TexasCHLforum.com

Godwin's law has been invoked.

Jawohl mein herr!

ralewis wrote:
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.

You would be sitting in cuffs and you think objecting to a pat down matters? The seizure of your person is much bigger that any issue with a search. They can lawfully do one and you think somehow the other would be off limits? That make zero sense. Again if the store owner is acting within there is no legal justification for you to use force at all.

Abraham wrote:Achtung!

These folks don't realize that Shop Keepers Privileges allow them to be detained/strip searched/interrogated/ and generally mistreated in any manner the shop keeper so desires or so we've been informed...oh, and it doesnt matter if they're innocent.

Innocence has nothing to do with what S.K.P. allows.

"Sieg heil!"

That is absurd and no where have I seen anyone say that but you.

EEllis wrote:

ralewis wrote:
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.

You would be sitting in cuffs and you think objecting to a pat down matters? The seizure of your person is much bigger that any issue with a search. They can lawfully do one and you think somehow the other would be off limits?

Yes again please show the criminal statute where a non LEO can search you.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

ralewis wrote:
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.

You would be sitting in cuffs and you think objecting to a pat down matters? The seizure of your person is much bigger that any issue with a search. They can lawfully do one and you think somehow the other would be off limits?

Yes again please show the criminal statute where a non LEO can search you.

What cause of action do you think you will have against them if they do search you? They are allowed to search for stolen items, that's the investigation part, but a weapons check would be different. Honestly tho all references I've made to searching were the equivalent to a Terry Search, which is a quick check for weapons only, after someone has been forcibly detained and cuffed. You're not arguing with the handcuffing part of it but a quick pat of your pockets after they cuffed you is crossing the line? What logic is that? What cause of action do you think you could purse if they did? Is there any court anywhere going to say ok to cuffing but must leave suspects gun in his holster? Reality check here!

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

ralewis wrote:
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.

You would be sitting in cuffs and you think objecting to a pat down matters? The seizure of your person is much bigger that any issue with a search. They can lawfully do one and you think somehow the other would be off limits?

Yes again please show the criminal statute where a non LEO can search you.

What cause of action do you think you will have against them if they do search you? They are allowed to search for stolen items, that's the investigation part, but a weapons check would be different. Honestly tho all references I've made to searching were the equivalent to a Terry Search, which is a quick check for weapons only, after someone has been forcibly detained and cuffed. You're not arguing with the handcuffing part of it but a quick pat of your pockets after they cuffed you is crossing the line? What logic is that? What cause of action do you think you could purse if they did? Is there any court anywhere going to say ok to cuffing but must leave suspects gun in his holster? Reality check here!

I'm gonna step in here. A shop keeper has the right to detain you, and if you comply with the request, then that is fine. BUT, they cannot use physical force. If someone wants to walk on out, and a shop keeper physically places their hands on the person, then the customer would have very heavy grounds for an assault charge. The only way the store personnel might get away with a physical detention is if the suspect actually did steal an item and the prosecutor refuses to pursue charges against the shopkeeper or personnel. Even then, the person probably would be able to win a civil suit against the store.

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

ralewis wrote:
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.

You would be sitting in cuffs and you think objecting to a pat down matters? The seizure of your person is much bigger that any issue with a search. They can lawfully do one and you think somehow the other would be off limits?

Yes again please show the criminal statute where a non LEO can search you.

What cause of action do you think you will have against them if they do search you? They are allowed to search for stolen items, that's the investigation part, but a weapons check would be different. Honestly tho all references I've made to searching were the equivalent to a Terry Search, which is a quick check for weapons only, after someone has been forcibly detained and cuffed. You're not arguing with the handcuffing part of it but a quick pat of your pockets after they cuffed you is crossing the line? What logic is that? What cause of action do you think you could purse if they did? Is there any court anywhere going to say ok to cuffing but must leave suspects gun in his holster? Reality check here!

Please show the statute that says they are allowed to search. You have not. Remember the law is not permissive, its restrictive. Absent an affirmative grant under the law the default is battery (or whatever the Texas version of that is called) plus other nifty charges like unlawful detention for any physical touching, threat of touching, search, and confiscation depending on the fact pattern.
Please show the statute that says they can handcuff you. So far you have not.
Please show the statute that says they are allowed the equivalent of a Terry search. So far you have not.


The "reality check" is if you try to cuff a CHL and then illegally search them and then illegally take their weapon, civilly its not going to go well for you. Criminally it may not go well for you either.

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

ralewis wrote:
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.

You would be sitting in cuffs and you think objecting to a pat down matters? The seizure of your person is much bigger that any issue with a search. They can lawfully do one and you think somehow the other would be off limits?

Yes again please show the criminal statute where a non LEO can search you.

What cause of action do you think you will have against them if they do search you? They are allowed to search for stolen items, that's the investigation part, but a weapons check would be different. Honestly tho all references I've made to searching were the equivalent to a Terry Search, which is a quick check for weapons only, after someone has been forcibly detained and cuffed. You're not arguing with the handcuffing part of it but a quick pat of your pockets after they cuffed you is crossing the line? What logic is that? What cause of action do you think you could purse if they did? Is there any court anywhere going to say ok to cuffing but must leave suspects gun in his holster? Reality check here!

I'm gonna step in here. A shop keeper has the right to detain you, and if you comply with the request, then that is fine. BUT, they cannot use physical force. If someone wants to walk on out, and a shop keeper physically places their hands on the person, then the customer would have very heavy grounds for an assault charge. The only way the store personnel might get away with a physical detention is if the suspect actually did steal an item and the prosecutor refuses to pursue charges against the shopkeeper or personnel. Even then, the person probably would be able to win a civil suit against the store.

That simply isn't backed up by law.

A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.
privilege to investigate theft . tex. civ. prac. & rem. code § 124.001 (2009)

There is no privilege if a merchant were prohibited from any use of force. That would mean they couldn't put up an arm to prevent someone from leaving thus it requires the merchant to be able to use reasonable force.

Not to mention that one can always use force to prevent theft so.............

Oh and by the way separate from this issue. Those that wanted legal precedent for searches, well here you go.

when a store employee has probable cause to arrest a person for shoplifting, the employee may do so and make a “contemporaneous search” of the person and the objects within that person's control.   See Raiford v. The May Dep't Stores Co., 2 S.W.3d 527, 531 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

Still don't see what the big deal is,if detained and your innocent it will soon come to light

And if they take your weapon and your innocent you will soon get it back

patterson wrote:Still don't see what the big deal is,if detained and your innocent it will soon come to light

The initial issue is specifically can they attempt to search you and take your weapon if you are a CHL.

my concern with that would be a AD while LP was trying to clear it

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Please show the statute that says they are allowed to search. You have not. Remember the law is not permissive, its restrictive. Absent an affirmative grant under the law the default is battery (or whatever the Texas version of that is called) plus other nifty charges like unlawful detention for any physical touching, threat of touching, search, and confiscation depending on the fact pattern.
Please show the statute that says they can handcuff you. So far you have not.
Please show the statute that says they are allowed the equivalent of a Terry search. So far you have not.


The "reality check" is if you try to cuff a CHL and then illegally search them and then illegally take their weapon, civilly its not going to go well for you. Criminally it may not go well for you either.

You are wrong. Detain is the language of the law allowing shopkeepers privilege. It has to have been posted a dozen times already. And this has to looked at in the context of the event. Merchant is acting within the law to stop someone to investigate theft. If that person does not resist then there is no justification to handcuff. If they resist then the merchant can use force . The amount of force depends on the amount of resistance but if there is enough resistance then they can cuff the suspect. Then there is the separate but parallel ability to perform a citizens arrest. Basicly if nothing else you have the old fallback use of force to prevent assault. If the individual is combative or violent one can use force to stop them and cuffs can be applied to restrain the suspect. I think you would be more likely to get hit by lightning, unless you routinely go around shoplifting stuff, than to have anything like this happen to you. But people seem to think that what they "think" somehow matters. It doesn't. If I caught you shoplifting. You tried to flee than fought. If I won you would end up cuffed. Your gun would be removed. You would be arrested for theft and assault charges. You may face extra charges for doing so armed. And in Texas assault on a uniformed Security Officer, if the is who stops you, gets bumped up one degree from a class A misdemeanor to a felony charge. Oh and I did post some backing for the search thing my last post.

EEllis wrote:when a store employee has probable cause to arrest a person for shoplifting, the employee may do so and make a “contemporaneous search” of the person and the objects within that person's control.   See Raiford v. The May Dep't Stores Co., 2 S.W.3d 527, 531 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

I stand corrected that appears pretty on point.