Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Stealing from a grocery store

[crazygirl]

I recently was caught stealing from a grocery store, they did not get the police involved but i was banned from the store and sent a fine in the mail. Is it possible that they will persue a case in small claims court? The item was only worth $2.99 and the fine they sent me was for $400. Im hoping that i will not have to go to court over this matter, as i have learned my lesson. Is there something i can do to avoid this going to court if it does??

 

[army judge]

If you're smart, you'd be best served to admit to nothing.

If I found myself in your position, I'd ignore all mailings and correspondence from the scam artists who will demand tribute from you.

As far as legal prosecution, it would bs unusual for them to pursue that now. It could happen, but I doubt it.

It was, as you say, a cheap item. I'd forget this and if something negative happens, shut your and ask for a lawyer!!!!

 

[mightymoose]

Ditto.
Don't acknowledge them in any way. You have no obligation to pay what they ask.
Anything you receive in the mail can be ignored. If you are served any kind of court papers then you can seek legal assistance.
Don't be a sucker to their threats.

 

[jacksgal]

Cal Pen Code § 490.5

(2009)
§ 490.5. Petty theft of property from merchant or library

(a)

Upon a first conviction for petty theft involving merchandise taken from a merchant's
premises or a book or other library materials taken from a library facility, a person shall be

punished by a mandatory fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) and not more than one thousand

dollars ($1,000) for each such violation; and may also be punished by imprisonment in the county

jail, not exceeding six months, or both such fine and imprisonment.

(b)

When an unemancipated minor's willful conduct would constitute petty theft involving
merchandise taken from a merchant's premises or a book or other library materials taken from a

library facility, any merchant or library facility who has been injured by that conduct may bring a

civil action against the parent or legal guardian having control and custody of the minor. For the

purposes of those actions the misconduct of the unemancipated minor shall be imputed to the

parent or legal guardian having control and custody of the minor. The parent or legal guardian

having control or custody of an unemancipated minor whose conduct violates this subdivision

shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor to a merchant or to a library facility for damages

of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), plus costs. In

addition to the foregoing damages, the parent or legal guardian shall be jointly and severally

liable with the minor to the merchant for the retail value of the merchandise if it is not recovered in

a merchantable condition, or to a library facility for the fair market value of its book or other library

materials. Recovery of these damages may be had in addition to, and is not limited by, any other

provision of law which limits the liability of a parent or legal guardian for the tortious conduct of a

minor. An action for recovery of damages, pursuant to this subdivision, may be brought in small

claims court if the total damages do not exceed the jurisdictional limit of that court, or in any other

appropriate court; however, total damages, including the value of the merchandise or book or

other library materials, shall not exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for each action brought under

this section.

The provisions of this subdivision are in addition to other civil remedies and do not limit

merchants or other persons to elect to pursue other civil remedies, except that the provisions of

Section 1714.1 of the Civil Code

shall not apply herein.
(c)

When an adult or emancipated minor has unlawfully taken merchandise from a
merchant's premises, or a book or other library materials from a library facility, the adult or

emancipated minor shall be liable to the merchant or library facility for damages of not less than

fifty dollars ($50) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), plus costs. In addition to the

foregoing damages, the adult or emancipated minor shall be liable to the merchant for the retail

value of the merchandise if it is not recovered in merchantable condition, or to a library facility for

the fair market value of its book or other library materials. An action for recovery of damages,

pursuant to this subdivision, may be brought in small claims court if the total damages do not

exceed the jurisdictional limit of such court, or in any other appropriate court. The provisions of

this subdivision are in addition to other civil remedies and

 

[CdwJava]

I recently was caught stealing from a grocery store, they did not get the police involved but i was banned from the store and sent a fine in the mail. Is it possible that they will persue a case in small claims court?

If you do not pay the civil demand, that is a distinct possibility.

The item was only worth $2.99 and the fine they sent me was for $400.

That's a little higher than most, but it is permitted by the CA Penal Code.

Im hoping that i will not have to go to court over this matter, as i have learned my lesson. Is there something i can do to avoid this going to court if it does??

The way to avoid this going to court is to pay it. If you pay it, then you will certainly not go to court. If you do not pay it, then you run the risk of paying not only the original $400 but also court costs and, perhaps, collections costs (usually about $500) if it goes that route.

So, ask yourself, do you feel lucky?

 

[army judge]

If you're sued in small claims, these scalawags can only collective their actual damages plus court costs and fees.

For a $4.00 item, they won't get $400, let alone $500 in small claims.

To get that amount, plus attorney's costs, they'd have to sue you in a court of record. Small claims isn't a court of record.

If they were going to sue you, they wouldn't warn you.

They'd do it the Nike way, "Just Do It"!

These scalawags are just trying to scare the loose change outta your pocket!

 

[jacksgal]

I take it it didnt read penal code I posted?

 

[CdwJava]

If you're sued in small claims, these scalawags can only collective their actual damages plus court costs and fees.

For a $4.00 item, they won't get $400, let alone $500 in small claims.

Actually, they will. At least in CA. We have a Penal Code section that says they can get it, and the law allows them to request far more than the value of the item. Since it can be between $50 and $500, the typical request hovers around $300 and in those cases I have heard of, the plaintiff (the business) obtains it.

To get that amount, plus attorney's costs, they'd have to sue you in a court of record. Small claims isn't a court of record.

Which makes it an even more expensive gamble. If the defendant wants to risk paying about $2,900 for a $400 claim, by all means - fight it.

If they were going to sue you, they wouldn't warn you.

Sure they would. It's quicker and less expensive. People send threatening letters all the time demanding payment before a lawsuit.

These scalawags are just trying to scare the loose change outta your pocket!

And the law lets them do it.

So, just who is the "scalawag?" The thief that got caught? Or, the business that is trying to recoup some of their losses? Personally, I will side with the business over the criminal every time.

The real question - which I have no answer for - is just how many of these ignored claims actually become court actions, go to collections, or are referred for criminal prosecution? I have no idea, and cannot find any real information on those questions.

 

[mightymoose]

Personally I don't seen why a judge would slap the maximum fine on a first time offender of a $3 petty theft. I would expect the minimum fine around $50.

The merchant got the property back and has no actual loss. It was their choice to not make a criminal report. I side with the thief in this instance. Any attempt by the business to collect such ridiculous fees for such a petty offense is malicious. I would continue to ignore them and have my day in court if they chose to push it that far.

Jacksgal- I'm not sure the Penal Code you refer to is appropriate. This matter would be handled in civil court at this point.

 

[jacksgal]

And we were discussing the Civil portion which is what I posted

 

[CdwJava]

Mightymoose, do you know just how much damage shoplifting does to retailers throughout the country? And how much we pay as a result of this?

This is why California and many other states have allowed merchants to seek restitution above and beyond the direct costs related to restocking, apprehension, etc.

And note that PC 490.5 (b) and (c) states that the merchant can seek $50 to $500 "PLUS COSTS." Clearly, the civil demand is designed to be punitive.

The thief is to blame for their predicament, not the merchant.

 

[mightymoose]

And we were discussing the Civil portion which is what I posted

I was under the impression that a conviction was required for that civil portion to apply.

 

[mightymoose]

Mightymoose, do you know just how much damage shoplifting does to retailers throughout the country? And how much we pay as a result of this?

Well I don't know the numbers, but yes.
What I am getting at is that the punishment should fit the crime. The person who steals the $3 item and returns it should not face the same penalty as the person who steals the $300 item and doesn't return it.
The $400 penalty in this case is absurd.

 

[jacksgal]

I was under the impression that a conviction was required for that civil portion to apply.

If that were case OJ Simpson would not owe The Goldman's millions!

 

[jacksgal]

Well I don't know the numbers, but yes.
What I am getting at is that the punishment should fit the crime. The person who steals the $3 item and returns it should not face the same penalty as the person who steals the $300 item and doesn't return it.
The $400 penalty in this case is absurd.

Retailers lose over 15 Billion a year from shoplifting alone and that isnt even the biggest bulk of their loses. Punishment fit crime? It doesnt? Add not only the cost of the merchandise but add in the cost to protect it from theft or vandals? If we did this the fines would be too low I suspect. Not to talk down to you but my husbands has worked in retail theft for years and is member of the group NASP, where you can find some of the info I just posted. He works with retailers, Civil recovery services, parents, schools and, accused shoplifters, to name a few, to educate, help and inform them for their mutal benefit. We even have som eof these Civil Demand laws on our computer here at home. He currently owns a website that answers questions (like here) of accused shoplifters with some of the harsh treatment other sites give these persons. He use to run another site now gone called Retail Theft answers which was doing very well before my husband and his partner had a falling out. I feel I am qualified to speak on this. Civil demadn is state law and legally binding no matter what you or others may assume. Not paying can (not saying will) carry severe consequences here are a few

. Law suit which could cost thousands
. Negative report to credit reporting agencies
. Filing of criminal charges if not filed at time of stop (In short if store did not file criminal report they can be provoked to do so if Civil Demand is ignored)
. If part of accused probation a probation violation

To name a few. CDWJAVA and myself have always said if your gambler then take your chances if not then pay fine. Will store or Civil Recovery service take matters to extremes and sue or other tactics? who knows maybe maybe not, that is the gamble. I save my gambling for Vegas

 

[mightymoose]

If that were case OJ Simpson would not owe The Goldman's millions!

That is different. I just said that I wasn't sure THAT Penal Code section was applicable without a conviction. Obviously there is still a civil matter that can be addressed- it just seems weird referring to the Penal Code for civil penalties.

 

[jacksgal]

I agree but there it is PC 490.5 is the Civil Demand code.

 

[jacksgal]

My husband and his team are still working on getting all the states laws on Civil Demand

 

[mightymoose]

Civil demadn is state law and legally binding no matter what you or others may assume.

There is nothing binding about a civil demand letter. It is nothing more than a request to settle out of court. If a person feels the demanded amount is too much then they can wait for the matter to go to court. Only the judge's ruling is binding.

A situation as we have here, a $3 petty theft from a grocery store, which was recovered on site, and assuming this is a first time offender, deserves the lower end of the scale. A $50-$100 demand would likely be paid without argument.

When ridiculous demands are made they should be dismissed. Come with a reasonable offer or don't come at all!

 

[jacksgal]

So your advice is ignore letter risk higher fines as well potential criminal charges, law suit for thousands, negative credit rating etc etc?