Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Minor accused of shoplifting, but not arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.

RRettinger

New Member
My 16 year old son was in a grocery store in New Mexico shopping for a toothbrush and some candy. While in the section looking for a toothbrush, he was apparently approached by a customer service manager and another employee and asked if he was stealing eyedrops. They asked him if he had the eyedrops in his pocket. When he told them 'no', they asked him where he put the eydrops down on the shelf. He was told that if he didn't tell them, they were going to call the police. My son was getting angry at this point and began cussing at the manager and employee. He was told to leave the store and on the way out, they told the front end manager that my son was now permanently banned from the store.

The fascinating situation is he used to be a bagger at this store and worked for the front end manager. He quit about 2 months before this incident. My son has plenty of money saved up from working there and had no need to steal eyedrops. We have eyedrops at home. Additionally, he is comfortable shopping in this store since he used to work there and knows where everything is in the store. In my opinion, he was only approached because he was a teenager in the store shopping alone. He does wear oversized clothes that might make him appear to be someone that might shoplift. They may also think he is a typical teen that needs eyedrops to cover up the illegal use of drugs before going home to his parents. But, stereotyping him to the point of accusing him of taking something before he leaves the store is violating his civil rights.

We have sent a letter to the store manager and the corporate offices of this grocery chain requesting investigation of this incident. I know there are rules/laws in effect that prevent them from arresting him until he leaves the store with unpaid merchandise, but he didn't get that far in this case. We believe he wasn't stealing, but that being beside the point, is there any legal action that can be taken against the store company for this treatment of my son? We are dealing with a regional manager, (I think) and he has already told us they cannot release information on any disciplinary action they take against these employees.
 
The good news is that no crime has been committed because he never left the store with any 'stolen' property and its not a crime until that happens -so don't worry about the law in this case. just wright the big wigs a few nice letter and see what happens unfortunately its not illegal for them to ban him from the store for any reason.
 
Thanks. It is also not illegal for me to tell 800,000 of my closest friends about my son's treatment at this chain of grocery stores in Albuquerque. If I was this store manager, I would be loading up a $1,000 gift card and Fed-Ex-ing it to my son as a polite apology.
 
Right or wrong about the theft the store has the right to ban your son. You have the right to ask your friends not to shop there or got to corporate. This is not something you cam make any gain out of. By the way to correct an earlier post. Concealment itself is a crime in New Mexico. So if he had ocncealed item(s) he would have committed a crime
 
From my son's side of the story, he put his hand in his pocket to pull out his cell phone to see if he had a text message. When my wife called and talked to the person who questioned my son, she asked if there was security camera footage that would prove his innocence. Since she stated there wasn't, I assume there isn't footage that would prove he concealed anything as well.

And just where would one find the law about concealment in New Mexico?
 
New Mexico

30-16-19. [Shoplifting;] definitions. (1965)


A. "store" means a place where merchandise is sold or offered to the public for sale at retail;
B. "merchandise" means chattels of any type or description regardless of the value offered for sale in or about a store; and
C. "merchant" means any owner or proprietor of any store, or any agent, servant or employee of the owner or proprietor.


30-16-20. Shoplifting


A. Shoplifting consists of one or more of the following acts:

(1) willfully taking possession of merchandise with the intention of converting it without paying for it;

(2) willfully concealing merchandise with the intention of converting it without paying for it;
(3) willfully altering a label, price tag or marking upon merchandise with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the value of it; or

(4) willfully transferring merchandise from the container in or on which it is displayed to another container with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the value of it.

B. Whoever commits shoplifting when the value of the merchandise shoplifted:

(1) is two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or less is guilty of a petty misdemeanor;

(2) is more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than five hundred dollars ($500) is guilty of a misdemeanor;

(3) is more than five hundred dollars ($500) but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) is guilty of a fourth degree felony;

(4) is more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) but not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) is guilty of a third degree felony; or

(5) is more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) is guilty of a second degree felony.

C. An individual charged with a violation of this section shall not be charged with a separate or additional offense arising out of the same transaction.




30-16-21. Civil liability of adult shoplifter; penalty. (1977)


Any person who has reached the age of majority and who has been convicted of shoplifting under Section 30-16-20 NMSA 1978, may be civilly liable for the retail value of the merchandise, punitive damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees. However, the merchant shall not be entitled to recover damages for the retail value of any recovered undamaged merchandise.


30-16-22. Presumptions created. (1965)


Any person who willfully conceals merchandise on his person or on the person of another or among his belongings or the belongings of another or on or outside the premises of the store shall be prima facie presumed to have concealed the merchandise with the intention of converting it without paying for it. If any merchandise is found concealed upon any person or among his belongings it shall be prima facie evidence of willful concealment.


30-16-23. Reasonable detention. (1965)


If any law enforcement officer, special officer or merchant has probable cause for believing that a person has willfully taken possession of any merchandise with the intention of converting it without paying for it, or has willfully concealed merchandise, and that he can recover the merchandise by detaining the person or taking him into custody, the law enforcement officer, special officer or merchant may, for the purpose of attempting to affect [effect] a recovery of the merchandise, take the person into custody and detain him in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time. Such taking into custody or detention shall not subject the officer or merchant to any criminal or civil liability.
Any law enforcement officer may arrest without warrant any person he has probable cause for believing has committed the crime of shoplifting. Any merchant who causes such an arrest shall not be criminally or civilly liable if he has probable cause for believing the person so arrested has committed the crime of shoplifting.



Now since he was not arrested or charged its dead issue. It appears his actions led a store employee to believe he had ocncealed and item in an attempt to deprive retailer of item. It is lawful to stop and question a person believed to have shoplifted or just to question. (See Walmart and other stores door agents who request reciepts). Your anly action you could take is to contact Store Management or Corporate to challange ban or file complaint. Once again it seems his actions caused one or more store staff to think he had concealed merchandise
 
Thanks. Item A.2 above doesn't fit as he didn't have anything in his pocket other than his cell phone. The Presumptions created is interesting and I didn't know that. I think it assumes too much.

Would it be allowable under the law for them to require him to empty his pockets? I would not have a problem with that and SHOULD have prevented any further discussions other than an apology from the accuser.
 
They can request and he can refuse. If they feel it needed they could then detain/arrest him and have police conduct the search. Retailers have the right to secure their merchandise is not being stolen. How they do this and to what extreme depends on state law and store policy. Just so you know retailers lose over 13 billion "with a B" a year to shoplifting alone so you can assume they do whatever they can to prevent such lost
 
As it is, the issue is a moot one. There is no further proceeding, no crime has apparently been alleged, and the only action your son can take about the banning is to contact the upper management and ask that it be removed. Though, if he feels anger about this particular store or the chain, why would he care to go back anyway?

- Carl
 
Thanks all! I don't see him (or us) ever going back to this store. We have spent in excess of $40K in this particular chain since 1985. At this point, I wouldn't want to lose a customer with that kind of track record. I know my son has spent over $200 in this store in the 8 months since he started shopping there. It is a shame to lose a customer that might have spent $200/week there until he was 80 years old over something so minor. 64 years*52 weeks*200=$665,000. What a great potential loss for them... Wow, 2/3 of a million from one customer.
 
If those numbers remain. However they do not know this. they also do not want thieves in their store. Remember the 13 billion!? Yes its thier lost but they acted in a legal fashion to reduce lost.
 
So they lose $665K instead of $2. Occupational hazard of running a business. Can you tell we are slightly irritated by this? My next plan is to walk into the store with my son. I hope they are brave enough to attempt to remove him in front of me...
 
That would not be wise and teaches a poor lesson to your son. He was banned whether you agree or not it was lawful. If he violates that ban he can be arrested and charged with tresspassing. Is this really worth it? Just shop elsewhere
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top