Hello,
Three weeks ago my daughter (16) was caught slipping an energy drink into her bag at a big chain grocery store. We received the call of what she had done. This is a first one and only incident of anything of this nature. The loss prevention officer had has come into the store to pick her up as she was to be released to a parent obviously. When we picked her up the officer told us she would not be laying charges etc. and there would be no further challenge with the exception that she would not be allowed in the grocery store chain for 1 year. Not a problem. We brought her home, dealt with the parental side of the issue and are moving forward towards gaining the trust back. In the meantime we received a letter yesterday from the grocery store " Letter of Civil Recovery", "demanding" we pay $300 as they are seeking damages for investigative expenses incurred as a result of the commission of our daughter's alleged criminal activity.

They go on to say that a civil action brought pursuant to the small claims act will include a claim for the aforesaid sum of $300 in addition to a claim for such other compensation and punitive damages as the courts may allow. Etc etc etc. They also state in the beginning that she could be criminally charged with one count of theft under $5000. Whether she will be charged is out of the grocery stores hands and up to crown council.

Needless to say this sounds like a bunch of sabre rattling to me and to seek $300 when the only "loss" they incurred was the cost of photocopying my driver's licence and approx 1.5 hours of the loss prevention officer's time. There was no damage, no product taken from the store or even attempted at the point she was caught for it to be removed from the store etc.

Do we need to pay this or are they just being a pain.

You'll probably end up paying, basically, they are seeking to penalize her for stealing from their store, and that she could be charged with shoplifting. Most likely you will end up paying, as the store caught her shoplifting and have proven that their allegations are true... It kind of sucks though, I understand, but explain to your daughter that her theft of a 2 dollar energy drink is now probably going to cost the family hundreds of dollars... I would suggest that you make her pay the costs herself, so she learns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlotte234s

You'll probably end up paying, basically, they are seeking to penalize her for stealing from their store, and that she could be charged with shoplifting. Most likely you will end up paying, as the store caught her shoplifting and have proven that their allegations are true... It kinda sucks though, I understand, but explain to your daughter that her theft of a 2 dollar energy drink is now probably gonna cost the family hundreds of dollars... I would suggest that you make her pay the costs herself, so she learns.

---

Thank you for such a quick reply. Honestly, we already had a conversation with her last night and she understands her responsibility to pay in this matter. Fortunately she does have a part time job and this is a good life lesson for her. My husband of course is extremely ticked about the whole thing and finds it very unreasonable and wants me to ingnore their letter. I tend to cave much quicker on these things. I just like to have all my facts straight and if she owes, then she owes but if this is just our local big time millionaire trying to pay for his security then that is not appropriate. Is this normal for a store to do this?

Thanks

I had a friend in high school that shoplifted a pack of some kind of cheap item, probably less than 20 bucks or something, from a meijer store, and it cost him all 600 dollars in restitution and he was placed on probation afterwards, so it probably is fairly normal. I would suggest you contact an attorney as to whether you're obligated to respond or if you should or not, though.. Good luck!

No, they can and will and do collect this this money, if you don't they will go back and press criminal charges, ( they have till the statue of limitation runs out to do it)

Their time?? Loss prevention officers time, store clerks time, written statements everyone that witnessed this had to write up.
And this is not at all unreasonable and very normal.

In many areas the cost is closer to 500.

So pay it, punish the child for their behavior, make them pay it back and learn from this

[QUOTE=Sharon1962]Thank you for such a quick reply. Honestly, we already had a conversation with her last night and she understands her responsibility to pay in this matter. Fortunately she does have a part time job and this is a good life lesson for her. My husband of course is extremely ticked about the whole thing and finds it very unreasonable and wants me to ingnore their letter. I tend to cave much quicker on these things. I just like to have all my facts straight and if she owes, then she owes but if this is just our local big time millionaire trying to pay for his security then that is not appropriate. Is this normal for a store to do this?



I'd be grateful she's not in jail and she would pay the $300. Whether this is the first time she's done this or the first time she's been caught would be my question.

Three Hundred Dollars is a small amount when you add up all the time this took the store.

I'm surprised you're angry at the store - as I said, she could have been charged, she could have been held, you could be paying an Attorney.

I have my reasons but I have no sympathy for people who steal -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharon1962

Hello,
Three weeks ago my daughter (16) was caught slipping an energy drink into her bag at a big chain grocery store. We received the call of what she had done. This is a first one and only incident of anything of this nature. The loss prevention officer had has come into the store to pick her up as she was to be released to a parent obviously. When we picked her up the officer told us she would not be laying charges etc. and there would be no further challenge with the exception that she would not be allowed in the grocery store chain for 1 year. Not a problem. We brought her home, dealt with the parental side of the issue and are moving forward towards gaining the trust back. In the meantime we received a letter yesterday from the grocery store " Letter of Civil Recovery", "demanding" we pay $300 as they are seeking damages for investigative expenses incurred as a result of the commission of our daughter's alleged criminal activity.

They go on to say that a civil action brought pursuant to the small claims act will include a claim for the aforesaid sum of $300 in addition to a claim for such other compensation and punitive damages as the courts may allow. etc etc etc. They also state in the beginning that she could be criminally charged with one count of theft under $5000. Whether or not she will be charged is out of the grocery stores hands and up to crown council.

Needless to say this sounds like a bunch of sabre rattling to me and to seek $300 when the only "loss" they incurred was the cost of photocopying my driver's licence and approx 1.5 hours of the loss prevention officer's time. There was no damage, no product taken from the store or even attempted at the point she was caught for it to be removed from the store etc.

Do we need to pay this or are they just being a pain.

---

No, you don't need pay even a cent to them. That's a separate action to criminal charge. Called civil action. Just like your neighbor ask you pay something about your shared fence. They can hardly provide evidence on court they are able to get such money, also there're very small chance they'll go on court, as time and cost matter. The money is not really demand by store, but security company or attorney of store.

And they can not lay a criminal charge on your daughter anymore, as only crown council can do. If they drop the charge once let your daughter leave and told you so, they can not do that again. Even in the worst situation, as a minor, criminal charge only let your daughter go thought a diversion program for the first time and file will be sealed.

But for the education purpose, pay this money is right. That'll let your daughter learn some, and remember some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PjCa

No, you don't need pay even a cent to them. That's a separate action to criminal charge. Called civil action. Just like your neighbor ask you pay something about your shared fence. They can hardly provide evidence on court they are able to get such money, also there're very small chance they'll go on court, as time and cost matter. The money is not really demand by store, but security company or attorney of store.

And they can not lay a criminal charge on your daughter anymore, as only crown council can do. If they drop the charge once let your daughter leave and told you so, they can not do that again. Even in the worst situation, as a minor, criminal charge only let your daughter go thought a diversion program for the first time and file will be sealed.

But for the education purpose, pay this money is right. That'll let your daughter learn some, and remember some.

---

Well, have to disagree with you. It's called restitution - you can make restitution and in exchange the store can drop the charge. Nothing unusual about that. Nothing do with paying for something you will benefit from, like a shared fence - this is stealing something from someone else.

It would appear this is NOT a case where the charges were filed and dropped. It appears to me that - so far - charges have not been filed.

As far as this being a demand by the security company or attorney of store you are incorrect. The store pays security; therefore, the debt is to the store. Security doesn't bill on a person to person caught stealing basis. They get paid by the store if they stand there and do nothing, they get paid if they catch a shoplifter. The attorney represents the store so they are one in the same.

So you are suggesting that rather than pay the $300 the parents allow a criminal charge to be filed and then the daughter go through the diversion program? And then "we" go back to the basic question - if the daughter is ever asked if she's been charged with a crime does she say yes, which is the truth; or does she say no, because the record has been sealed - ?

I also strongly disagree with PjCa, I suspect you are in Canada, and Canada has case law that allows stores to charge a fee in such instances. Check out a ruling for the Hudson Bay Co.

I don't like it, but the law upholds it. So if you fight it, you will lose and have to pay attorneys fees on top of the $300. This fee is allowed as a deterrant to theft and gets charged whether a criminal case is prosecuted or not. Pay it and be done with it.

Shoplifting and Civil Recovery Laws ----I believe the origin of Civil Recovery Laws can be found in the United States when sometime in the late 70's the first Civil Recovery Statute was passed by a State Legislature in the United States. The Retail Lobby in the US then lobbied all of the States for Civil Recovery Statutes when the first State Statute appeared to be so successful and was not struck down in the Courts. Eventually, and by 2001, all of the States of the United States had passed Civil Recovery Statutes for the retailers and shoplifting was treated as the "crime" of larceny in the City Courts. Common law is often developed by the Corporate interests and not by the common man.

Prior to Civil Recovery Laws, first-offense shoplifting, if prosecuted at all, was generally prosecuted as an attempt to steal under City or Town Ordinances and the owner of the merchandise or his official agent had to initiate and stand by the complaint in the City Courts. First Offense shoplifting was the inchoate crime of larceny, an attempt to steal that the owner of the merchandise had the obligation to stop under the law, and that the owner of the merchandise had the obligation to prosecute under the law.

First offense shoplifting was generally NEVER prosecuted and retailers generally accepted payment for the merchandise after the suspect was detained and interviewed by the retailer's employees, etc... It was not cost effective for retailers to prosecute "first offenders" because if they had generally suffered no actual loss, it was more cost effective to take payment for the merchandise and WARN the first offender that they would prosecute if it happened again, etc... If prosecutions failed in the courts, lawsuits for "false arrest" and "malicious prosecution" were very costly for retailers.

To prosecute shoplifting as a completed larceny and to rationalize
Civil recovery statutes, it was necessary for the City Police Authorities to grant limited powers of arrest/detainment outside of final checkout points in retail establishments to privately licenced SECRET Loss Prevention Personnel who would arrest in their agency of city-licensed security police and NOT in their agency as an employee of the retail establishment. City licensed retail security personnel have the full discretion to initiate civil recover demands and to initiate city arrests/tickets for larceny shoplifting, or to initiate only Civil Recovery, depending upon the policies of the retailer and the City. The city becomes responsible for both the arrest/detention/ticketing and the disposition of the matter in the city court.

There have been few prosecutions, if any, under the Civil Recovery Statutes because, of course, the threat of criminal prosecution acts as a fulcrum to produce payment of these demands made outside of the Courts. If the retailers used their city-licensed security personnel to initiate actual lawsuits in the civil courts to collect the statutory damages, they would have to join the lawsuits. The demand letters out of view of the courts and the threat of prosecution of the matter in the civil courts, together with the possibility of criminal prosecution for larceny, does generally produce a prompt response from the suspected shoplifter or his family.

The bigger issues are: Have the retailers and their licensed police agents been given the incentive to arrest for profit? Would the posting of prominent notice of the STATE civil recovery statute and the STATE criminal Law governing shoplifting prevent many first attempts to shoplift? If shoplifters knew that there were secret cameras and secret surveillance and that they would not be stopped when they made the first covert attempt to steal, would they make the attempt? Is this legalized extortion on behalf of subsidizing the nation's retailers? Do city licensed secret LP police have no duty to prevent the "crime" of larceny by stopping attempts within the stores when they witness the first covert act of the attempt within the stores? Is this subsidy of the retailers killing shoplifters outside of retail establishments in our country because licensed retail security personnel have been given the power of arrest and detainment OUTSIDE on the sidewalkd and the parking lots of the nation's retail stores?