ExpertLaw.com Forums

Civil Action Against Shoplifters

Printable View

  • 05-01-2008, 12:20 PM
    renata1
    Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Thursday, May 1, 2008
    Business

    Published: September 20, 1991
    Gov. Mario M. Cuomo signed legislation today that would enable merchants to take civil action against shoplifters instead of pursuing criminal charges that can be time-consuming and expensive.

    Under the new law, shoplifters who concede their guilt can reach agreement with the merchant to make restitution for the value of the stolen property, and the merchant can also impose a fine not to exceed $500. In such settlements, the shoplifter will not get a criminal record.

    The law's sponsors contend that it will relieve some of the burden on the state's criminal courts and that the restitution provisions will help keep the full costs of shoplifting from being passed on to consumers.

    Mr. Cuomo signed the bill without comment.

    "Shoplifting in this country costs retail store owners about $27 billion per year and is the fastest growing of the larceny crimes," said Senator John B. Sheffer 2d, an Erie County Republican who sponsored the bill. "This cost inevitably is passed on to consumers and it is, therefore, a problem for every family in this state."
  • 05-01-2008, 01:24 PM
    Happy Trails
    Re: What Does It Mean?
    It means merchants are allowed to take civil action against shoplifters to recover some of the damages they incur from shoplifters. Also keep in mind that article was written in 1991.

    A snippet of information from New York statutes:

    Quote:

    §11-105. Larceny in mercantile establishments.

    5. An adult or emancipated minor who commits larceny against the property of a mercantile establishment shall be civilly liable to the operator of such establishment in an amount consisting of:

    (a) the retail price of the merchandise if not recovered in merchantable condition up to an amount not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars; plus

    (b) a penalty not to exceed the greater of five times the retail price of the merchandise or seventy-five dollars; provided, however, that in no event shall such penalty exceed five hundred dollars.

    6. Parents or legal guardians of an unemancipated minor shall be civilly liable for said minor who commits larceny against the property of a mercantile establishment to the operator of such establishment in an amount consisting of:

    (a) the retail price of the merchandise if not recovered in merchantable condition up to an amount not to exceed fifteen hundred
    dollars; plus

    (b) a penalty not to exceed the greater of five times the retail price of the merchandise or seventy-five dollars; provided, however, that in no event shall such penalty exceed five hundred dollars.
  • 05-01-2008, 05:08 PM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: What Does It Mean?
    I've been reading about this the last couple of days and what I don't understand is if the business owner indeed calls the cops can they still demand civil recovery? If so, why? It seems if the ultimate goal of this was to keep the courts unclogged, allowing both doesn't making sense... Restitution as part of sentencing should cover the business losses.

    Is my thinking wrong (and I fully admit it might be)?
  • 05-01-2008, 05:17 PM
    Happy Trails
    Re: What Does It Mean?
    Quote:

    Quoting Surprised2BHere
    View Post
    I've been reading about this the last couple of days and what I don't understand is if the business owner indeed calls the cops can they still demand civil recovery? If so, why? It seems if the ultimate goal of this was to keep the courts unclogged, allowing both doesn't making sense... Restitution as part of sentencing should cover the business losses.

    Is my thinking wrong (and I fully admit it might be)?

    Yes, the merchant can do both in most states.

    The criminal procedure and the civil demand are two separate issues. In a criminal proceeding, restitution isn't always part of the sentence, so a lot of the states have separate statutes that address the issue concerning the civil fine.

    A person may get a fine in a criminal proceeding, but that doesn't go to the merchant.
  • 05-02-2008, 05:14 PM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: What Does It Mean?
    Quote:

    Quoting Happy Trails
    View Post
    Yes, the merchant can do both in most states.

    The criminal procedure and the civil demand are two separate issues. In a criminal proceeding, restitution isn't always part of the sentence, so a lot of the states have separate statutes that address the issue concerning the civil fine.

    A person may get a fine in a criminal proceeding, but that doesn't go to the merchant.

    Some of that makes total sense, but I have to wonder what happens if a person is convicted and ordered to pay restitution and THEN the merchant also demands civil recovery later on. For example, lets say someone steals $1000 worth of stuff. They are ordered by the courts to pay $2000 restitution plus $500 in fines. 6 months later the victim also sends a civil demand letter for $2000. What happens?
  • 05-02-2008, 05:37 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Restitution is usually for damages or in this case damaged merchandise. thatr rarely happens. If you recieve a Civil Demand letter and court order restitution you might tell court this see if they will remove this. However the real solution is just dont steal
  • 05-02-2008, 06:18 PM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting panther10758
    View Post
    Restitution is usually for damages or in this case damaged merchandise. thatr rarely happens. If you recieve a Civil Demand letter and court order restitution you might tell court this see if they will remove this. However the real solution is just dont steal

    Heh, obviously!
    I've just read some articles recently stating how some business owners have taken advantage of civil recovery. Honestly, I believe what you say is true -- if a person who stole hadn't put themselves in that situation in the first place, there'd be nothing to complain about -- but two wrongs don't make a right either.
  • 05-02-2008, 07:35 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    You got love it when the thief complains about what he/she believes is theft against him/her:p
  • 05-02-2008, 07:49 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Before one believes or accusses retailers of abusing Civil Demand read this:

    According to Univ. of Florida National Retail security survey, it is over $40 billion in total shrink and they attribute approx. $13 billion to shoplifting nationwide every year.

    If anyone is being abused its retailers
  • 05-03-2008, 07:49 AM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    I didn't say the theif was wronged... I'm asking a legitimate question about this, and my statement of "two wrongs don't make a right" stand.

    Read articles like these and you'll see why I (and others) have concern...

    http://consumer-rights.suite101.com/...civil_recovery

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/is_re...g_out_of_hand/

    http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archive...gal_extortion/

    Don't misunderstand me... I realize that a retailer has complete rights to get recovery for the merchandise and time lost, and the person caught stealing should be rightfully punished. For the record, it's my child (who is an adult) who is accused and us, the parents, are already making the kid work to get the money together to pay the retailer back -- regardless of what the law will say about it. It just concerns me that when I started researching civil recovery, so I'd know what we can expect, it turns out that there are SOME retailers abusing their right... and my concern comes from what I've read, not necessarily my own opinion (since this is all new to me anyway).
  • 05-03-2008, 08:41 AM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Ther is no abuse and retailers are not coming out ahead. Less than 50% in many cases of Civil Demand are ever actually collected at best its 60%. This is hardly making a profit for retailers who lose 13 Billion (with a B) each year to shoplifting. Show me how they are making up the 13 billion
  • 05-03-2008, 03:14 PM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Hey Panther, I'm not looking to get into a personal argument with you about it. To say there is NO abuse goes against what some have already been saying. I have no doubts that retailers lose a lot across the board to thieves, but what each individual thief pays as punishment is what is in question. If you go back and read what I've said, I'm not trying to get anyone out of paying what is rightfully owed, but they should not have to pay beyond what is fair either. Just like in a civil court case, a plaintiff is to be made whole by the person who damaged him, he's not supposed to end up with profit from it. And don't bring up what every other thief has done; That's now how our court systems work. A defendant is never ordered to pay for the mis-doings of every other defendant out there.

    Essentially, there ARE some retailers abusing their rights. I'm not a victim of it, and I don't know if anyone else is or not... but without any kind of regulation, you can't be naive enough to think it doesn't happen. I'm certainly not the only one questioning it. I have no experience with it and don't know if a civil recovery letter can even be questioned or negotiated, but it certainly SEEMS, from what I've read, that there isn't much recourse at all. I'm open to being corrected here...
  • 05-03-2008, 03:24 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    There is no profit "pay attention". do you have any clue to the cost to prevent and/or stop shoplifting? Civil Demand (when the thief pays it) is like spitting the ocean. Look at this example then we will talk some more:

    High Cost of Shoplifting Retailers costs

    CCTV minimum of $10,000.00 Most run over $70,000.00
    Extra electronics minimum of $20,000.00 Most run over $60,000.00. This includes DVR, intellex etc. None of these figures include maitainence and up keep

    The average LPO (Loss Prevention Officer) makes $20,000.00 yr
    If store employs four LPO’s (some more) you now have a cost of $80,000.00
    These LPO’s need a Boss LPM (Loss Prevention Manager) he/she makes an average of $30,000.00 min Now LP payroll is $110,000.00

    Now each item successfully stolen. The retailer must sale about 20 more at regular price to make up the lost of that one. Also during the stop and while the LP has the shoplifter in his/her office the item stolen is off sales floor in office. This has unknown lost value because its not on floor being sold or displayed.

    How does this effect the workers? Simple their hours are reduced or they are laid off if retailers profit is down. Shoplifting plays into this. Raises are also effected instead of 4% raise perhaps the retailer can only afford 3% or less! Benefits may decrease as well.

    Shoplifting cost retailers over 13 Billion dollars a year. It not a simple 8 dollar theft as most think. This only touches the surface of the high cost of shoplifting to retailers. Laws like Civil Demand help retailers in a small way. These numbers and examples are estimates but are close. They also give one an idea of what that simple theft costs


    Now stats I got from NASP state that 1 out of every 49 shoplifters are caught. Yep one! The average theft is about $100.00. So show me the profit! For every arrest there is an approx lost prior to of about $4900.00. Again show me the profit. Look at the cost (above) of stopping and/or preventing shoplifting and you see the retailer is not profitting in fact he is still losing
  • 05-04-2008, 02:55 PM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    I'm not arguing the statistics with you... I never was. You keep hitting me over the head with the same info, which I have no dispute with. What I do take issue with is the responsibility of one thief to pay the costs of every one not caught.

    You are also assuming that EVERY retailer has an LP department. Many, MANY, do not. They have no security at all. This is the type of business in my family's particular case. There has not been ANY cost to the retailer for LP or security, other than his insurance policy.

    I gave a specific example that you've failed to address. If my child is ordered to pay restitution in the amount of double (or even triple) the value of the items stolen, plus any fines, how is it then appropriate for the store owner to send a civil recovery letter? How is that owner then NOT put in the position to be made MORE than whole, especially if there has been no financial investment on his part to thwart theft through LP or security? From what I understand of criminal AND civil law, it is not up to an individual defendant to pay the price for every criminal everywhere... only to pay for the crime committed by his/herself. Tell me how my thinking is wrong? And don't just regurgitate theft statistics please...

    As I've said all along, as parents we are already making our child work to pay pay the store owner in whatever amount ordered, so don't think for one second we are trying to get our kid out of "doing the time". But in the "sue-happy" culture we live in, I also don't want to be taken advantage of... and it's a legitimate concern I've read about in more than one place.
  • 05-04-2008, 04:00 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    How appropriate was it to steal? Its state law its legal and it helps retails recoup a small portion of that 13 billion they lose each year. You want to play stats I can play. LP department or not there are cost that go with stopping and/or preventing theft. Do you enjoy paying higher prices? If employed by retailer would you be ok with lost of benefits, reduced hours, layoffs!? Your taking pity on a thief! If unhappy with the law write your Congressman and petition to change it I doubt you get much support. There are countless lives effected by this and your worried about the one causing it:rolleyes:
  • 05-04-2008, 04:03 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    I now see why your so in favor of the thief your adult child is one

    http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48611
  • 05-04-2008, 04:16 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Suffice it to say that the law allows both criminal and civil penalties for thieves. The criminal penalties and restitution are - by statute - separate matters entirely in my state (which is also Panther's) and, I suspect, very much the same in most other states.

    If you believe this is wrong, you are free to contact your state representative and lobby for a change in the law to allow one or the other as you prefer. In the meantime, the law is as it is, and this method of recovery is allowed.



    - Carl
  • 05-05-2008, 06:36 AM
    LPCap
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    I don't feel like reading the entire thread. so can the OP state their specific questions in a logical order and I will attempt to answer them.
  • 05-06-2008, 08:32 AM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    I have to say, I'm really surprised at the judgemental attitude in these forums. I'm not in favor thieves in general, or of "my thief", and I thought I was making it pretty clear that we EXPECT our child to pay penalties, including restitution -- and that we would have regardless of the employer deciding to call the cops or not -- but a lot of you are quick to dismiss me as the parent of a child who committed a crime as someone of lesser value than you. This site is called "Expert Law" which I assumed meant you could get legal advice -- but I have to wonder how the environment serves that purpose when the common answer is "well you shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place." Gee, thanks Einstein, I think everyone here can figure that out already.

    LPCap... I don't know if you intentions are to further belittle my questions or not, but I was not talking specifics in my family's case. There are none yet, we are too early in the process. But I have been researching "Civil Recovery" which is why I responded to this thread. I had asked in the course of this discussion if it's "fair" or possible that the court could order my child to pay restitution and the retailer could additionally send a demand for civil recovery. What raised the question for me initially was that I've read articles editorializing that the civil recovery process has become somewhat abused by some retailers and being that I'm not a lawyer, I was wondering if there is any legitimate negotiating that can be done when a civil recovery letter arrives, especially if the accused has already paid restitution.

    If anyone wants to answer the legal question, I'd love to hear it. As parents of the accused, we feel bad enough already, and trust me, this is not something we take lightly.
  • 05-06-2008, 08:37 AM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    You just dont pay attention do you? Or is it you cant stand fact your child was caught! Either way its fair because its state law. If you want law changed petition your state Represenative. Outside of that your just blowing smoke
  • 05-06-2008, 08:39 AM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Nest time you pay higher prioces at market of a friend in retailis laid off gets reduced hours or even loses benefits remember your child played a role in that. also keep in mind that Civil Demand helps reduce cost to retailers (thus helping reduce the aforementioned) of shoplifting.
  • 05-06-2008, 12:16 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting Surprised2BHere
    View Post
    If anyone wants to answer the legal question, I'd love to hear it. As parents of the accused, we feel bad enough already, and trust me, this is not something we take lightly.

    The legal answer is - Yes, in many/most states they can hit you with both restitution and civil penalties.

    - Carl
  • 05-10-2008, 03:47 AM
    DH405
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting panther10758
    View Post
    I now see why your so in favor of the thief your adult child is one

    http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48611

    If you look further up this same thread, they had already mentioned that. You're revealing a known fact and acting like you're Dick Tracey here.

    You are taking the OP's argument and applying a counter-argument that is out of left field. You say that the thief must pay extra for the anti-theft, surveillance, LP staff, etc etc. This is ridiculous.

    The thief should receive an appropriate punishment to fit the crime. It's about proper proportions. You don't put a drunk driver in the chair because ANOTHER drunk killed a family of three. What you are suggesting is to punish the thief for their crime and THEN also punish them for the crimes of others.

    I knew a girl years ago who was caught stealing food from Wal-Mart because she couldn't afford to eat. She was dead broke because our fine state, Oklahoma, thinks $5.15 is a livable wage. She was caught, arrested, charged, she paid fines.. and THEN Wal-Mart hits her with a demand for $500.

    Say what you will about civil and criminal, this is double jeopardy plain and simple. She ended up scraping together every dime she could to pay some law firm in Florida. I was having to bring her groceries because she couldn't eat. She was nearly evicted from her apartment. Why? So that she can pay for her crime many times over? I thought that wasn't what WE did here in the USA.
  • 05-10-2008, 06:53 AM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    So, to recap.

    Shoplifting is bad. Bad for the retailer. Bad for the shoplifter.

    Each shoplifter is going to end up paying thousands of dollars in court costs, legal fees, civil demands and fines regardless of the cost of the original item.

    If the amount stolen is high enough or so damaged it cannot be sent back to the floor, this WILL be prosecuted in a criminal court of law and COULD be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the amount.

    Yes, THOSE kinds of felonies and misdemeanors that keep you from getting admitted to the bar or to med school. THOSE kinds of crimes that show up in criminal background checks.

    THOSE kind of crimes that can keep you from the life you want to have.

    I understand that those that are caught don't like the fact they are being hit with the financial cost of all those shoplifters that are not caught.

    I don't like the fact that my taxes go up to support art that stinks. We all have our burdens.

    If you don't want to pay this one, don't steal. If you steal, at least put on your big boy panties and fess up.

    Oh... and leave off the "I am really a good person other than the grand theft I just attempted" from your post. We really don't need to hear that on every one.
  • 05-10-2008, 06:59 AM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting DH405
    View Post
    Say what you will about civil and criminal, this is double jeopardy plain and simple. She ended up scraping together every dime she could to pay some law firm in Florida. I was having to bring her groceries because she couldn't eat. She was nearly evicted from her apartment. Why? So that she can pay for her crime many times over? I thought that wasn't what WE did here in the USA.

    Double jeopardy is being criminally tried for the same crime twice.

    Much like OJ's case where he was found innocent of murder in the criminal court but guilty in the civil court, there is an established dual role of the courts.

    One is to punish lawbreakers. We call that criminal.

    One is to make whole the victim. We call that civil.

    Any crime can have both components.

    Oh, and before you start waving the flag over your poor friend the thief, I don't remember any part of the Constitution that protects theft by taking.

    Hmmm... nope.

    How about what is written on the Statue of Liberty?

    Give us your tired and your poor.
    Your huddled masses yearning to breath free
    The wretched refuse of your teaming shores


    Nope... nothing there about "be nice to thieves" week.

    Sorry.

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

    The time to figure out if you can afford the civil penalty is before you steal.

    Last but not least... you think it is unfair to make your friend pay for the actions of all of the other thieves.

    How do you think I feel when I have to pay for their actions through higher prices and intrusive security?
  • 05-10-2008, 12:40 PM
    DH405
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting cyjeff
    View Post
    Double jeopardy is being criminally tried for the same crime twice.

    Yeah, I think I happen to KNOW what it means in legal interpretation as set by the Judicial branch of the US Gov't. Thanks for the update on that one, friend.

    I'm going more for the definition as held by the English language.

    dou·ble (dbl) adj. - Twice as much in size, strength, number, or amount: a double dose.
    jeop·ard·y (jpr-d) n. - Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.

    Seems to fit for me.
  • 05-10-2008, 12:53 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting DH405
    View Post
    Yeah, I think I happen to KNOW what it means in legal interpretation as set by the Judicial branch of the US Gov't. Thanks for the update on that one, friend.

    I'm going more for the definition as held by the English language.

    dou·ble (dbl) adj. - Twice as much in size, strength, number, or amount: a double dose.
    jeop·ard·y (jpr-d) n. - Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.

    Seems to fit for me.

    Unfortunately for your purposes, the law recognizes the LEGAL definition, NOT the interpreted definition of the combining of two separate words from the dictionary.

    "Double jeopardy" is a specific legal construct, not the mere merging of two words. By your definition there would be no such thing as a retrial, either.

    - Carl
  • 05-10-2008, 12:55 PM
    aaron
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    ice (\ˈīs\) n. - Water in its frozen state.
    cream (\ˈkrēm\) n. - The yellowish part of milk containing from 18 to about 40 percent butterfat.

    So obviously, "as held by the English language", "ice cream" is a cup of cream with ice cubes in it.
  • 05-10-2008, 03:02 PM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting DH405
    View Post
    Yeah, I think I happen to KNOW what it means in legal interpretation as set by the Judicial branch of the US Gov't. Thanks for the update on that one, friend.

    Then why are we having this discussion?

    And I ain't your friend.

    As for the update part, that legal definition has been on the books roughly 200 years.

    Quote:

    I'm going more for the definition as held by the English language.

    dou·ble (dbl) adj. - Twice as much in size, strength, number, or amount: a double dose.
    jeop·ard·y (jpr-d) n. - Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.

    Seems to fit for me.
    But you already established that you knew that the legal definition was different.

    Just because you are related to a thief doesn't mean the rest of us have to adjust our thinking.
  • 05-13-2008, 10:15 AM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    I wasn't even going to step back into this "debate" because I certainly felt like there wasn't anyone here who could give me the right answer (if there even is one)... but one thing prompted me to reply again...

    Quote:

    One is to punish lawbreakers. We call that criminal.

    One is to make whole the victim. We call that civil.
    This is EXACTLY how I understand the law, and was not arguing otherwise. It's the "make the victim whole" part where it all falls down for me -- and it's based on what I've read, not experience.

    Johnny and Marty get in a car accident. It's Marty's fault, he was drunk. The police arrest him and he's convicted of a DUI. He pays his fine and does his time.
    Johnny, who wasn't hurt, sues Marty for the costs to fix his car... $2000.

    Now what should happen? Should Marty be ordered to pay to fix Johnny's car -- the $2000, the amount that would make him whole. -- or should Marty have to pay for every other car accident Johnny ever got into and all the insurance he's had to pay for the last 10 years he's been driving?

    I DO understand that thieves have to pay for the crimes they commit. The only question I've been asking all along is when is it the the civil recovery demanded is unreasonable? There are others out there questioning it, which is what prompted me to even think about it and question it. There was recently a post on here about a mom who's kid stole an item worth $1.50 and was ordered to pay $350 in civil recovery. Can you explain to me... LEGALLY... how that is justified? Why is the crime of shoplifting treated differently, in the sense of the arguments made here that the thief should pay for the crimes of others?

    I'll say it over and over... I'm not trying to get my child out of ANYTHING. There's been no civil demand at this point and we are way too early in the criminal process to even know what the outcome is going to be. We FULLY intend to have our kid comply with whatever is dished out because that is the right thing to do. This is a QUESTION of curiosity and only hypothetical.
  • 05-13-2008, 11:14 AM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Surprised this has been explained to you over and over just because your child got caught wont change that. If you runhappy with the law write your State's Rep. Whinning about your child's Civil Demand charge isnt going to change anything. Once more you were repeatingly told and explained the Civil Demand laws and the reason behind them You were also shown the high cost to retailers, customers and, employees of shoplifting.
  • 05-13-2008, 01:17 PM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting panther10758
    View Post
    Surprised this has been explained to you over and over just because your child got caught wont change that. If you runhappy with the law write your State's Rep. Whinning about your child's Civil Demand charge isnt going to change anything. Once more you were repeatingly told and explained the Civil Demand laws and the reason behind them You were also shown the high cost to retailers, customers and, employees of shoplifting.

    Thanks for trying, still hasn't answered my inquiry.
  • 05-13-2008, 01:18 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Yes it has but you arent listenning.
  • 05-13-2008, 03:27 PM
    gigirle
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Personally I think the bill is a great idea. Shoplifters fill up the court system. The restitiution is paid to the court and the store loses out. Here in Ohio, if restitution via the court is made, the restitution are the actual damages. The store can't then come after the person for a civil recovery. Some of the stores kind of shot themself in the foot so to speak as company policies dictate if they can prosecute or not. The store is the one out the money and the only thing they can recoop are the actual damages. Plus, for the ones that do just make stupid mistakes, they then have to go back to court after diversion is met. I think it sounds like a reasonable solution to overcrowding the already court system as well as making it easier for the store to get some of their money back.
  • 05-13-2008, 05:46 PM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting Surprised2BHere
    View Post
    I wasn't even going to step back into this "debate" because I certainly felt like there wasn't anyone here who could give me the right answer (if there even is one)... but one thing prompted me to reply again...



    This is EXACTLY how I understand the law, and was not arguing otherwise. It's the "make the victim whole" part where it all falls down for me -- and it's based on what I've read, not experience.

    Johnny and Marty get in a car accident. It's Marty's fault, he was drunk. The police arrest him and he's convicted of a DUI. He pays his fine and does his time.
    Johnny, who wasn't hurt, sues Marty for the costs to fix his car... $2000.

    Now what should happen? Should Marty be ordered to pay to fix Johnny's car -- the $2000, the amount that would make him whole. -- or should Marty have to pay for every other car accident Johnny ever got into and all the insurance he's had to pay for the last 10 years he's been driving?

    I DO understand that thieves have to pay for the crimes they commit. The only question I've been asking all along is when is it the the civil recovery demanded is unreasonable? There are others out there questioning it, which is what prompted me to even think about it and question it. There was recently a post on here about a mom who's kid stole an item worth $1.50 and was ordered to pay $350 in civil recovery. Can you explain to me... LEGALLY... how that is justified? Why is the crime of shoplifting treated differently, in the sense of the arguments made here that the thief should pay for the crimes of others?

    I'll say it over and over... I'm not trying to get my child out of ANYTHING. There's been no civil demand at this point and we are way too early in the criminal process to even know what the outcome is going to be. We FULLY intend to have our kid comply with whatever is dished out because that is the right thing to do. This is a QUESTION of curiosity and only hypothetical.


    Then don't sign anything when brought into the back room. Admit no guilt. Say that you won't pay anything that you are sent.

    And be prepared to have to police called and the thief sent away in a patrol car.

    One of the things that the person signs is the agreement and understanding that a civil demand will be forthcoming and the thief agrees to pay it.
  • 05-13-2008, 05:50 PM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Just to add to that failure or refusal to sign will not prevent retailer from sending Civil Demand
  • 05-13-2008, 10:10 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting Surprised2BHere
    View Post
    Thanks for trying, still hasn't answered my inquiry.

    Okay, I'll try ....

    [QUOTESurprised2BHere]what I don't understand is if the business owner indeed calls the cops can they still demand civil recovery? If so, why?[/QUOTE]
    Because the law allows them to do so.

    In CA here is the law for adults:

    PC 490.5(c) When an adult or emancipated minor has unlawfully taken
    merchandise from a merchant's premises, or a book or other library
    materials from a library facility, the adult or emancipated minor
    shall be liable to the merchant or library facility for damages of
    not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than five hundred dollars
    ($500), plus costs
    . In addition to the foregoing damages, the adult
    or emancipated minor shall be liable to the merchant for the retail
    value of the merchandise if it is not recovered in merchantable
    condition, or to a library facility for the fair market value of its
    book or other library materials. An action for recovery of damages,
    pursuant to this subdivision, may be brought in small claims court if
    the total damages do not exceed the jurisdictional limit of such
    court, or in any other appropriate court. The provisions of this
    subdivision are in addition to other civil remedies and do not limit
    merchants or other persons to elect to pursue other civil remedies
    .


    And, for unemancipated minors:

    PC 490.5(b) When an unemancipated minor's willful conduct would constitute
    petty theft involving merchandise taken from a merchant's premises
    or a book or other library materials taken from a library facility,
    any merchant or library facility who has been injured by that conduct
    may bring a civil action against the parent or legal guardian having
    control and custody of the minor. For the purposes of those actions
    the misconduct of the unemancipated minor shall be imputed to the
    parent or legal guardian having control and custody of the minor.
    The parent or legal guardian having control or custody of an
    unemancipated minor whose conduct violates this subdivision shall be
    jointly and severally liable with the minor to a merchant or to a
    library facility for damages of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor
    more than five hundred dollars ($500), plus costs.
    In addition to
    the foregoing damages, the parent or legal guardian shall be jointly
    and severally liable with the minor to the merchant for the retail
    value of the merchandise if it is not recovered in a merchantable
    condition, or to a library facility for the fair market value of its
    book or other library materials. Recovery of these damages may be
    had in addition to, and is not limited by, any other provision of law
    which limits the liability of a parent or legal guardian for the
    tortious conduct of a minor. An action for recovery of damages,
    pursuant to this subdivision, may be brought in small claims court if
    the total damages do not exceed the jurisdictional limit of that
    court, or in any other appropriate court; however, total damages,
    including the value of the merchandise or book or other library
    materials, shall not exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for each
    action brought under this section.
    The provisions of this subdivision are in addition to other civil
    remedies and do not limit merchants or other persons to elect to
    pursue other civil remedies
    , except that the provisions of Section
    1714.1 of the Civil Code shall not apply herein.
    As to why the law was enacted, you would have to query the legislators that enacted it once upon a time. The reason they DO it is because the law allows them to, and these stores have to try and recoup some of the tremendous shrinkage that occurs as a result of theft.

    - Carl
  • 05-14-2008, 09:53 AM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting panther10758
    View Post
    Just to add to that failure or refusal to sign will not prevent retailer from sending Civil Demand

    True. All it WILL do is guarantee your day in court... or should I say courts... one for the criminal act and one for the civil judgement.

    The civil judgement will now include lawyer's fees and court costs as well as the original judgement, but you will get your day in court.
  • 05-14-2008, 01:12 PM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Appreciate the answers. Thanks all.

    And just so you know, there was no "back room" or LP department in my child's case, and there was no civil demand agreement signed (there wasn't one presented). Like I said earlier, there's been no civil recovery letter received (at least not yet), AND the cops were already called (and my child arrested and charged). This was all a exercise in curiosity on my part.

    Anyone have a link to the civil recovery law for NY? I tried to find it, but have failed to dig it up so far.
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved