Truly horrifying. And this is _LEGAL_????

The Foodtown where I used to work would charge shoplifters $150 to keep it out of the court system. I think at the time, $150 was the average a shoplifter took, and it saved the time of taking them to court and paying our security guys overtime, not to mention the stores not being watched while they were in court. We would have the police come in, take the report, and only press charges if they failed to pay.

There goes the neighborhood :(

Hose Bags!

gawd, they're all soooooo desperate.

The other day I had a pair of shoes in my purse when I went into the grocery store.* The cashier gave me a really funny look but didn't say anything. If it had been a shoe store I'm sure they would have. I thought most of the time unless security actually SEES you hide an object on your person they can't hold you.**

*It was raining so I wore boots to work.
**This was the rule when I worked at Target.

Not surprising, especially from the highly anti-customer Home Depot.

Lord & Taylor - on the boycott list
Home Depot - on the boycott list
WalMart - has always been on the boycott list

Can we get a list of all the stores that do this? I'd like to know which places to not shop at in the future (Wal-Mart and Home Depot are already on the list but I'd rather not support anyone else who does this).

Almost any scam like this could be considered "legal". Just be careful not to get caught when stealing. It's not that hard if you have any knowledge of how loss prevention in retail works.

@blondegrlz:

I think shoplifting laws vary from state to state. In CT you have to witness the shoplifter enter the store without the item, see them pull the item from the shelf, see them hide it, fail to pay for the item and exit the place of business

that might just be the policy where I worked, but I think it's state policy as well

Yep. I had a friend in law school was was shopping at Urban Outfitters, bought over $100 worth of stuff, and was then arrested because a $6 pair of craptastic earrings wound up in her shopping bag (my friend's theory is that the checkout counter was covered in small, crappy merch. and the clerk swept them or they fell into a bag with the purchases). Spent several hours in the pokey, made some futile attempts to negotiate with the company/"recovery folks" and ended up paying them a couple hundred bucks to stop harassing her. Mostly she was worried because she was applying to join the Bar and didn't want to have to deal with some weird junk on her record in front of the fitness committee.

And yes, I know this person extremely well and there is zero chance she was actually stealing the earrings.

Anyway, UO and their affiliate stores lost a lot of future business that day; all of our friends now boycott them over it.

Let them send letters. Just because someone sends you a letter saying you owe money doesn't mean you even need to respond.

If they can manage to find you, send you a summons to court, get a court date - then deal with it.

But usually it doesn't go that far. Just throw the damn letters away - am i right?

Why can't we find out what's done to these people? I don't want to hear the C-word excuse. We deserve answers after these businesses treat the public like that.

I've temporarily put things in my pocket while shopping before but always removed them and paid for them -- I just do it if my hands are full or something. Never been hassled, ever. It's not illegal to do that. Just illegal to leave without paying. And I'd be suing THEM for unlawful detainment seeing as "probable cause" has been determined, in the past, to "seeing customer place stock from shelf into pocket or other hiding place". They didn't have probable cause so they couldn't detain him.

This is just plain stupid...But I also have to add that it's just plain stupid that stores can't walk up to someone they have reason to believe shoplifted and ask them some questions and have the fear of being sued. My GF worked retail and she had customers she KNEW were stealing and management wouldn't allow her to do anything because she didn't SEE them do it. how frustrating that was for her.

I found it interesting that the drill bit guy sued and won a settlement from HD. Sounds like a pretty lucrative bit of business, suing people for attempting to extort money from suspected shoplifters...

@Beerad: Small detail I left out -- the earrings beeped going through the security detectors, so there was no "sighting" or other evidence she had swiped them.

So maybe it's not just me that gets paranoid about trying to leave a store without having bought anything. They try so hard to corral everyone through the checkout lines, I guess to keep an eye on everyone. At Lowe's or Home Depot where the lanes are nice and wide that's no problem but at the supermarket I'll be damned if I'm waiting behind someone in line just to leave the store.

Or god help you if you go in the hardware store with a random bolt or drain trap or light bulb looking for compatible products. They look at you like you're nuts. I've had people follow me around the store, hiding behind adjacent aisles and whispering into their walkies about my location, because I brought in some bits of projects I was working on to make sure I got the right stuff for them.

I hate feeling like a criminal because a store doesn't have what I want, or because I need to bring additional stuff into the store to make sure I buy the correct items.

In fairness, the quotes from the story leave out a key element:

This goal is evident in the way the laws are written. Many don't simply authorize retailers to demand money from suspected shoplifters but say retailers must make such a demand before they can file a suit.

all it would take to get rid of this is someone with too much time, and money. shoplift a $1 candy bar, get caught, and escalate to a superior court that can handle matters of policy

@blondegrlz: If they were in your purse, and this was a grocery store, hopefully the funny face was only a commentary on the shoes, not their presence in your bag. "I need a price check on pumps in Aisle 12!"

So you buy a watch at Walmart (well, not *me*, but someone...) and 2 weeks later you go back to Walmart wearing that watch. WHAM! Walmart Loss Prevention NAILS you for it. Lawyers call and write.

Scary.

Isn't Home Depot also the same company that has fired employees for following shoplifters out of the store, and attempting to stop them??

[en.wikipedia.org]

The X makes it sound cool.

They are going after the run of the mill folks with this- not the fully organized crime crews which harvest their stores either by shoplifting or upc code switching.

Home Depot:
[deseretnews.com],1249,635155046,00.html
[www.bizjournals.com]
[www.cbsnews.com]

Walmart:
[www.eweek.com]

@MPHinPgh:

Suing someone who steals your stuff to get it back or recover its cost - sure it's legal...

I'm glad stores sue shoplifters - it beats jacking up the prices for everyone.

The problem here should be obvious, though. Make sure you know what you're talking about first. Don't call everyone suspicious a "shoplifter." Don't sue an "alleged" shoplifter if you can't prove they did it.

If you are a store dumb enough to call someone a thief, and they plausibly explain why they are not, and they are also convincing enough that the local prosecutor won't bring charges, catch a clue. Otherwise you may find your store making "confidential settlements" like the one described.

What scares me is not a letter threatening suit, or even a suit itself. What scares me is some NON-law enforcement security guard HANDCUFFED an INNOCENT US citizen.

A security guard even ATTEMPTS to so much as "pull me aside," and he will be looking down the barrel of my gun (I practice my second amendment right), as I will assume such an action is a threat to my life (which makes pulling my weapon legal in my state).

You lay a finger on me (unless you are wearing a REAL badge from a REAL LEO agency), you better be prepared for the consequences.

@NefariousNewt: I used to frequent and Asian grocery store that sold not only delicious produce but shoes and electronics. So not that out of the question after all!
@discounteggroll: My Targets were in SC and VA and that was the complete policy there as well. Mostly the security guys just followed around people who looked suspicious hoping to deter the shoplifting in the first place, because arresting them for it was too difficult.

@discounteggroll: Pretty much the same thing in California, just add that merchant's agent must keep the person in sight AT ALL TIMES! Or at least that was the rule at one place I worked at. Seriously, I'm surprised that the guy in the story hasn't considered suing HD for false imprisonment since some of the conditions you mentioned probably weren't met. Nobody saw him enter without the item, nobody saw him pick it from the shelves, nobody saw him conceal it, and the only way it was seen/found was because it was poking out of his shirt pocket, indicating either he wasn't trying to conceal it, or just isn't very good at concealing items. I know that the place I worked at was VERY concerned about getting sued, so if those conditions weren't met, then the LP people couldn't stop the person suspected of shoplifting. Follow them around long enough, though, and they'll do it again (this was at an amusement park, so the kiddies would usually go from store to store picking up whatever they wanted).

I'm no lawyer, but I think in the case where law firms sends letters threatening to sue after a case in court regarding the same matters have been dismissed, the person should write a letter back threatening to file charges for Malicious Prosecution. Mail fraud charges should also be considered.

Normally, I tend to advocate not being so litigation happy. But sometimes you really gotta fight fire with fire!

@Buran:

And I'd be suing THEM for unlawful detainment....

And you'd be losing that suit.
The big suxxors in this picture is that in pretty much every state a shop can detain someone suspected of shoplifting and it's not kidnapping or false imprisonment - it's exempt. You can be totally in the right as a customer but if they detain you and say "I suspected..." the store is scott free.

While this story is an example of the system going too far civil recovery does work well for both stores and people who steal from them.

When I worked in retail they would do this with any store member caught stealing. Pretty much they would try to get them to admit to whatever they stole and setup a payment plan for them to repay the store for the damages. This was on top of any criminal charges that they might bring. It allowed the store to recover some of what was lost without spending a lot of money on a trial. For the few internal thefts where I had anything to do with catching the person the amount they were charged was based on the retail amount of what they stole.

What gets me in this case too is the guy let them handcuff him. As soon as they tried to lay a hand on me all hell would have broken loose. I would have walked to the back with them and that is about it. If they tried to touch me though any of it they would have gotten a single warning before I would fight back.

@azntg:

Second that.

It's not suspect at all that the law firm gets a categorical cut of any settlement? Sure sounds to me like the law firm has a conflict between its wallet and its obligation to only take meritorious cases. I'm pretty sure that most states have laws against lawfirms going into business with their clients.

Yet another reason to stop shopping at brick and mortar stores. I'll stick with the internets, thanks.

@emjsea:
"I saw you put that in your cart! Now you're just surfing off the page to another store - are you going to pay for that or not?"

This is sorta an old story. Over two years ago, the AG's office in Okla was complaining that when companies (read: Wal-Mart) take on the task of civilly "prosecuting" shoplifters and bad-check writers, the law is often circumvented. Of course, they didn't mention what I think is the bigger reason for their distress, which is that the gummint doesn't get its cut in fines and fees when Wal-Mart's doin' it for themselves.

WM claimed in the story that it was going its own way in order to streamline the process of dealing with shoplifting and bad checks, that they thought that taking their customers to the law created a bad public image (and somehow, creating their own recovery service would be better PR).

In a rare moment of sympathy for retailers, I'm certain it is a huge pain to have to deal with state agencies when trying to prosecute thieves and recover damages. But this rabid-dog lawyer solution is definitely going too far.

@aaron8301:

It isn't that I disagree with your sentiment, but I'd talk with a lawyer before you do something like that.

In smaller stores, I'll usually tell an employee when I enter if I have something they might sell. When I go into my local used bookstore, I usually pull my book out of my bag (they ask us to leave our bags with them, anyway) and tell them, "This belongs to me."

Well, in light of this...

I'm going to sue everyone on the Consumerist because you have stole something. Either pay $9000 of attorney fees or risk being sued!

I kid...I kid...

But isn't this what it all amounts to? I see all sorts of fraud happening with this. Send some old/naive people these letters, they'll pay in a heartbeat.

First, some of you should know, merely concealing an item can get you arrested for retail theft in some states. Those of you who put an item in your pocket on the way to the check out shouldn't.

Second, (and I'm not saying this is the case here, but...) what's to stop a customer from buying something, going into a store a week later, getting another one of the same item and sticking it in his/her pocket and claiming - I bought it last week, here's my receipt!

Third, shoplifters suck and this is just another reason why "civil rights" and such suck. If I own a store and I know personX is shoplifting, but I can't *prove* it, I should simply be allowed to go up to personX and tell them I don't want them in my store - and if they come in again, they'll be charged with trespassing. Instead, if personX is 1/20th asian and homosexual, suddenly I'd be looking at some kind of civil rights lawsuit.

I I were one of these stores, I would be more worried of the liabilities of being sued for false imprisonment if my security guards (not law enforcement officers) are starting to handcuff people. Not a law enforcement officer = you do not touch me without serious consequences.

@AARON8301, I share your sentiments and also carry a concealed weapon, but would probably not resort to drawing unless I thought my life were in immediate danger, which is unlikely at the hands of a security guard. De-escalate the situation first, if that involves laying the security guard out on the ground then so be it. If I were a security guard I would be extremely apprehensive about attempting to handcuff someone, you never know who might not take kindly to it.

I want a list of the stores that do this.

What bothers me the most is the Home Depot incident is that this guy was totally innocent and was able to also prove it yet they still went after him. I understand them going after caught shoplifters in this manner but they are going after anyone even in the case of an obvious misunderstanding.

I feel like now everything I carry on my person is suspect. Am I going to get harassed by Walgreens for having a partial bottle of contact rewetting drops in my bag? What about my scratched up MP3 player? This kind of bullcrap makes me want to buy everything online.

@carterbeauford: Being female the idea of some greasy underpaid security guard at a big box store trying to handcuff me and drag me into a back room does not play well.

I would WANT the cops to come and would make a scene until they do.

Sounds like they are taking their cues from the RIAA. "We can't prove anything, but we'll squeeze you anyway"

That is why....

Everyone should buy a kindle!

@bohemian:
And that's exactly why the whole "shopkeepers exepmtion" or "shopkeepers privilege" or whatever pretty much every particular state has blows soo much. Kidnapping & false imprisonment should be crimes, not crimes "unless the person doing it is a shopkeeper."

RHOMBOPTERYX:

The big suxxors in this picture is that in pretty much every state a shop can detain someone suspected of shoplifting and it's not kidnapping or false imprisonment - it's exempt. You can be totally in the right as a customer but if they detain you and say "I suspected..." the store is scott free.

This is not correct. In those states that do have some form of "shopkeepers privelege", the store is only immune from liability if they can demonstrate a reasonable suspicion (Some states actually require probable cause, an even tougher standard) that you were actually shoplifting. And saying "I suspect he was stealing" or "he had drill bits in his shirt pocket" doesn't cut it by a long shot.

If they can't provide clear, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that you wer in fact shoplifting, they are NOT immune to liability

As someone who also wanders around with books in my laptop bag and is known to frequent bookstores, the first thing I do when I purchase a book from Barnes and Noble, Borders or amazon is tape the receipt inside the back cover of the book.
That way, at least I can prove that the book is, indeed mine, and I paid for it in full.

/paranoia, OFF

@rhombopteryx: You may not have a criminal charge for wrongful imprisonment or kidnapping, but that's not to say you wouldn't win a civil case against them for holding you. Unless they could successfully get the case dismissed before it went in front of a jury, I'd put the odds in favor of the plaintiff in a civil proceeding about an innocent person getting hauled into a closet bristling with video cameras by Big Box's Rent-a-cop.

@rhombopteryx: Except they don't have the suspicion because the probable cause isn't there. I addressed that already. This has already been through court.