I believe my 16 yr old son was detained illegally.

[cherri]

What is the name of your state? Arizona

My 16 yr old worked for a wal-mart as a cashier there. a scam was going on between certain employess mostly all minors. Loss prevention began an investigation and questioned only the hispanic and african american employees. once my son was detained by loss prevention security. he was told he was involved and was accused of taking over 10.000 dollars which I assure you he did not. wal-mart has no such evidence or of such an accusation. it never happened. they told him this to get him to confess to a smaller amount. my son asked for his parents to be present before any questioning began, wal-mart denied him that right 4 times. my son cooperated nicely, I was told he was repectful. however, I'm dissapointed with the security guards for not allowing him to use his own cell phone to call his father. He had his cell phone in his pocket and tried to call for help. He is a minor and was afraid. he has never been in trouble ever. 4 hours later, they got him to answer questions still without my knowledge that he was being detained. he was handcuffed and arrested. but relesed from jail later that day.My question: is it legal for LP (security) to hold a minor for questioning without given him the right to call his Parents? were his civil rights violated? he was charged with felony theft, but now ithey are calling it gross misconduct, - cherri

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? Arizona

My 16 yr old worked for a wal-mart as a cashier there. a scam was going on between certain employess mostly all minors. Loss prevention began an investigation and questioned only the hispanic and african american employees. once my son was detained by loss prevention security. he was told he was involved and was accused of taking over 10.000 dollars which I assure you he did not. wal-mart has no such evidence or of such an accusation. it never happened. they told him this to get him to confess to a smaller amount. my son asked for his parents to be present before any questioning began, wal-mart denied him that right 4 times. my son cooperated nicely, I was told he was repectful. however, I'm dissapointed with the security guards for not allowing him to use his own cell phone to call his father. He had his cell phone in his pocket and tried to call for help. He is a minor and was afraid. he has never been in trouble ever. 4 hours later, they got him to answer questions still without my knowledge that he was being detained. he was handcuffed and arrested. but relesed from jail later that day.My question: is it legal for LP (security) to hold a minor for questioning without given him the right to call his Parents? were his civil rights violated? he was charged with felony theft, but now ithey are calling it gross misconduct, - cherri

you have no claim against wal-mart or Loss Prevention. There is no such requirement for them to 'call mommy' and even the police are not required to do so when questioning a suspect.

 

[cherri]

I am not looking to cause trouble with wal-mart, I wasnt sure of a few things and wanted some advise. I am happy with the opinion I got from you. I certainly appreciate your time. Thank you and have a wondefful evening. sincerely, cherri

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I am not looking to cause trouble with wal-mart, I wasnt sure of a few things and wanted some advise. I am happy with the opinion I got from you. I certainly appreciate your time. Thank you and have a wondefful evening. sincerely, cherri

Remember, a private company is not required to give ANY civil rights. You only obtain those rights from the government. And in this case, your son was free to leave or to call you. Words from Loss Prevention could not have stopped that.

So your advice to your son is to call you immediately so that you can advise him to not speak to anyone until such time as an attorney is called. that doesn't mean the company is required to let you into the middle of this mess. It only means they have no right to arrest or detention.

Of course, they do have the right to fire him on the spot. That's the balance.

 

[cherri]

With all due respect, he was not allowed to call his parents or leave. they forced him to sit in a room for 3 hours. he knew not to answer questions without his parents present or an attorney, he was forced to talk by way of intimidation. LP kept telling him that he was going to prison if he didnt confess or tell on the employes that were taking money. My son is not guilty of a crime yet. He has been lied to and manipulated by LP just to get the info they wanted. yes, my son was fired. my son is innocent of theft, he is guilty of knowing who was doing the overwrites. again, I am not satasfied that he was held without legal counsel of any kind. just imagine this being your kid, and having him questioned and harrassed by some rent a cop who is slamming his fist into a table yelling and intimidating your son, and all without you being present. what would you tell the security guard...? how would you handle it? I think I know what you would of said and done.

everyone has rights, even kids who don't know their rights have the right to call for there parents. my kid is no different than yours or any judges or high end lawyers kid. the way I see it, if you know the law youre pretty set in all life has to offer, but if you don't know the law, and your broke...you're pretty much just always SOL!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

With all due respect, he was not allowed to call his parents or leave. they forced him to sit in a room for 3 hours. he knew not to answer questions without his parents present or an attorney, he was forced to talk by way of intimidation. LP kept telling him that he was going to prison if he didnt confess or tell on the employes that were taking money.

And that is NOT correct. He was free to leave at any time. The fact that he did not was not a matter of law.

My son is not guilty of a crime yet.

And no one said he was.

He has been lied to and manipulated by LP just to get the info they wanted. yes, my son was fired.

and again, nothing illegal in any of this.

my son is innocent of theft, he is guilty of knowing who was doing the overwrites. again, I am not satasfied that he was held without legal counsel of any kind. just imagine this being your kid, and having him questioned and harrassed by some rent a cop who is slamming his fist into a table yelling and intimidating your son, and all without you being present. what would you tell the security guard...? how would you handle it? I think I know what you would of said and done.

This was not a cop. it was loss prevention. And as I said, they have no rights other than any other private citizen except that if you do not follow their directions, they can have you fired. How would I handle it? I would have told my child before they ever took a job what their rights were, how to handle some situations that might arise, including such as this, and to instill in them a right to their person, something that I am trying to get you to do correctly.

everyone has rights,

And you are WRONG. Not in this situation. You are confusing LEGAL rights that eminate from the U.S. Government or any agent thereof and private parties for which NO LEGAL RIGHTS eminate. If you don't know the difference how do you expect your child to learn.

even kids who don't know their rights have the right to call for there parents.

And your kid also had that right. All he had to do was dial.

my kid is no different than yours or any judges or high end lawyers kid.

The soapbox won't help.

the way I see it, if you know the law youre pretty set in all life has to offer, but if you don't know the law, and your broke...you're pretty much just always SOL!

Unless you learn. Being poor is an excuse. Being black, mexican, chineese, disabled or any other category you want to bring up is an excuse. ANYONE can learn and with the internet and libraries that are open to everyone, even homeless, you can learn what I'm trying to get through your thick head.

Your son has rights. From the U.S. Constitution and from the U.S. Government. NOT the same as in the private sector.

Now go teach your child what to do the next time he finds himself in such a situation.

 

[shortbus]

Belize, as usual, is wrong. If your child was detained under the threat of force, then it's possible he was the victim of false imprisonment. False imprisonment is a tort (for which you can sue for money damages) and it's a crime (for which you can call the police and press charges). "Civil rights" do not protect us from private parties, but the tort law and criminal law do. Get a lawyer, and /or call the police.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Statute time:

A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person.

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

. . .

2. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, [highlight]without legal authority[/highlight], and in a manner which interferes substantially with such person's liberty, by either moving such person from one place to another or by confining such person. Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by:

(a) Physical force, intimidation or deception; or

(b) Any means including acquiescence of the victim if the victim is a child less than eighteen years old or an incompetent person and the victim's lawful custodian has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.

 

[CdwJava]

However, what do you want to wager that the loss prevention people will have a different version of events and will state that the lad's cooperation was voluntary and not coerced. I think this might be how BB was looking at the situation. And the interviewer is permitted to get emotional - he might even be allowed to pound his fist on the table. One key is going to be if he asked to leave. If he only asked to call his parents, they do not likely have to allow that ... it might be an element of a false imprisonment allegation, but it certainly does not make the case. After all, many employers are not going to permit a person to call their parents while at work and they are under no obligation to permit it. However, if he asked to leave and was told "no" THEN you have a detention, and at that point the loss prevention folks would have to argue their lawful right to detain him.

As for the detention, the store may have had probable cause to make the arrest and justify the detention. Mom, while you may believe your son and believe that he is innocent, apparently they had soem good cause to support an arrest. Whether that was based on a confession, surveillance, or some other means of evidence, I cannot say - and until court, you probably cannot say either.

Depending on the details I could see an argument in both directions (for and against a false imprisonment allegation - civil and criminal). It might take interviews with others who were so interviewed to determine if this indeed gave rise to a criminal act or a tort.

Right now your son needs a criminal defense attorney. IF he beats the criminal rap then he can concern himself with a suit against Wal-Mart. Until then he is an accused embezzler or thief and he needs to be concerned with this crime first.

- Carl

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Belize, as usual, is wrong. If your child was detained under the threat of force, then it's possible he was the victim of false imprisonment. False imprisonment is a tort (for which you can sue for money damages) and it's a crime (for which you can call the police and press charges). "Civil rights" do not protect us from private parties, but the tort law and criminal law do. Get a lawyer, and /or call the police.

And of course you have no basis for your assertion. Unless you were there and stealing items yourself.

As posted, this was NOT anything close to false imprisonment.

 

[shortbus]

Belize, I'm suggesting it MIGHT be false imprisonment. I can't know for sure, because as you point out, I wasn't there. That's why Cherri needs to get a lawyer or the police to make an investigation.

Yet, you weren't there either, and apparently you're able to determine that it's DEFINITELY not false imprisonment?? Give me a break.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Belize, I'm suggesting it MIGHT be false imprisonment. I can't know for sure, because as you point out, I wasn't there. That's why Cherri needs to get a lawyer or the police to make an investigation.

Yet, you weren't there either, and apparently you're able to determine that it's DEFINITELY not false imprisonment?? Give me a break.

I'll give you a break when you stop making yourself look like an ass with assumptions.

NO WHERE did I say it was or was NOT false imprisonment. Now go read every word I posted and you tell me where I mentioned one time otherwise.

What I said, for the illiterate, was that the son had every right to call mommy, and that his not doing so, based on the facts presented, was a choice. NOTHING in the post points to illegal detention or coersion. Those are matters of fact for the court to decide, NOT an internet forum.

Now, I'll wait for you to tell me that Wal-Mart, or any other commercial enterprise, can restrict such personal freedom. Or, that once sonny boy said, "I am calling my parents so they can call my attorney" that he would NOT have been LEGALLY fired on the spot.

 

[shortbus]

NO WHERE did I say it was or was NOT false imprisonment. Now go read every word I posted and you tell me where I mentioned one time otherwise.

"As posted, this was NOT anything close to false imprisonment."

What I said, for the illiterate, was that the son had every right to call mommy, and that his not doing so, based on the facts presented, was a choice. NOTHING in the post points to illegal detention or coersion.

The Arizona false imprisonment statute requires "Physical force, intimidation or deception". The issue of whether he could or did make a phone call to his parent is immaterial. So is the issue of whether Wal-mart could fire him on the spot (of course they could). The key issue is whether he was held using "intimidation" or "deception". It certainly sounds like that might've been the case. You are flat wrong that the kid had, as you put it, "NO LEGAL RIGHTS".

 

[BelizeBreeze]

You are flat wrong that the kid had, as you put it, "NO LEGAL RIGHTS".

And again you are FLAT WRONG.

Point to where I said the kid had NO LEGAL RIGHTs.

I would be interested to see where you get that and how many twists and turns you need to make to get there.