It seems that this one goes further though in applying the Raiford precedent to what is a reasonable belief and at what point is it false imprisonment:EEllis wrote:That simply isn't backed up by law.Keith B wrote:I'm gonna step in here. A shop keeper has the right to detain you, and if you comply with the request, then that is fine. BUT, they cannot use physical force. If someone wants to walk on out, and a shop keeper physically places their hands on the person, then the customer would have very heavy grounds for an assault charge. The only way the store personnel might get away with a physical detention is if the suspect actually did steal an item and the prosecutor refuses to pursue charges against the shopkeeper or personnel. Even then, the person probably would be able to win a civil suit against the store.EEllis wrote:What cause of action do you think you will have against them if they do search you? They are allowed to search for stolen items, that's the investigation part, but a weapons check would be different. Honestly tho all references I've made to searching were the equivalent to a Terry Search, which is a quick check for weapons only, after someone has been forcibly detained and cuffed. You're not arguing with the handcuffing part of it but a quick pat of your pockets after they cuffed you is crossing the line? What logic is that? What cause of action do you think you could purse if they did? Is there any court anywhere going to say ok to cuffing but must leave suspects gun in his holster? Reality check here!Cedar Park Dad wrote:Yes again please show the criminal statute where a non LEO can search you.EEllis wrote:You would be sitting in cuffs and you think objecting to a pat down matters? The seizure of your person is much bigger that any issue with a search. They can lawfully do one and you think somehow the other would be off limits?ralewis wrote:
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.
A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.
privilege to investigate theft . tex. civ. prac. & rem. code § 124.001 (2009)
There is no privilege if a merchant were prohibited from any use of force. That would mean they couldn't put up an arm to prevent someone from leaving thus it requires the merchant to be able to use reasonable force.
Not to mention that one can always use force to prevent theft so.............
Oh and by the way separate from this issue. Those that wanted legal precedent for searches, well here you go.
when a store employee has probable cause to arrest a person for shoplifting, the employee may do so and make a “contemporaneous search” of the person and the objects within that person's control. See Raiford v. The May Dep't Stores Co., 2 S.W.3d 527, 531 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
Court of Appeals of Texas,Corpus Christi.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellant, v. Karl W. COCKRELL, Appellee.
No. 13-00-145-CV.
Decided: November 29, 2001
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of- ... 37571.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From what I read, Walmart was found to have lacked reasonable cause, and then did false imprison.