Shopkeeper's right to detain?

The news today carried a story of a woman in Hawaii who was arrested along with her husband, their two year old was taken away by social services. Oh and the woman was 30 weeks pregnant. The crime? She got the munchies in a Safeway, ate two sandwiches (worth five dollars total) and then carried the wrappers up the check out to pay for them along with the rest of the groceries (some 50 odd dollars worth). She paid for the rest, but forgot to scan the sandwich wrappers.

Security stopped them as they were leaving. Management refused to take payment and called the police. The couple and their daughter were detained at the Safeway for four hours before the police arrived. The police then arrested the husband and wife (why was the husband arrested, he didn't even eat a sandwich?) and called social services who took the toddler away. Mom and Dad were then taken to the PD station, searched, ticketed, and released on 50 dollars bail each. The police drove them back to the Safeway to pick up their groceries (that they paid for). The Safeway said they were banned for a year.

This all actually happened and you can google it.

Now what I was wondering is how much right does a shopkeeper have to detain someone, and how much force can they actually use? What would have happened if they had simply refused to go with the security guard when the store refused to accept the five dollars? Or wanted to leave during that four hour wait for the police to show up?

My thought is that if I tried to pay the money, hadn't even made it outside (or even lets say I was in the parking lot) that I wouldn't go with the guard. So what can the guard or store management do? Can they physically restrain someone? And if they tried to - and this was in fact illegal or an undue use of force - can the person they are trying to detain defend themselves with sufficient force as might be necessary?

Because personally... I wouldn't have gone with the guard or sat around for that four hours. But having worked (briefly) in the private security industry as well as living in high crime areas, I know that sometimes private security and shop keepers go to extremes to try to detain someone...

The couple probley will sue for false arrest. The managment and/or store owner are already wishing this will go away. There will be a settlement out of court.
I spent the majority of my working life in security, not in a store but in a defense plant. That of course was a far different situation. You better be right when you detain someone.
I wonder if managment ordered security to detain them or if the guard did it without talking to the manager. Also had they stepped out of the store or was still in the store? For the stores and guards sake they had better have been completly out. If they were they still in the store the store legaly would have to take the payment but they didnt, so I imagine they were out. If store cameras show them out technically the store is right, but they sure arent going to like the publicity.
My best friend worked with me. He was real new and was assigned to patrol the parking lots. The chief had just given him a pep talk complaining stuff was being stolen and yada yada.
Bill caught a probable wetback stealing a battery out of a car. He held the guy, called for a captain. Captain was busy so the deskman sent out another newby. Finaly bill told the deskman to send out a local police officer. The officer had bill effect a citizens arrest. The next day the chief read bill the riot act. It boiled down to, "How do ya think this looks, a multi billion dollar company prosicuteing a poor wetback?"
On these jobs you learn to use common sense rather than try to go by the letter of the law or the company rule book. I had a few counterparts on my job that were right all the time and were habitualy in hot water!

Was waiting for my wife to finish shopping and being in the front of the store so's she could find me. What looked to be a homeless person walked out the door and was pounced upon by what looked to be two store employees and a security guard. But this was just outside the store. Black and white pulls up and off they go. Why is women take so darn long to shop?. I spend more time looking for her than I think she shops. One of lifes little mysteries. We've been married 29 years so at least I ought to be used to it by now. So oldest daugter takes her shopping, says the same thing I did. Frank

That is my entertainment! Walmart here has loafer benchs in front. The wife shops there at least twice a week. I hold the bench down and people watch. Besides the usual customers that they all have, I get to see cowboys, sheepherders, indians and poligamists!

I worked in store security in Ohio, the main rule no matter what kind of store, was the thief had to be outside the store before we could detain them. Even if we saw the thief pocket something, we had to wait till they got outside. 95% of the time the store would not even prosecute them, it was a waste of time and money for the store. The court would let them off with a minimal fine and no jail time. After a while you just waved at them as they went out the door.

Honestly, I don't see a problem with what Safeway did. Regardless of the couples history, they did shoplift. You don't go to a store and start eating items you didn't pay for. If I did such an act, it would be the first item I pay for. What they should have done was buy the sandwiches first then eat it while shopping, keeping the receipt handy.

The problem is that the police took four hours to arrive. I realize they have better things to do than pick up shoplifters but they should have told the store when they were going to arrive and put the decision up to the manager whether to prosecute or not. If I was the manager and knowing the police won't arrive til much later and them having a baby, would let them pay for the item then ban them from the store.

Them looking to sue after they shoplifted, speaks arrogance.

Five dollars? I wonder if this Safeway has a history of holding people for such rediculously trivial amounts. That's probably why the cops didn't show up for four hours. Everyone involved in this is a loser. I can't stand idiots who shoplift, the store's who make it the crime of the century and the cop's who run with it enthusiastically.

Generally, loss prevention can detain a shoplifter but not use force in doing so. In the vast majority of shoplifting cases, I prefer to cite and release (and if I book someone into jail, I want to KNOW they're guilty of a crime).

I think this is a case of determining the letter of the law from the intent of the law. Sometimes we have to take into consideration all the facts, not just what appears to be facts. A little human understanding and care would have saved everyone a lot of grief.

In Ohio, store employees/security cannot detain or even touch ANYONE for theft, whether inside or outside the store. There was a case at Best Buy in Cleveland a couple years back that learned this the hard way.

If store security suspects someone of shoplifting, they can call the police, and that is it. And really, that is the way it should be. Attempting to detain someone is an assault/kidnapping. Sworn police officers have that authority, store employees don't.

If you have ever lived in Hawaii then you realize how ridiculous this story is. Life is so layed back there that people will become very enraged about this story, especially if the couple is Hawaiian. This is probably one of those safeways that makes most of their money off of tourists. This was a ridiculous decision to make a stand on for $5 dollars. The store manager should be very concerned about this and his job. I am not sure why they didn't give them the opportunity to pay for the sandwiches and let them go. Did Safeway think they were going to be taking some infidels off the street and do everyone a favor? This is truly idiotic. We better tell on the mom's that let their kids eat a banana and then try and pay for it to watch out. Geez!

What's wrong with these storekeeper people?
We should be able to take whatever we want!
They have way more stuff than we do so it really isn't stealing anyway.

^^^Sarcastic (btw)^ ^^

I'm not sure if they could detain them in that jurisdiction, but a very small percentage of shoplifters are actually caught. When caught they should be made an example of! We all pay more for everything because of these scumbags. --- Oh sure, they had planned to pay for the sandwiches but forgot - Sure...
Let the low life types know that shoplifting WILL NOT be tolerated and that they WILL be prosecuted when caught...

If I was the man and woman, I would not have gone with the guards either. Damn sure would not have waited around for 4 hours for the cops.

But, if I was the store I'd have tried my best to arrest them. In a grocery store, if you open food and eat it before you paid for it, you stole it. It don't matter if you plan to pay for it. It don't matter if you attempt to pay for it after the fact. You ate it before you paid for it - you stole it.

Bet the store gets off because they can site it was a "citizen's arrest" which is legal in most states.

johngalt said:

Attempting to detain someone is an assault/kidnapping. Sworn police officers have that authority, store employees don't.

Click to expand...

Depends on state law. In Texas, any person may do so.

In Texas: PREVENTING CONSEQUENCES OF THEFT. Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the theft to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify a seizure under this article, there must be reasonable ground to believe the property is stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had without delay.

Alpo said:

It don't matter if you plan to pay for it. It don't matter if you attempt to pay for it after the fact. You ate it before you paid for it - you stole it.

Click to expand...

And this is different from a restaurant how? You're telling me that if I don;t pay for my food before I eat it I'm guilty of theft? As long as the individual has not exited the store without paying for it, no theft has occurred. According to the facts presented, the couple did not commit theft.

In most states "intent" comes into play to prove shoplifting which becomes another thorny issue. To be guilty of shoplifting you have to intend to steal something. Thus the pregnant woman with the munchies - and if you've ever had a pregnant wife, you know what this is like - most likely lacks intent.

I'm unaware of any law governing supermarkets that you can't eat your food before you pay for it. Many position cases with cold beverages near the front of the store so that you can drink your Coke (or what not) while you shop. Then of course there is the ever popular single serve box of animal crackers, meant to look like a train car. This has been used to placate hungry children inside the store at least since I was a boy. Others position donuts so that it is handy to eat one while you shop.

This is done deliberately to some extent, while hungry customers do buy more groceries, a comfortable customer will spend longer in the store. The longer someone is in the store, the more they buy. (My undergrad degree in business admin comes in useful from time to time.)+

I suppose, theoretically, if you ate a grape or something sold by the pound, this would deprive the retailer of full value and they could conceivably call that shoplifting though.

DeadAye said:

What's wrong with these storekeeper people?
We should be able to take whatever we want!
They have way more stuff than we do so it really isn't stealing anyway.

^^^Sarcastic (btw)^ ^^

I'm not sure if they could detain them in that jurisdiction, but a very small percentage of shoplifters are actually caught. When caught they should be made an example of! We all pay more for everything because of these scumbags. --- Oh sure, they had planned to pay for the sandwiches but forgot - Sure...
Let the low life types know that shoplifting WILL NOT be tolerated and that they WILL be prosecuted when caught...

Click to expand...

The problem with putting shoplifters in a "low life" category is that it's not accurate. I worked security in a large store while in the Army and have been involved in numerous shoplifting cases during my LEO career. I can tell you for a fact that shoplifters comes in all sizes, ages, sexes, educational backgrounds, etc.
I've often seen women shoplifting small items who had more money in their purses than I made in a week. Perhaps the biggest problem I ran into, when dealing with shoplifters, are the clerks and security people making stupid decisions. These folks are paid minimum wage and have absolutely no experience in dealing with situations like this. And by the way, the only reason I accompany my wife to Walmart is to play "spot the shoplifter". If, in 30 minutes in a very busy store, you can't spot one you're not looking. Try it next time, great entertainment (but obviously don't get involved).

When one shoplifts (it's also called STEALING) one puts one's self in the *low life* category.
I know several dirt poor folks that wouldn't steal an apple if they were starving. IMO there's a BIG difference between honest folk and low lifes.

I grew up with a real character. We were close friends but he was somewhat nuts. Once he was traveling, broke as usual. He stopped at a gas station/convenance store. Picked up a loaf of bread and some lunch meat. He was something like 80 cents short, opened the loaf of bread, took out a handfull and handed the remaining loaf back to the clerk and said that should about do it! Then he gets into a fist fight with the clerk! He showed up to my other friends house all bruised up
about 400 miles away and ran out of gas in his driveway! My buddy sticks his neck out and got him a good job where he worked. The car he showed up in was a junk. My buddy gives him a serviceable car, says pay me when you can and told him he wanted I think $200s for the car he had just paid $500s for to get our buddy on his feet. A month or two go`s by and "larry" shows up at work with a new car. "Harry" go`s to larrys house and picked up the car as he never got paid and larry now bought a new one. Harold sells the car to another guy at work for $500. Larry finds out, go`s to harry and demands the $300 differance! (He had never even paid him the first $200s!)
This all happens in wisconsin and illinois. Sometime after that I came home from work in california and see a strange car in my driveway with wisconsin plates. I find my old friend larry in my house with his wife and four kids cooking! At that time I hadnt seen my old friend for about 10 or 12 years at least! He had carded his way in! As usual he was broke and looking for work. I put them up for a week or so, dont recall what it cost me to get them on the road. Belive it or not he was a preacher for awhile but got defrocked! The poor guy died about 3 years ago.

CelticSire said:

Depends on state law. In Texas, any person may do so.

In Texas: PREVENTING CONSEQUENCES OF THEFT. Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the theft to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify a seizure under this article, there must be reasonable ground to believe the property is stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had without delay.

Click to expand...

A real big can of worms there. Suppose the person is wrong about the theft. What legal jeopardy is the person in? He just committed assault/kidnapping/false imprisonment.

And the "...if that person can be taken..." part. What does that mean? By asking nicely? Use of force? What happens when the attempted detainee tells him to pound sand? What if he defends himself? I don't see that the detainee has any obligation to submit and can't use force to defend himself.