Minor Stopped with Friend Who Was Concealing Items

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida
Age: 16 (my son)
Boy who admitted concealing items: age 16
Third boy: age 15

My 16-year old son and his two friends (one is 15, the other is 16) visited Best Buy. My son and his 15-year old friend were playing the keyboards. Unknown to them, their 16-year old friend concealed some guitar strings in his jacket pocket. After a few minutes, the one who concealed the guitar strings told my son and the third boy it was time to go (he had his cell phone and my son's cell was not working - my son relied on him for the time). When they got to about the middle of the store, all three boys were stopped by security and told video surveillance indicated they were shoplifting.

The boy who concealed the guitar strings (valued well below the $300 Florida Statute amount for beyond a misdemeanor), admitted he acted alone and the other two boys (including my son) knew nothing about his actions.

When I arrived the police were already on scene. Immediately I asked to view the video. The police officer informed me that was up to Best Buy.

My son and his 15-year old friend were given papers to sign stating they were banned from Best Buy (and the adjoining mall) for one year. The reason on the paper was "theft." A police officer told my son to sign the paper, I refused to allow him to sign because I felt it was inaccurate. He did NOT commit a theft, and was NOT an accomplice - he had no idea this had happened. Finally the security officer modified the document to "Theft (with friend)". I still felt this was inaccurate. Again the security officer modified the document's reason to "Theft (with friend). Did not steal." Though I was not totally satisfied, I allowed my son to sign because I was so embarrassed and eager to leave the busy store. When I signed the document I added above my signature, "<son's name> did not commit a theft."

This infuriated the security officer. I had been under the impression, according to the police officer, this was NOT a legal document but one used by Best Buy only. Still I did not want there to be a doubt or question or admission of guilt by my son signing a document that was false, inaccurate, and/or ambiguous. The security officer said I could not do that (add my comment), he then called in the police officer who told me he could arrest my son and charge him as an accomplice. I felt intimidated and threatened by the officer's statement in almost forcing us to sign a paper that was not completely accurate. The officer drew an arrow from the "Theft" to "Did not steal." I asked for a copy of the paper we signed and was told it would be mailed to me.

Again I asked to view the video and was told by one of the police officers that he didn't know what would happen to the video; it may become evidence. I still have not seen the video.

I am furious that my son is now deemed GUILTY (by Best Buy) of a crime he did not commit, and had no idea it had even been committed. I say "guilty" because he is being punished by being banned from their store and the mall for one year! I believe this to be a violation of his Civil Rights ("...due process, equal protection of the laws, and discrimination.") He is discriminated against because Best Buy has labeled him a thief, or a thief's accomplice; he is neither.

I am livid. I've always tried to instill in my son to choose his friends carefully and obey the laws. The friend who admitted to concealing the three or four guitar strings has been around my son for nearly a year. He's never given me any grief and has been very polite and respectful. To my knowledge this is his first offense. According to Florida Statutes he my be able to enter a pre-trial intervention of community service along with some court costs. I am not sure. At this point the boy is not permitted back at my house, nor is my son allowed to socialize with him until further notice (my rules).

I've worked retail many years ago and realize shoplifting and theft is probably horrible these days, especially during holidays and with a poor economy. I firmly support a zero tolerance against SHOPLIFTERS, but it is unfair to label and penalize an INNOCENT PERSON. The burden of proof still in this country lies with the prosecution - we still are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore punishment should not be doled out until there is no doubt as to guilt by an impartial party. There were no charges brought against my son. That speaks volumes about his presumed innocence.

As a strong computer user who has spent thousands of dollars at Best Buy and even camped in frigid weather for the store's Black Friday deals, now I absolutely REFUSE ever to enter Best Buy or spend another penny at any of their establishments, including on-line. I've canceled my Rewards points. The company has lost me, my husband, and my children as customers.

At this point, what should I do? I feel it is unfair to automatically label him (my son) as an accomplice when he was oblivious to what happened (he was playing the keyboard). He should not be penalized (blocked from the premises for a YEAR) just for entering the store with his friend.

Your son has no "civil rights" to enter a store when he's been there in the company of shoplifters. They are free to ban him for any reason they want (other than being a member of certain protected classes). I wouldn't have signed squat, but at this point that's water under the bridge. If you get a civil demand or the police come inquiring, then you have actions to take.

You can try escalating your complaint with Best Buy management, but they're under no obligation to listen to you. Frankly, you're best served shopping elsewhere. I had a manager at our local store give me grief to the point of calling the police when I went to return a computer that I found out was not only DEFECTIVE but evidentally had already been returned by another customer, repacked, and put on the shelf. The poor security guard their felt sorry that his boss was being such a jerk.

You'd be best served getting a consultation with a Criminal Defense attorney.

Your son can be banned from the store and mall for pretty much any reason. Since he was with a shoplifter....yes, he can legally be banned. If found even in the mall (since the ban covers the mall, too), he can be charged for Criminal Trespass.

Unfortunately for your son - people are judged by the company they keep. Also, too often, people do work in groups to shoplift...one does the deed, another acts as a diversion or lookout. The prosecutor, judge, etc - will have heard this so many times that even when Junior did not know - he won't be believed.

BB has great video surveillance. If you retain a lawyer, one of the things he/she will do is ask for all evidence, including the surveillance tapes.

Quote:

---

BB has great video surveillance. If you retain a lawyer, one of the things he/she will do is ask for all evidence, including the surveillance tapes.

---

Of course, absent a criminal or civil case the lawyer has not basis to make any such request. Further, video evidence will not likely be exculpatory. It won't show complicity in the theft. Of course, in a criminal matter they're going to need something more hard to base the charges on than him just being along with the thief.

That's true (sorry, insomnia sucks). Anyway, get a consultation with a lawyer. If any charges are filed, that is the time to retain the lawyer.

I am an attorney but I do not practice law in Florida and I can only speak to general principles. Do not take this as creating an attorney-client relationship. You may, however, find my opinion useful.

If your question is confined to the narrow issue as to whether you can do anything about the store and mall ban, the answer is “No”, unless you can persuade someone higher up in management to lift it. The store and mall are private property and the general invitation to the public to enter may be withdrawn at any time, so long as the reason for the ban is not based on an impermissible classification, such as race, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation.

However, that does not mean that there is no legal remedy should you choose to pursue this. The legal issue is whether the detention itself was justified. Generally, stores have a right to detain suspected shoplifters and are immune from the consequences of doing so if, but only if, the store
has “probable cause” or “reasonable cause” to believe that the person detained stole merchandise from the store. “Probable cause” or “reasonable cause” means a reasonable belief that the person detained committed a crime. If the store has the requisite cause, based on objective facts, the store is immune from a civil suit for false imprisonment. Mere suspicion, however, even a reasonable suspicion, is not sufficient grounds for detention.

The issue in your son’s situation is whether there was probable cause to believe that he had participated in the theft. Some people, including many store loss prevention employees, assume that when two or more people are together in a store and one of them steals that they were acting in concert in some way. This suspicion is understandable. However, absent observable facts showing that one shopper assisted the person who actually concealed the merchandise, it is highly questionable that the store has the requisite cause to detain the shopper who did not actually put hands on the goods.

Ultimately, the question of whether the detention of your son was justified can only be tested by a civil lawsuit brought in the name of your son. In a civil lawsuit, there would be the right to full discovery, which would include the right to require the store to produce any surveillance video. That evidence might help your son’s side of the case, or the store’s, or it may not show anything one way or the other, but the store would have to produce it. In the end, it would be up to the trier of fact to decide whether the store had sufficient cause to detain your son. In a case like that the plaintiff would have the right to demand a jury trial and that would be the best route to follow. The case would have the most chance for success before a jury because a group of ordinary citizens would decide the facts, not a judge. The judge’s primary functions would only be to rule on evidence, procedural matters, and to instruct the jury as to the law.

If you and your son really want to pursue this I recommend that you seek the advice of a local lawyer who handles personal injury and other types of tort claims. In addition to claims for false imprisonment, you could also ask a lawyer about claims for defamation of character and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Damages may be difficult to prove. For this reason it might be difficult to find a lawyer who would take such a case on a contingency fee basis. Personally, I would not do so, even if I were looking for that type of litigation work, which I am not. Having said that, I am aware of cases of this type having been successfully brought and occasionally resulting in substantial monetary damage awards. I am not saying that a lawsuit should be brought, only that potentially it might be and that you can best determine that by consulting local counsel.

If you need to communicate with me further, please send me a personal message through the function allowed for that on this on this service. Again, I would not be the lawyer for your son’s case. From prior experience at this site and others I know that a comment like this which suggests, god forbid, that a shoplifter apprehension might not be justified may generate comments by others who strongly disagree. I have too much real work to do for real clients to spend any time debating that on this site so I will not post anything further on this thread.

Quote:

---

Quoting semblance

---

However, absent observable facts showing that one shopper assisted the person who actually concealed the merchandise, it is highly questionable that the store has the requisite cause to detain the shopper who did not actually put hands on the goods.

---

Here's the problem: the assessment of what the shoplifter's friends are doing is very subjective. If they're not adjacent to their friend as he shoplifts, they're looking for LP officers, right? If they are adjacent they're screening him, or "they had to have seen what he was doing", right? There's not a bright line between "shopping with a friend who happens to be shoplifting" and "helping a friend shoplift." Further, as has been previously pointed out, in these cases it's almost aways the case that the friends knew (a) that their friend was inclined to shoplift, (b) that their friend intended to shoplifting, and/or (c) that their friend had shoplifted something in the store in which they were detained. Often all three. Upon investigation you often learn that this was not the first time the friends had gone "shopping" together, and that most or all of the time the friend (and perhaps the entire group) had shoplifted.

That is to say, when a group of teens, one of whom has sticky fingers, exit a store as a group without paying for the stolen items, it's going to be virtually impossible to make a case that it was "unreasonable" to stop the group for the purpose of investigating whether or not it was an individual or group theft. It will be a rare case indeed when the LP officers who make the stop cannot articulate their probable cause for stopping the group and instead shrug and declare, "We didn't think the others were involved, but they were with the thief so we stopped them anyway."

Beyond that, as was indicated, per the Florida shoplifting statute the merchant didn't simply detain the teens - the merchant summoned the police. By the time mom got to the scene the detention was no longer by the store, it was by the police. It's really hard to argue that a store wasn't acting in good faith when they detained a shoplifting suspect when, after they relate what happened to a responding police officer, the police officer continues the detention. You've tacitly admitted much of this in telling the parent that she's extremely unlikely to find a lawyer willing to take this on anything but a retained basis - and you're thinking a retainer would be what? $5,000? With little to no chance of recovering damages? This doesn't sound like a case I would push toward litigation.

What are you thinking would constitute defamation here? Also, I would appreciate it if you could point to a case, from anywhere in the country, where a similar detention was found to constitute "intentional infliction of emotional distress". Because I'm having a difficult time believing there is one.

I can understand the three teenaged boys entering the store together, and one shown on video to conceal merchandise while still in the store, would be "reasonable" to detain all three. Of that I don't really question. As I review lists of "profiles" of typical shoplifters, groups of teens seem to top the list. Of course that offers the discussion of "profiling."

What I do have a problem with is the ban from both BB and the mall. That ban MORE THAN suggests my son was guilty of a crime he did not commit, nor was he a party to the crime. What does this teach my son about consequences - one is punished for something someone else did? The "guilt by association" is sure an ASSumptive leap that should PROVEN!

As I understand it, the teen who did conceal the merchandise is banned permanently from BB (I am not sure about the mall). Permanently?? He is only 16-years old!! Even those who commit armed robbery only serve ten years for a first offense (I'm basing that on the 10-20-life ads). I fully support reasonable punishment/consequences for behavior that is inappropriate. Yes the store is "private property" - but that is unreasonable!

So far unless I receive a summons or subpoena or any charges against my son, I'll do nothing. I did consult a friend (who is a Judge) who agreed with me about not signing a document that was incorrect. Had I not felt intimidated and threatened by potential charges against my son made by the officer, neither of us would have signed the "ban" without legal counsel. Frankly I wanted to get the heck out of the place with my son!

You might consider it unreasonable, but it's perfectly within their rights. Being banned from the mall is not the same as being incarcerated. You seem to bend to hyperbole in nearly every post.

As we've pointed out, you can jump up and down and make your wild statements, but unless you can convince the merchant (possibly through higher up in the management chain) to rescind their decision, the next time he enters that store they will have more than enough proof to actually have him convicted of an ACTUAL CRIME. This time the penalty won't be some imagined thing, it will be a lifetime criminal record.

You aren't entitled to "legal counsel" and your son would have been banned whether it was signed or not. All the signature does is acknowledge that he knows he's banned. It's not an admission of guilt if you did as was described. If he hadn't signed it, they would have just maid note with other witnesses that your son had been informed of the trespass order.

They don't have to prove anything to issue the ban.

Again, let us stress this: People can be banned from a store or mall for any reason (except discriminatory reasons, such as sex, race, national origin, disability, etc).

Since your son is banned and is aware of the ban - if he goes there - he can be arrested and charged with Criminal Trespass.

Your son's friend who is banned for life (since you are enraged over his ban) - he can eventually write Best Buy and the Mall for permission to shop there. I'd advise he wait until he has a steady full-time job (not a bad idea to enclose a copy of a pay stub), and that he can pay for his purchases. Then he would wait to receive letters acknowledging the bans are lifted.