TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:http://latest.com/2014/04/store-owner-s ... Outbrain_Q

Store owner must have read this thread.

Bad idea to take legal advice from an interweb forum, huh? I think that storekeeper overstepped his privilege and is in deep doo if the article is accurate.

I've seen this thread and have tried hard to ignore it. However, I'll share my personal experience for what its worth.

In the early 70's when I was about 9 or so, my mom took me to the 8th St. Army Surplus store in Odessa, TX where she purchased a woven military belt and a military canteen that hangs from the belt.

She had more shopping to do and we then went to Gibson's Discount Store on W. County Rd. She went and did her shopping and I went straight to the sporting goods section. I spent some time looking around there and found some of the same type of old military belts and canteens. To my delight, they also had the long black machete with the sheath that was design to fit on the belt. Once confirming the sheath fit the belt she just purchased for me at the army surplus store across town and that I was proudly wearing, I promptly took the machete and sheath and tracked my mom down in the store to ask her to purchase it for me. She agreed.

About half way between the register and door, a man came up and grabbed me by my arm and asked if I had forgotten to pay for something. Scared to death I said no sir. He responded that he thinks I did. My mom asked what was going on. The man told her we had to go with him. He then turned wallking while pulling me along. My mom immediately began to protest and demand an explanation. He took us to a small office with a tabke and three or four chairs and told us we had to stay in there until the police arrived. He and the manager then stepped out leaving me and my mom in there. She checked the door and it was unlocked. I was crying. She consoled me and told me let's go. When she tried the door again, it was locked. After so.e time, seemed like hours, a police office entered the room along with the manager and loss control thug. The police officer began asking me questions. I still did not realize what they thought I had stolen. Finally, my mom clued in that they thought I had stolen the belt. She then went off on them like I had never seen before. After a serious tongue lashing she whipped out the receipt from the 8th Street Army store and showed them where she had paid for the belt.

The officer turned to the loss control thug, a man of Mexican heritage that was now as white as a sheet, and asked him if he had actually seen me put the belt on in the store. The loss control thug said he did not but said he saw me leave the sporting goods section with it on and followed me until he approached me near the door. The officer then asked him if I had actually left the store with it before he approached me. He said he did not.

The officer then turned to the manager and loss control thug and scolded them sternly for their poor handling of the situation. He then told the manager and loss control thug in no uncertain terms, you guys screwed up and are in deep stuff (not his exact word). The manager apologized profusely and the officer advised us we are free to go.

We thought that was the end of it. However, several months of nightmares about me having to go to prison for stealing and my refusal to go back into that store, my mom consulted an attorney she knew. We sued them. Gibson's put up a bit of a fight. It went to a bench trial that took all of an hour or so. The judge asked me what happened. The defendant didn't cross examine me. The judge asked my mom if what I said is what happened. She confirmed it was. The judge confirmed we were suing for $2500. He then turned to the defendant and told them he finds for the plaintiff and ordered them to pay the $2500 and provide me with a formal apology in front of the court with a follow up written apology.

The attorney took $500 of the $2500 and my mom opened an bank account for me with the remainder. Some of the money went to a counselor I saw a few times and the rest got frittered away.

There are the facts of an actual case of what is being argues over here. This was a long time ago and I'm sure things have changed. Arguing over hypotheticals can be fun. However, there are so many individual details in any particular scenario, you won't get it right for all scenarios.

Shopkeepers have certain legal rights. However they do not have carte blanc to do whatever they want however they want. They also need to be sure they are right before accusing someone of shoplifting or detaining them.



Edit: Sorry so long. I was typing on my phone and was trying to be as specific as possible.

suthdj wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Here's some info with cites to case references. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry that is wiki not law, on detaining, nothing about searching. Nice read just the same.

edit
sorry found this "The shopkeeper's privilege does not include the power of search.[8]" But still not legal code.

I didn't post it as law nor did I say it it addressed anything in particular. I noted it referred to cases which establish and affects law. I thought it may give some of those arguing something on which to base their arguments rather than just opinion and what they think the law should be.

I do appreciate you pointing out that I posted something from Wikipedia. I wouldn't have known otherwise.

Here's some info with cites to case references. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;