STOP! Let me see your bag!

[Javier730]

Showing the receipt would have definitely deescalated the situation. That being said, a security officer and loss preventions job is to observe and report. The security officer should have notified law enforcement and went and got the license plates of the person he believed was shoplifting. He is not a LEO. No need to try to physically detain people especially when they are in a vehicle. He could of got shot or run over.

An alarm going of at a department store should not give the store a right to search people. Ive seen those alarms go off when customers are walking in sometimes.

[PBratton]

At what point did the OP threaten to shoot? He didn't. You inferred it. "Dropping" someone has different meanings to everyone.

Why don't you ask him?

The only one who exhibited criminal behavior is the security guard and he should be held accountable.

OK, I'll bite. What law did the security guard break?

If an LPO detains someone, he has in effect placed that person under arrest.

Remember, the LPO is not given the powers of a law enforcement officer, he merely has the power of citizen's arrest.

If he has suspicion of wrong doing, he can ask you to voluntarily stop and speak with him, however, if he keeps you from going about your business, he has arrested you and is responsible for delivering you into a LEO's custody as soon as practical.

The LPO probably violated store policy and probably violated state law.

[Keith B]

At what point did the OP threaten to shoot? He didn't. You inferred it. "Dropping" someone has different meanings to everyone.

Why don't you ask him?

The only one who exhibited criminal behavior is the security guard and he should be held accountable.

OK, I'll bite. What law did the security guard break?

If an LPO detains someone, he has in effect placed that person under arrest.

Remember, the LPO is not given the powers of a law enforcement officer, he merely has the power of citizen's arrest.

If he has suspicion of wrong doing, he can ask you to voluntarily stop and speak with him, however, if he keeps you from going about your business, he has arrested you and is responsible for delivering you into a LEO's custody as soon as practical.

The LPO probably violated store policy and probably violated state law.

Incorrect. Per state law the security officer actually has legal power to detain and even submit a 'frisk' for the items. Here is a good overview of what a security officer can and can't do http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/psb//t ... review.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The question is did the security guard actually go beyond the legal rights to detain when they used pepper spray? Was he using it to try and stop the person from leaving? Or was it used because he thought the OP was going to hit him with the vehicle? As EEllis stated, it could go either way in a court depending on many factors. My thought is to let it go, learn from it and hope it doesn't go into court where you end up having to spend a ton of money to maybe get something back.

[Right2Carry]

i don't think situations like this put CHL holders in a good light not do I think it makes us good ambassadors for the group we represent. I see nothing wrong with a few extra seconds of time letting a LPO check my receipt if the alarm goes off. De-escalation is in the handbook and should be practiced. We should always strive to be good ambassadors for CHL carriers even if it means a few seconds of our precious time is used up de-escalating a situation that has the potential to get out of hand.

These people are trying to make a living a fit can be tough at times. Like most on here they just want to feed their families and do the best job they can and go home at the end of the day.

I do think the OP escalated the situation by not complying with a REASONABLE request by the SO. it also appears that the wife was embarrassed by the whole situation. I don't understand why the OP wanted to leave after he made the 911 call. LP and SOs are part of the good guys and are tasked with a difficult job. I don't understand why some would want to escalate a situation that only takes at most a few minutes to de-esculate and return things to normal.

[Keith B]

For those of you that also said "If you have nothing to hide let them see" what would you do if law enforcement wants to search your car? Your House? Your box of personal effects that is got some less than public appropriate pictures? Can you imagine the knock on your door "I believe you are committing a crime and I am going to search your house now", you say no and then BAM you look guilty because you don't want someone going through your personal belongings. Now you that are saying "Well the government has no business in my personal life" why would we give that ability to the private citizen. Why would or should we believe that he had the reasonable belief based on a false positive system (Human forgets to deactivate tag, Tags from other stores can set it off, potential malfunction, etc). Sure this wasn't my house or my car it was my bag though. He saw me pay for something with my bag in hand and walk out with it. He watched me from that register to the door and if he had that reason to believe I stole something then he should have had the reason to see more than inside my bag because I would have to had to have used my mini transporter to beam it into my bag. Or at least stop me before the door because I had done something bad.

I do thank you for your thoughts and feelings. No matter what way you said. I believe no matter what we can all maintain a respectful conversation even if I may been in the wrong in your eyes. I do appreciate your time in responding.

This is a different situation. As you mentioned, you were leaving THEIR store, not them trying to come into your house or store for no reason. They had the right to try and determine if you had something that was not paid for due to the alarm.

You mentioned you own a business. If it was open to the public, and you had theft prevention processes in place, wouldn't you want to be able to stop a person and determine they hadn't taken anything if your system alerted you to a possible theft?

Personally, I don't like it when an alarm goes off either. But, if it does, I am gonna stop if they request to see the bag I left with, even if it was loaded by the store cashier. HOWEVER, I would NOT allow a frisk, especially due to carrying my CCW. I would respectfully decline the frisk, ask them to contact LE and await their arrival.

[nyj]

Man, choose your battles. Was it worth all of that trouble from a guy who probably makes less than $10/hr? He's trying to do his job, and when met with resistance, he's not going to check his ego at the door, like you should have.

If it upset you that much, I would have walked back into the store, and returned every item I bought and taken my business elsewhere. The other way to handle this, is like someone else said, tell them to call the police and let them sort it out. They're going to ask to check your bags just like the security guard, but if you want to waste your time, go for it.

Life is too short to waste time chasing things like this.

[Salty1]

Anyone here think I should sue or just walk away.

Walk away and learn from this. In my opinion you are equally responsible for what happened, you chose to be stubborn and not act in a courteous manor and could have been on your way in less than a minute with an apology had you just spoken to the security officer. Also once you reached your vehicle you could have easily rolled up the window and waited for the police to arrive if you were that offended by the request. Since you decided to be non-cooperative when leaving the store, threatening to "drop him" the situation was escalated and that is on you. By asking if you should sue makes me think that you feel like the victim and your actions have no bearing on the situation. By moving your vehicle the SO may have felt threatened and chose to defend himself with the pepper spray so you had to stop the momentum of the vehicle.

I get it, you did nothing wrong so why should you. In my opinion you were having a bad day and just let your stubborn side out when a smile would have had better results... we have all been there and in hindsight wish we had handled things in a different way. In my 6th decade of life I am now wise enough to know that we can always learn from our/others mistakes and a smile is priceless. Life is short, enjoy it..........

[WildBill]

After all, this turned out to be an interesting thread with a lot of good observations and comments.

[cb1000rider]

Man, choose your battles. Was it worth all of that trouble from a guy who probably makes less than $10/hr? He's trying to do his job, and when met with resistance, he's not going to check his ego at the door, like you should have.

Respectfully, a smart shop keeper doesn't pay an employee $10/hr (or less) and arm him with pepper spray. That's a lawsuit that will happen.

I would definitely follow up on the fact that you were pepper sprayed... I have no problem with what happened up until that point. They don't have the right to assault you to keep you from leaving, just be aware that the pepper spray may have been "defensive" - so hopefully there is some sort of camera on what actually went on out there...

[The Annoyed Man]

Welcome to the forum.

Your first reaction should be gracious. We all make mistakes.

The fact that the sensor went off should satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement. You were provocative & exposed all involved, including your wife to a dangerous situation of your making.

This ^^. And I would add that you shouldn't have been outraged at your wife's embarrassment. She was likely more embarrassed by your behavior than by anything the store did.

Follow my reasoning here..... The store has a completely reasonable and understandable motivation to protect its investment in its inventory. You are not the owner, you are a guest......including, like it or not, in their parking lot, which is there for the service of its customers, not for public parking purposes. Sometimes, the checkout employee forgets to cancel the security tag on the merchandise. Sometimes the employee does what they're supposed to do, but the tag fails to be canceled. There are a number of reasonable reasons for why this can occur. If the tag fails to be canceled when you are leaving the store, it is ENTIRELY reasonable for the security person to respond to the resultant alarm. After all, they don't know YOU or what YOU are doing, and it is ENTIRELY likely as not that the customer is shop-lifting......which they are ENTIRELY within their rights to prevent. You could have easily stopped, showed him the bag, and 10 seconds later been on your way. Instead, YOU chose to escalate the situation - something which your CHL instructor SPECIFICALLY warned you against.

Speaking truthfully, and trying not to offend, but you should probably reexamine your understanding of conflict resolution and deescalation before you carry your handgun anymore - whether or not it is a right - because the consequences of screwing up can end with you or the other guy (or, heaven forbid, someone you love) in a body bag. Is your pride worth all of that?

[Abraham]

Being pepper sprayed = Assault

Time to file charges.

P.S. This type situation falls (broadly speaking) into those who don't mind being stopped/searched (c'mon, it's no big deal they say...) when they're innocent of any wrongdoing finding convenience more important than principle and those who do...

I applaud those who do.

[baldeagle]

Being pepper sprayed = Assault

Time to file charges.

P.S. This type situation falls (broadly speaking) into those who don't mind being stopped/searched (c'mon, it's no big deal they say...) when they're innocent of any wrongdoing finding convenience more important than principle and those who do...

I applaud those who do.

Seriously? So you refuse to show your receipt when you're leaving Sam's? There's all the difference in the world between a police officer accosting you on the street for no apparent reason and a SO asking to check your bag because you set off an alarm. I guess the conflict resolution training CHLs get is a complete waste of time.

[jmra]

Speaking truthfully, and trying not to offend, but you should probably reexamine your understanding of conflict resolution and deescalation before you carry your handgun anymore - whether or not it is a right - because the consequences of screwing up can end with you or the other guy (or, heaven forbid, someone you love) in a body bag. Is your pride worth all of that?

^ Much wisdom in the words above.

[EEllis]

That being said, a security officer and loss preventions job is to observe and report. The security officer should have notified law enforcement and went and got the license plates of the person he believed was shoplifting. He is not a LEO. No need to try to physically detain people especially when they are in a vehicle. He could of got shot or run over.

An alarm going of at a department store should not give the store a right to search people. Ive seen those alarms go off when customers are walking in sometimes.

First is a opinion not what the law says or allows. Second I would agree that an alarm shouldn't in and of itself justify a detention but some guy running out of a store after such an alarm goes off and going to extreme lengths to avoid showing a receipt? That's a bit of a different situation.

[AlphaBeta]

At what point did the OP threaten to shoot? He didn't. You inferred it. "Dropping" someone has different meanings to everyone.

Why don't you ask him?

The only one who exhibited criminal behavior is the security guard and he should be held accountable.

OK, I'll bite. What law did the security guard break?

If an LPO detains someone, he has in effect placed that person under arrest.

Remember, the LPO is not given the powers of a law enforcement officer, he merely has the power of citizen's arrest.

If he has suspicion of wrong doing, he can ask you to voluntarily stop and speak with him, however, if he keeps you from going about your business, he has arrested you and is responsible for delivering you into a LEO's custody as soon as practical.

The LPO probably violated store policy and probably violated state law.

Sadly based on the rules I have read he is allowed to detain me only if he has the reasonable belief I have stolen something. That is the shopkeepers rule (quoted below in some case laws). He can detain me for a reasonable time (typically proven to be about 15 minutes) to investigate things and deliver me to law enforcement in a reasonable time. That is how they shield themselves from unlawful detainment and false arrest. In those you have to prove that they didn't have the legal authority to detain. Shopkeeper privilege allows them that shielding provided they meet a "Reasonable Belief". Which is what becomes a question and I feel courts have proved the mere reports someone did something doesn't meet that test (see below).

I looked into the question regarding a "loss prevention device" setting off an alarm being reasonable suspicion some time ago. I can't remember now, but it may have been California rather than Texas.
Anyway, what I remember is that the alarm was not considered reasonable suspicion because of the high rate of false positives. Loss prevention officers were instructed NOT to hassle suspected individuals unless the officer actually SAW the person attempt to leave with a item he did not pay for.

Not considered reasonable suspicion by the court or by particular loss prevention? If by the court, I'd love to find the caselaw, especially if it's Texas. Without that, I think it's "reasonable" based on current laws for the "shopkeeper" to detain...

My own experience - Home Depot about 3 weeks ago. Bought some stuff. Set off the alarm, which immediately made me very nervous (while carrying). The gave me the wave-through... Loss prevention detector on two custom doors that had been ordered.

I'm not sure that I would have been as assertive as the OP to get to walk away... Although had I been pepper sprayed, I'm pretty sure that I'd be talking to my attorney.

I did some research and from what I found I don't think there is some big obvious line. If the store has an ounce of sense that SO won't be talking to anyone but their lawyers and when they get done it won't be just the inventory control that contributed to the belief that something was up. There was a case in Texas where someone who did not steal anything and was detained and his detention was held to be reasonable and part of that was the refusal to stop when an inventory control system went off.

I too am curious on the case law supporting the devices are not reasonable belief. I believe even the opinions of courts in our federal circuit would apply.

To clarify my dropping him was more of a I am going to get physical and will put you on the ground until PD gets here. He at the point of hearing that didn't know I had a weapon. I would love to clearify my stance as I think some are missing (maybe the links to the cases would be helpful). To which I think is important to have that basic sighting of what the courts held as reasonable at that time. I was going to wait for PD to come but wanted away from this man. I was going to do so in my personal car with the doors closed and windows rolled up for AC/Heat while waiting on them. I wouldn't have left until they came. Since I couldn't close my door I took off to get away from him and sit in another part of the parking lot.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of- ... 37571.html - This case is the biggest light in my corner in my opinion. Quoting from it:

A. FALSE IMPRISONMENT
 The elements of false imprisonment are:  (1) a willful detention;  (2) performed without consent;  and (3) without the authority of law.  Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex.1995).   A person may falsely imprison another by acts alone or by words alone, or by both, operating on the person's will.  J.C. Penney Co. v. Duran, 479 S.W.2d 374, 380 n. 9 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
 In a false-imprisonment case if the alleged detention was performed with the authority of law then no false imprisonment occurred.   Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tex.1998).   The plaintiff must prove the absence of authority in order to establish the third element of a false-imprisonment cause of action.  Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo, 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex.1985) (per curiam).
A case which helps to decide this issue is H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Saldivar, 752 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, no writ).   In that case Saldivar was shopping at an H.E.B. store when a clerk told Isabel Lopez, an assistant manager, that “a lady” had taken a pair of sunglasses and removed the sales tag.   Lopez did not see Saldivar take the sunglasses.   As Saldivar walked outside the store, an armed security guard stopped her, accused her of theft, and told her to come to a back room with him.   At that point Lopez approached her and displayed a sales tag she had found which she claimed Saldivar had removed from the sunglasses.   The security guard guided Saldivar back into the front of the store where she remained for several minutes.   She was released after the manager determined that she had not stolen the sunglasses.
Saldivar sued H.E.B. for false imprisonment.   At trial, she testified that after she and the security guard entered the store she did not leave because she “didn't feel like [she] could.”   She stated that she never went near the sunglass display.   A jury returned a verdict in her favor.   We affirmed, finding that the facts supported a willful detention without consent and that a rational jury could have found that H.E.B. did not “reasonably believe” a theft had occurred and therefore lacked authority to detain her.  Id. at 702-04.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of- ... SiRio.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The court of appeals cites another interesting case:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 4&as_vis=1

Quoting that area:

Points five through nine state that the evidence is insufficient to prove appellant lacked authority to detain the appellee.

Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 124.001 (Vernon 1986) provides:

A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property. (emphasis added).

The foregoing law was included in the court's charge.

At trial, portions of Isabel Lopez's deposition were read into evidence. The deposition testimony revealed: 1) Lopez was the bakery manager at the time of the incident; 2) a general merchandise clerk approached her and told her a lady had taken a pair of sunglasses and removed the sales tag; 3) Lopez did not recall who the clerk was; 4) Lopez did not herself see the appellee take the sunglasses. Moreover, neither the clerk nor any other eyewitness to the theft testified at trial.

704*704 The appellee took the stand and stated that she never went near the sunglass display while she was in the store.

We conclude that a rational jury could have found from the foregoing evidence that appellant did not "reasonably believe" a theft had occurred and therefore lacked authority to detain the appellee. Points five through nine are overruled.

In both those cases we are talking about a human being seeing someone doing something and causing the person to be detained. In the HEB case it was "Clerk says she sees someone take a pair of sunglasses remove the sales tag, puts them on, to leave". Clerk tells manager, manager tells security, security detains, employee hears story that she was no where near sunglasses , store manager cuts them loose. If a human being can't be trusted and give the reasonable belief then why should we believe a system that can and does have false positives. We aren't talking about a perfect system that only alerts on their tags but tags from other companies, human error (as the clerk was subject to), and so forth. In Cockrell they had LPO who saw this guy acting suspicious. Quoting:

2. Authority of Law.
Question One asked the jury whether Wal-Mart falsely imprisoned Karl Cockrell.  “Falsely imprison” was defined to mean “willfully detaining another without legal justification․” The court instructed the jury on the “shopkeeper's privilege.”   This instruction stated:  “when a person reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property, that person has legal justification to detain the other in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.”   Thus the jury could only find false imprisonment if it found no justification for Wal-Mart's actions.
A. Reasonable Belief
Neither Raymond Navarro nor any other store employee saw Cockrell steal merchandise.   However Navarro claimed he had two reasons to suspect Cockrell of shoplifting.   First he said that Cockrell was acting suspiciously, because he saw him in the women's department standing very close to a rack of clothes and looking around.   Later he saw Cockrell looking around and walking slowly by the cigarette aisle and then “pass out of the store.”   Second he saw a little “bulge” under Cockrell's shirt.
Cockrell testified that he had done “nothing” and that there was “no way” a person could see anything under his shirt.   We conclude that a rational jury could have found that Navarro did not “reasonably believe” a theft had occurred and therefore lacked authority to detain Cockrell.   See Saldivar, 752 S.W.2d at 704.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of- ... OfLV4.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Least we also forget to define what shoplifting (IE: Theft) is:

[Texas Penal Code Section 31.03]

To unlawfully appropriate property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

I agree with everyone here that I could have handled it better by showing the guy in my bag. I agree with that. Keith to answer your question: I would want my store to be protected from shoplifters and those that commit fraud (online business is what I have). From that aspect I have a business mind to know it is going to happen even if I take all precautions out there it is bound to happen. Opening a store to the public comes with that challenge but I also believe that while I would enforce a level of anti-theft measures (LPO and Anti-Theft) my goal would be more towards finding the true cases and not the simple the alarm went off STOP mode enabled. We aren't talking about the metal detector at the airport where lives can be lost if the wrong thing gets through. Because to me security is like an onion and just as I have firewalls, Intrusion detection systems, etc in place I know that those can and do fail and having multiple levels in places assists in making the ability to catch or stop that attacker (or shoplifter) easier and more useful. In other words just because I can use a screw driver to act as a hammer doesn't mean I don't have a hammer in my toolbox.

Again that is MY opinion on the matter which is no different than the opinion on another store owner who doesn't have time or money to invest to such a system or have that level of reliability. However if you don't take the proper steps to protect yourself and something happens you become responsible for proving it wasn't your fault. For those interested the links provide some good case law out there I think and may show you my thoughts. In Texas remember you can't prove that someone committed theft just because they put something in their pocket you still have to prove they had an intent to deprive you of it because they passed all points of payment. IE: Just because I put a video in my pocket from the back of walmart's electronics and walk away from that register doesn't mean I commit theft until I pass the cash registers at the front of the store.