Mall security and right to physically detain you

[EEllis]

Still don't see what the big deal is,if detained and your innocent it will soon come to light

The initial issue is specifically can they attempt to search you and take your weapon if you are a CHL.

Like there is some exemption because you are a CHL? Now as soon as they take your gun they assume a huge liability but under the right circumstances....

[Cedar Park Dad]

If I caught you shoplifting. You tried to flee than fought. If I won you would end up cuffed. Your gun would be removed. You would be arrested for theft and assault charges. You may face extra charges for doing so armed. And in Texas assault on a uniformed Security Officer, if the is who stops you, gets bumped up one degree from a class A misdemeanor to a felony charge. Oh and I did post some backing for the search thing my last post.

And what if they don't flee or fight, but demand an actual LEO be called? Again I'm approaching this from the point of view of your average old fart who has done nothing wrong, but is concerned about the firearm issue, and being searched in general by a non-LEO.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Still don't see what the big deal is,if detained and your innocent it will soon come to light

The initial issue is specifically can they attempt to search you and take your weapon if you are a CHL.

Like there is some exemption because you are a CHL? Now as soon as they take your gun they assume a huge liability but under the right circumstances....

No no no.
This is a CHL board. The question arose as to the issue related to having a CC and an event occurs. I wanted to know what the right method of handling this would be. Frannkly other than you indeed making it sound like the local stop and rob has the power of Spetznatz you've not been helpful (other than making me want to go into a brick and mortar place even less than I do now).

So far I've only gotten what I came with - aka : demand an LEO be called.

So again, whats the best plan of action here?

[EEllis]

If I caught you shoplifting. You tried to flee than fought. If I won you would end up cuffed. Your gun would be removed. You would be arrested for theft and assault charges. You may face extra charges for doing so armed. And in Texas assault on a uniformed Security Officer, if the is who stops you, gets bumped up one degree from a class A misdemeanor to a felony charge. Oh and I did post some backing for the search thing my last post.

And what if they don't flee or fight, but demand an actual LEO be called?

I doubt there is a lot of case law about CHLs and shoplifting. Generally speaking absent violence there should never be any cuffing. Technically the merchant doesn't have to wait for police to investigate but I have trouble seeing any circumstance where they would rather fight and disarm someone rather they just call the cops when someone is willing to stay there till the cops come. If they don't want to wait then theoretically they may be work it so they end up disarming you but then they are betting they can explain it to a court so the court thinks it's a good idea. Such a thing is possible but likely?
Who knows. There isn't any hard and fast rules just decisions that courts have made over the years. Different courts can make different calls as to what is reasonable. I don't think any of these possibilities are likely but I would hate for someone to make decisions based on bad info.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I doubt there is a lot of case law about CHLs and shoplifting. Generally speaking absent violence there should never be any cuffing. Technically the merchant doesn't have to wait for police to investigate but I have trouble seeing any circumstance where they would rather fight and disarm someone rather they just call the cops when someone is willing to stay there till the cops come.

OK thats helpful.

[EEllis]

No no no.
This is a CHL board. The question arose as to the issue related to having a CC and an event occurs. I wanted to know what the right method of handling this would be. Frannkly other than you indeed making it sound like the local stop and rob has the power of Spetznatz you've not been helpful (other than making me want to go into a brick and mortar place even less than I do now).

So far I've only gotten what I came with - aka : demand an LEO be called.

So again, whats the best plan of action here?

I wasn't trying to be helpful I was trying to talk about the law. And thats absurd the problem is people aren't really reading what I writing. If someone is stealing from me I can stop them. What is Spetsnaz about that? If they fight while I'm doing that then I can use force. If I end up cuffing then, or otherwise restraining them I would be crazy not to remove weapons that I know about. All those things are basic common law rights. That is all we are discussing.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If I end up cuffing then, or otherwise restraining them I would be crazy not to remove weapons that I know about. All those things are basic common law rights. That is all we are discussing.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

[Javier730]

If I was stopped verbally because they suspected me of shoplifting, I would stay right where I was at and have them call the police or call them myself. If they chose to get physical for some reason, I would resist. I would resist with what ever force necessary to get them to stop. If they came up to me without accusing me and went straight to using force, I would do my best to create some space and draw. I will not let someone come up to me without letting me explain myself and try some hold or takedown the learned on Youtube only to get my skull cracked open on the floor.

[Glockster]

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.

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?

Yes again please show the criminal statute where a non LEO can search you.

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!

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.

That simply isn't backed up by law.

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.).

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:
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.

[ScottDLS]

However, I don't see the examples of the level of force that may be applied by the shopkeeper to "detain" me, particularly if I am not committing the as crime. There is even a justification in 9.31 for using force to resist an "arrest" by a Peace Officer, if more force than necessary was used.

The shopkeeper's privilege to is not lawful authority to arrest someone, so I don't see where I lose any of my justifications for forcible resistance if they assault me in effecting the detention. And they are going to have to assault me in order to prevent me from just walking to my car...in the Sam's example. Seems they ought to just call the police and (falsely) report my theft and let the real cops sort it out.

If their actions are legal you have no justification for the use of force. If your actions just end up being suspicious enough then they can detain you and your innocence does not allow you protection for any assaults you commit. The merchant does have legal protection for use of force as long as their actions are "reasonable". I don't get how that is complicated. I do understand you don't like the idea but that is the law. Nothing we are talking about here will change that. And again you committing the crime has no effect on the "shop keepers privilege". The merchant just needs their actions and beliefs to be "reasonable" to detain you. They get to use "reasonable" force. What is reasonable? Well it's what a court says it is and it can be different in almost any court. I will say that there is even a Texas case where a guy died as a result of being grabbed and held by a merchant and the actions were ruled as reasonable under Texas law so ......

If you fight LP or store employees when they attempt to detain you, then you are betting that their actions will be found as unreasonable. Otherwise you can be held, charged, found guilty, of assault even if you never took anything. Now if the cops, a court, etc, don't think it's reasonable then your fine.

Really? Where does it say in law that a LPO can assault me to effect a "detention" and I lose my justification for resistance up to and including "force". Shopkeepers civil privilege.....?? Law says I can even resist an arrest (by a real LEO) if more force is require used than necessary. Reasonable....? I think its not reasonable when I didn't steal anything.

Anyway, how many angels can dance on a pin (point)? Perhaps His Holiness Francis can tell us.

[EEllis]

Really? Where does it say in law that a LPO can assault me to effect a "detention" and I lose my justification for resistance up to and including "force". Shopkeepers civil privilege.....?? Law says I can even resist an arrest (by a real LEO) if more force is require used than necessary. Reasonable....? I think its not reasonable when I didn't steal anything.

One it's not assault if it's within the law. Two I don't get the whole "but if it's unnecessary" thing. I am saying that within the law a merchant can stop you. Like a police officer can stop or arrest you and you start talking about if a cop assaults you? What does one thing have to do with the other? I'm talking about what a store legally can do under very narrow circumstances and you go off and bring in situations that are not those circumstances to say I'm wrong? No I'm not, you guys just don't want to bother understanding what is being discussed. Look if you steal people can use force to stop you. Why you think a store can't goes into the realm of the bizarre as far as I'm concerned. The "shopkeepers privilege" law actually codifies that common law right. In addition courts in Texas have said that a merchant's right to stop someone is not based on the guilt of the person but the reasonability of the detention. Kind of like when a cop arrests you it doesn't matter if you're guilty but if they have PC. It can be reasonable to stop you even if you didn't steal anything and it has been repeated numerous times in this thread.

[KD5NRH]

I doubt there is a lot of case law about CHLs and shoplifting. Generally speaking absent violence there should never be any cuffing.

This. I've been detained plenty of times, and when working security, detained quite a few myself. The only time I was cuffed was when I matched the description of an armed robber in an incident about 15 minutes before and 6-8 blocks away from where I was stopped. The only one I cuffed was a violent drunk. It's not necessary to cuff, or even touch someone in a shoplifting situation unless their actions after the fact make it preferable to the liability nightmare they can create for you; if the guy does a belly flop after you put him in cuffs, guess who's going to be getting the bill for his injuries, especially when you can't show there was a pressing need to physically restrain him in the first place.