he issue in this case is whether or not Stallmart is protected under the shopkeeper exception act due to having probable cause. Indiana courts have adopted a standard, which set forth the a test that “probable cause exists only where the facts found on reasonable inquiry would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that the accused had committed the crime charge.” Overall, a judge would likely find the factor of probable cause in favor of Stallmart. The court typically determines that probable cause can be inferred if an individual passes the cash registers and has possession of merchandise that has not been purchased. This is seen in Bowman v. Indiana, the store employee saw the suspect conceal a saw and “did not stop …show more content…
Probable cause cannot be reasonably pressured before the last rack of merchandise due. A prudent person in these cases would have the opposite presumption of that the suspect could be shopping still. These two cases extend the point of reasonable presumption past the point of cash registers, in order for a store to have proper probable cause. The manner and actions of the suspect at the time of the incident will also be reason for a store to presume probable cause. In Haltom v. Burner, the probable cause was clear due to the actions Haltom performed by trying to exchange reported stolen items.(cite) Is manner that a prudent person would deem that a theft has occurred. Merely just examining merchandise within a store does not give rise to probable cause. In Cease v. Highland Village the store claimed probable cause due to seeing the suspect pick up and examine a item while within the store. (cite) A store must clearly distinguish the actions of a normal shopper and those of a prudent person would deem as theft. Probable cause can also be deemed reasonable when an employee notice a suspect concealing a
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
According to the court case on Pam Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am in agreement with the fact that the “district court granted summary judgment in favor of Huber” (Morgan, p.413) and that Wal-Mart gave Pam Huber, a maintenance associated job due to her disability. In doing so, I am also in agreement with the fact that Wal-Mart did not breach the American with Disability Act of 1990 due to the fact that Wal-Mart specifically stated what was required of Pam Huber to do on the job. Due to that, I am in agreement with Wal-Mart’s decision to hire a capable candidate in replace of Pam Huber due to their policy.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
Exigent circumstances are when immediate action needs to be taken. When a cop pulls someone, and the officer needs to search the vehicle immediately and doesn’t have time for a search warrant to get there or be issued. If the vehicles driver or other passengers are going to destroy evidence, then the cop needs to get everyone out of the vehicle search them and the vehicle. It is the cop’s discernment and the cop has to have probable cause. Now the only thing that is needed is probable cause for a vehicle stop, this justifies a search and seizure on a vehicle.
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
This case is about an overzealous convenient store clerk who, in his desperate attempt to catch the bad guys, abused and traumatized an innocent store patron. The plaintiff, Richard Flynn, entered The All Niter convenience store one late night in September 2016 to purchase milk. What he expected to be a quick stop on his way home, soon became one of the most humiliating nights of his life when he encountered an officious store clerk, Defendant Mark Schenkly. After developing an unfounded suspicion that Mr. Flynn had stolen a beer from a cooler in the store, Defendant Mark Schenkly made the decision to detain and frisk Mr. Flynn. The Defendant stated that his suspicion that Mr. Flynn was shoplifting was based on a crime alert flier circulated
Law enforcement officers need a reason to stop you. Remember, it cannot be just a hunch the police officer had. Their action has to be backed up with facts that led him to believe you, or someone else had committed a crime. Like the Supreme Court cases we went over, all dealt with reasonable suspicion in some way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard police officers need to stop and frisk someone. They will need probable cause, a higher standard, to search and arrest a person. Remember, officers need reasonable suspicion to stop, question, and
The various aspect of the plain view doctrine is that an officer must observe the item in plain view, also the officer must already have a lawful presence in an area that's protected by the 4th constitutional amendment. It's important that officers immediately recognize the item as evidence or either contraband without making further intrusion. Officers should consider making routinely Plainview observation (Jack Ryan).
Harvey Mickens had a $10,000 life insurance policy through CMFG Life Insurance Company. In March 2014, Harvey changed his policy, via telephone, from a term life insurance policy, which named his late wife as the beneficiary, to a whole life policy, which named appellant Carl Mickens, Harvey’s brother, as the beneficiary. Following Harvey’s death in July of 2014, there was a dispute over whether Harvey’s life insurance policy should be paid to Carl or to Harvey’s Estate. The Harvey Estate, administrated by Synovia Vardiman and Pearline Harris, sued Carl Mickens.
The elements necessary, although sometimes difficult, to prove the shopkeeper's privilege are: (1) There are reasonable grounds for the suspicion; (2) Suspects are detained for a reasonable time; (3) Investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner. (Cheeseman, H. R., 2013, p. 110) I don't think that Walmart had a chance in proving the shopkeeper's privilege in this case because there was no probable cause to believe Cockrell had taken any merchandise or that anything could have possibly fit underneath his bandage.
White. Like in Bowman, White had passed the point of purchase. Though in Street, Sutherline, and Duvall the courts extended the point for probable cause past place of purchase to the last rack of merchandise. The case at hand does not share similar fact patterns. When examining Stallmart’s floor plan there is not merchandise past the registers only a public nail salon and restroom. Due to these factual difference, Stallmart’s case leans more towards the fact patterns presented in Bowman. As mention above, Chestnet and Duvall laid out the general rule of concealment. Though different in context, it could be reasonably presumed and later determined that White concealed smaller objects underneath the Xbox 1. White’s actions of panic, and nervousness while trying to leave the store added to reasonably presume probable cause of theft, similar to Bowman. In contrast, White did not have a creditable and or clear alternative reason for his suspicious behavior. As mention above in Street and Sutherline providing a creditable alternation reason for theft like actions does not fulfill the reasonable person standard for probable. White only stating “I just need to go” is not alternative reasons a prudent person would deem creditable. Unlike Cease, White in the eyes of the store did not demonstrate nominal shopping behavior. White was “walking extremely fast, broke past the registers, did not
One ethical problem with shoplifting, one being profiling the wrong candidates. I personally have been profiled in a store, because I was with a group of people. They thought that we were probably about to steal, they were harassing throughout the store. While they were focusing on us the real shoplifter, was an older lady and they didn’t even notice they things she was sneaking in her purse. I kind of don’t understand the other ethical issues completely & that is the only one I could think of....
“Taking is the act of obtaining physical possession or control of another’s property (Gardner & Anderson, 2012, p. 349)”. Retail theft or shoplifting has always been an issue for merchants. Shoplifting is defined as the unlawful concealment and/or taking of property offered for sale and as an attempt to deprive the owner of said property, usually the retail merchant, and the possession of that property without paying for it (Thomson Reuters, 2014). Taking in shoplifting cases can also be described as willful intent to deceive by way of