Employee Retail Theft

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Pennsylvania

My son was caught - along with two other employees - stealing electronic department items from Target. He was called into the Theft Prevention Department and interviewed by two store managers. My son confessed immediately, named the other employees involved when asked, and explained that he had taken the stuff for personal use as well as for resale on Ebay. They asked for a signed statement along with his Ebay account information. They took at look at his Ebay account to verify that he had sold some items. They asked him to make restitution and then brought in a State Police Officer who took my son by car to the nearby barracks where they read him his Miranda rights and asked him to write a statement explaining again what had taken place. They did not take fingerprints nor did they take any mug shots or go through the usual steps for a standard arrest.

After being interviewed by an officer and signing a statement that he had written, my son was told that he would receive a summons in the mail "in a few days" and that would list the charges and the date for arraignment.

Within 24 hours, my son returned just over $1600 worth of stuff to the store and Target Theft Prevention personnel took position of it (outside the store in a parking lot) and stated that they estimated that he owed another $600.00. They said that he would receive an invoice in the mail "within two weeks" for that amount and it would be like a 'retail account invoice' that he could pay it over several payments if need be. We were willing to write a check in that amount on the sport, but the Manager said that this 'would mess up the books.' My son requested a receipt for the returned items total and a written statement that an additional $600 was due the store. The Theft Prevention manager hand wrote a receipt with the information and both he and my son signed it. We have the original of this receipt.

The Theft Prevention manager stated at that meeting that "Target doesn't press charges in such matters; all they want is their stuff back. What the State Police do is their business." My son was acknowledged in the transaction for 'doing the right thing' by confessing everything and returning the items promptly.

This was back on April 2, and 3rd of this year (2010) and he has not heard anything since. No invoice from the store has arrived and no legal papers from the State Police have been received.

We consulted a criminal defense attorney on April 5th who advised us that there was nothing that could be done even on a consultation level until the charges were received.

Now that three months have passed and we have been expecting either an invoice or a legal document in the mail daily, my question is what is taking so long and why would there be such a delay in the process?

My son did contact the Theft Prevention manager in early May by telephone and he was non-committal about the matter. The lawyer advised us NOT to contact the State Police to inquire what is going on.

My son recognizes that he made an extreme error in judgment, immediately admitted his part in the theft and wants to make full restitution. The Police explained that for a first offense, he would likely be given probation, not jail time, and would have to perform some community service. He is very willing to cooperate in any punitive judgment. The lawyer said it was likely that he would be eligible for the ARD program where his record would be cleared after fulfilling whatever sentence is decided upon.

But with no legal proceedings - no invoice, no charges filed - he is basically stuck in limbo. He doesn't feel he can get another job until this matter is resolved.

We are looking for advice as to how to proceed or should we just sit on our hands and wait?

Quote:

---

We are looking for advice as to how to proceed or should we just sit on our hands and wait?

---

is there some reason you don't trust your attorney?

many, if not most states have up to 1 year to file misdemeanor charges. Felony charges (which it sounds like your son could face) often have longer; several years is not uncommon.

So, you could stir the bees nest but even then you might not get an answer. Other than that, nothing to do but sit and wait.

Just sit on your hands, wait and stop shaking the tree. Your son can get a job, he doesn't have a criminal record at this moment. When applying for a new job leave out the part that he worked for Target so the new employer will not contact them and then you can make up a reason for the gap in employment.

When he gets another job and if he gets the letter from the police or Target there is nothing the new employer can do.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

When he gets another job and if he gets the letter from the police or Target there is nothing the new employer can do.

---

well, they can fire him if they want to.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

well, they can fire him if they want to.

---

Yes they can, but there would be no need to because they would have already conducted there background check and nothing came up. I don't know of any employers that require annual background checks besides someone like USPS.

JK, thanks for the prompt response. Having no experience with theft and police and legal prosecutions, we are confused as to why justice is not swift with this matter. Naturally, we are much more attuned right now to newspaper reports of crimes and it appears to us that people are arrested promptly and even sentenced within days or weeks of a crime. What is the purpose of waiting a year or more to pursue this within the legal system?

We do trust the attorney but he has not been able to answer the question as to why the store would not bill us promptly or by the time they said they would and why the State Police would not move quickly towards prosecution. And, if Target is not pressing charges, who is?

As for getting a job, Who's That Guy, having committed a crime, my son is very cautious now about doing the right thing from here on out. We were going to proceed with omitting the Target job from his resume, but then, if his arrest and hearing or trial hits the newspaper, what are his chances of keeping that new job?

We do know enough not to pursue any job in retail as there is a central database of retail 'criminals' for HR people to check during the hiring process.

Also, I did not note that my son is 25 and therefore an adult and while this is a first offense, the actions pertaining to juvenile acts do not apply here obviously.

Quote:

---

=djm20;435161]JK, thanks for the prompt response. Having no experience with theft and police and legal prosecutions, we are confused as to why justice is not swift with this matter. Naturally, we are much more attuned right now to newspaper reports of crimes and it appears to us that people are arrested promptly and even sentenced within days or weeks of a crime. What is the purpose of waiting a year or more to pursue this within the legal system?

We do trust the attorney but he has not been able to answer the question as to why the store would not bill us promptly or by the time they said they would and why the State Police would not move quickly towards prosecution. And, if Target is not pressing charges, who is?

---

the state presses charges. The victim files a report of theft. If the victim is not wanting to see a person charged, often that is what happens but ultimately it is up to the DA to determine.

why the delay:

because they have more important crimes to investigate

because they are investigating your son (researching his eBay history)

because they are not going to prosecute

It could be any of the above or a dozen other reasons. There is really no way to tell without actually asking them and that is not the best idea.

why the store has not billed you:

because they are just slow to process this type of thing

because they decided they aren't going to

because they are working with the police to make a more accurate determination of the amount of theft and have not come to a conclusion yet

without asking, no way to really tell. If you ask, you may or may not get an accurate answer.

Quote:

---

Quoting djm20

---

As for getting a job, Who's That Guy, having committed a crime, my son is very cautious now about doing the right thing from here on out. We were going to proceed with omitting the Target job from his resume, but then, if his arrest and hearing or trial hits the newspaper, what are his chances of keeping that new job?

---

If he apply's for a job tomorrow and gets the job in a few days he hasn't lied on the application about ever getting convicted of a crime.

If Target presses charges in a week and your son is found guilty three weeks from now and has already been employed from his new employer there is nothing the employer can do because your son hasn't lied on his application

Make him get a job now, it looks better for him if he doe's have to face a judge in the future.

JT - So if the store doesn't prosecute, the DA must make a decision? Is there politics involved? Hypothetically, if one knows the DA or knows someone who knows the DA, can one play politics with the matter? Not for a moment suggesting that we could or would, just curious as to how these things work.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

If he apply's for a job tomorrow and gets the job in a few days he hasn't lied on the application about ever getting convicted of a crime.

If Target presses charges in a week and your son is found guilty three weeks from now and has already been employed from his new employer there is nothing the employer can do because your son hasn't lied on his application

Make him get a job now, it looks better for him if he doe's have to face a judge in the future.

---

Who's - That perspective makes sense. He is working at a temporary job that is going to end in a few weeks. I will encourage him to start looking and at least he will have that to reference should he get into a court situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting djm20

---

JT - So if the store doesn't prosecute, the DA must make a decision? Is there politics involved? Hypothetically, if one knows the DA or knows someone who knows the DA, can one play politics with the matter? Not for a moment suggesting that we could or would, just curious as to how these things work.
.

---

of course there can be politics involved. It is seen very regularly when high profile people are not prosecuted or prosecuted as aggressively as some Joe Schmuck is for the exact same crime.

Do you think anybody that has shown the blatant disregard for the judicial system as Lindsey Lohan would be out running the streets? Being able to throw money for additionally added bail helps a lot as well. If she were a regular person, she would most likely have been sent to jail long ago.

That is one reason an attorney is important in so many situations. Not saying the DA is being improper in their actions but obviously they have a great amount of latitude in their actions and having an attorney that knows "the system" and how any actor within the system acts in certain circumstances can be very beneficial.

Isn't it possible that he *may* have been entered into the National Retail Theft Database by Target at this point, also?

I would have him seeking work. When I had my case, the lawyer did advise (aside from bringing proof of paying the Civil Demand) that I also bring proof of seeking employment.

As for his resume: Oh boy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....If he lists it, they can call Target and learn what happened. On the other hand, many applications want you to explain ALL gaps in employment.....and if he lies "Unemployed, looking for work" and the new employer finds out...

As someone stated, it may be taking a while to get charges filed because they may be checking into his Ebay account, which can take time. And may cross into Federal levels if he shipped stolen goods out of state.

Further thoughts:

1) It is possible that the DA is 'building a case' in this matter. Only time will tell or perhaps further investigation. Could they get a warrant to search our house? Our son, 25, still lives at home.

2) The other alternative I thought of after reading the comments here, is that Target, the Police (and/or the DA) don't have enough evidence to follow through with an arrest and trial. The 'case' may not be air tight. As I think back, our son and his co-workers were called into the office one at a time and asked to explain what had happened and what they had taken. Everything was based on that and, as the Target people stated, 'all we want is our stuff back.' There are no witnesses, no digital video of them taking anything.
So perhaps the Police were there to provide the 'scare' element that was needed to ensure that the guys confessed and returned as much as possible? Nothing else is to be gained by prosecuting?

All of this is speculation - and wishful thinking - I know, but I don't have anything else to do at this point. Waiting is rough - again its been since April 2nd.

And what makes you think that the lost prevention room isn't under constant video and audio recording?

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

And what makes you think that the lost prevention room isn't under constant video and audio recording?

---

well, since it appears that Penn has one of the most restrictive laws concerning electronic surveillance laws in the country and it requires all party consent to do much of anything, I would hope the security guys would realize that them breaking the law in order to try to enforce the law is not a good idea.

Just one of the applicable laws:


§ 5703. Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications

Quote:

---

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

---