Legal Question in Civil Rights Law in Pennsylvania
False Imprisonment
On July 9 2008, I went to the nearby supermarket where I have shopped for 18 years. I was in the dollar section of the store where they put discounted items that are discontinued. I had gone to the store to buy cat food, and when I saw Meow Mix cat food pouches and Sheba cans were marked 3 for a dollar with a red sticker(Sheba normally sells for $1.15 a can) I decided to buy all 10 cans of Sheba. I also put 12 pouches of Meow Mix in my basket. I then checked out. As I was leaving I was stopped by a man wearing a t-shirt and shorts who flashed a badge. At first I thought it was a joke until I saw the woman with him who I recognized as a manager. He told me to go into the room. He told me I had switched price tags, and then the woman said loudly'' There's no way Sheba sells for 3 for a dollar''. I was detained for almost an hour while the police came and they made me stay in the room while they checked the store shelves. The woman came back with the policeman and told the others that there were a lot more Meow Mix pouches on the shelf with the same stickers. The security guard said he saw me peeling labels off, but all I did was try to look under the label of 1 can to see what flavor. They told me I was free to go. I was so humiliated
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: False Imprisonment
Pennsylvania's Retail Theft Act provides clear guidance to retail stores on how their employees may respond to shoplifting. When a store's security force has probable cause to believe that a person has stolen merchandise, the security force may detain the suspect in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable time, on or off the store premises.
The detention of a suspect must serve one or more of a list of purposes set out in the Act. They include detention:
1. to require the suspect to identify himself or herself;
2. to verify identification;
3. to determine whether the suspect has in his or her possession stolen merchandise;
4. to recover stolen merchandise;
5. to inform law enforcement; and
6. to institute criminal proceedings against the suspect.
In the suit brought by the chocolate-eating shopper against the store, the Pennsylvania appellate court found that the initial handcuffing did not violate the Retail Theft Act. But the security employees' refusal to release the shopper from the handcuffs once she objected and their continued use of the handcuffs and detention "exceeded all bounds of decency." The court expressed "outrage" at the use of "coercive tactics" to get a written confession from a shoplifter.
Handcuffing and detention may be used briefly to aid store security personnel in identifying a shoplifter, in securing merchandise, and in proceeding to police involvement. Such tactics may not be used to intimidate a suspect or to persuade a shopper to sign a confession.
The store and employee can be sued if they exceed the limits identified in the Retail Theft Act. Anyone stopped for suspected shoplifting should clearly request that the detention end once identification is established and a search for merchandise is complete. Once the identification inquiry and the merchandise search are complete, unless store security personnel are handing the matter over to law enforcement, they have no authority to continue to detain a suspected shoplifter.
Was any of this caught on video?
Please email me at [email protected] if you would like me to analyze the specific facts of your case.
Thank you,
Robert Weber, Esq.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
