Unintentional Shoplifting from an Employer

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California.

So here is my story, i have already seeked advice from reddit but wanted to ask the advice of expertlaw

So I work at a retail store, nike specifically. Yesterday when I went to work there was an item that I wanted to purchase that was limited, and I knew that we only had one size left. Without thinking, I hid the product(pair of tights) in the back portion of my pants and put a jacket over it to prevent anyone from finding the product and buying, but one of my managers saw a part of it sticking out and asked "if I was wearing another later of clothes" so I panicked and explained it was my boxers. Then she informed the other managers but I managed to tuck it away and removed it from my possession. It looks like I was trying to steal it but I had the product in the middle of my shift, and i honestly had no intention of stealing it but hiding it. I only withheld it because it was a limited item that i knew we only had one more of, and wanted to use my employee discount to purchase the item at the end of my shift. (policy employees can only purchase items at the end of their shift) My other managers did not say anything to me when I left, what do I do if I get called in? Will I be charged for shop lifting?

More info: This incident occurred yesterday. I have not been into work since, nor have i been contacted or spoken to about. I am seeking advice, when i do get called in i was told i have two options 1) practice my 5th amendment to protect myself from incriminating myself/ tell them i want to talk to a lawyer or 2) i explain my story.

I have never done anything like this before and i already feel stupid and foolish for trying to save 40 dollars. The product's value was around 130 dollars.

If you get anybody to believe that story you need to go into sales big time or be a hostage negotiator or a diplomat.

You could have asked the manager to hold it or maybe actually purchased it or a thousand other things that weren't something that actually looked like you were stealing it.

In in fact when the manager asked rather than lying why didn't you say you were holding onto it so you could buy it being the last one and all.


so what happened to the item? Did you walk out with it? I don't see where you ever said what happened to the merchandise but from the title I have to assume you did steal it.

I was in the middle of my shift and had no intentions of leaving the store. I have well over 2-3 hours before i could leave. As employees we are not allowed to put items on hold. I panicked, i didnt want to get in trouble and i was in the middle of helping a customer get shoes.

- - - Updated - - -

I was in the middle of my shift and had no intentions of leaving the store. I have well over 2-3 hours before i could leave. As employees we are not allowed to put items on hold. I panicked, i didnt want to get in trouble and i was in the middle of helping a customer get shoes.

- - - Updated - - -

i did not take anything that is my case, it looks like i had the INTENT to but i was not. I did not physically take anything

Well, by not purchasing it at the end of your shift it really makes it look like you were intending on stealing it. Ya see, if you had followed through with your plan to purchase it, it would show your story you are telling here might actually be the truth. Given you didn't purchase it, it makes it look like you never had any intention of buying it.

i panicked and was afraid they would confront me for the incident, so i dropped it and tried to cover it up. Im in desperate need of help, how do i get myself out of this.

Well, for some reason you seem to be quite confident there will be some action taken. Maybe you got lucky this time.

If you are asked about it I see two choices;

admit it the truth and hope the don't fire you or;

lie and and hope they don't discover the truth and fire you for lying about it.

I can't tell you what to say. It's going to have to be your decision.

from reddit i was told to not admit anything in the event that they try to charge me, and that my story might do more harm than good. Im stuck in between a rock and a hard place. What should do i do?

You don't have a fifth amendment right at work. You can be fired for this situation. You can be fired for not answering questions. You can be fired for pretty much anything. You should realize that you might not have a job.

i already feel stupid and foolish

There's an excellent reason for that - you were both stupid and foolish. Personally, I'd have fired you on the spot. Your story has more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese.

I don't have my 5th amendment at work? Now that sounds ridiculous. But I can explain, the reason why I held the item is because it was sought after by many people in the store, knowing this I wanted to ensure no one would find it because other employees went to the bad to search for it upon request.

Would it be a foolish thing to quit before I go back to work or would going back and being questioned and asking for a lawyer be the better thing to do.

Here are your options if they question you:

1. Refuse to speak (the old fifth amendment thing that doesn't legally apply to the workplace). They can then legally fire you and no lawyer in the world will be able to help you (because said firing will be legal).

2. Tell the truth. They can then legally fire you and no lawyer in the world will be able to help you (because said firing will be legal).

3. Lie to them. They can then legally fire you and no lawyer in the world will be able to help you (because said firing will be legal).

The only time a lawyer will be of any use to you is if you are formally charged with theft by the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting Firefire123

---

I don't have my 5th amendment at work? Now that sounds ridiculous.

---

Not rediculous at all. Maybe if you actually tried reading the Constitution rather than relying on what you learn in TV shows, you'd understand. The Fifth Amendment says (among other things), "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." You talking to your employer has nothing to do with being a witness against yourself in a criminal trial. Nor do you have any due process rights in most circumstances (another aspect of the fifth amendment) with regard to employment matters. Your boss is free to fire you for just about any reason including failing to answer his questions or even the suspicion of being a thief.

A lawyer might not have been a good idea, but he can't really do anything for you about your being fired. If you are contacted by the police or prosecutor, I would decline to talk to them (that you can do under the broad interpretation of the fifth) without legal assistance.

Bottom line...even if they believe you that you had no intention of stealing the item, you still probably would get fired for the simple reason that employees are not allowed to "hold" items...and you tried to "hold" an item.

I contacted a lawyer and her advice for me was to hire them and for them to walk in there with me so she can do all the speaking for me. Being fired is not the issue I know I will be but I'm trying to prevent having a petty theft charge on my record. Is this a smart decision or was hiring a lawyer a waste of money

If the lawyer can convince the store not to file a criminal complaint, I guess it's worth it. Of course, there's no guarantee that he will be able to do so, but he has a better chance than your lame story.

Waste of money. Walking in to your employer's office with a lawyer in tow is a hostile and aggressive action* and will only increase the likelihood you will be fired. And your lawyer can do nothing about this as it will be a legal termination. Your lawyer will also not be able to prevent your employer from contacting the police** about what you did, because there is nothing in law that could prevent your employer from doing this. Finally, your lawyer cannot prevent the police from charging you with something, because again, there's nothing in law that could prevent the police from doing this if they so choose.

Again, you would do better by waiting to see if the police lay charges against you, and if they do, then hire a lawyer.

*And please note your employer will be legally free to tell prospective future employers about this during reference checks. Prospective employers don't like to hear this sort of thing.

**Your employer has no authority to charge you with anything. Only the police can do this.

Quote:

---

Quoting eerelations

---

**Your employer has no authority to charge you with anything. Only the police can do this.

---

Not really; When I'm working in loss prevention, *I* on behalf of the employer am the one charging. I sign the document that legally issues the charges. Any OTHER charges are charged by the police, not me, because they have the jurisdiction to do so and not I. Similarly, they do not have the jurisdiction to charge without my signature on the arrest document.

So, let's say we have an employee or customer who steals, then cocaine is found in their possession. You will see two charges (and in our court you can look these documents up online.) One will be the theft charge, and it will say that I, as LP, "came before the clerk of court and solemnly attest that _______(defendant) did knowingly take merchandise valued at $___, in violation of state code .." etc. Then, you will see the second charge that says "Police officer _______ came before the clerk of court and solemnly attest that _____ did knowingly possess cocaine, etc."

As was pointed out in another thread by Security Consultant and others, most of us are not aware of a precedent for LE or a prosecutor to pursue theft charges without the victim's consent and signature as the charging person.

Quote:

---

Quoting DeputyDog

---

Not really; When I'm working in loss prevention, *I* on behalf of the employer am the one charging. I sign the document that legally issues the charges. Any OTHER charges are charged by the police, not me, because they have the jurisdiction to do so and not I. Similarly, they do not have the jurisdiction to charge without my signature on the arrest document.

So, let's say we have an employee or customer who steals, then cocaine is found in their possession. You will see two charges (and in our court you can look these documents up online.) One will be the theft charge, and it will say that I, as LP, "came before the clerk of court and solemnly attest that _______(defendant) did knowingly take merchandise valued at $___, in violation of state code .." etc. Then, you will see the second charge that says "Police officer _______ came before the clerk of court and solemnly attest that _____ did knowingly possess cocaine, etc."

As was pointed out in another thread by Security Consultant and others, most of us are not aware of a precedent for LE or a prosecutor to pursue theft charges without the victim's consent and signature as the charging person.

---

OK but would OP having a lawyer present prevent you from pressing charges?

I have contacted a lawyer and hired them on advice that "trying to go in and talk to them with a human approach to prevent any charges to begin with would be the best idea if I don't care about keeping my job"

Quote:

---

Quoting eerelations

---

OK but would OP having a lawyer present prevent you from pressing charges?

---

...given that OP's "excuse" for appearing to shoplift from her employer was in fact an attempt to defraud her employer?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Firefire123

---

I have contacted a lawyer and hired them on advice that "trying to go in and talk to them with a human approach to prevent any charges to begin with would be the best idea if I don't care about keeping my job"

---

You do understand that your story explaining why you weren't actually shoplifting is an admission of an attempt to commit fraud?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting eerelations

---

You do understand that your story explaining why you weren't actually shoplifting is an admission of an attempt to commit fraud?

---

And that your employer may well bar the lawyer from attending the meeting?