Walmart can try to spin itself as being on the side of good all it wants, but if it ever suspects you of shoplifting, you may find that you’re powerless to fight back. In the case of a couple accused of shoplifting some Bic lighters in Niles, Michigan this past August, Walmart detained them, the police came and cuffed one of them, their two kids were taken to a security room, and—after a review of security footage proved the couple’s innocence—they were banned for life from all Walmarts. To top it off, Walmart’s legal team has sent the couple a letter asking to be reimbursed for 10 times the value of the lighters, even though the police determined no shoplifting had taken place.
(It’s unclear whether the couple ever actually paid for the Bic lighters in question—the article only specifies that the footage shows they scanned the package of lighters but that the scanner didn’t register it.)
The couple in question is gay and their sons are adopted, which may have introduced a whole new level of emotional reactions on both sides of the dispute. The men say their children told them that while they were being held in the security room, the security staff threatened the kids and “had made disparaging remarks about Paolucci and Hitchcock’s lifestyle.” It’s not a stretch to imagine that such an attitude, if it existed, carried over into any face-to-face interactions. Meanwhile, the police who showed up and cuffed Paolucci, then forced the two men into the backs of different squad cars, claim that the men were causing a disturbance when they arrived at the scene.
Still, no amount of pro-gay or anti-gay outrage makes it okay for a retailer to place paying customers in such an abusive situation, especially when the retailer’s own security footage—which was immediately available for review—shows that if there was any inventory issue it was due to a malfunction of the scanner. But Walmart can get away with it because it can afford to:
Asked if they intend to sue Wal-Mart, Paolucci said he and Hitchcock probably won’t because other attorneys have advised them Wal-Mart historically “plays hardball” and isn’t prone to settle cases out of court.
“We could spend a couple million dollars to sue them,” Paolucci said.
But that doesn’t mean there won’t be court action. Paolucci and Hitchcock e-mailed The Tribune a copy of a letter from a law firm representing Wal-Mart seeking 10 times the retail price of the items the store still claims were shoplifted by Paolucci. The letter states the matter will be dropped if Paolucci submits the $158.40 payment.
Fortunately, the men seem to have enough money that they can afford to never shop at the discount retailer again, even if they weren’t banned for life. If you’re not part of a wealthy two-income family, though… well hopefully Walmart will look down favorably upon you when your post-checkout time comes, so long as you act contrite and respectful of their security team’s authority.
(Oh yeah, now I remember why I don’t want a Walmart anywhere near where I live.)
*Note: I originally reported the Walmart as being located in Niles, Illinois. However, the South Bend Tribune generally covers areas in Michigan and Indiana, and the couple lives in Buchanan, Michigan, which also has a Niles located nearby. I’ve updated the post to report the Walmart as being located in Niles, Michigan. -Chris
“Niles couple banned from Wal-Mart after dispute over BIC lighters” [South Bend Tribune] (Thanks to Shanon!)
RELATED
“Loomis Rent-A-Cops Have Shopper Cuffed, Hauled Away Over ATM Photo”
(Photo: Brave New Films)
More From Consumerist
-
Your Fellow Walmart Shoppers Would Appreciate It If You Took The Lube Home Before Using It
-
Hitting Up The Same Walmart Three Times To Shoplift Goes Poorly For Woman
-
Nope, It’s Not Legal To Hunt Deer In The Walmart Parking Lot
-
If Your Resolution Is To Finally Figure Out That Whole Hygiene Thing, Walmart Has You Covered
-
Cops Say Couple Bound & Blindfolded Kids Before Leaving Them In Walmart Parking Lot
I banned Walmart from entering my wallet over a year ago. There is nothing they sell that I can’t get for the same price or less somewhere else. Most of their stuff is garbage anyway.
Does anyone see that this could all have been avoided if WalMart didn’t have self-check? If a cashier had made the mistake, whoops, cashier is disciplined. But, because WM can’t afford the cashier, they must deal with all the bad publicity.
It’s articles like this that make me SO CONFUSED as to why no one at Wal-Mart would even stay on the phone with my friends and I when we called to report a robbery. We saw two guys come running out of an alarmed back door (my friends’ balcony faces the back of a Wal-Mart in Norwalk, CT), throw several large electronics boxes in the back of an SUV, and speed away. We called the store, told them they were robbed, and they responded with, “No we weren’t” and a hang up. We called the police who apparently also had trouble convincing Wal-Mart that they had been robbed. It was only when the cops found the culprits after they did the same thing several times down I-95 and returned the items to Wal-Mart did they acknowledge the situation. It was ASININE!!! My friend and I went to the store the next day and spoke with a manager, who apologized for the employees’ handling of the situation. We told him that the next time we witness Wal-Mart getting robbed, all we’re going to do is cheer on the criminals.
(If you’re wondering, we definitely were conflicted about reporting the crime in the first place. We all hated Wal-Mart, and were not opposed to it losing money and inventory. We called because we didn’t want an innocent employee to get blamed when they finally noticed that a flat screen tv was missing.)
LESLIE CHARLES GILROY (corrupt cop) (thief)
in company with
LLOYD STEPHEN GANZERLA (thief)
BELINDA JANE GANZERLA (thief) (nee Keuning)
EUGENE CLEVELAND GANZERLA (thief)
TRACEY ANNE GANZERLA (nee Payne from Junee) (thief)
and others, robbed my wife and I
See the whole story here
http://austlawpublish.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
Walmart is horrible. Some locations worse than others. The Hammond, LA Walmart is terrible about accusing innocent customers of shoplifting. It happened to be 4 months ago. My husband and I basically bought everything at walmart. We had made several customer complains, with managment about employee / managment rudness and lack of interest in customer care/ help.
Long story made short. I went grocery shopping one night without my husband as he was working. I made a “looking” trip out of it also as that was only the second time in a year I’d been shopping without hubby. I looked in each department, took my time, browsing and planning a Christmas list, etc. I was in the store a couple of hours, gathered close to $100 dollars in groceries, checked out, right after I left the check out had a police officer (was working his paid guard detail for walmart) and a walmart “loss prevention” guy approach me, take my arms and tell me I must accompany them to the back room. I smiled and asked them what was going on. They repeated three times “You need to come with us to the back room.” I refused, and told them I didn ‘t understand. The loss prevention guy said, ” I believe you have some of my merchandise on you.” I still didn’t understand. I said “I do, I just bought groceries.” He said, “No you shoplifted…” I was in shock. I said “What???” He said “I believe you have stolen some of my merchandise and you have to go to the back room so we can search you. If you refuse to let us search you the guard will force you to let me search you.”
I was afraid, in a state of shock, and totally dumbfounded. The stupid loss prevention man repeated you have my merchandise in your purse.” I told him basically everything I have came from here… My shoes I’m wearing, my pants, blouse, purse, makeup, everything in my purse… my wallet, etc.” He repeated they were taking me to the back room and searching me or either the cop (a Tangipohoa sheriff working his guard detail at walmart) would would “take me down” right there.
They made me very hurt and angry. I had not stolen anything and if they were going to search me do it there at the front of the store… The cop repeated three times “I’m going to take you down, if you don’t come to the back with us!!” I asked him what he meant. He said ,” I’m going to tackle you to the floor right here and take you down, and strip search you here if you don’t come to the back” He grabbed at my arm and I jerked away from him. I told loss prevention I was going to sue the hell out of walmart for their accusations and treatment of me. This was only happening because we’d been complaining about service their and made several attempts to get management to do something over the stores treatment of us and customers in general. The cop yelled, ” Are you threating me, I’ll arrest you for threatening a police officer right now.” I asked how was I threatening him just because I’d told loss prevention I’d sue walmart…??
They ~~ Tangapohoa sheriff and walmart loss prevention took me to the “back room” and held me 3 hours. The loss prevention guy kept threatening to have the cop attack me if I didn’t submit to a search of my purse. The loss prevention guy took a tube of unopened lipstick I had (not in a box… just unused) and took a small can of off insect repellent I had. He said “This is $23 dollars worth of my merchandise you stole.” I told him “No, I bought that weeks ago… I carry off because we have animals on our property 4 miles from were we live and we go by on the way home to feed, check them and tend them, hence the insect repellent. ” The walmart loss prevention guy was on a “walmart junky loss prevention ADRENALINE high”….He kept telling the cop “My adrenaline is just pumping… it’s so exciting to “catch” someone it’s such an adrenaline rush…it’s like an overdose…: Even the cop told him to hush that he should not be saying that in front of me.
The cop told loss prevention he had only had $23 dollars worth of supposed shoplifted merchandise… he would have to let me go, as walmart only prosecuted over $25 dollars. The walmart prevention NUT case ARENALINE high guy said “NO, I’ll find something else to include… ” and begin digging in my purse again…. he came out with a cell phone…said I stole it. I told him, “Well, that’s strange as it’s been registered in my name for nearly 2 years….so how did I steal it tonight?” He literally threw the cell phone back at me. He begin digging again in my purse… He took a small flashlilght that looked new… He said I must have stole it and added it to his “List” of stolen merchandise. Then he took my extra OPENED batteries for my second small flashlight… and begin adding again… He said, “I now have $58 dollars in stolen merchandise, so we can prosecue you now.”
I told him, “NO you now have MY posessions you are claiming are your merchandise… and you have NO right to hold me three hours, and take my things, and tell me I cannot call my husband. You also have no right to threaten me as I’ve done nothing wrong.” I told him and the cop I was calling my husband and my sister and would also being hiring an attorney handle the matter for me.
We hired an attorney, we have a court date this month for “Motions”… We (husband and I) have paid $2500 to have myself represented in this stupid, unsettling rediculous matter caused by a stupid, bored walmart loss prevention guy with nothing else to do but find an innocent female shopper to pick on just to get his adrenaline rush. NOTICE ~~ they never bothered us as long as my husband and I were together. The guy even brought up the fact we had been complaining on previous visits.
This is a CLEAR CUT case of Walmart abusing and harassing good customers. We spent probably a $800.00 to $1000 per month in Walmart before this stupidity happened. So Walmart will not only lose $10,000 per year or more in business from us, but I will do everything possible to make the public aware of just how terribly bad some of the locations / employees are in their treatment of honest, paying customers.
I also find it VERY inappropreate for a Tangipohoa parish sheriffs deputy to tell a female shopper “If you don’t go to the back room with us and allow us to search you I will TAKE you down right her and tackle you to the floor.” Is this not police intimidation without cause? Before all was said and done that night, even the cop was telling the walmart prevention guy to just let me go… BECAUSE even he realized their mistake and that the walmart loss prevention guy first name Tom, was on an adrenaline RUSH and had made an error.
I even told the walmart prevention guy I would pay for my own items, give him the $58 dollars cash just to have the whole stupid matter dropped. He said “I can’t let you go, it’s gone too far, if I do we, and walmart will be liable.”
The public, and ALL WALMART shopperse everywhere need to BEWARE of how Walmart’s so called “loss prevention” people act. YOU, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR WIFE, YOUR DAUGHTER, SON, MOTHER, or ANYONE in your family can have this happened to them, at any given time in any given walmart… PLEASE BEWARE.
I’ve researched Walmart extensively over the past 4 months…and found horror store after horror story of how walmart loss prevention staff have harassed, attacked and even killed customers they “thought” were shoplifting… I have wondered at times if I had not went to the back room with them that night, would the cop have “tackled” me and taken me down as he’d threatened? Would they have set on my back collasping me chest as I read they did with one innocent man they wrongly accused of shoplifting?
He died… he was a master carpenter, father, outstanding community member, but still walmart “loss prevention” targeted him as a “shoplifter” tackled him in the parking lot, (4 men) and sat on his back collasping his chest so he could not breath until he died. A child lost it’s father, a wife lost her husband, all for naught… All because 4 guys from walmart loss prevention were on an adrenaline high to “catch” someone… They didn’t find any of their “merchandise” on this man according to the story I read. HOW SAD. How absolutely SAD. I personally think all four people who attacked this man should be convicted of murder.
God knows this sort of abuse is more than wrong.
@fantomesq: They weren’t arrested, and their kids have nothing to do with any claims of “innocence.”
They were detained in squad cars (one in handcuffs) while the police reviewed the video footage with Walmart personnel. The police then said that upon reviewing the footage, they did not believe any shoplifting had taken place and that they were free to go. At that point, Walmart employees told them they were banned.
@fantomesq: RTFA
@fantomesq:
Did you even come close to reading the actual article?
@skizsrodt: unfortunately no. think oj. he was found criminally innocent. but civilly was found guilty.
@fantomesq: Two words: CIVIL LAWSUIT.
This has nothing to do with the DA or charges.
@Chris Walters:
Handcuffing a suspect after a temporary detention is generally considered an arrest unless exceptional circumstances exist. Bradley v. State
@Chris Walters:
Let’s go over it again, kids. If You Are Not Free To Leave, You Are Under Arrest. Even if the nice officer lies and says you aren’t, you are.
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: I see what you did there…Touche to you, sir.
@fantomesq: If they were detained by Wal-Mart (not an agent of the state), but only briefly handcuffed by the police, I’m not sure it’s an arrest, but its a close one.
@ChemicallyInert: The problem is that as the article says Walmart pays hardball with lawsuits. If it moved to limited or unlimited court you would definitely need a lawyer and would have to demand a jury trial etc, and the legal fees would be absurd. So you would want the case to stay in small claims because it’s more more manageable without an attorney
@sinfuly Delicious: Not “guilty.” Civil suits don’t determine guilt or innocence. He was just found liable for some amount of damages.
@sinfuly Delicious: I’m normally the last person to debate semantics, but….
A criminal court will NEVER say a person is “innocent”, they will find an accused person “guilty” or “not guilty” of the alleged crime.
Similarly a civil court will find a person “liable” or “not liable” for the matter claimed in the lawsuit; they will never (or at least should never) say a person is guilty in a civil context (both due to the fact they are not considering a criminal matter and that the burden of proof is substantially lower).
@thisistobehelpful: I’m guessing he’s referring to the shootings.
@xtc46 – thinksmarter on twitter: He was jailed because he gave the police a false name. Not really Walmart’s choice there. He tried to steal a 64GB iPod Touch ($379 at Walmart). He was fined $250. He’s not banned from entering a Walmart store.
Think about it.
@mntr: wsn’t trllng, ‘m gy t dmbss.
@redskull: They can. All they have to do is stop shopping there.
@redskull: I’m doing my part- now to get everyone else in my midwestern town onboard. Not too likely I’m afraid.
What’s to stop these guys from going to another Supercenter? Is there some kind of Walmart’s Most Wanted bulletin board?
@RecordStoreToughGuy_IsBeing(pur)SuedByAMonster: Best case scenario? They get maybe a a thousand bucks from slander, really there just is not much in terms of damages the couple was only embarrassed and other than not being able to shop at Walmart which is the prerogative of a Walmart employee to say certain people cannot come in there is nothing really there.
I do not agree with what Walmart did, I might even say they were being pants on head retarded. I just do not think it is worthwhile to suen
@redskull:
thanks to wal-mart’s everyday low prices, a teen can actually swipe 3 CD’s, or a DVD and CD combination and still not see any legal recourse
=/
@snnlln:
nd bng gy SHLDNT b prtctd clss. f y chs t lv prvrtd lfstyl y tk n th cnsqncs. ts n dffrnt thn plc f bsnss syng y cnt cm n f y wr bl jns. Ppl nd lgl prtctn fr thngs thy cnnt hlp sch s rc, gndr, r g
@sonneillon: It’s generally true that sexual orientation is not a protected class, but it’s a little more complicated than that. There are approximately 12 states plus many more small jurisdictions (e.g.: municipalities) where sexual orientation has the same protections as race, sex, religion, etc.
@Gorphlog: People don’t choose to be gay. Did you choose to be straight?
@Gorphlog: Logic fail. Religion is a choice, and is protected.
@Gorphlog: You know what is actually a choice Gorphlog? Religion. If religious people choose to believe their bullshit they should face the consequences. Do you know what isn’t a choice? Sexual orientation. So if anything, discrimination against religion should be allowed, and discrimination against sexual orientation should not.
@Gorphlog:
Religion shouldn’t be a protected class. After all, you choose your religion.
@Gorphlog: I have to say that I’m a little disappointed to see that you haven’t been banned/DV’ed for that comment yet.
This is generally a pretty nice online community. I wouldn’t expect a bigot to be welcome.
@Gorphlog: As michael jackson would say:
You’re ignorant… That’s ignorant
@wickedpixel: Just wait until they start putting them in the Supercenters…
@P_Smith:
Walmart probably had the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain them until the police showed up. They were apparently observed putting an item in their bag that they did not scan and thus did not pay for. It seems Walmart might have been wrong in the end, but that doesn’t defeat the initial reasonable suspicion that justified the detention.
Further, the illegal search and seizure provisions of the 4th Amendment only apply to the government (law enforcement), not to Walmart (private company). There are probably similarly applicable torts, but search and seizure isn’t one of them.
Moreover, Defamation isn’t an easy case to make. The burdens are fairly high, in part because of the 1st Amendment. If Walmart had reason to believe they shoplifted, accusing them of it and ultimately being wrong probably doesn’t amount to defamation. The plaintiff shoppers would probably have to prove that at the time of the accusation Walmart KNEW that it was false. The fact it was ultimately proven false may not matter.
@coren:
That doesn’t lessen the validity of Walmart’s offer to settle a potential claim that they believe they may have. The fact that the shoppers may have a separate claim against Walmart also doesn’t extinguish the validity of any potential claim Walmart may have. Thus, the letter they sent offer to accept $158.xx in exchange for not bringing suit probably isn’t fraudulent. So long as Walmart actually believes they have some basis for a suit there probably isn’t anything (legally) wrong with them offering to settle.
@RedwoodFlyer: I’m black myself, and I can’t stand how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson unjustifiably bring race into every conceivable scenario. While it will never happen, legal battles and the media need to stick to the facts, and leave race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. out unless it is absolutely indisputable that it was a factor in the case.
@Esquire99:
And, fortunately, neither is your belief relevent to the average civil jury!
@coren: Yeah, now that you mention it, I wonder who she -would- have been willing to sell them too. Probably not straight “fornicators” either.
@Esquire99: Define “reasonable suspicion”. Does that mean shopping while poor? Wearing clothes that have pockets or clothes looser than a spandex bodysuit?
I’m not being snarkty with you, but it’s a ridiculous notion that “reasonable suspicion” is enough. The burden of proof must always lie with the accuser – prosecutors who knowingly file with insufficient evidence can be held accountable, so why not anyone else?
Just as absolute power corrupts absolutely, if people and businesses can make accusations with impunity, they’re going to start making false accusations because they know there are no repercussions.
@supercereal: Thanks for telling us your black, this clearly makes your opinion more important then others and I now care more. How dare the media report that the kids said something, theres no proof of this other then what the kids say so it didn’t happen. Brilliant. I guess we know where you stand on the side of “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound” debate.
Thank You!
@P_Smith:
The things you mention would not be sufficient to make reasonable suspicion. The security guard, etc. needs to be able to articulate why they think the person shoplifted; essentially, did the guard see the shopper stick something in his pocket? The guard doesn’t have to be right, but he needs to believe he saw someone shoplift. All that “accusation” gets them is the opportunity to briefly detain the person to investigate further. This is a well-established privilege that retailers have.
As far as your analog to the prosecutor, it’s not really the same. A prosecutor who files charges may be held accountable if he does so on a knowingly insufficient basis, but he can certainly arrest the person and investigate so long as there is probable cause.
The burden necessary to justify a detention and the burden necessary to move forward with, or to succeed, in a prosecution are different. In this case, Wal-Mart only needed to show that they had reasonable suspicion that the person shoplifted. Once they cross that hurdle, they can briefly detain the individual to investigate further. Being ultimately wrong doesn’t extinguish the initial right to detain.
@Rb: Wlcm t crmnl lw. f t cn’t b prvn, t lglly ddn’t hppn. r y srsly rtrdd?
@StanTheManDean: Yes, someone can look at me and my partner shopping (two guys, one cart) and quickly put 2 and 2 together from there. It isn’t rocket science.
@StanTheManDean: No matter what you are wearing, assuming you aren’t nude or revealing privates, if you are not verbally or physically attacking, harassing or disturbing other customers or employees, than the damn staff should leave you alone and shut up, period.
@supercereal: You’re right, thats why are legal system doesn’t ever rely on witnesses or anything of the like because they could just be saying made up shit.
Thank goodness you cleared that all up.
@RedwoodFlyer: Wait a second though. Mom-and-pop shops may have their jackass moments, but they don’t have a massive, unchallangable corporation backing them.
That, my friend, is a gigantic difference. One might actually have a chance to fight back against a small shop without going totally broke…
@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: Apparently, that checker.
@coren: This would make this incident the first time in history someone actually looked at what was listed on the receipt (as opposed to looking at the number of items or just glancing at it) and compared it to what was in the bag.
@shadowkahn: Arrest != Detention. There are both actual and legal differences between being detained by the police and being arrested by them.
@mizike:
From Miriam Webster: Arrest: “to take or keep in custody by authority of law”
If you are not free to leave, then you have been taken and are being kept in the custody of the officer who is not allowing you to leave. You are arrested.
From Black’s Law Dictionary: “The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.”
If you are not free to leave, then you have been detained, and are therefore under arrest.
And from Terry v. Ohio (1968 US Supreme Court case) “An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society’s interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual’s freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows”
If the cop tells you you can’t leave, then he is interfering with your freedom of movement and has therefore arrested you.