Mall security and right to physically detain you

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

[E.Marquez]

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."

[Cedar Park Dad]

thanks. thats my only real concern.

[E.Marquez]

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.

[EEllis]

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.

Also please note that the "Search" I was talking about is a terry search which is not the same thing as what one would generally think about when you hear the term "Search". A terry search in this context would just be a non invasive search for weapons and limited to just that purpose. But............... I did some research and found a appeals case that would seemingly apply. . http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/sixth ... /8498.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Andrew Bleckley v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 188th District Court of Gregg County

As part of that ruling the court states

In Jenschke, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, "when a person who is not an officer . . . takes property that is evidence of crime, without the effective consent of the owner and with intent to turn over the property to an officer, the conduct may be non-criminal even though the person has intent to deprive the owner [of that property.]" 147 S.W.3d at 402.

Now that references a case where people broke into a car to find evidence of rape. That evidence was disallowed because the parties held the evidence for several years before giving it to the police. So it could not said that the intent to burglarize the vehicle had the requisite intent to immediately turn over the evidence.

And as to the original question of if someone could stop you for not showing a receipt. I think it's been clearly established that there needs to be some level of reasonable suspicion that a theft has occurred. The question being what constitutes a reasonable level. I found a case http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.c ... epers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; where it was held reasonable to stop someone when they walked out of a store with a plain bag and the security alarm went off.

[mojo84]

Here's some info with cites to case references. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry that is wiki not law, on detaining, nothing about searching. Nice read just the same.

edit
sorry found this "The shopkeeper's privilege does not include the power of search.[8]" But still not legal code.

I didn't post it as law nor did I say it it addressed anything in particular. I noted it referred to cases which establish and affects law. I thought it may give some of those arguing something on which to base their arguments rather than just opinion and what they think the law should be.

I do appreciate you pointing out that I posted something from Wikipedia. I wouldn't have known otherwise.

[wheelgunner]

Paul Blart can make a Terry stop?

[EEllis]

Paul Blart can make a Terry stop?

Was there anywhere that Terry stop was used in this thread? I have used terry search as a descriptive phase to signify a non evasive search for weapons in a situation where someone is being detained. No since Terry stop and Terry Search are both terms that are specific to law enforcement by definition a terry search isn't actually occurring in the situation I describe but I use the phase to try and give the closest example that I believe the majority of the people would understand.

[RogueUSMC]

soooo, you are using something we DO understand to explain something that you believe we DON'T understand but then you have to explain to us how the thing we DO understand that you are using as an example isn't really the same as the thing that we DON'T understand...got it...I think...

[EEllis]

soooo, you are using something we DO understand to explain something that you believe we DON'T understand but then you have to explain to us how the thing we DO understand that you are using as an example isn't really the same as the thing that we DON'T understand...got it...I think...

Was there a point to anything you just said or was it entirely meant to poke fun at me? Is this somehow meant to encourage discussion? Because all it means to me is if someone post stuff people don't like they will get harassed and insulted. I've not been insulting, dismissive, or abusive in any of my post so why do you think you should be able to insult me?

[rbwhatever1]

Terry Stop fail... Never give up!

[RogueUSMC]

soooo, you are using something we DO understand to explain something that you believe we DON'T understand but then you have to explain to us how the thing we DO understand that you are using as an example isn't really the same as the thing that we DON'T understand...got it...I think...

Was there a point to anything you just said or was it entirely meant to poke fun at me? Is this somehow meant to encourage discussion? Because all it means to me is if someone post stuff people don't like they will get harassed and insulted. I've not been insulting, dismissive, or abusive in any of my post so why do you think you should be able to insult me?

No but it gets confusing when ya try to explain it. Someone asked "so a store employee can do a Terry search" and you responded "Why not?"...then later explained how it wouldn't be a Terry search. Then you compared walmart;s right to ask for a receipt to that of whether I can stop a guy from carrying my TV out of my house. Gotta admit that it's kinda muddying things. Pick a lane.

I really don't have anything against you, I really don't but it's kinda hard to debate your points when you points keep changing...and I love a good debate...lol

[RogueUSMC]

and I thought about not responding but my post count was at a bad number...lol

[EEllis]

No but it gets confusing when ya try to explain it. Someone asked "so a store employee can do a Terry search" and you responded "Why not?"...then later explained how it wouldn't be a Terry search. Then you compared walmart;s right to ask for a receipt to that of whether I can stop a guy from carrying my TV out of my house. Gotta admit that it's kinda muddying things. Pick a lane.

I really don't have anything against you, I really don't but it's kinda hard to debate your points when you points keep changing...and I love a good debate...lol

It wasn't a lecture I was responding to questions. I have not been comparing everything to everything. Some things are part of one issue but when other issues where brought up I also responded. Different questions get different explanations. Like the Terry search thing. Those who know what that means should understand what the search would entail by that mention but if one were to be picky only when a police officer does it would it be truly considered a terry anything and I mentioned it because I felt if I didn't someone would jump out and with a big "I GOT YOU!" explain how only police officers could do terry stops or searches so I obviously didn't know squat. And wal mart's ability not to ask for a receipt but to stop and hold someone who was stealing.

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.

Was what you said and I responded with

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?

I posted about the fact that merchants can stop people they think are stealing and it's with the same legal principles that allows anyone to stop someone who is stealing their belongings. I thought that the example I gave was a reasonable example that might help explain things because people seemed to have some issue with what seems to be a reasonable clear legal principal. You didn't mention anyone asking for receipts so why did you think my response should have anything to do with them?

[hillfighter]

Would it be legal to record using your cell phone the discussion you are having with the Guard or Loss Prevention people. This might come in handy for any on-going investigation/accusation.

If you're in a public place I don't think they have an expectation of privacy. I think it might be a good idea but I'm sure somebody will say you're provoking the LP and escalating the situation. Like the OC guys who use video to keep people honest.