Arrested In Bathroom For Shoplifiting

I was arrested by a police officer who took unconventional and unorthodox measures to arrest me. Upon arriving at the holding room, a snubbish and abrasive store clerk told me that she infact did call the police to arrest me, because she saw me take the item into the restroom. The funny element of this whole ordeal is that I never concealed or pocketed the product. After questioning her on her apparent psychic powers, as far as knowing my true intentions, I was hindered by the police because they knew I was getting somewhere. I am ahamed to say this, because I know of the stereotypical implications, but I happen to be black. Do I have something here?


-----Arrested in bathroom for shoplifiting--(Police threatened to break door down if I did not open it. They also searched my bag even though I objected to it when he asked me.)

Was there a sign on the door that said no merchandise in the bathroom?

Where is bathroom located and what state are you in?

It was a walmart in indiana. It did not include a NO-MERCHNADISE decree. The store clerk seemed a little bit too ambitious, and might have screwed herself in her presumptions of my intention.

I have not looked up Indiana law but it "could" be considered concealment when you took merchndis einto restroom. Notice could be! Thats even concealment is a crime in your state (some states it is) Also where were the bathrooms located. If they are "passed" the last point of sale that could be a problem for you. You need an Attorney I suggest you consult one

Quote:

---

Quoting Pay-back

---

It was a walmart in indiana. It did not include a NO-MERCHNADISE decree. The store clerk seemed a little bit too ambitious, and might have screwed herself in her presumptions of my intention.

---

Every Walmart I have ever been in has not only a sign stating no unpurchased merchandise in the bathroom but also has the bathrooms in the zone outside of the cash registers.

Where were the bathrooms you used? How much merchandise did you have with you?

When they found it on you, was all of it still in its original packaging with all original tags?

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.

The restroom was beyond the counter-reisters.....

Then this "could" be considered a legal stop. I sugges tonce again to consult a criminal defense Attorney

Quote:

---

Quoting Pay-back

---

The restroom was beyond the counter-reisters.....

---

The charge seems warranted...which I'm sure you understand.