furiousdad

[rmet4nzkx]

"Where there had been" not where they had been!
What is it you think I am admitting to?

Ever heard of aiding and abetting or accessory after the fact. The usual scam is worked with groups of teenagers, some distract like your daughter did putting her cel phone in and out of her clothes drawing attention away, while the other lifts the actual items, sometimes they come back for more. That is what was going on, while your "innocent" daughter was saying, "search me" because she knew they wouldn't find anything on her that time, that is what the witnesses saw. Of course she is going to claim she is innocent. So she is trespassed from the store and she won't have a problem there in the future. Right? This is why many stores will only permit only so many school children in a store at a time unless they are with a parent. I know of a store that regularly snares kids shoplifting from their roof cam's, reports it in the newspaper and they still think they can get away with it, some will even steal from liquor stores. For some reason, kids seem to be able to steal condoms without a problem

 

[mikado]

Ever heard of aiding and abetting or accessory after the fact. The usual scam is worked with groups of teenagers, some distract like your daughter did putting her cel phone in and out of her clothes drawing attention away, while the other lifts the actual items, sometimes they come back for more. That is what was going on, while your "innocent" daughter was saying, "search me" because she knew they wouldn't find anything on her that time, that is what the witnesses saw. Of course she is going to claim she is innocent. So she is trespassed from the store and she won't have a problem there in the future. Right? This is why many stores will only permit only so many school children in a store at a time unless they are with a parent. I know of a store that regularly snares kids shoplifting from their roof cam's, reports it in the newspaper and they still think they can get away with it, some will even steal from liquor stores. For some reason, kids seem to be able to steal condoms without a problem

You are still lost and confused.
She was not part of a group or pack. She was with her friend looking at different hair coloring, which took both hands, or maybe she was tired of holding her phone and put it in her pocket.
If I choose to post in the future, I would appreciate only bright and fact based replies please.

 

[mikado]

Mikado - your initial post was quite poorly worded and therefore open to a load of interpretation. Sorry. Next time, try to write a bit more clearly.

Thank You,
I will not write when I am so upset.

 

[stealth2]

Thank You,
I will not write when I am so upset.

That usually helps a lot. Thanks.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

You are still lost and confused.
She was not part of a group or pack. She was with her friend looking at different hair coloring, which took both hands, or maybe she was tired of holding her phone and put it in her pocket.
If I choose to post in the future, I would appreciate only bright and factual replies please.

I am not lost or confused and I am brighter when I am asleep than you are right now.

Were you there?

Did you see what happened?

Did I hear a, NO!

You only have her word and of course you want to believe her, all parents want to believe their children, no parent wants to be disappointed. If you were to deal with these issues all the time you would find kids shoplift for all sorts of reasons and from all walks of life, some never get caught, some do. Some may even get used by others. There were at least two other teenagers there, remember in addition to her friend. Did she know the others? Just remember, she is not going to get into trouble there because she isn't going there anymore. Hopefully this won't happen again.

 

[mikado]

I am not lost or confused and I am brighter when I am asleep than you are right now.

Were you there?

Did you see what happened?

Did I hear a, NO!

You only have her word and of course you want to believe her, all parents want to believe their children, no parent wants to be disappointed. If you were to deal with these issues all the time you would find kids shoplift for all sorts of reasons and from all walks of life, some never get caught, some do. Some may even get used by others. There were at least two other teenagers there, remember in addition to her friend. Did she know the others? Just remember, she is not going to get into trouble there because she isn't going there anymore. Hopefully this won't happen again.

Still lost and very confused, add not very bright to the list. You still have not got the facts straight. She was there with one friend, who left before she tried to. The other girl was up in the office before my daughter even entered the store.

I have the word of a teenager who has never been in any trouble, the word of her mother who heard details on the phone, followed by a visit to the store with a manager who could not get his story straight. Yes I follow reason, and conclude that the manager is in the wrong, and as narrow minded as you. He made a snap judgement and was wrong.

 

[meganproser]

Just some personal comments as Belize Breeze has already given you EXCELLENT advice on the legal aspects of your situation.

Only a complete idiot would think they could determine your daughter’s guilt or innocence based on what you’ve posted here.

Even YOU still don’t know enough to make that determination and you really need to have everyone’s version of the facts before you take any action.

Nothing is more likely to bring the truth to light than a meeting between the accuser (the store manager?), your daughter, and you. See if you can arrange such a meeting. Tell the manager that YOU need to know if your daughter has been honest with you or not. You DO want to hear all sides before you pursue any type of claim or complaint.

If you keep an open mind during a face-to-face meeting, it should be pretty easy to determine whether or not the manager really had good reason to think your daughter was guilty.

While it is ludicrous for anyone here to assume your daughter is guilty, it is not in anyone’s best interest for you to take her word that she’s innocent.

Try your best to get to the bottom of this before you settle on any opinion of what happened.

1. The manager may have made an honest mistake and may very well admit to such if he feels you are questioning him with an open mind.
2. The manager may be able to provide you with convincing evidence that he had probable cause to detain your daughter, saving you some legal fees and a lot of embarrassment.
3. The manager may “dig in”, insisting your daughter is guilty but without offering any valid reason as to why he suspects her. That scenario, could lead him to making the kinds of statements that will build a good case against him.

While I wouldn’t dream of judging your daughter based on the scant information in this thread, I will leave you with this “food for thought”:

A few years ago, while discussing the Winona Ryder shoplifting incident on The View, co-host Lisa Ling happily volunteered the fact that as a teen she and her friends used to have contests to see who could steal the most from Victoria’s Secret. Ling’s feelings on the crime seemed to be that “all kids do it”. Ling all but endorsed the practice. It has never ceased to amaze me that Ling’s comments were evidently acceptable to the public!

 

[USMOM]

Trust

Mikado, you told me ealier that your child was going to dye your hair. Trust her already. This is absolutely not legal but psychology is my field. There is a great deal of research about identity. research shows that you can help her to identify with being a person who respects the law. Whether or not she may have known that members of her friend group had intentions of stealing or not, your giving her positive reinforcement for not stealing still translates in possitive reinforement of good behavior. You can either remain in the world of deciding if she told the exact truth or decide to communicate your real message. Your real message is that you love her and hope tha she makes good decisions. She wll know what bad decisions are. If you treat her as a criminal , she will identify with that. There is a lot of research out there that suggests that teaching even a convicted juvenile criminal that his/her choices were wrong, but that it doesn't speak to his/her general charactor is the most effective approach to stop recidivism. Please trust you instincts. your idea of having a family night was so on target. While psycholigists rarely state that one thing causes another, they do state that a good bond with a child correlates with healthy adaptive behavior.

 

[meganproser]

Just my two cents on this:

Teens who have nothing to hide have no problem with parents taking the time to thoroughly check out any allegations against them. They should be able to understand parents have a duty to look into allegations made by adults who, in theory, have no reason to make something up out of malice.

If nothing else, the parent wants to resolve the issue in the mind of the accuser, so the teen’s reputation is not unfairly damaged. Getting all sides of the story should not offend the teen as long as they believe the parents’ sole motivation is the care and concern they have for their child.

You have much to gain and nothing to lose by checking the situation out thoroughly.

On the other hand, letting a teen know you have blind trust in them can be an enormous mistake. The temptation to go astray is much greater when a teen knows his parents will buy anything he offers them as an excuse. Many teens see parents who are too easy, as uncaring.

You have nothing to gain and much to lose by blindly accepting your teens’ word in a situation like this.

“Your real message is that you love her and hope tha she makes good decisions”

This is a great message and it’s the only thing you CAN do if you can’t find out who was right in this incident. But I think finding out the truth, is the best thing you can do for her, whether she is innocent or not.

 

[stealth2]

She was there with one friend, who left before she tried to.

Who is "she" and what was it she "tried to" do? Because the way THIS post sounds, "she" was in the store and then "tried to" shoplift - and since the topic of this thread is your daughter - one could reasonably assume you're speaking of your daughter.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

USMON,
What are your qualifications in the field of psychology? Please cite the studies re criminal behavior and bonding? Please remember this is a law forum not a support group, it does no good to give OP an unrealistic re the legal system or to justify actions for which we only get a sanitized version. You are new here, seldom do we get an accurate account of the facts, OP's frequently give an account to solcite specific advice and they are angry when they hear what they don't want to hear. Yhis was third hand to start with, we cannot give advice based on fairytales or a version of the story that lacks basic facts. You need to be objective, you may be an advocate for youth, but here you have to be an advocate for the facts and law.

Megan,
You have some vaild points, how practical a meeting would be at this point depends on the store manager's willingness since he has trespassed the girl from the store and such a meeting might lead to further admissions.

Stealth,
OP's use of language, attitude and his clearly biased focus all can be used against him and his daughter, he clearly doesn't understand the implications of language in the context of law.

Mikado,
Your use of language can have serious implications in law, everything you say can and will be used against you and your daughter, that is where admissions come into play to impugn your testimony. I don't know whether or not your child is guilty, her behavior as you described it, strongly suggests that she is. It is very important for you to realize that there is a difference between your unconditional love for your daughter and acceptance of her actions and behavior. If she is guilty and you accept and support her without question, that will instill in her the belief that she can do anything and you will support her in it. If you insist on using the race card to excuse or deny the possibility of guilt or to justify it, she will learn that as well. If she is the innocent stooge being used by her so called friends, that will catch up with her eventually and she needs some realistic survival skills. Fact is, nice kids experiment with many things, good and bad, it is a part of how they learn. You can make this into a learning experience or you can make it into a license to further explore the possibilities that a life of crime offers. You really need to be careful what and how you say things because attorneys use language to prove their case, your attitude only serves to aid them in thet process. These are facts. You may be angry with me now, but some day you will thank me.

 

[harbor14]

A couple of points on this. BB has already cited the correct RCW for shoplifting in WA so I wont go into that, but:

1. Merchants do not need probable cause to detain someone in their business, only reasonable suspicion.

2. The daughter was not arrested - hence the officer could not conduct a search - and her gender has nothing to do with it. We search female arrestees all the time - we have no female officers.

3. It is not a tresspass warrant - there is no such thing. It is a tresspass admonishment. And yes a juvenile can sign one and it is valid. Violation of a tresspass admonishment can, does and will lead to an arrest.

4. The mercantile owner does not have to be 100% right. This is not a court and there are no criminal charges.

5. In WA you do not need to leave the store with an item. If you seperate it from its packaging; hide it in some manner; conceal it you are subject to arrest - even if you put it back. Now there is nothing in the post that says the young lady did this but I thought I would throw it out there.

6. To the poster talking about civil right violations; which ones are you refering to - 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendment. None of these are applicable, the mercantile is not a state agency. Now if you can prove she was detained soley on the issue of her race I will agree, short of that nada.

7. Best solution is to talk to the store manager and find out their side of the story..there is the young lady's story...the store story and the truth is somewhere between the two.

8. To the poster stating Federal laws must be considered; which Federal law was violated? None I can discern from the posting.

9. A mercantile owner may detain and tresspass based on prior behavior. They do not have to call the police and turn the shoplifter over to us. They may detain, tresspass and use the assesst recover statute all by themselves without ever involving us.

10. The poster stated the manager said an employee and customer witnessed the shoplifting. I do not know if this is true or not, however it is all that is needed for the detention. The pockets being empty has no bearing on the issue. Washington is funny about their stores and property.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

O.K. let's try this again.

Mikado said "She was there with one friend, who left before she tried to." I agree, the way things are posted makes all the difference. However, in this instance it's simple English construction to infer that the daughter was with one friend , that friend left before the daughter tried to [leave]. Simple English construction rules.

Everyone suggesting that the father speak with the store owner must have missed the fact that this has already occurred and any further attempt can be seen as harassment by the father or intimidation. Better for a third party to interview and attempt to determine the facts without emotion.

As for harbor, I agree with most of your assessments, especially regarding the intervention of the police (or lack thereof). However, from only the facts posted here and the progression of events, I can conclude that there is grounds for a third-party investigation of proximate liability.

Even the RETAILER’S SHOPLIFTING PREVENTION GUIDE, Prepared by the Washington State Crime Prevention Association, in conjunction With the Washington State Retail Council, warns retailers in the state to follow strict guidelines based on RCW 4.24.230.

It is, first, of utmost importance to emphasize that the detention of any shoplifting suspect should be based upon first hand observations by the merchant or his/her responsible, authorized agent. The intent of the suspected shoplifter must be clear, preferably including such elements as concealment of the item(s), nonpayment in any manner, furtive actions, and leaving the premises. These elements combine to show criminal intent and thus, probable cause to detain/arrest. (1) A shoplift detention lacking strong elements of probable cause, as mentioned above, may be a weak criminal case and certainly would be an ill-advised civil restitution claim. The apprehension should have no legal flaws.

While the shop owner does have the right to detain for a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, based on the facts presented here (including the fact that a shoplifting charge, neither criminal nor civil was never issued) this was not the case in this situation. And a shop owner, especially this one, falls short of his/her legal rights without proof of the suspicion.

Shop owners do not have a carte blanc to detain. Not for suspicion of trespass, not for suspicion of 'maybe doing something' or for anything under the statute other than 'reasonable suspicion of shoplifting/theft'.

Quoting further from the Guide,

If the suspect refuses, explain that you wish to avoid embarrassment and would prefer to discuss the matter in a private office. Do not force the suspect to accompany you. Instead try to gather information from the suspect and call the police immediately if the shoplifter continues to refuse to cooperate.

There is a very good reason why loss prevention experts follow strict guidelines in the detention and apprehension of 'suspects'. And it is simply that to sustain a criminal/civil charge of shoplifting, criminal 'intent' must be proven by the evidence.

Detention cannot be used to determine the evidence and the detention is not allowed to continue once the basis for the charge of shoplifting has been found, under statute, to be false.

If the shop owner, his agents or employees, suspected the girl of shoplifting earlier in the day, the prudent thing to have done would have to notified the officer on duty while keeping the girl under watch. That was not done.

And that is why this needs the scrutiny of unbiased eyes.

 

[harbor14]

BB,
Poster stated the manager (in his initial post) stated an employee and customer witnessed the shoplift (or attempted). Based on that statement only (again I wasnt there) it is enough for the business to detain.

No criminal nor civil actions need to have been taken for the business to tresspass - we have several businesses here who do this and inform us of the shoplift after the fact when they forward the tresspass admonishment to us for our files. They take no civil action and dont wish for us to take any criminal action (looks bad).

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Actually harbor, the exact statement was:

Yesterday my daughter was in a local grocery store. She and a friend were in an area where there had been shoplifting earlier that day, and she was detained. She is multi racial, and has chosen to have bright colors highlighting her hair. When she told the manager she had not taken anything, the manager replied "yes you did, you were seen by an employee and a customer"

The fact that the manager "said" she was seen, and actually having a witness are two different things. If there was, in fact, a witness, the store owner would have produced said witness, sworn out a theft warrant and completed the process for shoplifting.

It's human nature. But when the statement is used as an excuse to detain, and there is not enough to sustain such a charge, then 'damage control' needs to be done to protect the store owner from liability.

This, is what I feel was done.

Remember, once the detention is carried out, the burden of proof falls on the store owner to prove there was reasonable cause to detain. any attorney not sleeping through class would question first the fact that the police officer did not arrest for theft and the absence of the witnesses or any proof of theft other than "an employee and customer saw you...".

While we will never know what actually transpired, the facts presented represent a classic case of CYA.