Nampa Walmart OC incident.

[jack]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

jack wrote:

I I have never seen/or heard ofa successful lawsuit over a shopper being detained for failure to show a receipt. I don't think you ever will see it either. It happens everyday, even to big tough patriots like some of you guys, (cough) that lack the intellect to fully understand reasonable articulable suspicion.

And, since YOU'VE never heard of it, it can't possible be true. Well, here you go:

1. Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 359 Mass, 319, 268 N.E.2s 860 (1971) where a woman told LP she suspected a man of shoplifting. The man was detained, police were called and discovered that the woman had not witnessed the shoplifting, only suspected it. The police realized that probable cause did not exist form the facts known to the store employees. In the civil suit that followed the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lesser courts' jury to award damages for false imprisonment and defamation/slander.

2. After a court held there was a 'total lack of probably cause' to detain him, Clark sued a Kroger Food Store and was awarded $83,000 and $1 million in punitive damages. Clark v. Kroger Food Stores, Inc. 587 N.E.2d 1083. Ind. App. 1992.

3. After a search disclosed no merchandise, a security guard continued accusations of theft, The defendant was awarded $75,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Caldwell v. Kmart Corp. 410 S.E.2d 21 S.C.App. 1991.

---

Granted, I'm up to homicide and assault in my Criminal Law class this semester, so you've made me skip ahead a few chapters to read. RAS doesn't cut it for shopkeepers -- it must be PROBABLE CAUSE, emphasized in People v. Bitto.

There, I've provided you with three solid and relevant case cites along with the People v. Bitto reference (that's a New York case), that reinforces that shopkeepers must have conclusive, first hand knowledge that a suspect HAS secreted an item before they can detain them.

You may now concede that you're incorrect and, just because you've never heard of something happening before, there IS a possibility that it can be true.

Keep studding and you will learn that State laws are different in very state. In North Carolina (and many other places) security guards are being given police powers ,soare some LP guys, get over it. The cases you cite are all at the State level and not binding across State lines (in some cases other than that case they are irrelevant).Have youstudied probable causeand the difference between reasonable articulable suspicion yet ?You seem to combine and mix up both in your own little version of criminal law.

 

[jack]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

jack wrote:

I believe you are correct in inferring that a large part of shrinkage may be at the hands of employees. When I worked LP, I witnessed that myself. Employee theft was prosecuted right along with shoplifting and other offenses.

With respect to LP guys tackling shoppers I never intended to imply that I condone that in most situations.

With respect to security guardshaving Full police powers in some areas.

Google : security guards given full police powers

security guards police powers

security guards traffic stops

That will give you all the "CITE" you will possibly have time to read. Like it or not security and LP can and do detain people, make arrests and win convictions. I have never seen/or heard ofa successful lawsuit over a shopper being detained for failure to show a receipt. I don't think you ever will see it either. It happens everyday, even to big tough patriots like some of you guys, (cough) that lack the intellect to fully understand reasonable articulable suspicion.

I look forward to read about you guys and your many experiences in not showing receipts as you "stand up for your liberty", LOL. :banghead:

Unfortunately most of you guys are just a bunch of blow hard talkersthat in reality actually show your receipts and ID to police when asked,so the stories won't be forth coming.

The mentality of some of you guys is amusing: " I'm a big bad gun toter and no one tells me what to do. I make my own law , even though I don't have a clue and I'm obviously poorly educated."

What an embarrassment some of you are to the open carry community. When we lose the right to open carry it will be because of the truly ignorant and confrontation loving among us ( that unfortunately open carry seems to attract). A police,security, or LPconfrontation is apparently the only thing that makes some of you guys feel like a man. It's like your big wet dream, one you actually seek out. That is truly pathetic.

And exactly which one of the approximately 270,000 websites listed in those searches should we be looking at? Which post on the thousands ofrandom blogs cites the actual "LEGAL STATUTE"?

We have supported our position with actual websites that refer to specific court cases and/or legal statutes.

Until you provide specific citations:

Just google security guards being given full police powers and take your choice. I think even a Air force guy should be able to handle that.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

jack wrote:

Keep studding and you will learn that State laws are different in very state. In North Carolina (and many other places) security guards are being given police powers ,soare some LP guys, get over it. The cases you cite are all at the State level and not binding across State lines (in some cases other than that case they are irrelevant).Have youstudied probable causeand the difference between reasonable articulable suspicion yet ?You seem to combine and mix up both in your own little version of criminal law.

You seemed to be so focused on North Carolina when this event happened in Idaho. And I gave you four different cites in four different states to illustrate a point so that even YOU could understand it... The rulings are consistent.

I've studied RAS and PC in Constitutional Law last semester and have an excellent understanding of them -- please quote where I'm mixing them up... Since you obviously have no legal training, I'll simplify it for you:

Reasonable articulable suspicion: The officer has articulable reason to believe that a person has, is or will commit a crime This was established in Terry v. Ohio in the late 60's. This allows an officer to detain a suspect for up to about two hours to further investigate the circumstances.

Probably cause: An officer who has probably cause to believe someone is guilty of committing a crime may arrest them. This is also what's required for shopkeepers.

So, once again, you're wrong and you fail to provide any cites of any kind. You can go away now.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Abraham Lincoln was known as a storyteller.

This thread reminds me of one of his stories. It goes something like this:

A fellow was traveling one dark night when a violent storm started. Lots of crashing, earsplitting thunder, interspersed with lightning. Dismayed, the man began to pray.Heasked the Lordformore light and less noise.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

jack wrote:

Wynder wrote:

jack wrote:

I have really been about as clear on this asI possibly can. Many on here just flat out don't understand reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause ,and what is allowed under each.

These terms apply to officers of the law and what is required to detain and arrest a citizen.

Having worked loss prevention in the past (for three years) I can tell you that we regularly detained people on suspicion of shoplifting, search purses, cars on several occasions (when shoplifters were followed to their car and observed placing items in their car) never once were they Innocent in any case involving myself.

Loss prevention are private citizens, not law officers -- you can attempt to 'detain' someone; however, if you're holding someone against their will without reason and, no, not showing a receipt for THEIR property is not a good reason, you will likely be slapped with a civil suit.

In three years I personally arrested well over 100 people for shoplifting and even more for illegal concealment of merchandise.

So, you were law enforcement? I thought you said you were in loss prevention? Were these citizens arrests? Or did you simply detain them until the police arrived and actually arrested them?

This really is a moot point since we're law-abiding citizens who don't shoplift, and it's indignant to be assumed as one.

This just isn't a personal liberty issue, it's common sense so grow up.

Once money has changed hands, a business transaction has taken place. The merchandise is now MINE. You may ASK to see my receipt, but outside of that, there is no LEGAL right for you to detain me unless you have reasonable suspicion (e.g. you've actually seen me conceal product). If you try to stop me, you will be facing a civil lawsuit.

This has already been argued in court (by someone who actually didn't steal anything) and charges didn't even come close to sticking.

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/

Actually you are incorrectreasonable articulable suspicion & probable cause apply to detention and arrest by private security guards and loss prevention employees. Loss prevention and security officers can and domake arrests, in fact in some areas they have been given full police powers. (In Durham,NC for example security officers can make traffic stops within 1 mile of their assigned location.) Some security guard companies and loss prevention personnel will actually transport their own arrests to the detention center and never even involve the police. They see the magistrate and pursue the charges themselves.This is getting more common in many areas (unfortunately in my view).

I'm familiar with the case you mentioned above and he was not charged with not showing a receipt or shoplifting, he was charged with disorderly conduct. The police made the arrest. The court ruled that his refusal to show a receipt was not disorderly conduct. That doesn't mean the LOSS Prevention officer couldn't have detained him for not having a receipt/ or showing it. The ruling didn't say that not showing a receipt wasn't reasonable articulable suspicion for detention of a shopper. It happens everyday and no one has ever successfully sued over it. Jc Penny litigated it successfully once when I was in loss prevention, butI don't remember the details (long time ago).

Test it out yourself. Go buy something at Best buy,Circuit Cityetc. and attempt to just carry it out without showing a receipt ,when asked. You will find it is in fact reasonable articulable suspicion to detain a shopper. Some loss prevention employees are quit aggressive and you might find yourself tackled by several LP guys and cuffed if you resist or attempt to flee. Check out ytube for some really crazy LP arrest videos. Better yet call a criminal defense attorney and ask him if Loss prevention can detain you for not having/showing a receipt. I think you will be surprised at the answer.

Some of you guys make many assumptions with respect to what a court will do in certain cases, yet have no experience as evidenced by statements that conflict with the facts and reality. Above I haveread whereseveral posters havemixed up reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause. In one case combining the two in a obvious lack of understanding of the law, yet so sure he "knows".

How is it a violation of liberty to be asked to show a receipt ? Aggravating or offending you is not a violation of your rights as some on this board seem to believe.

Did you know that some Walmarts have "shrinkage" of over a million dollars annually ? The Alexandria,Va. store thatan acquittance of mine works L.P. at was on a list of stores thatCorporate considered closing because of extremely high losses from shoplifting. That's why they put so much money & effort into loss prevention.
Understanding what they are up against and just politely showing your receipt would be what a reasonable person would do.

Interesting response. However, having a Juris Doctor degree, let me gently inform you that most of what you say is incorrect. Although I don't practice Criminal Law, I can assure you that civil "police powers" cannot be granted to any but civil authority--no rent a cop acts under color of law to any extent greater than any member of this forum can act, i.e., so called 'citizen's arrest.' If the "aggressive" employees hurt an individual later found to have not comitted any crime, they and the store will be liable for damages, and they will go to jail. If the innocent suspect decides to use force against them, they are still liable for damages and will go to jail, as he acts in self defense. If he is in imminent fear of grievous bodily injury, he will be justified in using deadly force. You attack someone at your own peril, and the courts frown on it absent probable cause. You seem to think Mall Cops are something more than minimum wage, GED holders. They are not and the lawyers for any major company will make that clear to them. "Reasonable acticulable suspicion" (sic) means nothing in a court of law when excessive violence is used against an individual who does nothing more than say he won't show a receipt. In fact, it's the first time I've ever heard that phase. 'Reasonable' means what the reasonable man would assume to be factual. If a person is pushing his cart full of Wal-mart stuff--in WALMART bags, out the door, are you tellling me the "reasonable" man would assume theft? And before any attempt to detain that shopper, they damned well better have a witness that saw him shoplift, (probable cause) not some dimwit who didn't get to see a receipt that the shopper is under absolutely no duty to produce. If you want to 'explain' the law to other people, no offense intended, but it generally is advisable to have some education in it.
PS--I should have added that anybody can make a traffic stop. Only cops can issue a ticket, however, no "security guard."

 

[Hef]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Interesting response. However, having a Juris Doctor degree, let me gently inform you that most of what you say is incorrect. Although I don't practice Criminal Law, I can assure you that civil "police powers" cannot be granted to any but civil authority--no rent a cop acts under color of law to any extent greater than any member of this forum can act, i.e., so called 'citizen's arrest.' If the "aggressive" employees hurt an individual later found to have not comitted any crime, they and the store will be liable for damages, and they will go to jail. If the innocent suspect decides to use force against them, they are still liable for damages and will go to jail, as he acts in self defense. If he is in imminent fear of grievous bodily injury, he will be justified in using deadly force. You attack someone at your own peril, and the courts frown on it absent probable cause. You seem to think Mall Cops are something more than minimum wage, GED holders. They are not and the lawyers for any major company will make that clear to them. "Reasonable acticulable suspicion" (sic) means nothing in a court of law when excessive violence is used against an individual who does nothing more than say he won't show a receipt. In fact, it's the first time I've ever heard that phase. 'Reasonable' means what the reasonable man would assume to be factual. If a person is pushing his cart full of Wal-mart stuff--in WALMART bags, out the door, are you tellling me the "reasonable" man would assume theft? And before any attempt to detain that shopper, they damned well better have a witness that saw him shoplift, (probable cause) not some dimwit who didn't get to see a receipt that the shopper is under absolutely no duty to produce. If you want to 'explain' the law to other people, no offense intended, but it generally is advisable to have some education in it.
PS--I should have added that anybody can make a traffic stop. Only cops can issue a ticket, however, no "security guard."

In South Carolina, we have statutory provisions and regulations for security guards, granting them limited police powers ("constabulary" is the term they use) under very specific conditions. Security guards in gated communities (with certain qualifications) may issue traffic citations, as well as make arrests. When making an arrest, they must notify local law enforcement immediately, and must transfer custody when they arrive on scene.

The way to identify a security guard with constabulary power in SC is the open carrying of a firearm. I'd say about 1/3 of the local security guards do, but we have dozens of gated communities in our area.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

If you refused to show the receipt and the LP detained you by physically blocking your exit or with a threat of some physicality (otherwise why would you stay), when the police arrive couldn't you simply tell the LEO that you are placing the LP under citizen's arrest for unlawful imprisonment? How would something like that play out? Would the LEO just tell you that it is a civil matter? Would the LEO have to take a report as to the citizen's arrest ? Could the LEO issue a criminal citation or take the LP into custody once you showed that you did nothing illegal?

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

If you refused to show the receipt and the LP detained you by physically blocking your exit or with a threat of some physicality (otherwise why would you stay), when the police arrive couldn't you simply tell the LEO that you are placing the LP under citizen's arrest for unlawful imprisonment? How would something like that play out? Would the LEO just tell you that it is a civil matter? Would the LEO have to take a report as to the citizen's arrest ? Could the LEO issue a criminal citation or take the LP into custody once you showed that you did nothing illegal?

Anyone committing an unlawful act, cop or citizen, does so in risk of the consequences. The guard that won’t let you leave, if he does not have substantive, probable cause—in this case of a crime having been [/b]committed, commits false arrest. If he so much as touches you in the process, he commits battery. If he has a weapon and you have reasonable fear of grievous injury or death, he commits aggravated assault—a felony. So, bottom line, he better be damn sure he is right. You can file criminal and civil charges against him and the store—yes, the store can be brought up on criminal charges under several scenarios which I won’t go into, but think “conspiracy.”

As far as gated communities, they can be granted civil authority to do lots of things IF the covenants are signed, clear and meaningful in wording, and agreed to by EVERY homeowner. You essentially give up your rights when you buy the property. If I water when it’s not my day, I can get a fine from the HOA here in CO. Similar process. But a ticket from a rent a cop would be far easier to beat in court. The court will not allow for the $6 hour employee having the same substantially greater knowledge than the driver if any question arises as to a fact. I know of places where you can get a fine from the HOA for a traffic offense, but have not heard of a real traffic ticket that would have standing, except as to a citizen’s arrest proceeding. An HOA that gets too fascist is asking for a lawsuit. And asking to get kicked out of control by the home owners. Not to say it can’t happen in SC, but I have no experience with it anywhere.

As to filing charges, if you allege a felony was committed against you by the guard, e.g., aggravated assault (sometimes called assault with a deadly weapon—no touching needed, that would be aggravated battery) he can arrest the clown right there. Otherwise, go to a magistrate and swear out a criminal complaint for false arrest, battery, etc. A cop has to witness a misdemeanor to make an arrest. Remember though, there is such a thing as malicious prosecution. Make sure you’re in the right. In court, right doesn’t always triumph. Just look at that dirtbag Simpson.
One more thing, then I'll shut up: "reasonable suspicion" deals ONLY with a cop's right to search for WEAPONS, nothing else. Terry v Ohio was the seminal case. No cop, much less a Mall Cop, can frisk you for shoplifted stuff without probable cause. Any Mall cop who searches you at all commits battery, as I said. And failing probable cause, any stolen stuff he finds is inadmissable in court.

In Terry v. Ohio, Earl Warren held that police officers could temporarily detain a suspect, provided that they could articulate the "reasonable inferences" for their suspicion, and not merely allude to a "hunch." Since Terry, the American legal system has discounted the "mere" hunches of police officers, requiring them to articulate "specific" and "objective" observations of fact to support their decision to conduct a stop and frisk. The officer's intuitions, gut feelings and sixth sense about a situation are all disallowed.

 

[BrianEMT]

imported post

That is just rediculous, it irritated me just reading that! Especially in a place like Nampa! But keep in mind more than half of Walmart's staff may have IQ's lower than FIFTY. I understand how dangerous Nampa can be first hand...

These are pictures of the windshield from my RRU, occurred at the intersection of Nampa-Caldwell Blvd and Karcher Rd...