Theft As Macy's Employee

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Ohio

My employer Macy's suspects me of stealing. Loss prevention stopped me outside of the store in the mall parking lot and asked to look into my personal bags. There's no way for them to know if i had anything unless they looked into my book bag or did so prior without my knowledge. So I refused and they began to grab after me and said they had a warrant. So I took off knowing I had a bench warrant and could be taken down town. I have never stolen anything before and have no criminal record. Macy's loss prevention now wants me to come in and talk to them. Should i do this? Would they be able to detain me? What are the best and worst case scenarios?

You need a Criminal Defense Lawyer.

(1) to deal with your bench warrant. The longer you wait, the worse it will get.
(2) to answer why you ran, instead of stopping for L.P.

Yes, there is a way for Macy's to know if you stole. It's called CCTV and videotape.

The area that my bag was kept in had no cameras or surveillance. Would it be wise for me to go and talk with them on their property? Or should I just retain a lawyer and turn down there request?

I notice that you do not claim innocence, only that "they cannot prove it" which may or may not be true. Just because you didn't see any cameras doesn 't mean they were not there.

Get a lawyer.

Why do you have a bench warrant if you have no previous criminal record?

Also...expect to be fired, and don't expect to collect Unemployment.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Why do you have a bench warrant if you have no previous criminal record?

---

I think she's confused by their response to her attempt to prevent a search, "So I refused and they began to grab after me and said they had a warrant." They, of course, would not have either a bench or search warrant as she's told us that they're private security.

You should go talk to them. It is probably a violation of policy to refuse a bag check. Did you steal? They more than likely put a hidden camera up. You want to talk to them and tell them your side of the story because otherwise they can tell the cops whatever they want. Unfortunately they probably won't talk to you if you have a lawyer at the store.

A couple of questions...

Did you steal?

What is your bench warrant for?

Do you have the number to the hr dept? They can help mediate.

Let us know more specifics and we can help.

Clearly bam! does not work in HR if he thinks they will mediate between an employee who got caught stealing and the employer store.

If the others are right and there was no prior crime, no warrant...

You will still likely lose your job. All you had to do was open your bag, purse, and allow inspection. And actually, this is required of MOST retail employees when leaving the store.

Since you did not do that...you can be fired for violating a policy, which is likely in the employee handbook. I had to do it at Meijer, Kohl's, and Best Buy. Best Buy - you even have to hand them your coat/jacket for a pat down as you left your shift.

If you are a vendor at a store...expect the same. Demonstrating a product at CostCo, your jacket and purse are inspected as you leave.

I was once asked to show what was in my hands as I left Meijer. My car keys. I stopped, showed my keys, "Thank you ma'am" and no big deal.

obviously you do not understand the role of HR cbg. they can, should and will mediate this issue. LP does not make employment decisions, simple they present evidence to hr. if this poster stole, termination and potential charges for theft. if not, possible termination for violation of policy and procedure. it is not a guarantee though.

please learn about the basics before you post and before you go against me.

Bam! my friend, I have worked in HR for 30+ years. I know what HR's role is. It may occasionally take the position of mediator but not in the circumstances described here.

Please learn a little something who and what you are talking about before you post.

Quote:

---

Quoting bam!

---

obviously you do not understand the role of HR cbg. they can, should and will mediate this issue. LP does not make employment decisions, simple they present evidence to hr. if this poster stole, termination and potential charges for theft. if not, possible termination for violation of policy and procedure. it is not a guarantee though.

please learn about the basics before you post and before you go against me.

---

May I inquire as to your experience actually working with HR?

If I am not mistaken, and I admit I may be, he is in LP.

Here's the problem I have with his post.

Poster says, do I need a lawyer?

Everyone else says, yes.

bam! says no, you don't need a lawyer. You need to call HR. They'll mediate on your behalf.

The implication here is that HR will act in place of a lawyer for him. And I promise you, NOTHING in HR's role involves practicing law without a license.

That's kind of where I was going with it.

:)

I just find it very amusing that he tries to tell me that I don't understand the role of HR - when I've worked as the director of HR. And had approximately 150 articles published on the role of HR. And written corporate policy.

But I should learn the role of HR before I go up against him. Tres amusing.

Quote:

---

Quoting bam!

---

obviously you do not understand the role of HR cbg. they can, should and will mediate this issue. LP does not make employment decisions, simple they present evidence to hr. if this poster stole, termination and potential charges for theft. if not, possible termination for violation of policy and procedure. it is not a guarantee though.

please learn about the basics before you post and before you go against me.

---

I don't believe you.

There is no company in the world that would allow a lawyer to be present during questioning by either LP or HR. The op may need a lawyer in the future, but does not need one in determining their current employment status
What they should do is call HR. Ask them about their employment status. Are they still employed? Have they been terminated?

Give us a link to your HR articles.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

If I am not mistaken, and I admit I may be, he is in LP.

Here's the problem I have with his post.

Poster says, do I need a lawyer?

Everyone else says, yes.

bam! says no, you don't need a lawyer. You need to call HR. They'll mediate on your behalf.

The implication here is that HR will act in place of a lawyer for him. And I promise you, NOTHING in HR's role involves practicing law without a license.

---

I never suggested that hr practices law. I never said they will mediate on the employees behalf.I stated they will mediate he situation. We don't even know if the employee is terminated. We do not know I'd they are terminated, what they have been terminated for.

Hr is always a mediator.

http://www.legalworkplace.com/cathies-corner-blog.aspx

That will get you to the site; hope you enjoy the articles.

You did not say to have HR mediate on his employment status. You indicated that he should call HR instead of calling a lawyer.

And the poster needs a lawyer regardless.

I

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

http://www.legalworkplace.com/cathies-corner-blog.aspx

That will get you to the site; hope you enjoy the articles.

You did not say to have HR mediate on his employment status. You indicated that he should call HR instead of calling a lawyer.

And the poster needs a lawyer regardless.

---

Why would they need a lawyer if they were innocent? They claimed to never have stolen, so a lawyer would serve what purpose?

Thanks for the link.

Quote:

---

Quoting bam!

---

I

Why would they need a lawyer if they were innocent? They claimed to never have stolen, so a lawyer would serve what purpose?

Thanks for the link.

---

Did I miss the response to the question I asked of you?

Quote:

---

Quoting bam!

---

I

Why would they need a lawyer if they were innocent? They claimed to never have stolen, so a lawyer would serve what purpose?

Thanks for the link.

---

They need a lawyer so if Macy's presses charges, they have legal representation. Innocent or not, which the OP has never claimed or asserted when asked, you need a lawyer if you are charged with a crime.

My bench warrant was for a traffic ticket. I went to court for it the day following the incident at Macy's and they scheduled a new court date. If I go talk to Macy's LP alone as they requested and they feel I am guilty can I still be arrested on spot or is it more common to get notification in mail of a suit? I am not alleging guilt here but I would like to know what I could be facing if found so. I have dealt with police and the courts on traffic cases before and always find myself on the short end of the stick when I cooperate. Go figure.

I would consult with a Criminal Defense Attorney.

For starters, LP is going to be HIGHLY suspicious of you, they will want to know why you would not open your bag and show what you had in it. If they feel you are guilty, they can keep you in the office and call for police and press charges. You can bet they have you on tape refusing to show the contents of that bag - and that will likely be shown to HR. If you did steal something, that will also be on tape.

Again, I would not count on having a job there any longer - most stores have a policy in their handbook that your locker and it's contents can be searched at any time; and most require you open your purse, bags, etc., upon leaving the store.

So, bam!, no apology? After all, I really did turn out to be an HR professional.

It might interest you to know that hiring/firing decisions are made by the departmental manager and rarely if ever by HR. Just another way in which you don't understand HR's role as well as you think you do.

No matter how many ways you try to backpedal, I can't find any way to read your response that doesn't translate to, don't call a lawyer, HR will act as a lawyer for you. You may not have meant that, but it is damn sure how your response came across.

Why would they need a lawyer if they were innocent? They claimed to never have stolen, so a lawyer would serve what purpose?

Oh, like maybe protecting the employee's legal rights. And the poster actually never did claim not to have stolen - in fact, he's hedging around enough in his most recent post to make it pretty sure that he did.

And if you seriously believe what you posted that I quoted, above, then you have NO business posting on legal boards.

Five years as a district director of hr for the company mentioned here and most recently seven years in legal compliance, loss prevention policy and procedure for another company.

So yea I have a handle on what this poster is going through. This case can be as simple as a policy violation or as serious as theft of company property. Back then, if an employee retained legal counsel, we would not talk to them and refer them to our corporate HQ legal team.

HR conducts a separate fact finding investigation. The employee should contact hr and check on their employment status. Then they should obtain legal counsel should they need it. Other than that, there is no reason to jump the gun.

Did I answer your questions to your level of satisfaction?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

So, bam!, no apology? After all, I really did turn out to be an HR professional.

It might interest you to know that hiring/firing decisions are made by the departmental manager and rarely if ever by HR. Just another way in which you don't understand HR's role as well as you think you do.

No matter how many ways you try to backpedal, I can't find any way to read your response that doesn't translate to, don't call a lawyer, HR will act as a lawyer for you. You may not have meant that, but it is damn sure how your response came across.

Why would they need a lawyer if they were innocent? They claimed to never have stolen, so a lawyer would serve what purpose?

Oh, like maybe protecting the employee's legal rights. And the poster actually nuever did claim not to have stolen - in fact, he's hedging around enough in his most recent post to make it pretty sure that he did.

And if you seriously believe what you posted that I quoted, above, then you have NO business posting on legal boards.

---

My apologies.

As HR, you do not make decisions based on assumptions. You look at the facts. Simply put, a phone call to HR will let the poster see what options they have. Do they need a lawyer? Not immediately. Why retain a lawyer when you have been fired for a policy violation. If they had hard evidence, they would have physically detained the employee once they left OR notified the police who in turn would contact the employee. My best guess based on the limited information is that the OP has been terminated for a policy violation or may be on final warning for this violation.

Again, your job is to offer factual advice not make judgements on what you assume.

Do not tell me what my job is. I know what my job is far better than you do.

And as for making assumptions, you've done a fair amount of that yourself, sport.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Do not tell me what my job is. I know what my job is far better than you do.

And as for making assumptions, you've done a fair amount of that yourself, sport.

---

Ah. Struck a nerve.

Offer some HR advice on how the OP should handle this besides "get a lawyer". Did you accept my apology?!?

I'm still considering it. It's not worth a whole lot when I had to remind you to do it. And you know what? If an employee came into my HR office and told me he was being investigating for stealing and wanted to know what he should do before going to meet with LP, I'd tell him to talk to a lawyer. You claim to know what my job is so much better than I do, but you don't know that?

Please notice a couple of things. At no time did I tell him to take a lawyer to the meeting with him. Please also notice that the poster did not ask what to do about his ongoing employment. He asked what to do before going to meet with LP. You were not answering the question he asked.

You can preen yourself that you "struck a nerve" and how that makes you superior. I still maintain that telling someone who is being charged with stealing (and who by all implications is probably guilty) NOT to get a lawyer is about the most irresponsible piece of advice you can give.