jack
Banned
imported post
Wynder wrote:
Wynder wrote:
Keep studding and you will learn that State laws are different in very state. In North Carolina (and many other places) security guards are being given police powers ,soare some LP guys, get over it. The cases you cite are all at the State level and not binding across State lines (in some cases other than that case they are irrelevant).Have youstudied probable causeand the difference between reasonable articulable suspicion yet ?You seem to combine and mix up both in your own little version of criminal law.jack wrote:And, since YOU'VE never heard of it, it can't possible be true. Well, here you go:I I have never seen/or heard ofa successful lawsuit over a shopper being detained for failure to show a receipt. I don't think you ever will see it either. It happens everyday, even to big tough patriots like some of you guys, (cough) that lack the intellect to fully understand reasonable articulable suspicion.
1. Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 359 Mass, 319, 268 N.E.2s 860 (1971) where a woman told LP she suspected a man of shoplifting. The man was detained, police were called and discovered that the woman had not witnessed the shoplifting, only suspected it. The police realized that probable cause did not exist form the facts known to the store employees. In the civil suit that followed the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lesser courts' jury to award damages for false imprisonment and defamation/slander.
2. After a court held there was a 'total lack of probably cause' to detain him, Clark sued a Kroger Food Store and was awarded $83,000 and $1 million in punitive damages. Clark v. Kroger Food Stores, Inc. 587 N.E.2d 1083. Ind. App. 1992.
3. After a search disclosed no merchandise, a security guard continued accusations of theft, The defendant was awarded $75,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Caldwell v. Kmart Corp. 410 S.E.2d 21 S.C.App. 1991.
---
Granted, I'm up to homicide and assault in my Criminal Law class this semester, so you've made me skip ahead a few chapters to read. RAS doesn't cut it for shopkeepers -- it must be PROBABLE CAUSE, emphasized in People v. Bitto.
There, I've provided you with three solid and relevant case cites along with the People v. Bitto reference (that's a New York case), that reinforces that shopkeepers must have conclusive, first hand knowledge that a suspect HAS secreted an item before they can detain them.
You may now concede that you're incorrect and, just because you've never heard of something happening before, there IS a possibility that it can be true.