoplifter to leave the store (or even to pass the "last payment opportunity" inside the store) to establish intent. Aside from these decisions, the stages up to and including concealment can be sufficient to establish intent. Each LP agent must consult his own state's laws and case decisions to resolve the question of exactly what establishes "intent", and where.

Also, while this is not a "step" nor or a "legal requirement", McGoey recommends that the LP agent always be accompanied by at least one other employee of the store when the stop is made (as a witness and for "safety in numbers", as well as to discourage the shoplifter from running), and also instructs that the LP officer should clearly identify himself and his title when making the stop.

The original "6 steps" were authored by Charles Sennewald and John Christman in the '80s. The steps were first published in 1992 in their book, Shopliftng. The "six step rule" is only meant as a guideline for agents, and adherence to such guidelines tends to protect the public from being falsely accused of theft and at the same time tends to protect the agent and retailer from making serious mistakes.

I know of no State Statute that requires a merchant to follow the "six steps" when making an apprehension for retail theft.

Here are the "six steps" as originally written by Charles Sennewald and John Christman:

1. The agent should see the subject approach the merchandise.

2. The agent should personally see the subject take physical possession of the merchandise.

3. The agent should personally see where the merchandise is concealed.

4. There should always be maintained uninterrupted surveillance of the subject, once they have taken possession. (A momentary loss of view because another passes between or the subject walks past a pillar doesn't necessarily constitute an interruption.)

5. The agent should see that the subject does not pay for the goods.

6. The agent should make the stop after the subject leaves the store because it only goes that much farther to establish the person had no intention of paying for the item/s.

[SecTrainer]

The original "6 steps" were authored by Charles Sennewald and John Christman in the '80s. The steps were first published in 1992 in their book, Shopliftng. The "six step rule" is only meant as a guideline for agents, and adherence to such guidelines tends to protect the public from being falsely accused of theft and at the same time tends to protect the agent and retailer from making serious mistakes.

I know of no State Statute that requires a merchant to follow the "six steps" when making an apprehension for retail theft.

Here are the "six steps" as originally written by Charles Sennewald and John Christman:

1. The agent should see the subject approach the merchandise.

2. The agent should personally see the subject take physical possession of the merchandise.

3. The agent should personally see where the merchandise is concealed.

4. There should always be maintained uninterrupted surveillance of the subject, once they have taken possession. (A momentary loss of view because another passes between or the subject walks past a pillar doesn't necessarily constitute an interruption.)

5. The agent should see that the subject does not pay for the goods.

6. The agent should make the stop after the subject leaves the store because it only goes that much farther to establish the person had no intention of paying for the item/s.

As I stated, it is by no means necessary to see where the merchandise is concealed, and it is often impossible to do so. I would defy most LP agents to see exactly where some of the skilled "travelers" secrete the merchandise. So, I regard the inclusion of this step as a disservice to LP agents who might be trained by such a "6-step" method, actually.

Oh well - it's not the first time that I or others have disagreed with Mr. Sennewald. He's used to it, I know, and that's what makes for horseraces, as they say. Other experts find the five steps quite sufficient, and they are sufficient.

[Curtis Baillie]

Sec Trainer - "I'd be interested in the source of the sixth step"

I'm sorry, I honestly thought you were looking for an answer to the question you asked.

[SecTrainer]

Sec Trainer - "I'd be interested in the source of the sixth step"

I'm sorry, I honestly thought you were looking for an answer to the question you asked.

Oh - I was, very much. I hope you'll pardon my oversight for not saying "thanks" in my haste to take issue with Mr. Sennewald before some poor LP newbie was misled by him.

[LPGuy]

As I stated, it is by no means necessary to see where the merchandise is concealed, and it is often impossible to do so. I would defy most LP agents to see exactly where some of the skilled "travelers" secrete the merchandise. So, I regard the inclusion of this step as a disservice to LP agents who might be trained by such a "6-step" method, actually.

Oh well - it's not the first time that I or others have disagreed with Mr. Sennewald. He's used to it, I know, and that's what makes for horseraces, as they say. Other experts find the five steps quite sufficient, and they are sufficient.

This so-called "sixth" step is unneccessary and impractical. As I believe you pointed out earlier, many thefts occur in the fitting room and out of view, so it would not be relevant in those instances.

I would obviously take note of where someone conceals merchandise if it's on the sales floor and in plane view because I'll be sure to recover it from there if it's small (jewelry, for example). But I'd hardly call knowing where the merchandise is concealed a core "element" of the apprehension.

It's interesting to note that this is a good model to train under, and when writing theft reports it's important to list as many elements as possible to support the conviction. But depending on your state laws, the "5 elements" need not be observed before a theft apprehension is made.

In Washington State, a merchant only needs to see concealment of merchandise and have a reasonable belief that a theft has occurred before apprehending a subject for shoplifting. I made a number of apprehensions based on only one or two of the elements.

[SecTrainer]

In Washington State, a merchant only needs to see concealment of merchandise and have a reasonable belief that a theft has occurred before apprehending a subject for shoplifting. I made a number of apprehensions based on only one or two of the elements.

Also, there are obviously many "booster devices" and "trick" clothing that are specifically designed to prevent the observer from seeing where the item is concealed.

I'm glad you mention that you've made apprehensions without "counting down" all five elements. Sometimes we forget that when we use these "systems" for teaching purposes, some people will take them so literally that they're literally frozen in place, checking off the list, while the perp waves and drives away. For instance, "continuous surveillance" can be technically problematic if the perp merely turns down an aisle a few seconds ahead of you so that they are "not under surveillance" for those 3 or 4 seconds. Strict adherence to the "continuous surveillance" rule means he gets to walk away with the $10,000 Rolex, right? Hardly.

[Investigation]

Also, there are obviously many "booster devices" and "trick" clothing that are specifically designed to prevent the observer from seeing where the item is concealed.

I'm glad you mention that you've made apprehensions without "counting down" all five elements. Sometimes we forget that when we use these "systems" for teaching purposes, some people will take them so literally that they're literally frozen in place, checking off the list, while the perp waves and drives away. For instance, "continuous surveillance" can be technically problematic if the perp merely turns down an aisle a few seconds ahead of you so that they are "not under surveillance" for those 3 or 4 seconds. Strict adherence to the "continuous surveillance" rule means he gets to walk away with the $10,000 Rolex, right? Hardly.

I’ve talked with some people who strictly follow the continuous surveillance rule, but that can be very difficult. When I worked in L.P. several years ago, the fitting rooms were a big problem for loss. We would count the garments the suspect had prior to entering the fitting room and then count the number when they exited. A store detective would be “shopping” by the fitting rooms, check them after the suspect left, and report back to the camera room. So, continuous surveillance in the visual sense was not maintained. Our focus was to get the merchandise back.

Here in Washington State, the Revised Code of Washington (9A.16.080) states that merchants can detain a shoplifter if they believe the person was, “Committing or attempting to commit theft or shoplifting on such premises of such merchandise.” This is not nearly as stringent as the aforementioned 5/6 step procedure, but it does offer some criminal immunity to the merchant. There is also some civil immunity under R.C.W. 4.24.220 if the stop was done in good faith.

[SecTrainer]

I’ve talked with some people who strictly follow the continuous surveillance rule, but that can be very difficult. When I worked in L.P. several years ago, the fitting rooms were a big problem for loss. We would count the garments the suspect had prior to entering the fitting room and then count the number when they exited. A store detective would be “shopping” by the fitting rooms, check them after the suspect left, and report back to the camera room. So, continuous surveillance in the visual sense was not maintained. Our focus was to get the merchandise back.

Here in Washington State, the Revised Code of Washington (9A.16.080) states that merchants can detain a shoplifter if they believe the person was, “Committing or attempting to commit theft or shoplifting on such premises of such merchandise.” This is not nearly as stringent as the aforementioned 5/6 step procedure, but it does offer some criminal immunity to the merchant. There is also some civil immunity under R.C.W. 4.24.220 if the stop was done in good faith.

Immunity has been extended to merchants in more and more states in recent years, just like immunity for providing a "good faith" reference on a former employee.

Society is learning that merchants don't hire LP professionals like you because they were sitting around one day and decided they just had too much money and didn't know what to do with it. Shoplifting and internal theft are not only very serious problems in society in terms of the absolute $billions in losses, but if ignored (especially internal theft) they create an environment that encourages other crimes in the workplace. LP is a tough job, and I admire people like you who do it.

[Investigation]

Immunity has been extended to merchants in more and more states in recent years, just like immunity for providing a "good faith" reference on a former employee.

Society is learning that merchants don't hire LP professionals like you because they were sitting around one day and decided they just had too much money and didn't know what to do with it. Shoplifting and internal theft are not only very serious problems in society in terms of the absolute $billions in losses, but if ignored (especially internal theft) they create an environment that encourages other crimes in the workplace. LP is a tough job, and I admire people like you who do it.

That is a difficult, but interesting, job. I have not done that work in almost 10 years, but I’m glad I had the opportunity to work there. After working in L.E., and also participating in the Street Survival seminar by Caliber Press, I look back and realize how dangerous working in L.P. is. I would have to be really down on my luck to go back to that facet of the industry.

[AgentSC911]

elements

approach
select
conceal
continuous surveillance
exit store
obtaining merchandise from exact location it is concealed, rather than doing a pat down search to locate the specific location.


where would one obtain a Federal LP job?

[SecTrainer]

obtaining merchandise from exact location it is concealed, rather than doing a pat down search to locate the specific location.

Lose this one. It's not a requirement.