Mall security and right to physically detain you

[cb1000rider]

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.

Do you mean if they physically grabbed you by the arm to stop you from leaving? That happens. If you think that's legal justification for deadly force, your understanding is different than mine.

Personally if a store employee actually assaulted me because they thought I was shoplifting, I'm not going to shoot them. I'm going to sue them. Much better outcome on both sides. Assuming I'm not dying, why the heck would I want to be on the defense side of that incident?

[KD5NRH]

I was roundly scolded for taking the picture, that's against some rule somewhere,

Yeah, one of the things that keeps me in my current job is that I am no longer willing to work for any company that makes effectively documenting the questionable (or unquestionably nefarious) activities of their people more of an offense than the activities themselves. Had one security job that tried to can me for getting about 50 photos of damage from a truck hitting the gate, fence and retaining wall (including all the identifiers and matching damage on the truck, with measurements showing that all the damage matched up perfectly) until the client told them that those photos upped their claim payout by more than it saved them to have security, so if that was going to be a problem, they wouldn't need our company anymore.

When the security company changed the rules to make mere possession of a personal camera on client property a violation of policy, the client wrote up fairly creative $1/year time-limited leases for all camera equipment owned by security officers, so when we were on duty, our personal cameras became client equipment until the guard left the property. (Also had the nice side benefit of clarifying that they were liable for any damage or theft that happened in reasonable use for their benefit. That was comforting since I kept a nice DSLR with a 300mm zoom lens in the car to save having to follow people to get license plates.)

IIRC, one of the guards actually made the client give him his dollar each year, too

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

Yet they only acted on cases that were quite obvious, not for somebody with a bulge on their hip, eh? Also, were they licensed security guards through psb, or did they just work for the company as "loss prevention?" Just curious...

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

Do you mean if they physically grabbed you by the arm to stop you from leaving? That happens. If you think that's legal justification for deadly force, your understanding is different than mine.

Personally if a store employee actually assaulted me because they thought I was shoplifting, I'm not going to shoot them. I'm going to sue them. Much better outcome on both sides. Assuming I'm not dying, why the heck would I want to be on the defense side of that incident?

Question for you, I'm not on either side, but It just brought up something in my mind... Somebody standing at the door of (some random retailer.) wants to stop you because they think you're shoplifting. No you politely refuse, and attempt to you continue on your way, but now they feel then need to physically restrain you, and start wrestling with you. By chance they notice your gun, and try to take it from you.... hmmm, what then? It would weigh on weather or not you knew they were loss prevention, security, or some random person eh? What about those undercover security guards? (Though illegal according to 1702)

Check this add out, just spells trouble to me:
http://sanmarcos.craigslist.org/sec/4796201932.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

Someone explain to me why documenting these incidents is against policy? Don't most stores have videos up and running all the time to provide documentation of shoplifting incidents? I can understand why the policy might frown on physical apprehension, but I can't think of why recording an incident is bad.


There's a little too much "circumstantial" in the security trying to take your gun scenario. I don't know who is necessarily in the wrong there. The legislation discussed above gives defense from prosecution or civil liability assuming they had reasonable cause to think you were stealing (whatever that is). I can see how that situation gets bad very quickly.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

Thats my issue, as it came up in the context of a discussion of potentially trying to hold my wife or touch her purse.

[dcphoto]

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.

Do you mean if they physically grabbed you by the arm to stop you from leaving? That happens. If you think that's legal justification for deadly force, your understanding is different than mine.

Personally if a store employee actually assaulted me because they thought I was shoplifting, I'm not going to shoot them. I'm going to sue them. Much better outcome on both sides. Assuming I'm not dying, why the heck would I want to be on the defense side of that incident?

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote, because I specifically pointed out that deadly force is not justified for simply being stopped. I also said I would only use the force necessary and justified under law. As I'm sure you are aware, someone grabbing me is assault, and self defense is justified. I would be perfectly justified to remove their grasp by force (I'm not talking about punching or kicking, just grabbing and pulling a hand off.), and even push the person away to effect retreat.

[cb1000rider]

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote, because I specifically pointed out that deadly force is not justified for simply being stopped. I also said I would only use the force necessary and justified under law. As I'm sure you are aware, someone grabbing me is assault, and self defense is justified. I would be perfectly justified to remove their grasp by force (I'm not talking about punching or kicking, just grabbing and pulling a hand off.), and even push the person away to effect retreat.

Yea, it wasn't clear to me as you brought assault into it. I thought you were suggesting that you'd defend yourself with deadly force if assaulted by a security guard who is trying to physically prevent you from leaving. And yes, I realize that grabbing an arm can be considered a form of assault. It's an odd situation. You're justified to respond to what you might perceive to be an assault. They're justified to detain you by reasonable means, which might include grabbing you or grabbing a purse that has a weapon in it.

Potentially a jury gets to work it out in hindsight and I'd rather be not be on the defense side of that deal..

[Abraham]

For the first time ever, as I was about to exit my favorite Walmart, I was asked for my receipt.

As the request was politely asked by a little old lady, and I was in a good mood, I cheerfully obliged. She quickly scanned my purchases which obviously reconciled with my receipt, thanked me and I left the store. The entire experience was done quite efficiently and probably took no more than 20/30 seconds.

However, it irked me.

I've read on this forum people experiencing the same request at the point of exiting Walmart and have simply responded with "NO" and kept walking. These people hadn't stolen their goods and from what I recall reading felt no obligation to comply with the request. And from what I recall they were not apprehended.

That said, assuming the customer had a receipt matching the goods they bought and just before leaving the parking lot: Store employees rushed out and laid hands on them preventing their leaving the parking lot (perhaps even cuffing them) before LEO's arrival?

Are we obligated to show proof of purchase, the assumption, at least to me, is we're obviously and insultingly considered thieves and must prove we're not.

I'm not a member of Walmart with a contract that says I have to go through this rather degrading exercise.

Where as law abiding citizens do we stand on this?

Not cooperate and tell them no and keep going or in doing so, expect some form of store employee altercation?

[dcphoto]

Yea, it wasn't clear to me as you brought assault into it. I thought you were suggesting that you'd defend yourself with deadly force if assaulted by a security guard who is trying to physically prevent you from leaving. And yes, I realize that grabbing an arm can be considered a form of assault. It's an odd situation. You're justified to respond to what you might perceive to be an assault. They're justified to detain you by reasonable means, which might include grabbing you or grabbing a purse that has a weapon in it.

Potentially a jury gets to work it out in hindsight and I'd rather be not be on the defense side of that deal..

This is what I was getting at. If I wasn't shoplifting, then their suspicion isn't justified, and their detention isn't either. That's what makes their action assault, rather than a legal detention. That's why I wondered what the standard for suspicion for detention is. Clearly it can't be simple suspicion without articulable evidence, but my reading of the law doesn't give a clear standard.

[cb1000rider]

Abraham,
I get that at Walmart from time to time. It's obviously some form of deterrent, but they have the more senior "greeter" types do it, I'm not sure how effective it is. I guess they don't want you wheeling out a TV.
You qualified Costco as you mentioned the membership aspect. Frys has no membership and they have the same policy. Sometimes I've waited several minutes to get out the door. We stand for it as consumers.

Why do we stand for it? We stand for it just like we stand for being stopped and questioned inland of the border. We stand for it just like we stand for wasting hours at the TSA, not to mention Billions of tax dollars.

As you mentioned, you can just walk out, but that's not the polite thing to do.


DCPhoto, The law doesn't require that you had to steal something. The law requires that they suspect you of stealing something. That could mean that they didn't put the appropriate sticker on your case of coke that's under the cart. It might mean that you dropped something into a basket in a way that looked like it went into your purse. There is a middle ground where the detention is still defendable, even though they got it wrong... Human beings do get it wrong.

[RoyGBiv]

In theory, I don't have any problem with Walmart (or any other store) wanting to check my receipt. In theory.
Theft is a real problem. It drives up the cost of goods for all of us. If receipt checking catches thieves, it's a small inconvenience.

If...

If I just finished paying for my purchases and walk directly to the exit, how is it that the receipt checker is going to do any better at preventing theft than the cashier who just physically touched everything the receipt checker is looking at? If I stole something, and got it past the cashier, the receipt checker is going to find it?

That's security theater of the highest order. IMO.

I can see the value of this at places like COSTCO. There's so much mixing of folks and goods between the registers and the doors (food area) and the fact that nothing is bagged (easy to toss in a stolen item), it really doesn't bother me that COSTCO wants to count my items and check my receipt. It does bother me to have to wait on line again to exit the store.

As for store security.... again... the store has a need to prevent theft. If I was stopped by LP, and they wanted to search or detain me, I would ask them to call the police. I would absolutely not allow anyone to search me or sequester me in a back room. But, I'm happy to stand quietly in a public place while the police are called.

Now, get off my lawn!

[cb1000rider]

In theory, I don't have any problem with Walmart (or any other store) wanting to check my receipt. In theory.
Theft is a real problem. It drives up the cost of goods for all of us. If receipt checking catches thieves, it's a small inconvenience.

Say I had something that wasn't on my receipt. If the screener catches it, is that theft? Or do they simply return you to the register?

We've got people checking receipts, but we've also got stores that do self-checkout. Seems odd to me.

My understanding is that employee-theft is actually the much bigger cause of retail loss. Might have something to do with what you pay and who you hire.

I think of a good "suspect" situation - anyone ever have one of those buzzers go off at the exit? I know I have and I didn't steal anything... That's a situation where if you keep going it could escalate quickly.

[RoyGBiv]

Say I had something that wasn't on my receipt. If the screener catches it, is that theft? Or do they simply return you to the register?

Good point...

Personally, I don't think those screeners (at Walmart) could catch a sneeze in a hayfield. It's security theater.

COSTCO probably does a better job, but still... If my receipt says 25 items and my basket is full of bulky stuff.... what's the chances they're capable of spotting item 26 buried under the rotisserie chicken? (and if you've never had a COSTCO rotisserie chicken, you're missing out )

[Cedar Park Dad]

Abraham,
I get that at Walmart from time to time. It's obviously some form of deterrent, but they have the more senior "greeter" types do it, I'm not sure how effective it is. I guess they don't want you wheeling out a TV.
You qualified Costco as you mentioned the membership aspect. Frys has no membership and they have the same policy. Sometimes I've waited several minutes to get out the door. We stand for it as consumers.

Why do we stand for it? We stand for it just like we stand for being stopped and questioned inland of the border. We stand for it just like we stand for wasting hours at the TSA, not to mention Billions of tax dollars.

As you mentioned, you can just walk out, but that's not the polite thing to do.


DCPhoto, The law doesn't require that you had to steal something. The law requires that they suspect you of stealing something. That could mean that they didn't put the appropriate sticker on your case of coke that's under the cart. It might mean that you dropped something into a basket in a way that looked like it went into your purse. There is a middle ground where the detention is still defendable, even though they got it wrong... Human beings do get it wrong.

Lets say you've been stopped by security (lets also assume you and your party are innocent).
What can they do and what can you do?
-Physically stop you?
-Physically touch you?
-Physically take you to another locations?
-Physically try to search you?

How should a CHLer properly handle this? I always thought-"no you can't search me. No I will not go anywhere, but I will stay right here. I am now calling the police and they can handle the situation." Is that wrong?

As for store security.... again... the store has a need to prevent theft. If I was stopped by LP, and they wanted to search or detain me, I would ask them to call the police. I would absolutely not allow anyone to search me or sequester me in a back room. But, I'm happy to stand quietly in a public place while the police are called.

This exactly. Is this the best method of handling the situation? What if they then put their hands on me if I refuse a search or moving to a different location (again this plainly assumes these are not LEOs)