Printable View
I know a guy who was shopping in Northern, Indiana and he bought a item and stole an item. He paid for an item and he walked past the registers and they stop him but he did not walk out the door. Can he get out of this since he didn't walk out the door. Could he sue the company for anything.
Bill
No it appears as though he past the last point of sale. Sue for what did he not have merchandise on his person he had not paid for?
Indiana
IC 35-43-4-1
Definitions
Sec. 1.
(a) As used in this chapter, "exert control over property" means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property.
(b) Under this chapter, a person's control over property of another person is "unauthorized" if it is exerted:
(1) without the other person's consent;
(2) in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented;
(3) by transferring or encumbering other property while failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of that other property;
(4) by creating or confirming a false impression in the other person;
(5) by failing to correct a false impression that the person knows is influencing the other person, if the person stands in a relationship of special trust to the other person;
(6) by promising performance that the person knows will not be performed;
(7) by expressing an intention to damage the property or impair the rights of any other person; or
(c) As used in this chapter, "receiving" means acquiring possession or control of or title to property, or lending on the security of property.
IC 35-43-4-4
Evidence
Sec. 4.
(a) The price tag or price marking on property displayed or offered for sale constitutes prima facie evidence of the value and ownership of the property.
(b) Evidence that a person:
(1) altered, substituted, or transferred a universal product code (UPC) or another product identification code, label, price tag, or price marking on property displayed or offered for sale or hire; or
(2) transferred property displayed or offered for sale or hire from the package, bag, or container in or on which the property was displayed or offered to another package, bag, or container;
constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to deprive the owner of the property of a part of its value and that the person exerted unauthorized control over the property.
(c) Evidence that a person:
(1) concealed property displayed or offered for sale or hire; and
(2) removed the property from any place within the business premises at which it was displayed or offered to a point beyond that at which payment should be made;
constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to deprive the owner of the property of a part of its value and that the person exerted unauthorized control over the property.
(g) A judge may find that a photograph of property over which a person is alleged to have exerted unauthorized control or to have otherwise obtained unlawfully is competent evidence, if the photograph:
(1) will serve the purpose of demonstrating the nature of the property; and
(2) is otherwise admissible into evidence under all other rules of law governing the admissibility of photographs into evidence. The fact that it is impractical to introduce into evidence the actual property for any reason, including its size, weight, or unavailability, need not be established for a judge to find a photograph of that property to be competent evidence. If a photograph is found to be competent evidence under this subsection, it is admissible into evidence in place of the property and to the same extent as the property itself.
(h) A law enforcement agency that is holding as evidence property over which a person is alleged to have exerted unauthorized control or to have otherwise obtained unlawfully, may return that property to its owner if:
(1) the property has been photographed in a manner that will serve the purpose of demonstrating the nature of the property, and if these photographs are filed with or retained by the law enforcement agency in place of the property;
(2) receipt for the property is obtained from the owner upon delivery by the law enforcement agency;
(3) the prosecuting attorney who is prosecuting a case that involves the property has not requested the law enforcement agency to decline requests for return of the property to its owner; and
(4) the property may be lawfully possessed by the owner.
Notice the portion bold