furiousdad

[CdwJava]

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.

While it IS possible that a court might see that the detention was unlawful, it is common practice for retailers (at least in CA, and apparently in WA) to detain and take civil action - including a trespassing admonishment - instead of involving the police. Even when they have a witness and the event on tape, they do not automatically involve the police. In fact, some companies have a policy to ONLY call the police when the theft is over a specific dollar amount, when the person is a problem or a repeat offender, or, when it is a minor and they cannot get a hold of the parent.

The fact that the police were not involved may only mean that the store opted not to involve them. Or, that they had no case. I don't know which. But the fact that the police were not involved is not likely an indicator of whether there was a witness or not.

- Carl

 

[cbg]

I apologize for interrupting this thread with a hijack, but...

Carl, I had left a message for you elsewhere but I guess you didn't see it. There is a post on the Hiring, Firing and Wrongful Termination forum where the experience of a law officer would be very greatly appreciated.

Sorry, I'll get out of the argument now.

 

[CdwJava]

I apologize for interrupting this thread with a hijack, but...

Carl, I had left a message for you elsewhere but I guess you didn't see it. There is a post on the Hiring, Firing and Wrongful Termination forum where the experience of a law officer would be very greatly appreciated.

Sorry, I'll get out of the argument now.

I caught it from you and Belize ... I responded.

Interesting case ... sad story.

- Carl

 

[BelizeBreeze]

While it IS possible that a court might see that the detention was unlawful, it is common practice for retailers (at least in CA, and apparently in WA) to detain and take civil action - including a trespassing admonishment - instead of involving the police. Even when they have a witness and the event on tape, they do not automatically involve the police. In fact, some companies have a policy to ONLY call the police when the theft is over a specific dollar amount, when the person is a problem or a repeat offender, or, when it is a minor and they cannot get a hold of the parent.

The fact that the police were not involved may only mean that the store opted not to involve them. Or, that they had no case. I don't know which. But the fact that the police were not involved is not likely an indicator of whether there was a witness or not.

- Carl

And of course, that's NOT the basis for my statements. The Washington State Statute requires a level of proof to establish grounds for the detention and from the facts stated in this post, what the store owner did was not within those guidelines.

Whether or not the detention was legaly is a matter of fact for a judge. However, simply stating there is a witness in no way gives the shop owner immunity from a civil suit.

A right to detain does not alleviate the shop owner from the responsibility of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that, under the statute, the right existed. In this case it is iffy at best.

 

[CdwJava]

Whether or not the detention was legaly is a matter of fact for a judge. However, simply stating there is a witness in no way gives the shop owner immunity from a civil suit.

True enough. But if the management is capable of producing the witness, then it would seem that they can at least establish the reasonable suspicion apparently required for the detention.

But, not being well-versed in WA shoplifting law, I cannot say for sure one way or the other.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

According to OP, "the manager replied "yes you did, you were seen by an employee and a customer"' This would seem to be in compliance with RCW for reasonable cause. The employee would be an authorized agent.

As BB stated earlier"
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."

OP admits that his daughter was taking her cel phone in and out of her clothing, which could have appeared to be "furtive" actions from a far and an attempt to conceal.