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

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

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

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

Hello again, Scott:

Check out Lette4life in Maryland thread...

excon

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?

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??

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

I see what you are saying Val, and yes excon, I do tend to see the good in people. May eventually be my downfall, but I believe everyone has good in them somewhere.

Now, I am talking about the people who are caught on videotape and the people who are witnessed by store security. They are brought into the office and questioned, they confess. What is wrong with offering them a fine rather than court or jail time? The fine can be outrageous if the state law allows it. But it would lower court dockets and clear our jails for more serious offenses.

Maybe I am still missing something. Maybe I am still a little naïve when it comes to this area of law. Well, I know I am naïve in this area. Just trying to learn something new.

Janine, law is complicated because its open to interpretation just as is all language and human behavior. In the case of law, it's especially important to be agreeing to what it means and applying the rules consistently (the main job of courts and judges, by the way) Its why new precedents are particularly twitchy. If you allow this, then what next on the same principle? In order to be fair, the privilege of circumventing the court system needs to be available to everyone who fulfills the same basic conditions that you outlined. Can you see where that goes? Some of this can be like pulling a thread in a woven fabric with far reaching effects.

I don't think you realise how ambiguous recorded theft can be even on tape. Even if it is clear theft, do we have one legally binding procedure for the documented guilty and another for the ambiguosly guilty to be fairly applied by a source with no monitoring? That is what you are suggesting. Even the courts monitor the courts.

I tell you, it reminds me of what I see going on in the local AA here. They are ignoring the AA Traditions and will do so to their peril. The Tradtions have built-in safe guards that were created out of painful experiences. And because the people now don't bother to look back and understand, they throw stuff (rules, principles, guidleines) out like they are cleaning out the freakin' attic. Oy. It will cost lives, if it hasn't already because it will impact AA's ability to be as effective as it once was -- I see evidence of that all over the place. It's the same monster killing Excon's (and all of ours) precious constitution -- contempt prior to investigation. This may be the Age of Information but it will turn into the Age of Misinformation if people don't start looking back over it all and doing their homework so they really understand! Okay, PUFF PUFF rant over LOL

I understand how law works as I was in the legal field for over 10 years, Med/mal, products liability, as well as insurace fraud, to be exact, never criminal. Maybe I am just reading too much into it, or just seeing too much good in people.

I was just curious.

Maybe I am just reading too much into it, or just seeing too much good in people.Hello again, J:

No, you're not seeing TOO much good in people. I think it's a great attitude to have. And, I think you're right too. Most people are good, honest, and moral. Most people don't have contraband, so they don't NEED the Fourth Amendment. Most people don't speak radically, so they don't NEED the First Amendment – and so on….

The Constitution wasn't written to protect us from most people. It was written to protect us from those very few amongst us, who are the bad guys. And, some bad guys are pretty bad.

Sure, MOST (?) corporations would only fine the people who actually did something... (Although, I just don't want to TRUST that they will.) But the bad guys (who run a few corporations) are going to shake down their customers, guilty or not, many of whom will pay through the nose instead of having the cops called on them. It's extortion, it's blackmail, it's RICO – it's bad!

Anytime you give over the administration of justice to private parties, these things will happen. That is why every one of us is GUARANTEED due process. If you're ever caught in a situation like that, you're going to NEED the Fifth Amendment.

Our founders were sooooo smart!

excon

Okay, I am beginning to understand. But just beginning. I have a long way to go, but I love to learn new things.

So if the state you live in had this kind of bill introduced to their respective legislature, how would you present the arguments against this? If this were to become a law, what safeguards would you demand to be in the writing? What you require of the stores when there is a shoplifting?

I don't want to hijack the thread but this is inline with the subject: if that nice lady at WalMart wants to check your receipt just say "No, thank you." and keep on walking.

Here's is a article that discusses the point:
Black & White, Birmingham's City Paper (http://www.lps1.com/bw.digg.html)

And here's the spirited discussion on Digg.com about it:
Digg - Best Buy: "Sir we need to see your receipt" You: "Um, no you don't" (http://www.digg.com/business_finance/Best_Buy_Sir_we_need_to_see_your_receipt_You_Um_no _you_don_t)

I like things as simple as possible because they frequently work best there - a principle the American culture has largely forgotten lately. I would attempt to block it entirely on a basis of motive. If the court system is so "broken" that we are resorting to regulating off bits and pieces of it to private concerns, then lets look at all the solutions possible for remedying that, not just one. In other words, I would ask that they answer to the why of this and insist it be plausible and fair. I don't think they can make that argument, frankly.

It is a similar argument I made with Immigation laws.
When the laws we already have aren't being enforced, why make more of them?
And if they aren't able to be enforced, let's change them to something that can be-- preferably, again, to something simple.

Here's an interesting twist for you all to consider.
You have ONLY committed theft (shoplifting) once you have LEFT the store.
Just because you choose to fill your pockets with product, doesn't mean you have the intention to steal them. This only occurs once you leave.
So having all these employees approach you before you leave the store and assuse you of theft is illegal ;)

Here's an interesting twist for you all to consider.
You have ONLY commited theft (shoplifting) once you have LEFT the store.
Just beacuse you choose to fill your pockets with product, doesn't mean you have the intention to steal them. This only occurs once you leave.
So having all these employees approach you before you leave the store and assuse you of theft is illegal ;)
Ah, interesting point. I have never shoplifted in the classical sense (not my thing, did other bad things instead LOL) However once I took a rolled up rug, quite large, without paying for it. I stood at the counter waiting too long to pay while the clerks talked in the back. I made eye contact, I called out for help, I announced I was leaving. They giggled so I picked up the rug and left! :eek:

I was fullly prepared to pay them for it out in the parking lot. Waited several more minutes standing outside my car with the rug and when nothing occurred, drove off. True story. I can be somewhat of a civil disobedient sort and was very prepared to end up standing in front of a judge, telling him/her about this event and take what comes.

I wanted the rug, knew of no other place to purchase it and had I had the exact change, I would have left it on the counter as I have done so a few other times with confidence it was okay to do that from the clerk's gesture.

So while it was risky transaction, was it still shoplifting? And how does this differ from the fine? Could not the fine be viewed as a like a scratch off card-- the price for what you want may be a lot or it may be free! WOW how fun! Hey, all you have to do is steal stuff worth more than the fine and get away with it more than half the time and you got yourself a nice fleamarket or eBay business.

Where I come from, shoplifting is a punishable crime, and I will say if 'unwarranted', but... if the shoplifting was done for groceries, or such, then there is leniency.

Where I come from, shoplifting is a punishable crime, and I will say if 'unwarranted', but.....if the shoplifting was done for groceries, or such, then there is leniency.
Oh now that reminds me of an old joke I will paraphrase badly no doubt. A man who was really sick of his wife's unnecessary shoplifting listened while the judge ask her what she took. She answered two steaks and a bag of potatoes. So the judge stated he was sentencing her to fourteen days of jail based on the two steaks added together with the dozen potatoes and hoped she would learn her lesson. The man interrupted, waving his hand wildly. "Yes, what is it?" asked the judge. The man answered, "She also took a can of peas, Your Honor!" :rolleyes: