TexasCHLforum.com

pt145ss wrote:Great...that is exactly what i was looking for. Now, it says person, not merchant, so does that mean if I have reasonable belief that someone stole my garden gnome I can detain them for investigative purposes? Also, does that mean I can use force for such detention? Meaning the suspect does not wish to be detained can I use force to detain them?

I think so, but as usual, IANAL.

We also have chapter 9 of the penal code, which allows us to use force to recover stolen property; but in that case you have to quite certain the person has stolen property.

Now back to the one case law that was posted, They did not find any merchandise on her person; If at that point she said, arrest me or I am leaving can they (the store employees) use force to detain her?

Can they? It is physically possible for them to do so, and in this case the store won in the end. However, I'll bet they paid a lot in legal fees, unless they had in-house counsel. Appeals are a specialty, and they probably had to farm that work out.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It has already been quoted: CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE, CHAPTER 124.

- Jim

I must have missed this post. It is still very grey on what is reasonable, etc, but does say from a civil standpoint it is premissable.

Great info Jim, thanks!

You're welcome, but thank whoever first posted it. I wasn't aware of it.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

pt145ss wrote:Great...that is exactly what i was looking for. Now, it says person, not merchant, so does that mean if I have reasonable belief that someone stole my garden gnome I can detain them for investigative purposes? Also, does that mean I can use force for such detention? Meaning the suspect does not wish to be detained can I use force to detain them?

I think so, but as usual, IANAL.

We also have chapter 9 of the penal code, which allows us to use force to recover stolen property; but in that case you have to quite certain the person has stolen property.

Now back to the one case law that was posted, They did not find any merchandise on her person; If at that point she said, arrest me or I am leaving can they (the store employees) use force to detain her?

Can they? It is physically possible for them to do so, and in this case the store won in the end. However, I'll bet they paid a lot in legal fees, unless they had in-house counsel. Appeals are a specialty, and they probably had to farm that work out.

- Jim

The store originally lost both the criminal prosecution (well the DA lost the criminal case) and the civil case. In the civil case the store won on appeal. The civil case was about malice and not about unlawful detention. In the civil case the patron had to prove that not only was there not enough probable cause and that in spite of knowing there was no probable cause they pushed forwarded based on some other bias. She lost in appeals because the employees’ statements were enough probable cause and there was no proof of some other bias.

Again, she cooperated and allowed herself to be detained and gave an explanation which was not investigated (so was there an investigation?). At the point where they refused to investigate her claim and they knew that she had no items that were potentially stolen from the store…is it reasonable to continue detention? Is it reasonable to use force to maintain that detention? The code does not say anything about force, so how does 9.XX or whatever reconcile back to 124? At that point, they were not trying to recover stolen items. At that point they were conducting interviews with the employees. Does the suspect have to be present or detained in order for the security to conduct interviews with their employees? I would think that this part did not require the suspect’s participation or detention. Is it reasonable to maintain detention while security wrote up a report?

Guys, not only can you be detained, but you can be taken to a magistrate along with the stolen property, meaning they can cuff you, put you in a car, and drive you to a magistrate. The law also allows them to deliver you to a peace officer for the same purposes, and in reality that is what happens.

There are two laws regarding preventing the consequences of theft.

Texas Code opf Criminal Procedures
Art. 18.16. [325] [376] [364] 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.


CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE

CHAPTER 124. PRIVILEGE TO INVESTIGATE THEFT


§ 124.001. DETENTION. 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.

Quite an interesting thread...............

txinvestigator wrote:Guys, not only can you be detained, but you can be taken to a magistrate along with the stolen property, meaning they can cuff you, put you in a car, and drive you to a magistrate. The law also allows them to deliver you to a peace officer for the same purposes, and in reality that is what happens.

There are two laws regarding preventing the consequences of theft.

Texas Code opf Criminal Procedures
Art. 18.16. [325] [376] [364] 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.


CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE

CHAPTER 124. PRIVILEGE TO INVESTIGATE THEFT


§ 124.001. DETENTION. 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.

Quite an interesting thread...............

I think that pretty much sums it up to me. I guess within reason they can detain and turn you over to the proper authorities with force if necessary (again...the code does not specifically say force is justified...but others far smarter than I on here believe it is justified). It just seems to be in conflict with citizens’ arrest in that a citizen can only arrest for a witnessed felony. And this says anyone can detain/arrest for theft. I assume that the citizens’ arrest then applies to other misdemeanors like trespass in that neither section would allow a citizen to detain or arrest for simple trespass. Basically, if it is not theft and not a felony, then the arrest must be done by LEO (generally speaking).

I think if I owned a business I would put in strict a policy about the use of force to detain someone. I think the only employees that I would allow to use force are those specially trained in the use of force laws and only allow it in extreme circumstances. I would not want some pimple infected 17 yr old making decisions on using force to protect company property. Protecting oneself is a different story as that is an inherent right ordained by god....not man.

In the code is says…�and the seizure must be openly made�…what does that mean? Does that mean that they can not bring you to a back room and search….or does that mean they can not seize item without first explaining who there are? What?

pt145ss wrote:It just seems to be in conflict with citizens’ arrest in that a citizen can only arrest for a witnessed felony. And this says anyone can detain/arrest for theft. I assume that the citizens’ arrest then applies to other misdemeanors like trespass in that neither section would allow a citizen to detain or arrest for simple trespass. Basically, if it is not theft and not a felony, then the arrest must be done by LEO (generally speaking).

You got it.

Sometimes the law states what you can't do, and sometimes it states what you can do. You can take a thief to the police or magistrate along with the stolen property, even if the theft is a misdemeanor.

You (non-LEO) can arrest someone that you see commit a felony.

I'm inclined to think non-LEOs are excluded from arresting for misdemeanors to avoid having citizen arrests for stuff like littering (which happens every once in a while).

- Jim

Do we also not have the right to use force against a nonLEO who attempts to restrict our movements if we have a right to be there and if we have done no wrong?

Liberty wrote:Do we also not have the right to use force against a nonLEO who attempts to restrict our movements if we have a right to be there and if we have done no wrong?

That is where i was headed in my questioning about being made openly. I would assume that if i were walking out of a store...say in a parking lot, and I know I had not done anything wrong and someone tried to "seize" my stuff, my first reaction might be to meet force with force. And I assume that I would be legal to do so as code even allows for force against a LEO if that LEO “first� used unnecessary force to execute a warrant or arrest or something like that.

pt145ss wrote:I would assume that if i were walking out of a store...say in a parking lot, and I know I had not done anything wrong and someone tried to "seize" my stuff, my first reaction might be to meet force with force. And I assume that I would be legal to do so ...

IMO, if a store employee tries to take something from you by force without first talking to you, you are justified in using force to retain your property and also in attempting to elude the employee.

There's a fine line somewhere, I'm not sure exactly where. I think you would get in trouble for throwing a punch.

If an employee tried that with me, I would return to the store and read the riot act to his manager, rather than having a tussle in the parking lot. I'm too old for that.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: If an employee tried that with me, I would return to the store and read the riot act to his manager, rather than having a tussle in the parking lot. I'm too old for that.

- Jim

This is probably the best route to take.
When this happened to me at our local Kroger, I went to the manager, who didn't seem to care. I took my case to the district director, who ended up firing the manager and employee in question.

I do not shop at places where I am treated like a criminal.

nitrogen wrote:When this happened to me at our local Kroger, I went to the manager, who didn't seem to care. I took my case to the district director, who ended up firing the manager and employee in question.

Wow. So now at least two people hate your guts.

That's why I think stores should have policies forbidding the use of force in these situations. Whatever you might be shoplifting isn't worth the potential trouble, which includes a real thief injuring or even killing the employee.

If they have stuff they don't want to lose, they need to keep it locked up and make you pay for it on the spot.

- Jim

This is an interesting thread.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be in this thread. Perhaps I just don't communicate well in writing.

If a Loss Prevention Agent has solid reason to believe you have stolen merchandise, you will be detained and potentially handcuffed. Your belongings will be searched so the merchandise can be recovered. This can be done in the store or outside of the store.

If you resist you have escalated the situation and you will be taken to jail for resisting arrest. I don't know about you, but I don't want to lose my CHL for a charge of resisting arrest.

If the L.P. Agent makes a false arrest, they are in big trouble and they know it. Why would you want to risk the advantage you already have by escalating??? If you cooperate to the end, you are positioned for a civil suit in your favor. If you escalate, you will probably go to jail.

Loss Preventation Agents are ON OUR SIDE.
They put a huge number of bad guys in jail every day. They are admired by LEO's because they catch criminals in the act, many of whom have long rap sheets and warrants. LEO's love it because they turn over cut and dry arrests which bring up the Officers numbers.

When you see an LP Agent, shake their hand and thank them for their courage and service to the community. Thank them for solving Identity Fraud cases, busting Organized Crime rings, and keeping merchandise prices lower by recovering lost product margin on high end goods.

I doubt you will ever see one, but they see you and watch your every move while shopping.

Merry Christmas!

TS

The issue for me isn't well-trained people. It's a poorly trained employee who decides to play cop.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The issue for me isn't well-trained people. It's a poorly trained employee who decides to play cop.

- Jim

No problem - and my cowboy council is to go along, take names and then sue the crap out of them.
As CHL'ers we can't afford to make any bad moves, and sometimes its the only way the Store will learn to be Professional.