[excon]

Hello:

Tell me please, since when have stores in the US been allowed to "fine" the shoplifters they catch in their store? Please also, tell me if this is legal and where can I find a law that says so.

excon

[KaishaJayne]

As far as I've been aware, it's the same in the United Kingdom. If you shoplift and get caught, they have the right to take action

[excon]

Hello Kaisha:

Of course, they have the right to call the cops. But, my question referred to the practice of the store ACTING THEMSELVES, in house and NOT involving the authorities...

I want to know what gives them the authority to do that.

excon

[KaishaJayne]

My mistake. Then nothing gives them the right unless they've been told by the police to act on it themselves, which surely them doing that is against the rules anyway.

[valinors_sorrow]

As far as I've been aware, it's the same in the United Kingdom. If you shoplift and get caught, they have the right to take action

KaishaJayne, sweetie, its not general actions Excon is questioning but this specific action. I realise you are new and so you don't know how well versed he is on all the ins and outs of many legal situations. I too am alarmed at the prospect of stores being allowed to fine -- the ramificiations of this one is scary. If they can't make a go for it legitimately, they could plant stuff and make a go of it that way. Yikes! I recently quit a cashier job at a market for the loose, free-wheeling way they dealt with honesty issues. Innocent people can get hurt with the wrong rules or no rules.

Are you sure its inhouse, without the cops Excon? Man, I would be saying call the cops or I will, so I can report a crime-- its called blackmail!!

Post script -- Ooops four minutes late!

[excon]

Hello again, Kaisha:

What I was about to say before my dumb finger hit the wrong button, was that you didn't make a mistake. I just don't write so good.

Val, I recently became aware that this was a common practice in Canada, but I had no idea it was happening here. I agree with you about vigilantism...

excon

[valinors_sorrow]

Hello again, Kaisha:

What I was about to say before my dumb finger hit the wrong button, was that you didn't make a mistake. I just don't write so good.

Val, I recently became aware that this was a common practice in Canada, but I had no idea it was happening here. I agree with you about vigilantism.....

excon

Holy cow!

All I can say is if any outfit tries anything like that with me, they'll be wishing they fell into a patch of stinkweed instead before I'm done. Grrrrrr

Good grief, some broke lawyer must have thought this one up. LOL

[RickJ]

I fixed your comment excon :)

I think this is one of those "can't hurt to try" things. I'm not sure it's illegal to SAY there's a fine... but my guess is that any court would laugh at them if they tried to sue someone who did not pay it.

[ScottGem]

Are you sure it's the US?

There was a thread a while back, that referred to a Canadian court case where the Hudson's Bay Co. was allowed to fine shoplifters as a deterrent. The thread included a link to the Canadian court decision.

As far as I know there is no comparable precedent in the US. But I'm not sure if there is any law against it either. If a store catches you shoplifting and intimidates you into paying a fine, I'm not sure there is law against it.

[valinors_sorrow]

Then racketeering wouldn't come into play? I find that hard to believe...

[excon]

Hello again, Scott:

Check out Lette4life in Maryland thread...

excon

[shygrneyzs]

Each state sets it's own laws about that. I talked to the police department here and also an attorney this morning and they both state that while that practice is not legal in North Dakota, there are states where it is. Maryland is one of those states. The stores can fine the shoplifter when the shoplifter is caught - it omits the police being called and all that process. Each state sets the limit of the fine. I was given the example of the bad check - here the checkwriter can face a fine of up to five times the original amount of the check - the merchant has that option. Does that help?

[excon]

it omits the police being called and all that process.

Hello again, shy:

I hear what you're saying. But that "process" is guaranteed to us. To circumvent it is an anathema to our judicial system. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says that nobody shall be deprived of life, limb or property without "Due Process" of law.

Private companies CAN'T do "due process" - at least as I understand the Constitution.

excon

PS> Ok, so tell me. Did you star in Wings??

[shygrneyzs]

Lol. No, I did not star in wings - I just like the video. I would not have qualified I am afraid. I understand what you are saying about the 5th Amendment. I also wonder if the law in Maryland could be challenged - I guess any law can be challenged - just not sure how successful. It would be interesting to find out what other states allow the store's discretion in dealing with shoplifters. Here even the thrift stores give bracelets to shoplifters.

[excon]

Hello again:

Look. I'm old. Lots of un-Constitutional type things have gotten by me in the last few years (like presidents being able to make war on made up reasons), but I'm blown away that this is happening. And, I'm not blown away by many things.

IF the state has given over its authority to “process” shoplifters to corporations, it's only a matter of time before they tell them they can execute shoplifters. That's the problem with vigilantism.

excon

[J_9]

Okay, I know I worked in the legal field for 10 years, but not criminal law. So I have some questions. (you all know I am always wanting to learn something) So...

If a person is caught red handed with the evidence hidden in purse or coat, or wherever, and they admit to shoplifting, right there in the store, they admit they are guilty. Then why shouldn't the store charge a fine and leave the courts, who are already bogged down with frivolous lawsuits in some cases, out of the situation.

I mean if the person pleads guilty right there in the store with the merchandise in their pocket or purse, why add this to the already burdened courts? Why not fine the person who may have made a stupid decision at such a young age and give that person a chance?

Maybe I just don't get it.

[ScottGem]

I think you have a good point. Arre they being denied due process if they admit to the theft? It would seem that they aren't being denied due process but offered a choice. Admit the crime, pay the fine but keep their criminal record clean or claim innocence and get due process through the justice system.

Now, they do have to be informed that there is a choice. But I know which one I would take.

[excon]

Hello again J:

You assume the best in people. Our founders didn't. What would you think about a company that isn't making money, so they falsely accuse their customers of shoplifting? It could be a great cash generator.

Nahhhh, corporations wouldn't do that...

excon

[valinors_sorrow]

Here are two areas you didn't consider Janine.

So now we can break the law and pay a non-legal, privately arbitrated fine and walk? Reminds me of the time Michigan made having a small amount of weed on you a $5 fine -- we all went and sat on the capitol steps puffing on doobies with $5 in our pockets! LOL That law didn't last long and it was a law too. We wanted to "go all the way" with legalizing pot for personal use at the time, in case you are wondering what that was. LOL

And what about should the store be hurting financially, happen to have dishonest help and in the search (unmonitored by the way) plant something in your purse. Are you paying that fine?

Its racketeering of the sort that organized crime does when they "protect" your business, only the players have changed. Choices about penalty come AFTER you are convicted and even some of those are so questionable that folks are being sued and losing-- like for example, when a substance abuser is "sentenced" to attend AA. Wrong! That's as constitutionally wrong as it comes.

I'm with excon (and Maggie and a few others) in a big way of watching with dismay the original laws that were equitable to everyone being twisted into something I don't recognise as a "for the people, by the people" arrangement. Feel free to call me when we begin the revolution. LOL

[shygrneyzs]

Someone caught on surveillance tape shoplifting and they admit shoplifting and they have the product in their backpack or purse or pocket. Given the option of paying the fine, I would pay the fine. However, if I knew I did not shopift, I would contest and want to have the police called. That would be my right to due process.

The store would post the law that allows them to prosectue the shoplifter by assessing a fine. Every store I go into has the state law posted about shoplifiting is a crime and police will be called and the store will press charges. Even the small stores have that notice. I can imagine that if I lived in a state where it was legal for the store to assess a fine for the crime without involving the police, that would be posted also. If I lived in such a state and I did not believe what they were doing was legal, I have to be smart enough to ask for the police to come and sort it all out then. Doesn't the store still have to prove their allegations? How many stores have cameras in the ceiling? Everyone that I know of.

If my local K-Mart were to do as a K-Mart in Maryland did to some shoplifting teens, it would be illegal here.