Stores have free rein to recoup shoplifting losses

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Stores have free rein to recoup shoplifting losses
By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press | December 16, 2013 | Updated: December 16, 2013 1:28pm

NEW YORK (AP) — Outside the view of paying customers, people accused of shoplifting at Macy's huge flagship store are escorted by security guards to cells in "Room 140," where they can be held for hours, asked to sign an admission of guilt and pay hundreds in fines, sometimes without any conclusive proof they stole anything.

As shoppers jam stores ahead of the December holidays, claims of racial profiling at department stores in New York have helped expose the wide latitude that laws in at least 27 states give retailers to hold and fine shoplifting suspects, even if a person hasn't yet technically stolen anything, is wrongly accused or criminal charges are dropped.

"You must remember, these people are not police officers; they are store employees," said Faruk Usar, the attorney for a 62-year-old Turkish woman who sued Macy's, which some customers say bullied them into paying fines on the spot or harassed them with letters demanding payment. "When they are detained, they are not yet even in a real jail."

Industrywide, more than $12 billion is lost to shoplifting each year. The laws, which vary on strictness and fine amounts, allow stores to try to recoup some losses. Under New York's longstanding law, retailers may collect a penalty of five times the cost of the stolen merchandise, up to $500 per item, plus as much as $1,500 if the merchandise isn't in a condition to be sold. A conviction is not necessary to bring a civil claim.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Stores-have-free-rein-to-recoup-shoplifting-losses-5068626.php

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Sounds like false arrest to me.

How can a law like that even be Constitutional?

[get the red out]

2. Definitely!

How can stores hold people against their will??

[KansDem]

3. Too bad the banksters and Wall Street criminals can't be held to the same "standard."

But I can see why...

...escorted . . . to cells . . . where they can be held for hours

Who wants to stay in a room for hours with a bankster or Wall Street criminal?

[KurtNYC]

4. There is a gas/convenience store chain here, Stewarts, that makes employees pay for shoplifting

that occurs during their shift. They have a "pump then pay" gas pump and if someone drives out the employee is supposed to ...? run after them ? or pay for that full tank of gas on minimum wage. There is no camera and they can't see the car's plates form the register.

The chain makes them pay for any stolen items at full retail price -- NOT at the store's cost so the store is participating in the theft (by profiting on it).

[Brigid]

7. I think the employees need to look into this.

It has to be illegal.

[KurtNYC]

8. It fits with the Macys story

Also, when I interviewed at a movie theater (decades ago) they told me that they count and would charge me full (ridiculous) retail for any cups that were not sold as drinks during my shift. So one cup goes missing and you owe $3 or $4.

It shouldn't be legal. At most they should be able to deduct their cost (5 cent cup) from your check because that is the actual amount of damage/loss unless they witness or prove that you sold a drink and pocketed the amount in which case you should be fired and maybe charged with theft.

[Brigid]

9. They may be doing this just because they get away with it.

And that's because nobody questions it.

[silvershadow]

11. I worked for years at a convenience store that made us pay for drive-offs.

I begged the owners, in a variety of ways over an extended amount of time, to stop the practice or make the pumps pre-pay (I had 22 pumps to watch). We had to be the last station to go pre-pay only, and it was only on *some of the pumps.

[yourmovemonkey]

10. Wage workers should be exempt from assuming any of their employer's risks

Would any of us buy stock in a company that only promised us a share of the losses? Of course not.

This would only be fair if workers were also given a share of the till if their shift exceeded a certain goal. The employer is taking away the stability guaranteed by the (probably meager) wage.

[hughee99]

14. There are places that still do "pump then pay"?

When gas got over $3 a gallon, every station in MA near me changed to "pay first" either in-store with a card at the pump before any gas will flow.

I had a friend years ago who worked at a Stewart's in the Albany area years ago. He absolutely hated that job.

[Ash_F]

17. That is against the FLSA.

You should report it to the local DoL office, though they can't do much without an employee coming forward as a claimant. I would encourage the employees to seek legal action. Unfortunately, many can not afford to lose their jobs to take their employers to court, even though retaliation for such action is also against the FLSA. Even an extremely clear cut case, where the employer has no real defense, can take years to settle.

We often debate over what laws should be passed, but even the laws that are on the books don't get enforced.


But defraud a fortune 500 company and a SWAT team will be kicking down your door in no time.

[lancer78]

18. That is illegal

I don't think one can unjustly enrich themselves above their own economic loss.

[leftyohiolib]

5. sounds like kidnapping and extorsion

[truthisfreedom]

6. Kidnapping? Illegal detention?

[pennylane100]

12. How can those laws be constitutional.

When a shopper enters the store, they do not give up any rights they are entitled to under the constitution. I was under the impression that only law enforcement could detain citizens.

I would think that this is something the ACLU should get involved in. How dare they hold people against their will. It does not make any sense to me.

[okaawhatever]

13. This is about civil charges and lawsuits. It appears there has been a push by stores and right wing

types to add civil charges or lawsuits ON TOP OF criminal charges for shoplifting. There is a law firm in Florida that pushes this law and has deals with several companies. AFTER the criminal trial (in the cases i'm familiar with, some states may not require a criminal trial) the defendant gets a letter threatening a civil lawsuit if they don't pay x amount of dollars.

This practice was brought to light when a 72 year old woman was charged with stealing $5 worth of embroidery letters from HOBBY LOBBY. She paid for other items, but claimed she forgot about the letters. Anyway, she didn't have a record or anything so went to court and got three months probation and something like a $300 fine. A month or so after the deal with the local District Attorney she received a letter demanding she pay Hobby Lobby $500 or they would sue in civil court. She contacted her attorney and they said legally they could sue her but it was probably just an attempt to see if they could get some money and that taking the case to court would cost the more than the $500 so she ignored the letter. She received another letter demanding $750 or they would take her to court.

These types of firms and companies are all about the neo-con agenda. That and Hobby Lobby probably needed to collect a bunch of money to pay their lawyers for the scotus lawsuit so they can deny birth control to women. D bags one and all.

http://austinist.com/2013/05/08/christian_craft_store_chain_not_ver.php

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. My nephew got such a letter from Walmart.

I think the letter was actually addressed to my brother as the kid was a minor.

Good kid. Never been in trouble. Straight A student going to college this year on a scholarship.

Anyway, the dip shit and two of his dip shit friends are bored and hanging around Walmart behind his friend's house. My nephew and one of the other kids each pocketed a $5 dollar pocket knife.

Stupid kid shit.

Besides the $250 fine from the court, my brother had to pay Walmart $250 as did the other kid who was caught with merchandise. They even sent a demand letter to the other kid's parents - that kid didn't even steal anything and wasn't arrested.

It cost my nephew his graduation money AND he was grounded for the whole summer from the car my brother and the kid's grandpa just bought him.

[okaawhatever]

19. I'm wondering who is behind the law firm in Florida sending out most of these letters? I'm wondering

if the laws are new and some right winger decided to get the laws passed in ALEC friendly states and make a ton of money doing this? You know because the stores are losing too much money. From what I read about Florida or Texas, I can't remember which, the stores can negotiate a "civil" settlement in lieu of arresst. So basically, extortion. They can hold without calling authorities, etc. It's so not cool. I know there are a lot of professional shoplifting rings and I'm all for special laws that address the professional shoplifter as opposed to the kids or one person who does it, but this is ridiculous.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Probably. When I looked in to this thing for my brother...

Florida was the first state that showed up in the google.

Theft has always been actionable in civil court. If you steal from your neighbor they can sue for damages in addition to filing criminal charges.

Where ALEC and business friendly politicians get involved is the codification of the minimum damages awards, in this case, $250 dollars or 3 times the merchandise amount.

It's hard to argue with the policy as the merchants DO lose millions of dollars in merchandise to theft every year.

They justify these demand letters by going after anyone they get their hands on where they have a chance to actually collect on a judgment.

It's like everything else where the law is involved. If you have some assets or come from a good family, the cops and the merchants will make a federal case out of it - because they can and it is easy picking for the cops. My brother showed up to the station embarrassed and with his tail between his legs.

The gang bangers who were caught driving my car that was stolen from my parking spot a few years ago we're let off because it would be "too difficult" to prove they were the ones who stole the car. The cops told us we should feel lucky we got our car back and to make an insurance claim on the damages.

[blkmusclmachine]

15. ,

,

[PassingFair]

21. This is the opposite of what happens in the retail store where my daughter works...

They have no "onsite" security, so they are told to NEVER engage or report
theft that they observe in real time.

The most they are supposed to do is ask the suspected shoplifter if they are interested
in an accessory to go with the item they see being pocketed, but even this is discouraged.

The store (a massive national chain) is more afraid of lawsuits that they are of being
ripped off by shoplifters, who know the score and steal with impunity.