LP doesnt seem to want to work with us

[FireEMSPolice]

I dont understand something. Alot of our LP's will not call us anymore to effect a ban on a shoplifter they apprehended. My mall has 6 anchor stores:

- Macy's
- Saks Fifth Avenue
- Sears
- The Great Indoors
- Von Maur
- JCPenney


I remember when I first started, Von Maur didnt want us in their store or for us to contact them. Then they got all new LP's and they would calls us all the time to ban people they caught. As of a few months, the calls stopped. Macy's calls only if one of their apprehensions has gone bad (fighting with LP's, etc). Sak's Fifth Avenue has NEVER called us (to my knowledge) since I have worked at the mall. Sears will call us sometimes. I have never been to The Great Indoors to ban someone. JCPenney calls us only if its a big apprehension.

I mean aren't we after the same goal? I do not understand what has happened and want to fix the problem. I will send someone to ban their detainee if I have someone available and nobody is tied up. Usually the LP's call after they or the police are done with them and don't want them around anymore and are ready to kick them loose. So if we do not respond fast enough, they will kick the person(s) loose and we will never effect a proper ban. That leaves the shoplifter(s) to come in to the mall and return to steal again, possibly from their own store again. All the LP's have access to our radio frequency to contact dispatch.

We have a required quarterly meeting coming up and most the LP's wont show up for sure. What can I say to try to get some cooperation? The way things are know, they are defeating the purpose.

[Curtis Baillie]

I would suggest that they may not be calling you because they do not need permission from the Mall to ban shoplifters that steal in their stores. Right or wrong retailers are only concerned about what happens in their stores, not the rest of the Mall property or the competition's stores.

I have worked in some jurisdictions where Judges have dictated that they are the only authority for 'banning' shoplifters and do so by making it part of their sentence.

[N. A. Corbier]

Curt's right. They will issue a trespass warning, if they're allowed to, from their store. I mean, lets face it. If someone has a trespass warning in the mall management's property, but enters Saks Fifth Avenue, can you touch them? They're no longer on your property, they are now on tenant property.

[st97]

Another possibility is that they have corporate policy in place specifically against interacting with mall security.

At my store we used to have complete cooperation between mall security and all the anchor store LP departments, to the point where we could(and sometimes did) literally have a shoplifter arrested by security and the other lp departments and brought back without leaving our office. Surveillance was also at it's highest point, as they would call out known shoplifters to us as they would enter our store and we would reciprocate by letting them know when gang members/taggers exited out into the mall.

Obviously this is an absolutely terrible idea from a liability standpoint and the order came down from corporate that we are too involve mall security as little as possible to minimize liability issues for both us and them. We still give them a heads up on the radio so they can capture our stops on their camera systems and we advise them of vehicle/personal descriptions of pro shoplifters/organized groups but we're not allowed to ask them to ban people from the mall/assist us anymore.

[N. A. Corbier]

That's the thing, you're involving non-agents of the owner in the owner's business, and they're not law enforcement officers who can compel you share information.

What if a mall security person is injured in an apprehension in the store while backing up the store's LP? The mall security person is not on mall property, nor are they really performing the mall's security duties.

Does the mall management company or the contract security company file a claim against the store?

If the shoplifter is injured, does the mall security personnel have qualified immunity under the shopkeeper's statutes since they are not agents of the store that was being shoplifted from?

Without concrete policies and agent of the owner status for the mall security, they are basically a good Samaritan with no immunity whatsoever.

[FireEMSPolice]

I dont want them to ask permission to ban. If they ban, they keep them out of their store. If we ban, we keep them out of the mall which in turn keeps them out of their stores among others. This way, if we work together, we can keep the shoplifter away from the entire center.

[HotelSecurity]

Security IS different than policing. Police try to repress crime. We try to have it move elsewhere. IMO

[SecTrainer]

Security IS different than policing. Police try to repress crime. We try to have it move elsewhere. IMO

A very interesting and succinct expression of the difference, HS. We usually say that the police spend most of their time responding to crime (either completed or in-progress) and discovering/arresting criminals while security is about preventing crime in the first place.

Arrest and conviction, given that most crime is committed by repeat offenders, does seem to have an impact on repressing crime.

On the other hand, by "preventing crime", what we really mean (as your statement implies) is "preventing crime on THIS property". We pretend to make no impact on crime elsewhere. We probably do actually repress certain kinds of "opportunistic" types of crimes, especially those committed by "occasional" criminals, juveniles, etc., but in the case of determined criminals who make their living by their crimes, we only move them elsewhere.

So, with some exceptions, your statement is exactly correct. The police repress crime and we move it off-site.

[Chucky]

I agree with ST97. Cooperation and sharing info would be to the LPs advantage. I would even think that the LPs would want to be on the same radio freq as Mall S/Os for those times when some future NFL running back bolts out of the store and the 40 year old LP will need fast effective help to take this guy down. BTW does the LP have any authority once the punk leaves the store and enters mall jurisdiction?

[LPCap]

BTW does the LP have any authority once the punk leaves the store and enters mall jurisdiction?

Yes. LP could chase someone to the ends of the earth if they wished.

Alas, most companies have no pursuit policies and if the perp gets farther than the established boundaries (or enters a car) the LP must stop.

Most boundaries are the immediate parking lot and/or 60 feet into the mall.

[N. A. Corbier]

Just to preface it, some states limit the authority to chase.

Florida's merchant privelage statute specifically limits the authority of a shopkeeper or agent to the merchant's property line. They lose the ability to detain the second the suspect leaves the property.

A law enforcement officer may make warrantless arrest anywhere in the state off probable cause of retail theft, however.

So, unless you're hiring sworn law enforcement officers in Florida, attempting to detain someone for shoplifting on the sidewalk or in the mall proper is kidnapping and a slew of other charges.

[LPCap]

N.A.

I am not doubting what you say is true, but could you provide a statute for the above post? My company operates many stores in FL and they all use the sidewalk/parking lot/mall 60 foot boundary. I have never heard, nor seen anything that forbids LP or merchants from detaining someone off their property (besides company policy).

Also, if they just chase (IE follow and alert authorities) can they still be held liable for "detaining" someone off property since there wasn't a detention.

[N. A. Corbier]

Grabbing it now...

2007 Florida Statutes
Chapter 812.015 - Retail Theft

(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. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

Interesting. Either I'm remembering it wrong, or they've changed it. I see the part about farmers only on farmer property, but I can't find anything in 812.015 (Shoplifting Statute and Merchant Detention) saying you can't do it off property.

I did find the 812.173 statute, which states that your convience store business must have certain security devices, and if something bad happened there, you must have security or other defense mechanisms.

So, as it stands, it looks like a shopkeeper can chase off property.

[LPCap]

I saw that statute and wasn't sure if there was another.

Not that chasing people off property (or in general is a good idea) but theoretically, it can be done.

One thing I am not sure about is if in FL, do LP have to maintain a state security license? I know in NY State they do.

[LPGuy]

I dont understand something. Alot of our LP's will not call us anymore to effect a ban on a shoplifter they apprehended. My mall has 6 anchor stores

When I worked LP, I was all for cooperating with other retail LP departments and the mall security department. Unfortunately, some of these retailers may have policies in place to limit their interaction with these entities. The retailer will trespass the shoplifter from their own property for sure. Stores likely fear liability issues if they call you to trespass from the whole mall, though. They fear that the shoplifter may make it an issue that they were trespassed from an entirely seperate property that wasn't affected by their actions. However, if the responding police officer calls you (or trespasses the suspect himself, if you've given them that authority) then that's pefectly acceptable.

In addition, the stores may also have policies in place that prohibit anyone other than police officers to question their suspect in fear of more liability issues. And finally, retailers are generally careful about sharing information as well, because if you act on some information they gave you and make a bad stop, someone will try to turn the liability back on the store that gave the information.

It's unfortunate that in our lawsuit-happy world that these issues even need to be addressed. Stores are just very worried about being sued.