Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Target shoplifting

[Emnoel]

Jurisdiction

Florida

It was $26 worth of things. The guy in loss prevention took my pic asked for iD that's all. He never showed me any video footage of incident. I signed two papers one for trespassing and the other he rushed me to sign it. I never left with any documentation of situation. Police were not called. He said I would receive something in two weeks in mail. But I don't know if he was just trying to scare me or not? Oh also he didn't ask to look in my purse or ask for permission and he tried to accuse me of my lipstick which you could easily tell was used several times

 

[shrinkmaster]

Its called Civil demand. It will be a fine of sorts paying this will end matter. Not paying "could" provoke serious long term consequences. I am a Retail theft consultant and answer questions like yours daily. More info below.

A recent writing of mine - Parent Nook Forums

Civil Recovery

By the way it was unwise to name store on public forum especially this store!.
If you work retail you need also concern yourself about being placed in a Retail theft database

 

[mightymoose]

Stay out of the store and ignore the letter when it comes. It is not a fine or anything else you have any legal obligation to pay.
They are not going to pursue you over a measly $26.
You won't be hearing from law enforcement unless you go back in the store and they catch you in there.

There is no legal issue regarding your purse.

Consider it over with and get on on with your life... Without stealing.

 

[shrinkmaster]

Before blindly accepting advice that "could" carry long term consequences please look at info I provided

 

[zddoodah]

Cool story. Do you have a question? The one sentence in your post that ends with a question mark isn't actually a question.

By the way, I disagree with the suggestions that you ignore any letter you might receive and that you have no obligation to pay a civil demand.

 

[Emnoel]

Cool story. Do you have a question? The one sentence in your post that ends with a question mark isn't actually a question.

By the way, I disagree with the suggestions that you ignore any letter you might receive and that you have no obligation to pay a civil demand.

Yes my question was if this was them trying to scare me or if I will actually have something come in mail? If no cops or anything were called

 

[army judge]

my question was if this was them trying to scare me or if I will actually have something come in mail? If no cops or anything were called

If the cops were never called, this will be at MOST a civil matter.

You can search this and other websites for numerous discussions about "civil demands".

You can also search the internet where you'll find many scholarly articles authored by lawyers in YOUR state, and other states, offering legal opinions about "civil demands".

You possess common sense.

I could demand that YOU pay me $1,000,000 by midnight tonight.

If I did, you'd laugh, or curse at me.

What you wouldn't do is send me so much as $1.00.

I won't bore you by explaining why that would be the proper reaction.

In fact, if we were in high school, and someone demanded that another student hand him five bucks, someone will be administered a thumping.

The laws in many states, yours included, allow merchants to ASK you to pay them money IF they caught you shoplifting some of their trinkets.

If you ignore their requests, the merchant has to take you to court and convince a judge that you must pay them the money.

Even if a merchant did that to you, you could still ignore the judgment.

The merchant would than have to endeavor to collect the judgment.

As a practical matter, these law firms who send these demands aren't going to sue people who ignore the letters, because that would be too costly.

You could also file bankruptcy, and never have to worry about the demand again.

As a practical matter, you could choose to pay the demand, and nothing more should happen.

Which is why the vast majority of people receiving these demands ignore them.

What you do is up to you.

However, as you debate what to do, read this article by THREE Florida licensed attorneys, not some UNKNOWN dude on the internet, then decide:

https://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/theft-crimes/petit-theft/

I got a civil demand from the business, where I allegedly stole… - Hackworth Law

Petit Theft/Shoplifting

You can do your own search and discover hundreds of such wise responses.

From this point forward use this as your mantra: I WILL NEVER DO STUPID STUFF, before you consider shoplifting again. Breaking a law will ruin your life, please just obey all of their laws.

 

[zddoodah]

Yes my question was if this was them trying to scare me or if I will actually have something come in mail?

We have no way of knowing the intent of these person(s) who are unknown to us. Either could be true.

I disagree that merchants never sue over unpaid civil demands. Also, if you were to file bankruptcy, the creditor could seek a determination that the court declare the debt to be non-dischargeable (because debts arising from criminal activities are generally not dischargeable).

 

[army judge]

the creditor could seek a determination that the court declare the debt to be non-dischargeable (because debts arising from criminal activities are generally not dischargeable).

The operative word being CIVIL demand, which implies no criminal activity or intent.

The courts aren't to be used to coerce people into paying alleged debts, as we don't (in this country) jail or imprison debtors.

 

[shrinkmaster]

If the user looks at the links and videos I provided the user can see and read all the possible consequences. There is also an example from this very site of a legal action taken against a person who did NOT pay.

 

[mightymoose]

If the user looks at the links and videos I provided the user can see and read all the possible consequences. There is also an example from this very site of a legal action taken against a person who did NOT pay.

That example you often cite is more about failure to appear and defend in court than it is about failure to pay a civil demand. That person did not handle the matter properly and got a default judgment against him.

Nobody is gong going bother this particular person over $26. Paying the demand would be foolish.

However, as they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

 

[cbg]

Just curious, MM; how much is a person allowed to steal before, in your opinion, is a store entitled to do something about it?

 

[shrinkmaster]

No one even myself ( a person who works in this area) can what a retailer (or its law firm) will do or not do. Yes the chances a store will sue or any other option is low but its still there. Honestly no one here can say how often this actually happens. I encourage clients and all others to pay to avoid the possible consequences! I do NOT tell anyone it wont happen as many here do! There is a risk and yes it may be minimal but its still there. By the way why is it ok to avoid a consequence for a crime? The option the store has to avoid or minimize the cost to stop and/or reduce theft falls on the employees and us the consumers! Why is that ok?

 

[mightymoose]

Just curious, MM; how much is a person allowed to steal before, in your opinion, is a store entitled to do something about it?

Nobody is entitled to steal anything.
It has nothing to do with the amount.
Civil demand laws have no teeth. There is nothing that compels a person to pay the demands. However, the higher the amount the more likely legal action might be pursued.
Stores should take the exact same approach with civil demands as they already do even if the laws did not exist.
Stores should involve law enforcement immediately every single time. The criminal element of the matter could persuade compliance with civil demands, even with very small petty thefts.

 

[mightymoose]

By the way why is it ok to avoid a consequence for a crime?

It does not have anything to do with avoiding consequence for a crime. It has to do with a civil dispute over money.

 

[cbg]

So the store is entitled to pursue action. You are prepared to carve it in stone for the OP that the store is GUARANTEED to opt out of their entitlement?

 

[4Justice_MD]

. By the way why is it ok to avoid a consequence for a crime?

To my knowledge,I haven't seen a post yet where anyone has ever said,that "it ok to avoid a consequence for a crime," but that consequence should be what it has always been,"criminal prosecution,"not some law allowing "legal extortion," which for starters,is a very poor deterrence effort,and the reason being,most people who shoplift,don't have sufficient assets,by which any judgement could be lawfully collected.I mean that goes to the heart of why they stole in the first place,they didn't have the money to pay for what they stole
What the store is "entitled" to do,and should do,is have the thief arrested,and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The incident rate of this kind of kind of crime is committed thousands of times a day in stores across this country,and as such,if we are going to 'detour" those who steal,we need to hit them hard with tougher laws that require harsher penalties,especially for "repeat offenders."
If the justice system,starts making examples out of those,who steal from merchants,the message will get out,that such conduct will not be tolerated or unpunished.that said,a little "adhoc" justice wouldn't hurt at all,and on that note,I wonder if anyone here has any suggestions on how best,the justice system should deal with thieves.
The bottom line here,is,if you caught the thief in action,and let him/her go,to only later tried to make him pay a civil demand,for merchandise,you have already retrieved,that's just plain stupid,and shame on you.

 

[shrinkmaster]

Civil demand laws are NOT meant to deter theft. They exist to help recoup the cost of protecting a store from theft. The options are

. Reduce staff
. Cut hours
. Reduce benefits
. Raise prices
and them some. So employees and consumers should pay the cost instead of those who steal?

 

[4Justice_MD]

Civil demand laws are NOT meant to deter theft. They exist to help recoup the cost of protecting a store from theft.

That's still not a valid reason for a civil demand,plus,it's just plain "USELESS." Merchants,while obviously in business to make a profit,have to also consider the "cost of doing business."So,with that in mind,knowing the great possibility of shoplifting,and the fact of it being a high incident crime,it becomes incumbent to have the best possible security system,and policies for dealing with shoplifters in place.Not just having trained security personal,but requiring all employees to be sufficiently trained in spotting potential thieves,and preventing thief.
If such security measures are set in place,they will greatly reduce the chances of thief's,plus,the cost of the security over time pays for itself.
You say,you are a "loss prevention" expert,ever think about that?

 

[4Justice_MD]

,most people who shoplift,don't have sufficient assets,by which any judgement could be lawfully collected.I mean that goes to the heart of why they stole in the first place,they didn't have the money to pay for what they stole

Btw... Did you forget what I said above?