Mall security and right to physically detain you

[CleverNickname]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

[anygunanywhere]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

Or put you in handcuffs?

[jmra]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

Good luck. I've tried numerous times to get an answer to that question preferably with a link. No takers.

[EEllis]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

What keeps them from doing one?

[EEllis]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

Good luck. I've tried numerous times to get an answer to that question preferably with a link. No takers.

Why would I need a link? Laws stop you from doing things but rarely give permission.

[RogueUSMC]

I have been kinda watching this discussion from the sidelines...but...

Are you saying that Joe Schmukatelli at the Walmart has authority to put his hands on me?

[EEllis]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

Or put you in handcuffs?

Really? Shopkeeper privilege allows them to detain for investigation but anyone can perform a citizen arrest if they catch someone in the process of stealing from them. Why would handcuffs be an issue?

[EEllis]

I have been kinda watching this discussion from the sidelines...but...

Are you saying that Joe Schmukatelli at the Walmart has authority to put his hands on me?

Under the right circumstances of course they do. A store owner or their employees has as much right to protect their property as you do. Don't you have the right to stop someone walking out of your home with property that belongs to you?

[RogueUSMC]

Waaaay back when I got out of the service, I worked loss prevention for a Walmart. They told us that, when we were going to call police about a shoplifter, we had to be able to articulate what the item was and where it was located. Other than that, we had to take the loss. Just checking for a receipt would not fit this bill.

I usually show a receipt but I am not going to wait in line to do so. If they call police in regards to me, they best be able to tell me what they figured I stole...and they best find it.

Just like asking to search a vehicle on a traffic stop. Their request is denied. If they press the issue, they have to be able to articulate what they expect to find. If they don't find it, they will have problems.

With reasonable suspicion, an LEO may detain me...with probable cause they may search. Joe Schmukatelli at the Walmart does not have any of this authority.

[RogueUSMC]

I have been kinda watching this discussion from the sidelines...but...

Are you saying that Joe Schmukatelli at the Walmart has authority to put his hands on me?

Under the right circumstances of course they do. A store owner or their employees has as much right to protect their property as you do. Don't you have the right to stop someone walking out of your home with property that belongs to you?

OK...now you are just muddying the water. Big difference between walking out of my house with something that came from my home and a retail establishment with merchandise on the shelf available for purchase.

You, as a policeman has to have RS to detain me...you have to have PC for a search. Show me where Joe has authority that allows them to lay hands on my person.

I don't have a problem showing a receipt, but I am NOT going to wait in line to do it.

[anygunanywhere]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

Or put you in handcuffs?

Really? Shopkeeper privilege allows them to detain for investigation but anyone can perform a citizen arrest if they catch someone in the process of stealing from them. Why would handcuffs be an issue?

How many times on this forum have we openly stated that our CHL is not a Batman license? Now just because a person has a tax number and a LLC and sells trinkets they should handcuff people they suspect of stealing? Really? Pretty stupid if you ask me. Maybe along with their CHL badge they should get a Wyatt Earp badge and two cap gun holster too.

[EEllis]

With reasonable suspicion, an LEO may detain me...with probable cause they may search. Joe Schmukatelli at the Walmart does not have any of this authority.

Please understand what I wrote and the context of the situation. If a merchant believes someone is stealing they can detain and even use force to do so. They are allowed to detain and investigate with cause. If they can use force they can handcuff. If they can legally handcuff why would they not be able to do a quick check for weapons? They can and should do a terry search if they have had to physically detain someone and that person was violent enough that they used handcuffs. This does not mean they can stop or pat down someone randomly. This is a terry search after what is in all practicality a citizens arrest.

You, as a policeman has to have RS to detain me...you have to have PC for a search. Show me where Joe has authority that allows them to lay hands on my person.

Well I wont take the credit because someone else already posted it on like the first page of the thread.

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"?

How many times on this forum have we openly stated that our CHL is not a Batman license? Now just because a person has a tax number and a LLC and sells trinkets they should handcuff people they suspect of stealing? Really? Pretty stupid if you ask me. Maybe along with their CHL badge they should get a Wyatt Earp badge and two cap gun holster too.

I guess it depends on how sure they are of the theft. I've worked places where there was zero doubt, slam dunk, they were guilty. I see nothing wrong with stopping someone and if they fight cuffing them. Now maybe you let people steal from you without doing anything about it. Perhaps you have some secret technique when you would have no trouble keeping a struggling person quiet and in place until police arrive without using any type of restraint. But other just don't have you mindset or abilities and have to get by in other ways.

[anygunanywhere]

I guess it depends on how sure they are of the theft. I've worked places where there was zero doubt, slam dunk, they were guilty. I see nothing wrong with stopping someone and if they fight cuffing them. Now maybe you let people steal from you without doing anything about it. Perhaps you have some secret technique when you would have no trouble keeping a struggling person quiet and in place until police arrive without using any type of restraint. But other just don't have you mindset or abilities and have to get by in other ways.

Cuffed a lot of bad guys, have you?

I doubt seriously if this happens very often in store theft cases and this is not something I would do.

I think you are arguing just do do so. As I said this is a stupid argument.

[EEllis]

I guess it depends on how sure they are of the theft. I've worked places where there was zero doubt, slam dunk, they were guilty. I see nothing wrong with stopping someone and if they fight cuffing them. Now maybe you let people steal from you without doing anything about it. Perhaps you have some secret technique when you would have no trouble keeping a struggling person quiet and in place until police arrive without using any type of restraint. But other just don't have you mindset or abilities and have to get by in other ways.

Cuffed a lot of bad guys, have you?

I doubt seriously if this happens very often in store theft cases and this is not something I would do.

I think you are arguing just do do so. As I said this is a stupid argument.

I'm not sure your point. I think it's pretty silly also because, regardless of frequency, it's obviously legal so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal.

[rbwhatever1]

I wonder who really owns that stuff in Wal-Mart. China or the stockholders?

Just kidding, no response needed...