Shoplifting Case Study

#1: What are the legal implications that accompany the arrest of a shoplifter?

“Shoplifting, worker theft cost retailers $32 billion last year,” is the title to a Fortune 500 article written by Phil Whaba. The name of the article sums up the immense problem facing retailers in the United States. Companies are not just losing millions of dollars in merchandise to theft, they are in fact losing billions of dollars to theft. To protect themselves, many retailers and companies incorporate security to help protect their goods and mitigate the threat of thefts. While employing security to solve this issue can be effective, it also brings with it implications which can lead to lawsuits and negative publicity for the company. Some of the implications include additional training, policies and procedures for officers, as well as the additional consequences of potential injury to staff and perpetrators, which can both have far reaching legal weight attached to each issue.

In Robert Fischer’s text Introduction to Security, he states, “The mishandling of shoplifting detention can have legal repercussions, and it is therefore extremely important to have a

policy that is line with local shoplifting laws.” Retailers who use their security to monitor for, detain and investigate theft may face both legal and public relations scrutiny if they improperly detain an individual for shoplifting. Each state has different laws and rules for the detainment of a shoplifter, including at what point the shoplifter can stopped or questioned, how long they can be detained for and if they can be detained at all.
Law enforcement in the United States is held to specific standards of detainment which can be also used against security and facilities detaining shoplifters.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation states, “The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.” Because of this organizations should be well-versed on local laws of detainment, train their officers on those laws, and maintain procedures which mirror the

laws.
Another liability to detaining or questioning a shoplifter is the possibility of an injury occurring to a staff member or the shoplifter themselves. While security in most states has the right to detain and individual who is shoplifting until police arrive, an overzealous, untrained officer or staff member may resort to physically forcing the individual back into the building or into a detainment area. If the officer is improperly trained and causes the suspect an injury, because of their lack of training, the officer, company, and anyone who may have been supervising the officer can be held liable for the injuries. While suspect injuries could be the cause of major legal action against a company, so too is the possibility of legal action resulting from the injury of a staff member who is improperly trained and is injured due to an improper detainment.