Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    locknid - After losing two jury cases in a row in Arizona I changed my companies policy & procedure manual to read that apprehensions were to be made after the suspect left the store. It may be the law, but juries clearly do not support it.
    Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
    Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

    Contributor to Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by locknid View Post
      here in AZ I can detain the subject as soon as they conceal the item, even if they havn't exited the store or passed any points of purchase. This isn't the smartest thing though as it can be easily defeated in court and local LEOs usually will not cite or transport the subject to jail. usually I will only do this if I am just going to end up trespassing the subject. I will detain the subject usually while still far away from the door, retrieve the items, and have pd come out to formally trespass the subject. I will usually only do this if the person is a chronic shoplifter at the location or there is a large possibility they will resist if close to the exit or outside the store. Usually I will see the person conceal items, watch the person while positioning myself close to the exit, lock the exit doors(convience store and only if very few people in the store), and then when they make no attempt to pay I will block their exit and make the detention. That way they do not exit the store which is good because where I work people will resist most of the time if outside the store, they get a sense of freedom and go for it. Also once PD arrives and I inform them they made no attempt to pay and tried to exit and that usually makes them happy. Here in AZ though the law states that once they conceal they have the intention and mental culpability of what they are doing. Still courts are a biatch.
      What would happen if things go wrong and customers are trapped in the store because you have locked the doors?
      Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
      Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

      Contributor to Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Security Consultant View Post
        What would happen if things go wrong and customers are trapped in the store because you have locked the doors?
        That was my thought. Guy pulls a gun starts shooting, he's got a gallery of people. Not to mention Fire codes! Also our you armed? As much as I prefer to catch bad guys, if I'm unarmed I'm gonna make sure if a guy pulls on me and tells me he's leaving, that he has a way to do it!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Security Consultant View Post
          What would happen if things go wrong and customers are trapped in the store because you have locked the doors?
          Curtis, that should be the aim of this drill. In everything we do, we must consider the end! What is it we intend to accomplish? Will the intended cure be worse than the problem at hand?
          Enjoy the day,
          Bill

          Comment


          • #50
            One must be very careful locking doors with customers inside. Fire code violations, holding people (who are not suspects of a crime) against their will (by feeling or act or omission of act), etc...

            Bad mojo all around.
            Some Kind of Commando Leader

            "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

            Comment


            • #51
              In Washington State, we can also apprehend a subject inside the store once they have concealed merchandise. However, to make the case as airtight as possible, we would generally wait until they exited. However, we'd make a couple of exceptions--sometimes we'd make stops right away on things such as jewelry, since it is so small and easy to dump. And if they decided to enter a restroom or some "off limits" area then we'd make the apprehension before they got inside.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
                In Washington State, we can also apprehend a subject inside the store once they have concealed merchandise. However, to make the case as airtight as possible, we would generally wait until they exited. However, we'd make a couple of exceptions--sometimes we'd make stops right away on things such as jewelry, since it is so small and easy to dump. And if they decided to enter a restroom or some "off limits" area then we'd make the apprehension before they got inside.
                I am pretty certain that you can stop someone for shoplifting inside the store in any state. I have never heard of any law that requires exiting the building to be a requirement of theft. Some laws spell it out and consider concealment prima facie evidence of the crime, but you could still make stops in the store in every state.

                However, I would never recommend doing so (except in the rarest of cases). The concept of leaving the store, as you implied, is there to ensure you have a rock solid case. If you stop the person in the store it leaves room to create reasonable doubt as to whether the intent was to steal or not. Juries have much more room for interpretation. However, once they leave the store, it becomes much harder to say they intended to pay for the merchandise.

                Always keep in mind, what the law allows, and what is actually in the best interest of the company are not always the same thing.
                www.plsolutions.net
                www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                Comment


                • #53
                  This really depends on if the body of case law indicates that the offender must be given "every opportunity to pay for their items," and if they have "exhausted all opportunity to pay for said items."

                  I know, in Florida, that it bounces between concealment being prima facie evidence of intent, and that it fails to meet the criteria for petit theft.

                  If you stop someone under FSS 812's merchant privilege rule, and it does not codify that concealment is prima facie evidence of retail theft, then the affirmative defense is always, "I pocketed it to carry it to the front, as I did not have a cart/whatever."

                  Since there is an affirmative defense at the time of detention, that makes the detention unlawful.
                  Some Kind of Commando Leader

                  "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Security Consultant View Post
                    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.
                    As far fetched of a concept as this is for many to grasp, courts generally set the standards by which shoplifting is to be handled and many require that the LP know exactly where the merchandise is rather than doing a pat down search... this goes with the requirment of continuous surveillance of the suspect... if you kept this step, then you should not have to do a pat down search.

                    No, Sec Trainer was not interested in an answer... just another attempt to criticize everything I say... You haven't figured this out yet Security Consultant?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
                      I am pretty certain that you can stop someone for shoplifting inside the store in any state. I have never heard of any law that requires exiting the building to be a requirement of theft. Some laws spell it out and consider concealment prima facie evidence of the crime, but you could still make stops in the store in every state.
                      While I do not know all the laws for every state, my many years in LP showed me that courts require the suspect to exit the store in order to establish "criminal intent." Statutory laws generally only require the suspect to conceal the item and pass one POS without making an effort to pay for the item in order to be deemed as stealing whatever they have. However, case laws supercede statutory law in this manner because statutory laws fail to address the criminal intent element the way the courts want them to...also known as "legislating from the bench."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
                        This really depends on if the body of case law indicates that the offender must be given "every opportunity to pay for their items," and if they have "exhausted all opportunity to pay for said items."

                        I know, in Florida, that it bounces between concealment being prima facie evidence of intent, and that it fails to meet the criteria for petit theft.

                        If you stop someone under FSS 812's merchant privilege rule, and it does not codify that concealment is prima facie evidence of retail theft, then the affirmative defense is always, "I pocketed it to carry it to the front, as I did not have a cart/whatever."

                        Since there is an affirmative defense at the time of detention, that makes the detention unlawful.
                        Show me one statute that states "the offender must be given every opportunity to pay". I will guarantee you will not find this in any law, in any state, regarding theft or shoplifting. There is no law anywhere that requires this as an element to commit shoplifting.

                        Also, an affirmative defense is a defense to create reasonable doubt. Just because someone uses an affirmative defense it does not make the detention unlawful. I have caught people who DID shoplift and tried to use an affirmative defense to explain that they were not really trying to steal the merchandise, even after they had left the store with the merchandise. They were convicted and the detention was not unlawful.

                        Keep in mind, I am saying that it is NOT a good idea to stop people in the store for shoplifting. Every company that I am aware of requires exiting the store, and that is how it should be because it limits mistakes. I do not support in store apprehensions. But, based upon statutory law, a theft has been committed once there is an overt act to deprive the rightful owner of the item. In most shoplifting cases, an overt act occurs long before exiting the store. The entire reason this is important is because so many LP agents who gain limited understanding of the law think that they can stop someone in the store if they have a "concealment law" on the books in their state, but they have to wait until exit if they don't have the "concealment law". I am just saying that in all states, the law would allow for a stop in the store, but that does not make it the right decision. Company policy is what the LP agent has to worry about. They should understand the laws, but they need to follow company policy first and foremost.
                        www.plsolutions.net
                        www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Christopherstjo View Post
                          this goes with the requirment of continuous surveillance of the suspect... if you kept this step, then you should not have to do a pat down search.
                          You should always be doing a full pat-down search anyways, regardless if you know where the merchandise is or not, or even if you've already located it. A pat-down search should still be conducted for weapons. In addition, you may just find contraband or more stolen merchandise as well.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
                            You should always be doing a full pat-down search anyways, regardless if you know where the merchandise is or not, or even if you've already located it. A pat-down search should still be conducted for weapons. In addition, you may just find contraband or more stolen merchandise as well.
                            Personally, I agree that every shoplift suspect should be patted down for weapons, even though I support a hands off policy for making apprehensions. I find it ironic that many companies look at it the opposite. They allow hands on for making apprehensions, allow their agents to use handcuffs, and then prohibit pat down searches. It makes no sense to me at all.
                            www.plsolutions.net
                            www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
                              Personally, I agree that every shoplift suspect should be patted down for weapons, even though I support a hands off policy for making apprehensions. I find it ironic that many companies look at it the opposite. They allow hands on for making apprehensions, allow their agents to use handcuffs, and then prohibit pat down searches. It makes no sense to me at all.
                              There's no way I'm going to sit in an enclosed room with a known criminal, handcuffed or not, who has not been searched for weapons.

                              My own safety and the safety of fellow officers is exponentially more important to me than a company's cowardly fear of a potential lawsuit that may arise from a criminal who complains about being patted down.

                              Don't get me started on so-called "hands off" policies...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                upsetting forum on myspace

                                I found this forum topic on a myspace group very disappointing. Many of the posters including Op talk of ignoring elements (steps) and even putting false or misleading info on reports. many of the persons boast of this and even name their stores! Its fools like these that give the rest of us bad names. Here is link to that topic

                                http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...3D580B29401296

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X