Store RFID Detectors

[KBCraig]

I appreciate the different sections of code being posted. There might be still more relevant sections, but my quick take is this: in order for the store to be justified in seizing you, you have to actually be guilty of stealing, and be in possession of the stolen goods.

An innocent person is justified in resisting unlawful use of force against them. If they are innocent, then the use of force is unlawful.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I appreciate the different sections of code being posted. There might be still more relevant sections, but my quick take is this: in order for the store to be justified in seizing you, you have to actually be guilty of stealing, and be in possession of the stolen goods.

An innocent person is justified in resisting unlawful use of force against them. If they are innocent, then the use of force is unlawful.

Maybe.

But aren't there better ways of dealing with it?

JMO.

[txinvestigator]

I appreciate the different sections of code being posted. There might be still more relevant sections, but my quick take is this: in order for the store to be justified in seizing you, you have to actually be guilty of stealing, and be in possession of the stolen goods.

Negative. They simply need reasonable grounds to detain you.

An innocent person is justified in resisting unlawful use of force against them. If they are innocent, then the use of force is unlawful.

Again, no. Innocence is irrelevant in regards to their lawful right to detain you, and to use force to do so.

[Glock 23]

An innocent person is justified in resisting unlawful use of force against them. If they are innocent, then the use of force is unlawful.

Again, no. Innocence is irrelevant in regards to their lawful right to detain you, and to use force to do so.

I have heard this. But if you did detain someone and they were innocent, you could get in trouble for unlawful detaining, right?
maybe I missed this further up in the post?

[pt145ss]

An innocent person is justified in resisting unlawful use of force against them. If they are innocent, then the use of force is unlawful.

Again, no. Innocence is irrelevant in regards to their lawful right to detain you, and to use force to do so.

I have heard this. But if you did detain someone and they were innocent, you could get in trouble for unlawful detaining, right?
maybe I missed this further up in the post?

Earlier in the post someone provided a link to case law where someone was innocent of theft charges (as found by a jury) and sued the stored for malicious prosecution (not unlawful detention). In the original case the plaintiff won and was awarded some money. The store filed an appeal and the appeals court ruled in favor of the store as they had enough probable cause to move forward with prosecuting the case. Guilt or innocents had nothing to do with it and the only question was probable cause. In order to win, the patron would have had to prove that the store knew or had reason to know the she was not stealing but prosecuted anyway because of some harbored bias towards her.

This case does not directly address unlawful detention. I still have not seen code or case law yet in this thread supporting the fact that store employees/security have some elevated rights to detain someone vs. the rights of any other civilian to detain someone.

Scenario: I come home from work one day at 3 in the afternoon. I see someone on my property peering into the windows. I suspect he is up to no good and I ask him to leave but he does not leave immediately. At that point it is criminal trespass, a class a misdemeanor. I as a citizen of this state do not have any justification to detain him until the LE arrives…I would be justified in using force to physically remove him from the property but I do not think I could use force to detain him. I could tell him the cops are on their way and if at that time he decides to leave on his own accord, I am not justified to stop him.

What gives a store owner any more right to detention then a land owner?

[Keith B]

An innocent person is justified in resisting unlawful use of force against them. If they are innocent, then the use of force is unlawful.

Again, no. Innocence is irrelevant in regards to their lawful right to detain you, and to use force to do so.

I have heard this. But if you did detain someone and they were innocent, you could get in trouble for unlawful detaining, right?
maybe I missed this further up in the post?

Earlier in the post someone provided a link to case law where someone was innocent of theft charges (as found by a jury) and sued the stored for malicious prosecution (not unlawful detention). In the original case the plaintiff won and was awarded some money. The store filed an appeal and the appeals court ruled in favor of the store as they had enough probable cause to move forward with prosecuting the case. Guilt or innocents had nothing to do with it and the only question was probable cause. In order to win, the patron would have had to prove that the store knew or had reason to know the she was not stealing but prosecuted anyway because of some harbored bias towards her.

This case does not directly address unlawful detention. I still have not seen code or case law yet in this thread supporting the fact that store employees/security have some elevated rights to detain someone vs. the rights of any other civilian to detain someone.

Scenario: I come home from work one day at 3 in the afternoon. I see someone on my property peering into the windows. I suspect he is up to no good and I ask him to leave but he does not leave immediately. At that point it is criminal trespass, a class a misdemeanor. I as a citizen of this state do not have any justification to detain him until the LE arrives…I would be justified in using force to physically remove him from the property but I do not think I could use force to detain him. I could tell him the cops are on their way and if at that time he decides to leave on his own accord, I am not justified to stop him.

What gives a store owner any more right to detention then a land owner?

Your scenario is different. The person has not potentially stolen your property, they are just tresspassing. There is a difference.

The store owner has a harder time pushing tresspasing and making you leave from publicly open property than you do on private property. However, they can still call the police and have you barred from the property and future issues they could file tresspasing charges.

If they have reasonable suspicion you have stolen their property, then they have the right to detain you and recover their property. You have the same right as an individual on your private property.

[pt145ss]

An innocent person is justified in resisting unlawful use of force against them. If they are innocent, then the use of force is unlawful.

Again, no. Innocence is irrelevant in regards to their lawful right to detain you, and to use force to do so.

I have heard this. But if you did detain someone and they were innocent, you could get in trouble for unlawful detaining, right?
maybe I missed this further up in the post?

Earlier in the post someone provided a link to case law where someone was innocent of theft charges (as found by a jury) and sued the stored for malicious prosecution (not unlawful detention). In the original case the plaintiff won and was awarded some money. The store filed an appeal and the appeals court ruled in favor of the store as they had enough probable cause to move forward with prosecuting the case. Guilt or innocents had nothing to do with it and the only question was probable cause. In order to win, the patron would have had to prove that the store knew or had reason to know the she was not stealing but prosecuted anyway because of some harbored bias towards her.

This case does not directly address unlawful detention. I still have not seen code or case law yet in this thread supporting the fact that store employees/security have some elevated rights to detain someone vs. the rights of any other civilian to detain someone.

Scenario: I come home from work one day at 3 in the afternoon. I see someone on my property peering into the windows. I suspect he is up to no good and I ask him to leave but he does not leave immediately. At that point it is criminal trespass, a class a misdemeanor. I as a citizen of this state do not have any justification to detain him until the LE arrives…I would be justified in using force to physically remove him from the property but I do not think I could use force to detain him. I could tell him the cops are on their way and if at that time he decides to leave on his own accord, I am not justified to stop him.

What gives a store owner any more right to detention then a land owner?

Your scenario is different. The person has not potentially stolen your property, they are just tresspassing. There is a difference.

The store owner has a harder time pushing tresspasing and making you leave from publicly open property than you do on private property. However, they can still call the police and have you barred from the property and future issues they could file tresspasing charges.

If they have reasonable suspicion you have stolen their property, then they have the right to detain you and recover their property. You have the same right as an individual on your private property.

I agree, however, in the case law provided, the patron did not have stolen property on her so there was nothing to recover. At the point they realized she had no stolen property on her person...was she free to leave....or could they still detain her until the cops arrive? She did not seem to be a threat to others and detaining on the grounds a safety is not necessarily reasonable. They had other means by which to ascertain her identity, i.e. the prescription at the pharmacy counter.

In the scenario I described, suppose he had a garden gnome in his hands that he had just stolen from my front yard (theft during the daytime). He puts it down and intends to leave peacefully. Am I at that point justified in detaining him until police arrive? I am not being deprived of any tangible movable property as he put it down. As a civilian (non-leo) I do not have the privilege of investigative powers. The only way I can see being lawful to detain anyone is via a citizens’ arrest. A citizens’ arrest is only justified if I witness felony. Do I have the authority to detain him to ascertain his identity?

[GrillKing]

I'll have to find it, but the statutes state that this all has to take place in the open. They cannot take you to the 'back room'.

Personnaly, I would be polite, offer to wait in place for the police, or inside the front doors, in the open. I would ask them directly if they believe I stole anything. If they say yes, we wait, if they say no, I ask to leave. If they refuse, I ask that the police be called immediately if not already called.

I would be polite and give them no reason to touch me in any way. Once LEO arrived, I would again ask if they believe I stole anything. I would follow any LEO instruction exactly, but would ask if I was free to go.

Polite and cooperative is the way to go. If they blew it, they will pay. If you blow it, you will pay, in more ways than one.

IMHO.....

[Keith B]

I agree, however, in the case law provided, the patron did not have stolen property on her so there was nothing to recover. At the point they realized she had no stolen property on her person...was she free to leave....or could they still detain her until the cops arrive? She did not seem to be a threat to others and detaining on the grounds a safety is not necessarily reasonable. They had other means by which to ascertain her identity, i.e. the prescription at the pharmacy counter.

In the scenario I described, suppose he had a garden gnome in his hands that he had just stolen from my front yard (theft during the daytime). He puts it down and intends to leave peacefully. Am I at that point justified in detaining him until police arrive? I am not being deprived of any tangible movable property as he put it down. As a civilian (non-leo) I do not have the privilege of investigative powers. The only way I can see being lawful to detain anyone is via a citizens’ arrest. A citizens’ arrest is only justified if I witness felony. Do I have the authority to detain him to ascertain his identity?

In the store scenario, they can detain the individual for a reaonable amount of time for investigative reasons. That would include a short time until police arrive. If it is unjustified, then you have the right to take the merchant to court and try to prove they detained you and seek civil damages.

In the home scenaro, once they put it down my understanding is they are free to leave. Hopefully you get a good enough description the police can pick them up and then charge them with attempted theft and tresspassing.

EDIT: However, if my wife ever put out those things in my yard I would hand it back to the person and ask them to take it and any others!!!

[pt145ss]

I'll have to find it, but the statutes state that this all has to take place in the open. They cannot take you to the 'back room'.

Personnaly, I would be polite, offer to wait in place for the police, or inside the front doors, in the open. I would ask them directly if they believe I stole anything. If they say yes, we wait, if they say no, I ask to leave. If they refuse, I ask that the police be called immediately if not already called.

I would be polite and give them no reason to touch me in any way. Once LEO arrived, I would again ask if they believe I stole anything. I would follow any LEO instruction exactly, but would ask if I was free to go.

Polite and cooperative is the way to go. If they blew it, they will pay. If you blow it, you will pay, in more ways than one.

IMHO.....

I agree...that is probably the best policy and I personally would try to handle it much in the same manner. I am playing a little bit of devil's advocate because i want conclusive proof that someone other than a LEO/magistrate has any authority and/or justification to detain another for a misdemeanor (i know there are some exceptions as someone mentioned earlier about disorderly conduct/breach of the peace).

[pt145ss]

In the store scenario, they can detain the individual for a reaonable amount of time for investigative reasons.

That is my question; people have already said that they have the right to detain for investigative purposes. Where (as in what section of code or case law) does texas law allow for this. I, as civilian, do not have this "investigative" power. Why would a store owner/manager/security personnel have more authority than an ordinary citizen? I understand that a LEO/Magistrate can and should have some investigative authority (within reason) but a common run of the mill civilian having this authority…I just don’t know. In my mind, this violates due process.

EDIT: However, if my wife ever put out those things in my yard I would hand it back to the person and ask them to take it and any others!!!

I would use them for target practice if we had any.

[GrillKing]

I sometimes walk around the 'line' for being searched going out the door, but am always polite. No one has ever tried to stop me. I believe I shouldn't have to stand in line to have my bags (with my paid merchandise) searched (Fryes) but if they insisted, I would go through my polite 'why am I being searched, do you think I stole something?' speech. I've never had to do it.

If it were a serious situation where they thought I actually stole something and not the we check everyone at the door scenario above, I would cooperate fully as described a couple of posts above. I would insist that LEO be called however.

[seamusTX]

That is my question; people have already said that they have the right to detain for investigative purposes. Where (as in what section of code or case law) does texas law allow for this.

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

- Jim

[Keith B]

In the store scenario, they can detain the individual for a reaonable amount of time for investigative reasons.

That is my question; people have already said that they have the right to detain for investigative purposes. Where (as in what section of code or case law) does texas law allow for this. I, as civilian, do not have this "investigative" power. Why would a store owner/manager/security personnel have more authority than an ordinary citizen? I understand that a LEO/Magistrate can and should have some investigative authority (within reason) but a common run of the mill civilian having this authority…I just don’t know. In my mind, this violates due process.

EDIT: However, if my wife ever put out those things in my yard I would hand it back to the person and ask them to take it and any others!!!

I would use them for target practice if we had any.

Here is a good link that covers a lot of what has been stated by many here. This guy is a lawyer http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/s ... art-2.aspx

However, I have been unable to find any Texas statute that actually states they can detain you. There have been test cases that show it is OK if the merchant has reasonable suspicion, and civil cases that have been won where the person was unreasonable detained by merchant. I think those are what set precedence.

[pt145ss]

That is my question; people have already said that they have the right to detain for investigative purposes. Where (as in what section of code or case law) does texas law allow for this.

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

- Jim

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?

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? Again, at that point they are not trying to recover any items or ascertain ownership of an item as there were no items in her possession . In her case, if they detained her for investigative purposes, why did they not investigate her claim about the prescription? It does not sound much like an investigation to me. It would have been easy and reasonable to do so. The appeals court said they were under no obligation to investigate the claim (for the purpose of prosecution…but one can only detain another for purposes of investigation)…so if they are not investigating, then what grounds do they have to detain someone? The code does not give authorization to detain someone to simply ascertain their identity it seems limited in scope to determine ownership of property (which may also include identity of the suspect but not soely to get their identity). They had already ascertained that the property was theirs as it was not bagged and it was at that time in their possession and there were not any other items on her person…can she leave without their consent?