NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/consumer/22505

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 2.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!chpc.chpc.org!rboudrie
From: [e-mail] (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Stores can't "detain" shoplifters
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:43:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Lines: 26

>However, in Mass. they don't *need* to use special staff to detain
>shoplifters.  Your state has a statute specifically authorizing
>stores to detain people if the store has reasonable grounds to
>suspect shoplifting.

The real question is not whether or not stores CAN detain shoplifting
suspects, but what level of immunity from civil libaility such
statutes provide.  (for instance, the publicized case where store
security at one Boston department store visited a suspect at home and
"strongly implied" they were secret service is probably going overboard).

Also, do such statutes make it a crime per-se to resist (in a non-violent,
non assaultive way) store personel attempting to effect a detention?
What if the detainee tries to leave?  Does this statute make this a
crime (as it would be if the detainee tried to leave when in the custody
of a police officer)?  What if the detainee peacefully staates that
(s)he will not accompany store personel to the back room, or submit to a
search, but will wait peacefully in the puiblic area for "real police"?
[ there are situations where it would be inappropriate for an individual
to allow a search of one's person - for example, imagine the consequences if
you "open your coat" only to have store staff see a weapon which you
are legally carrying, but they don't know - they run, make a "man with
gun" call to police, the blue adrenellin starts running, things escalate,
etc. ].

                                        rob b.