TexasCHLforum.com

http://latest.com/2014/04/store-owner-s ... Outbrain_Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.

Do we really have to keep going over the same thing? No they can't just stop random people but they can stop you if they do so to prevent theft and their actions are "reasonable". There are some examples in the thread of what courts have found reasonable. One was a guy going into HEB with a bag unseen by security. He then left with the bag he came in with and set off the inventory control alarm. He was stopped and held while the store investigated. They found that he didn't have anything of the stores and let him go. He sued and had his case dismissed because his detention was found to be legal. You see that they stopped, held, and searched him right? Yep legal, at least in the correct circumstances.

Stopping is not searching. You do realize that right?

Nor is it disarming, assaulting or any of the other nonsense some keep dreaming up can, might, could happen to a citizen that is mistakenly stopped, and requests law enforcement be called.

Stopped yes, of course, and if stopped then Law enforcement is called (Id be the one calling), while "suspect" is "detained", LP is, will , should be satisfied at that point, job well done.
Then we have a few folks standing around glaring at each other or smiling and chatting..until LEO arrives, 90 sec later and depending on how the LP handled the situation, all walk away happy, or not.

Show me a single case where an innocent person (like one of us would be, you know the demographic group we have been talking about ) was mistakenly suspected of shop lifting, stopped by LP because they were "reasonably" sure that bulge under a shirt was store property, tackled, disarmed, searched against his will by LP, and the courts supported that under "Shop Keepers Privilege"

EEllis wrote:And just to prove it here is a link to a page listing a appeals case where a claim of false imprisonment was denied by the appeals court.
http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.c ... epers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cruz and the other HEB employees had a reasonable basis for believing that [Plaitniff] was attempting to steal store merchandise. The shopkeeper's privilege does not require that the person detaining another confirm or refute the detainee's claims regarding the merchandise, nor does it prevent the suspected shoplifter from being held for a reasonable time in order to deliver him to the police. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d at 540; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 124.001; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 18.16 (granting to any person privilege to detain person suspected of theft and deliver them to peace officer).

So go tell the appeals court how they got it wrong. Me? I'm just telling people the legal precedent not what I "think" it should be.

No place in that court decision does it support what your poorly attempting to claim.

NEXT

patterson wrote:Whats the big deal with complying with LP and showing your receipt if you are innocent or waiting for LEO to show up, I would rather do that than making a big deal out of it and pulling a weapon and or resisting and risk losing my chl

I think .. I think this is much to do about nothing,, as the hypothetical s offered here seem to be so infrequent in reality,they are almost non issues in my research.

That said.. The ONLY issue I can see for myself, is if a LP person were to insist on searching, or "forcing" me out of public view, even though i have complied with there "detainment" ie stopped leaving the store.. and said i would cooperate with police if called to investigate.
I simply will not reveal (confirm) Im carrying to a non LEO, if a LP person mistakes my gun, magazine or anything in my pockets on my person for store property.. I will politely ask them to call police (actually id be calling them myself...following the general rule first caller is the victim) I'll politely wit for police to arrive and explain why I will not let the store employee search me..If in that officers investigation they feel the need to search me, id comply no issue.... Then id be taking it up with company management.

What would i do if a LP person tried to go hands on to search before a LEO arrived or "force" me to a side room out of public site? Well i don't think it will ever happen.. if it does I'd like insist it was not going to happen, I have some learned ability at doing so in a authoritative manner that would likely prevail.

patterson wrote:Whats the big deal with complying with LP and showing your receipt if you are innocent or waiting for LEO to show up, I would rather do that than making a big deal out of it and pulling a weapon and or resisting and risk losing my chl

I think .. I think this is much to do about nothing,, as the hypothetical s offered here seem to be so infrequent in reality,they are almost non issues in my research.

That said.. The ONLY issue I can see for myself, is if a LP person were to insist on searching, or "forcing" me out of public view, even though i have complied with there "detainment" ie stopped leaving the store.. and said i would cooperate with police if called to investigate.
I simply will not reveal (confirm) Im carrying to a non LEO, if a LP person mistakes my gun, magazine or anything in my pockets on my person for store property.. I will politely ask them to call police (actually id be calling them myself...following the general rule first caller is the victim) I'll politely wit for police to arrive and explain why I will not let the store employee search me..If in that officers investigation they feel the need to search me, id comply no issue.... Then id be taking it up with company management.

What would i do if a LP person tried to go hands on to search before a LEO arrived or "force" me to a side room out of public site? Well i don't think it will ever happen.. if it does I'd like insist it was not going to happen, I have some learned ability at doing so in a authoritative manner that would likely prevail.

For three days now, I have asked every LP person I could spot, including a few I know personally .. one likes to refer to himself as "Turkey Bacon".. ie a fake cop...HIS WORDS>>not mine..lol I asked two questions...
"would you detain" the answer was no.. but they would suggest in a way that would "encourage" the suspect to stay, but NO physical force would be used,, document and report.
"Would you search" The answer was basically no.. just passively detain and wait for LEO. A few said maybe, they would ask, more likely with a minor.. One admitted, with a kid lifting say a candy bar... they would likely ask to hand it over, and likely say,, yes, that candy bar in your left jacket pocket... and then maybe reach into pocket and say,, "THIS ONE" but only if the intent was not to call the cops... like say, Mom or dad, big brother was with them when it happened and they thought they could "fix it" on the spot,, that persona was retired LEO, and said it was against store policy to do that,,, but to get a kid back on track,, he had done it.

None of this "proves" anything.. I only asked 11 LP persons... only 4 of them are known to me before asking.. The others may well have been just telling me what company policy stated, not what they do.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

suthdj wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:please cite the legal code where a non LEO merchant may legally search you.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it ... 79722.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2 lawyers give legal opinion, but not a lick of legal code, 1 lawyer is not even from Tx.

Exactly. Please cite Texas code where a nonLEO merchant may physically search you. Not detain you, not ask for some receipt, but physically search you, In Texas.

Does not exist, so will not be posted.

Failed attempts to cite statutory privilege found in Section 124.001 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code which provides that:

"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."

But it speaks only to reasonable detention, not search.

But then there is this opinion.
"Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell, 61 SW 3d 774 (Tex.App. – Corpus Christi 2001, no pet. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=4,44" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


[W]hen 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 objects within that person’s immediate control. See Raiford, 2 S.W.3d at 531; Douglas, 695 S.W.2d at 820. The contemporaneous search is limited to instances in which a search of the body is reasonably necessary to investigate ownership of property believed stolen."

Edited.. no desire to be part of what this thread turned into. MOD's I understand if you remove as it is no longer part of the "discussion"
I apologize for the inconvenience MOD's
Thanks