TexasCHLforum.com

FWIW - the guys in yellow jackets at HEB Plus are the security guys.

davidtx wrote:FWIW - the guys in yellow jackets at HEB Plus are the security guys.

Only about 1/5th of store level LP will identify them selves ... most are in civvies and try to blend in.

killerfly128 wrote:

davidtx wrote:FWIW - the guys in yellow jackets at HEB Plus are the security guys.

Only about 1/5th of store level LP will identify them selves ... most are in civvies and try to blend in.

Personally, I would make a distinction between security guards and loss prevention.

frazzled wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

frazzled wrote:

Dave905 wrote:2nd degree black belt carrying a 45. Good luck.

There's no reason to go there. If there is an issue call a cop. There should be no circumstance where they touch you. If they touch you, then thats battery and the above applies.

Battery is a civil issue here. There is no battery in Texas Penal Code.

Depends on the state in whether they break out battery from assualt. In Texas:

PENAL CODE



TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON



CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES



Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

So....like I said...Battery is a civil issue HERE....there is no battery in the TEXAS Penal Code. What exactly where you getting at?

While waiting at a restaurant at Northpark Mall in Dallas, I struck up a conversation with a uniformed LEO and learned that he was a police officer in a small town police department somewhere near Corsicana working security at Northpark Mall. It didn't occur to me at the time but this topic has made me wonder exactly what authority he would have working security two counties away from his employing PD.

All Texas LEO are Peace Officers and have authority anywhere in Texas.

cbr600 wrote:

killerfly128 wrote:

davidtx wrote:FWIW - the guys in yellow jackets at HEB Plus are the security guys.

Only about 1/5th of store level LP will identify them selves ... most are in civvies and try to blend in.

Personally, I would make a distinction between security guards and loss prevention.

Security and LP are entirely different, there is no question about that. Regardless, the OP was wondering about a situation where he might be wrongly stopped by store security/LP. If the security/LP agent follows what they were taught It will never happen. In the super rare case it does happen decline to be searched until the police arrive.

Also, LP/store security CAN NOT touch you .... there are a few exceptions to the rule but for the most part they will not lay a hand on you. If you are honestly in the right and haven't stolen anything just continue to walk past them and leave. Call the PD from the car and explain the situation from a safe location, have an officer come out and take a report and that should be that. Most companies have a limit on how far they are allowed to go after a shoplifter. Tom Thumb for example cant go past the fire lane right in front of the store, Fry's allows LPOs to go to the limits of the property.

Some interesting points made, with a few more to consider. First, remember that those of you posting the rules for security are posting store policy and not the law. None of those details are written into the law and not evry store will apply Wal-Mart's security rules. Also, as was pointed out, there are experienced and professional security officers and we can expect little problem from them, but there are also new guys and others who will exceed the store's policy to stop you.

But, the first question is to look at the law. Can a security officer detain you? Can he arrest you? Can he use force? Can he search you? The law does not give anyone but peace officers the authority to detain. And it actually does not give it to them either, but is taken that way from case law. Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has most of the authorities to detain or arrest in it. 14.03(a)(1) has the authority to arrest people who are suspicious and this is just for peace officers. The constitutionality of the word arrest is is questionable and the Terry v. Ohio case makes it a detention and not an arrest. Important to note that Terry only pertains to peace officers. This leads me to the conclusion that a security officer cannot detain you. 14.01 does give people citizens arrest authority for felonies and breaches of the peace, but this would not normally be considered to include shoplifting (unless you are at a very high priced store).

So we look at Chapter 18.16. Chapter 18 deals mostly with searches, oddly enough. 18.16 gives the security guard (and any other citizen) the authority to make an arrest to prevent the consequences of a theft. But when you actually look at the law, it is first and foremost an authority to recover stolen property. To make the arrest, the person MUST first seize the stolen property. This is really where most of those rules about seeing the theft come from. They want to make sure they are well within this law. It is important to note that a citizen can legally search you under several other subsections of chapter 18. They clearly allow a search warrant to be directed to non-law enforcement personnel. This is important because retrieving the property first, as 18.16 says, implies at least some sort of search. Anytime the law is not explicit and you are looking at implications, you are in a very gray area. I don't know of any court cases on this, but I am fairly confident that there must have been some at some time. I know civilians can search because jail guards do it all the time and they are NOT sworn peace officers in Texas. That is a special circumstance, but it does raise some issues.

So we end up at the most important question of all. Can the security guard use force to do this? 9.51(b) clearly gives any citizen the authority to use force to make a lawful arrest. In addition to this, you have the justification to use force to prevent the theft of a third person's property.

What this all boils down to is that the security guard has the authority to make an arrest and the probable authority to search you and the authority to use force to accomplish this IF you are actually shoplifting at the time. If you are not stealing, then there is no legal arrest or justification of any of the above.

But if the security guard is smart and lays out a very good case on why he thought you were stealing even though he later found out you were not, and it convinces the judge he had probable cause and exigent circumstances, there is a good chance you will lose any court case coming out of this except the actual theft charges.

The chances of the latter are so great that most responsible businesses and security companies have rules very similar to the ones posted previously and we do not have to worry about this issue. But, just like there are some criminals out there, there is always a slight possibility of meeting the one idiot guard who doesn't obey the rules. In cases like those, I strongly recommend not fighting back but not giving in. Strongly and politely request the store manager and the police immediately. Remember that looking like the reasonable one will always look better to the cops and to the jury later.

srothstein wrote: 14.01 does give people citizens arrest authority for felonies and breaches of the peace, but this would not normally be considered to include shoplifting (unless you are at a very high priced store).

If the personal had multiple previous convictions :)

We've made felony theft arrests for low dollar amounts and got to it this route.

I agree, gigag04. The third time someone is convicted of stealing a $1.00 pack of gum (I started to say a nickel pack but that reveals my age), it is a felony. Also if they are shoplifting ground beef (a part of livestock, but I bet no one ever taught you that one in the academy, right? ) it is a felony. But these are not normal cases to get into here, and it is very unlikely the secutiry guard would know of the previous convictions.

[quote="srothstein"]Also if they are shoplifting ground beef (a part of livestock, but I bet no one ever taught you that one in the academy, right? )


Dude I NEVER thought of that. My FTO will be proud.

srothstein wrote:But these are not normal cases to get into here, and it is very unlikely the secutiry guard would know of the previous convictions.

Depends on how stupid the thief is. I know several guards who can quote certain people's entire rap sheet, because every time they got caught it was on the same site, by the same guard. In one case, the guard had his calendar marked because the guy would try to shoplift every other Thursday night.

srothstein wrote:Also if they are shoplifting ground beef (a part of livestock, but I bet no one ever taught you that one in the academy, right? ) it is a felony.

Isn't "live" a key part of livestock?

chabouk wrote:

srothstein wrote:Also if they are shoplifting ground beef (a part of livestock, but I bet no one ever taught you that one in the academy, right? ) it is a felony.

Isn't "live" a key part of livestock?

Well, if people weren't stealing the dead beef, more live ones would be left alive, therefore, stealing beef affects interstate commerce in livestock, and can be regulated under the commerce clause.

Astro99, I was just wondering, does the security in the parking lot carry weapons?