TexasCHLforum.com

Sorry if this has been discussed but my search fu is weak. This scenario came up.

If you're at the mall (or major box retailer). You're leaving (or even just walking) when store/mall security approach you. They are not LEO's.
They make accusations and want to hold you. Can they physically detain you (aka touch your person).

I advised if you are stopped, don't go anywhere but demand a police officer be called (or better yet call one yourself). But what exactly are their rights, especially as you are carrying a firearm and I would not voluntarily give up a firearm to anyone but the wife or police for obvious reasons.

Again sorry if this has been discussed to death.

A security guard in Texas has the same powers as a civilian. In order for them to place you under a citizens arrest, a felony would have to be committed in their presence. They do not investigate and therefore do not detain, or at least shouldn't. Now if it's store loss control then they may have some different authority under the shop keeper's privilege but I've never spent any time in that arena so I'm not qualified to say.

http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.c ... epers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without copying, it does look like they can detain you under "SHOP-KEEPER'S PRIVILEGE" if they *suspect* that you might have stolen something. That is, detain you without consent and they are exempt from being charged with False Imprisonment.

The means by which they can detain you - or that any other person could detain you are detailed:
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 124.001; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 18.16

Specifically, this grants:
1) The ability for them to take the property that they suspect was stolen.
2) The ability for them to bring the person that stole it ("if that person can be taken") with the property
3) The manner of the detention must be "reasonable" and for a reasonable time

The question is what manner, if you're suspected of theft, is "reasonable"?

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

TresHuevos wrote:A security guard in Texas has the same powers as a civilian. In order for them to place you under a citizens arrest, a felony would have to be committed in their presence. They do not investigate and therefore do not detain, or at least shouldn't. Now if it's store loss control then they may have some different authority under the shop keeper's privilege but I've never spent any time in that arena so I'm not qualified to say.

Felony within presence, Breach of peace, or to stop theft. Security can stop someone if they know they are stealing something.

Don't mess with the Mall Cop...

I will defend myself if they try to use force and I don't think any jury in Texas would convict me as a woman who defended herself from strangers who assault her.

E.Marquez wrote: The way that reads... they must know you have stolen property? Yes?

I don't read it that way across the various statues. They have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have their property. IE - they can detain you based on that suspicion using reasonable means.

Saffron wrote:I will defend myself if they try to use force and I don't think any jury in Texas would convict me as a woman who defended herself from strangers who assault her.

As a woman with a gun, your self-defense capabilities are the same as a man with a gun once the gun is out. I don't think the law is different because you're a woman. A jury might disagree. If you use your handgun to defend against a reasonable attempt to detain you by someone who is obviously a security officer, you've clearly got more money than I do and much more sure of a Texas jury than I am. I'd never want to be in that position. I'll sacrifice a little bit of liberty in exchange for less legal and financial risk.

Defending yourself from "an assault" is different. I don't think that "reasonable" rises to the level of assault, so hopefully it's a non-issue.

cb1000rider wrote:

E.Marquez wrote: The way that reads... they must know you have stolen property? Yes?

I don't read it that way across the various statues. They have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have their property. IE - they can detain you based on that suspicion using reasonable means.

If you use your handgun in a reasonable attempt to detain you by someone who is obviously a security officer, you've clearly got more money than I do and much more sure of a Texas jury than I am. Defending yourself from "an assault" is different. I don't think that "reasonable" rises to the level of assault, so hopefully it's a non-issue.

My question then: does a store's employee have to meet the same standard of reasonable suspicion that a peace officer has to?

dcphoto wrote: My question then: does a store's employee have to meet the same standard of reasonable suspicion that a peace officer has to?

The "reasonable suspicion" bit is my own writing. The actual verbiage is "suspect" that a theft occurred. I'm assuming that the suspicion has to be reasonable or based on something "articulable" - that is, it can be described and isn't simply a gut instinct, but that verbiage isn't actually there. And remember what they do to detain must be "reasonable". My guess is that a lot of this is ill-defined because it'll be very circumstantial and potentially litigious. I understand why some employers don't allow loss prevention to get into physical altercations.

The alternate means of loss prevention seems to be that used by companies like Costco and Frys - everyone gets checked on the way out.

cb1000rider wrote:

dcphoto wrote: My question then: does a store's employee have to meet the same standard of reasonable suspicion that a peace officer has to?

The "reasonable suspicion" bit is my own writing. The actual verbiage is "suspect" that a theft occurred. I'm assuming that the suspicion has to be reasonable or based on something "articulable" - that is, it can be described and isn't simply a gut instinct, but that verbiage isn't actually there. And remember what they do to detain must be "reasonable". My guess is that a lot of this is ill-defined because it'll be very circumstantial and potentially litigious. I understand why some employers don't allow loss prevention to get into physical altercations.

The alternate means of loss prevention seems to be that used by companies like Costco and Frys - everyone gets checked on the way out.

In reality they tend to need more than the RS a police office would need. The big check on their activity is not criminal tho. If you get stopped and detained and it turns out you were not committing some type of theft then you are pretty much guaranteed a civil award if the business has any money. Usually you are not technically being stopped by uniformed security. A person in uniform is pretty obvious and not likely to be the one scanning for thieves. Some store employee would be the one to "Arrest" you and the SO would be "assisting" in what they believe to be a legal arrest. Pulling a gun because you were stopped walking out the door would be a massive escalation and you would almost guaranty a trip to jail regardless if you stole something.

EEllis wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

dcphoto wrote: My question then: does a store's employee have to meet the same standard of reasonable suspicion that a peace officer has to?

The "reasonable suspicion" bit is my own writing. The actual verbiage is "suspect" that a theft occurred. I'm assuming that the suspicion has to be reasonable or based on something "articulable" - that is, it can be described and isn't simply a gut instinct, but that verbiage isn't actually there. And remember what they do to detain must be "reasonable". My guess is that a lot of this is ill-defined because it'll be very circumstantial and potentially litigious. I understand why some employers don't allow loss prevention to get into physical altercations.

The alternate means of loss prevention seems to be that used by companies like Costco and Frys - everyone gets checked on the way out.

In reality they tend to need more than the RS a police office would need. The big check on their activity is not criminal tho. If you get stopped and detained and it turns out you were not committing some type of theft then you are pretty much guaranteed a civil award if the business has any money. Usually you are not technically being stopped by uniformed security. A person in uniform is pretty obvious and not likely to be the one scanning for thieves. Some store employee would be the one to "Arrest" you and the SO would be "assisting" in what they believe to be a legal arrest. Pulling a gun because you were stopped walking out the door would be a massive escalation and you would almost guaranty a trip to jail regardless if you stole something.

I don't think anybody is suggesting pulling a gun simply because you were stopped. However, if an overzealous employee got physical with me I would defend myself with whatever amount of force is necessary, and justified in the eyes of the law, to meet the threat. I say this with the certainty that I will not be shoplifting in the foreseeable future.

dcphoto wrote:

EEllis wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

dcphoto wrote: My question then: does a store's employee have to meet the same standard of reasonable suspicion that a peace officer has to?

The "reasonable suspicion" bit is my own writing. The actual verbiage is "suspect" that a theft occurred. I'm assuming that the suspicion has to be reasonable or based on something "articulable" - that is, it can be described and isn't simply a gut instinct, but that verbiage isn't actually there. And remember what they do to detain must be "reasonable". My guess is that a lot of this is ill-defined because it'll be very circumstantial and potentially litigious. I understand why some employers don't allow loss prevention to get into physical altercations.

The alternate means of loss prevention seems to be that used by companies like Costco and Frys - everyone gets checked on the way out.

In reality they tend to need more than the RS a police office would need. The big check on their activity is not criminal tho. If you get stopped and detained and it turns out you were not committing some type of theft then you are pretty much guaranteed a civil award if the business has any money. Usually you are not technically being stopped by uniformed security. A person in uniform is pretty obvious and not likely to be the one scanning for thieves. Some store employee would be the one to "Arrest" you and the SO would be "assisting" in what they believe to be a legal arrest. Pulling a gun because you were stopped walking out the door would be a massive escalation and you would almost guaranty a trip to jail regardless if you stole something.

I don't think anybody is suggesting pulling a gun simply because you were stopped. However, if an overzealous employee got physical with me I would defend myself with whatever amount of force is necessary, and justified in the eyes of the law, to meet the threat. I say this with the certainty that I will not be shoplifting in the foreseeable future.

I have a solution... lets avoid the gray areas, and shop at local places that don't have "wanna-be" cops. A security officer is not detaining me, and I will comply with their investigation, but they will not search me for property if they see a bulge on my right hip. Regardless of my credentials, I they will either let me be on my way, or I am calling the SO to come assist, and I will be requesting to speak to the store manager/owner/person in charge about the issue. I never shop a place with rent-a-cops, but I do frequent wal-marts, which have real cops at the locations I visit.

Avoid the wanna-be's, they cause the most problems IMO with a their gray area of authority.

As to your blue statement, they security would be detaining you for the police, and they would make the arrest and the investigation. When's the last time you heard of a security guard dragging a shoplifter to jail and booking them in? They would be getting arrested in most cases. The security guard would make the complaint on behalf of the property owner, and the police officer would be make the arrest after/pending/during investigation of the crime. IMO, you have the right to wait where you are for a police officer to start their investigation of the reported crime. Leaving, running, or refusing to comply with security may land you in cuffs pending investigation of the incident. IMO, there should be cops, and cops operating security functions... this psb crap is a mess IMO.

In case I didn't say it above, this is all my opinion.

In my relatively few years in retail, I have seen and "participated" in several tracking and detentions of thieves. Our "Loss Prevention" people are district level and wander from store to store looking for the obvious signs, which we are taught too. A few years ago a person, already acting a little strange, walked into my appliance department and loaded up on refrigerator water filters. Multiple filters of several different brands at close to $50.00 each.

By "acting strange" I mean that he came into the store, wearing baggy clothes not quite appropriate to the weather, grabbed a basket, walked right to the filters, did not make eye contact, made no reply to queries as to how I could help him. Without prior knowledge which, in my experience, rarely exists, nobody walks right to the filter even if that's the only thing they are there for, most of the time they don't even know which filter they need, so they ask for help or at least welcome it when it is offered.

Nobody buys more than two water filters.

Nobody buys several different brands of filter (they are not cross compatible.)

And then with his basket full of filters he made a beeline for the back of the store where he might not be observed. I gave my co-worker a signal and we started following this guy, anticipating his moves and waiting just around the corner when he turned, and asking him if he needed any help. We "followed" him right to the front of the store (it took about ten minutes) where, unable to put the filters in his clothes, he dumped the basket, ran out the door, and jumped into a waiting car which sped off.

We reported the activity to our LP person who was not in the store at the time, and he asked if we got the license plate number, whereupon I produced a little camera that I had in my pocket, with a nice flash picture of the vehicle with the two miscreants in it. I was roundly scolded for taking the picture, that's against some rule somewhere, but my co-worker and I were given an award for practicing excellent customer service.

Then there was the hispanic kid who stuffed a bunch of tools, big ones (hammers, wrenches, other stuff that size) into his sweatpants, to the extent that he clanked when he walked. LP guy was in the store and we just pointed to the kid, who he stopped at the door, and then handcuffed to wait for the police to arrive.

-----

I could go on with others.

Our LP people used to carry badges but they do not anymore, although most of them carry handcuffs. I have only seen the cuffs used a couple of times, usually when the BG is being combative or has tried to run.