Pa: Probable cause to believe that retail theft has occurred.

[DaveM55]

I've underlined the section below which I have a question on.

My question is do those merchandise detectors that sound an alarm if a patron exits the store with the device attached to merchandise, justify probable cause?

Pennsylvania Crimes Code
Section 3929. Retail Theft.
(d) Detention - A peace officer, merchant or merchant's
employee or an agent under contract with a merchant, who
has probable cause to believe that retail theft has
occurred or is occurring on or about a store or other
retail mercantile establishment and who has probable cause
to believe that a specific person has committed or is
committing the retail theft may detain the suspect in a
reasonable manner for a reasonable time on or off the
premises for all or any of the following purposes: to
require the suspect to identify himself, to verify such
identification, to determine whether such suspect has in
his possession unpurchased merchandise taken from the
mercantile establishment and, if so, to recover such
merchandise, to inform a peace officer, or to institute
criminal proceedings against the suspect. Such detention
shall not impose civil or criminal liability upon the peace
officer, merchant, employee, or agent so detaining.

[Kaos]

I've underlined the section below which I have a question on.

My question is do those merchandise detectors that sound an alarm if a patron exits the store with the device attached to merchandise, justify probable cause?

Pennsylvania Crimes Code
Section 3929. Retail Theft.
(d) Detention - A peace officer, merchant or merchant's
employee or an agent under contract with a merchant, who
has probable cause to believe that retail theft has
occurred or is occurring on or about a store or other
retail mercantile establishment and who has probable cause
to believe that a specific person has committed or is
committing the retail theft may detain the suspect in a
reasonable manner for a reasonable time on or off the
premises for all or any of the following purposes: to
require the suspect to identify himself, to verify such
identification, to determine whether such suspect has in
his possession unpurchased merchandise taken from the
mercantile establishment and, if so, to recover such
merchandise, to inform a peace officer, or to institute
criminal proceedings against the suspect. Such detention
shall not impose civil or criminal liability upon the peace
officer, merchant, employee, or agent so detaining.

50/50

I've had them go off on me before when I had nothing from the store (checked my shoes for fallen tags too) and I've had them go off when the cashier forgot to demagnetize something.

[DaveM55]

I agree that there are numerous false alarms with those devices.

So let me define my question further.

You are a mall guard (you all want to be...LOL) and you see four people exit a store carrying large full shopping bags and the alarm sounds. The store clerk asks them to stop and the patrons say no and start walking fast to their vehicle. These same patrons were not suspected of anything prior to the sound of the alarm and were not seen actually stealing anything. Do you think in that case a security officer would be legal to detain the subjects?

I'm hoping a lawyer on here could chime in. But everyone can post of course.

[awkx]

you see four people exit a store carrying large full shopping bags and the alarm sounds.

In that case, I would guess that it would not be justified to search or seize those people, because the statute requires both (1) "probable cause to believe that retail theft has occurred or is occurring" and (2) "probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing the retail theft" (emphasis added). If you can identify who specifically set off the alarm, the question becomes more difficult.

[Shawn.L]

I agree that there are numerous false alarms with those devices.

So let me define my question further.

You are a mall guard (you all want to be...LOL) and you see four people exit a store carrying large full shopping bags and the alarm sounds. The store clerk asks them to stop and the patrons say no and start walking fast to their vehicle. These same patrons were not suspected of anything prior to the sound of the alarm and were not seen actually stealing anything. Do you think in that case a security officer would be legal to detain the subjects?

I'm hoping a lawyer on here could chime in. But everyone can post of course.

I am in retail managment.

Corp has always told us we need to be able to articulate WHAT was taken and WHERE it is on their person before we can so much as suggest that someone may have commited theft. Not sure where that is with the law, or if that is just do to insurance, but thats my experiance.

[gf45acp]

I'll bet ya that there is case law on this some where. In the reading of the statute, no, as awkx mentioned you need to have a "specific" person, not just grab a group.

Also Dave, for your mall guard situation, I do not know about Pa, but in NJ the mall guard is NOT an agent of a merchant. There, the guard would have to work directly for the store. For that matter, in NJ the guard has protection under the law only if directly employeed by the store, a contract guard, even if assigned to the store, has no protection. Basically, you are an agent only if your pay comes directly from the store.
Mall guards work for the mall, not the stores. Just a PRNJ rant. And general info.

[Kaos]

I am in retail managment.

Corp has always told us we need to be able to articulate WHAT was taken and WHERE it is on their person before we can so much as suggest that someone may have commited theft. Not sure where that is with the law, or if that is just do to insurance, but thats my experiance.

Ill second this, eye contact has to be maintained. If you stop someone and say they had a CD in their waistband but you lost eye contact and they moved it to lets say an inside jacket pocket...then you can be in a world of hurt.

[JoeWilliams]

I agree that there are numerous false alarms with those devices.

So let me define my question further.

You are a mall guard (you all want to be...LOL) and you see four people exit a store carrying large full shopping bags and the alarm sounds. The store clerk asks them to stop and the patrons say no and start walking fast to their vehicle. These same patrons were not suspected of anything prior to the sound of the alarm and were not seen actually stealing anything. Do you think in that case a security officer would be legal to detain the subjects?

I'm hoping a lawyer on here could chime in. But everyone can post of course.

I would be extremely "iffy" about stopping someone based on those alarms, whether as a cop, mall cop, or retail store employee. Too many false alarms, to many incidents of the alarms being caused by the incompetence of store employees themselves (such as forgetting to remove or deactivate the alarm.) Wouldn't take much of a lawyer to sue the boogers out of me, regardless of what state law says. Just doesn't strike me as enough to try to seize and search someones property, which is exactly what you are doing if they actually paid for the stuff.

I've heard there are supposedly civil cases based on the false alarms that have cost stores a fair chunk of change, but I've not bothered to research to see if there actually are any.

[DaveM55]

This situation did actually happen and we did walk at a normal pace following the fast moving subjects. They got in their car and peeled rubber out of there. Hopefully they won't return for awhile. IMHO they were probably guilty, but legally we couldn't do anything. Even after giving the plate number to the police, they said they couldn't do anything either without knowing exactly WHO took WHAT merchandise.

I was just seeing if anyone had any other insight.

Shawn, Some of our retailers refuse to press charges even after they catch shoplifters with stolen property. Most stores ask permission to inspect bags when one of the alarms go off. Then they call us in if they find stolen merchandise.

Kaos, That was the case in Illinois also, eye contact had to maintained. Not sure about Pa.

gf45acp, Each store pays a monthly fee to the property owner for security, so we're good there. Normally we are called in after the fact, we don't look for shoplifters.

JoeWilliams, Just general thanks for that advice, that is what we do now as SOP. I've heard of those same civil suits.

I never knew how prevalent retail theft is and how bold these shoplifters are until I took this part-time job. Some stores refuse to prosecute because they are afraid of libel suits and bad press.

And FYI, I can't wait to see the movie Mall Cop!!!

[FFEMT128]

I'll second the false activations... We were xmas shopping at the mall at Robinson. We purchased something in Radio Shack, did not activate any alarms upon leaving there but we did set of the alarm in every store we went in and out of for the rest of the day. No one bothered us anytime it went off and we never bothered to try to see if it was indeed the item from Radio Shack or not. (could have been the XD)