"In Presence" Requirement for Misdemeanor Arrests

ok let me clear this up so you wont get bad advice.....mostly every state has what is called an "in presence" requirement in accordance to misdemeanors especially shoplifting charges. I would assume 300 bucks is a misdemeanor in Texas terms...but if youre not stopped or detained where the cops have seen the merchandise recovered..and it in their presence...most likely...nothing will be done...unless someone you know saw you....getting license plates are used for future references....when you come back into that store....when I used to get license plates....if the cops didnt stop you on the way from the scene..they basically you got away....cause the cops generally tend to want to recover the evidence for prosecution purposes...

now that being said..dont take stupid risks like that again....

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

ok let me clear this up so you wont get bad advice.....mostly every state has what is called an "in presence" requirement in accordance to misdemeanors especially shoplifting charges. I would assume 300 bucks is a misdemeanor in Texas terms...but if youre not stopped or detained where the cops have seen the merchandise recovered..and it in their presence...most likely...nothing will be done...unless someone you know saw you....getting license plates are used for future references....when you come back into that store....when I used to get license plates....if the cops didnt stop you on the way from the scene..they basically you got away....cause the cops generally tend to want to recover the evidence for prosecution purposes...

now that being said..dont take stupid risks like that again....

---

Two questions.

One, if that were truly the case, why would shoplifting have a Statute of Limitations?

Two, are you prepared to tell the OP that no one EVER has been tracked down and arrested for shoplifting after they left the store?

How about for an item worth $300?

I have repeatedly cautioned you on mixing what YOUR retailer did with the law. The points of the law differ tremendously.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

in the truth of it all......cops dont have time to look a the footage of stores like they have nothing better. to do...unless the stop was made right then and there......and they have you in custody......if anything.....the exception would be.....if you were part of a theft ring and police investigators were trying to build a case......

---

Again, are you prepared to state that this has NEVER happened? That LP has NEVER reviewed the day's tapes to see when a $300 item walked out the door and then turned that footage over to the police?

If you cannot say that, please do NOT say that.

The correct answer, then, would be that the likelihood is reduced, but the possibility exists.

Which is what I stated in #3.

ok how many shoplifters do you know that get picked up at home on misdemeanor shoplifting. weeks or months after the fact??.....most crimes are required by law to have statue of limitations.... its a matter of public policy...as to their priority on being prosecuted its close to zero or zilch...on whether the state is willing to spend more resources to attempt to recover less than was taken....guaranteed if the case people would be getting picked up over stealing packs of chewing gum day day in and out

Here is the relevant statute...

Quote:

---

PENAL CODE

TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

CHAPTER 31. THEFT

Sec. 31.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Deception" means:
(A) creating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true;
(B) failing to correct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, that the actor previously created or confirmed by words or conduct, and that the actor does not now believe to be true;
(C) preventing another from acquiring information likely to affect his judgment in the transaction;
(D) selling or otherwise transferring or encumbering property without disclosing a lien, security interest, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether the lien, security interest, claim, or impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or
(E) promising performance that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and that the actor does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed, except that failure to perform the promise in issue without other evidence of intent or knowledge is not sufficient proof that the actor did not intend to perform or knew the promise would not be performed.
(2) "Deprive" means:
(A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner;
(B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or
(C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.
(3) "Effective consent" includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:
(A) induced by deception or coercion;
(B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;
(C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable property dispositions;
(D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense; or
(E) given by a person who by reason of advanced age is known by the actor to have a diminished capacity to make informed and rational decisions about the reasonable disposition of property.
(4) "Appropriate" means:
(A) to bring about a transfer or purported transfer of title to or other nonpossessory interest in property, whether to the actor or another; or
(B) to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property.
(5) "Property" means:
(A) real property;
(B) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or
(C) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.
(6) "Service" includes:
(A) labor and professional service;
(B) telecommunication, public utility, or transportation service;
(C) lodging, restaurant service, and entertainment; and
(D) the supply of a motor vehicle or other property for use.
(7) "Steal" means to acquire property or service by theft.
(8) "Certificate of title" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.
(9) "Used or secondhand motor vehicle" means a used motor vehicle, as that term is defined by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.
(10) "Elderly individual" has the meaning assigned by Section 22.04(c).

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 914, ch. 342, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 901, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.237, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 432, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;
(2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or
(3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another.
(c) For purposes of Subsection (b):
(1) evidence that the actor has previously participated in recent transactions other than, but similar to, that which the prosecution is based is admissible for the purpose of showing knowledge or intent and the issues of knowledge or intent are raised by the actor's plea of not guilty;
(2) the testimony of an accomplice shall be corroborated by proof that tends to connect the actor to the crime, but the actor's knowledge or intent may be established by the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice;
(3) an actor engaged in the business of buying and selling used or secondhand personal property, or lending money on the security of personal property deposited with the actor, is presumed to know upon receipt by the actor of stolen property (other than a motor vehicle subject to Chapter 501, Transportation Code) that the property has been previously stolen from another if the actor pays for or loans against the property $25 or more (or consideration of equivalent value) and the actor knowingly or recklessly:
(A) fails to record the name, address, and physical description or identification number of the seller or pledgor;
(B) fails to record a complete description of the property, including the serial number, if reasonably available, or other identifying characteristics; or
(C) fails to obtain a signed warranty from the seller or pledgor that the seller or pledgor has the right to possess the property. It is the express intent of this provision that the presumption arises unless the actor complies with each of the numbered requirements;
(4) for the purposes of Subdivision (3)(A), "identification number" means driver's license number, military identification number, identification certificate, or other official number capable of identifying an individual;
(5) stolen property does not lose its character as stolen when recovered by any law enforcement agency;
(6) an actor engaged in the business of obtaining abandoned or wrecked motor vehicles or parts of an abandoned or wrecked motor vehicle for resale, disposal, scrap, repair, rebuilding, demolition, or other form of salvage is presumed to know on receipt by the actor of stolen property that the property has been previously stolen from another if the actor knowingly or recklessly:
(A) fails to maintain an accurate and legible inventory of each motor vehicle component part purchased by or delivered to the actor, including the date of purchase or delivery, the name, age, address, sex, and driver's license number of the seller or person making the delivery, the license plate number of the motor vehicle in which the part was delivered, a complete description of the part, and the vehicle identification number of the motor vehicle from which the part was removed, or in lieu of maintaining an inventory, fails to record the name and certificate of inventory number of the person who dismantled the motor vehicle from which the part was obtained;
(B) fails on receipt of a motor vehicle to obtain a certificate of authority, sales receipt, or transfer document as required by Chapter 683, Transportation Code, or a certificate of title showing that the motor vehicle is not subject to a lien or that all recorded liens on the motor vehicle have been released; or
(C) fails on receipt of a motor vehicle to immediately remove an unexpired license plate from the motor vehicle, to keep the plate in a secure and locked place, or to maintain an inventory, on forms provided by the Texas Department of Transportation, of license plates kept under this paragraph, including for each plate or set of plates the license plate number and the make, motor number, and vehicle identification number of the motor vehicle from which the plate was removed;
(7) an actor who purchases or receives a used or secondhand motor vehicle is presumed to know on receipt by the actor of the motor vehicle that the motor vehicle has been previously stolen from another if the actor knowingly or recklessly:
(A) fails to report to the Texas Department of Transportation the failure of the person who sold or delivered the motor vehicle to the actor to deliver to the actor a properly executed certificate of title to the motor vehicle at the time the motor vehicle was delivered; or
(B) fails to file with the county tax assessor-collector of the county in which the actor received the motor vehicle, not later than the 20th day after the date the actor received the motor vehicle, the registration license receipt and certificate of title or evidence of title delivered to the actor in accordance with Subchapter D, Chapter 520, Transportation Code, at the time the motor vehicle was delivered;
(8) an actor who purchases or receives from any source other than a licensed retailer or distributor of pesticides a restricted-use pesticide or a state-limited-use pesticide or a compound, mixture, or preparation containing a restricted-use or state-limited-use pesticide is presumed to know on receipt by the actor of the pesticide or compound, mixture, or preparation that the pesticide or compound, mixture, or preparation has been previously stolen from another if the actor:
(A) fails to record the name, address, and physical description of the seller or pledgor;
(B) fails to record a complete description of the amount and type of pesticide or compound, mixture, or preparation purchased or received; and
(C) fails to obtain a signed warranty from the seller or pledgor that the seller or pledgor has the right to possess the property; and
(9) an actor who is subject to Section 409, Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 228b), that obtains livestock from a commission merchant by representing that the actor will make prompt payment is presumed to have induced the commission merchant's consent by deception if the actor fails to make full payment in accordance with Section 409, Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 228b).
(d) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the offense occurred as a result of a deception or strategy on the part of a law enforcement agency, including the use of an undercover operative or peace officer;
(2) the actor was provided by a law enforcement agency with a facility in which to commit the offense or an opportunity to engage in conduct constituting the offense; or
(3) the actor was solicited to commit the offense by a peace officer, and the solicitation was of a type that would encourage a person predisposed to commit the offense to actually commit the offense, but would not encourage a person not predisposed to commit the offense to actually commit the offense.
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is less than:
(A) $50; or
(B) $20 and the defendant obtained the property by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order in a manner described by Section 31.06;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if:
(A) the value of the property stolen is:
(i) $50 or more but less than $500; or
(ii) $20 or more but less than $500 and the defendant obtained the property by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order in a manner described by Section 31.06; or
(B) the value of the property stolen is less than:
(i) $50 and the defendant has previously been convicted of any grade of theft; or
(ii) $20, the defendant has previously been convicted of any grade of theft, and the defendant obtained the property by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order in a manner described by Section 31.06;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) a state jail felony if:
(A) the value of the property stolen is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, or the property is less than 10 head of cattle, horses, or exotic livestock or exotic fowl as defined by Section 142.001, Agriculture Code, or any part thereof under the value of $20,000, or less than 100 head of sheep, swine, or goats or any part thereof under the value of $20,000;
(B) regardless of value, the property is stolen from the person of another or from a human corpse or grave;
(C) the property stolen is a firearm, as defined by Section 46.01;
(D) the value of the property stolen is less than $1,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of any grade of theft;
(E) the property stolen is an official ballot or official carrier envelope for an election; or
(F) the value of the property stolen is less than $20,000 and the property stolen is insulated or noninsulated wire or cable that consists of at least 50 percent:
(i) aluminum;
(ii) bronze; or
(iii) copper;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the property stolen is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000, or the property is:
(A) 10 or more head of cattle, horses, or exotic livestock or exotic fowl as defined by Section 142.001, Agriculture Code, stolen during a single transaction and having an aggregate value of less than $100,000; or
(B) 100 or more head of sheep, swine, or goats stolen during a single transaction and having an aggregate value of less than $100,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the property stolen is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the property stolen is $200,000 or more.
(f) An offense described for purposes of punishment by Subsections (e)(1)-(6) is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the

---

Notice the lack of any language that says if you get it home that you cannot be prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

ok how many shoplifters do you know that get picked up at home on misdemeanor shoplifting. weeks or months after the fact??.....

---

Are you prepared to say there are none?

Therefore, the possibility exists.

Quote:

---

most crimes are required by law to have statue of limitations.... its a matter of public policy...

---

All crimes have a stated or implied statute of limitations.

Quote:

---

as to their priority on being prosecuted its close to zero or zilch...on whether the state is willing to spend more resources to attempt to recover less than was taken....guaranteed if the case people would be getting picked up over stealing packs of chewing gum day day in and out

---

However, that does not mean that, tomorrow, a gung ho DA with a bug up his butt won't start.... or that the economy forces stores to really apply themselves to their LP... or that someone didn't see him, or know him... or, or, or....

Again, your experience may or may not be what the law states.

Please refrain from making broad "if you get it home you are free to steal again" claims.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

thats very right tapes surely can....be turned over to the cops...if for whatever reason it was that serious for them to do it.....but realistically that rarely happens unless violence occurs during the stop....

---

Or, say, an item worth $300 was stolen, right?

what are you serious...thats not what Im saying....the people on here asked what is likely to happen....key word...likely to happen..not what possible to happen.....everyone on here knows the penalty for shoftlifting if not Im sure they can google it.........I have yet to hear someone ask you the the legal penalty.for shoplifting....they are asking you whats likely to happen...and when you sit around saying the this is very possible based on the law....youre right and wrong at the same time....if you dont know VS. someone who used to prosecute these things on a daily basis....why dont you just say so....

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

what are you serious...thats not what Im saying....the people on here asked what is likely to happen....key word...likely to happen..not what possible to happen.....everyone on here knows the penalty for shoftlifting if not Im sure they can google it.........I have yet to hear someone ask you the the legal penalty.for shoplifting....they are asking you whats likely to happen...and when you sit around saying the this is very possible based on the law....youre right and wrong at the same time....if you dont know VS. someone who used to prosecute these things on a daily basis....why dont you just say so....

---

so now you were a prosecutor? I thought you were currently in your third year of law school.

Notice, again, that I have said what was likely and what was possible. The difference in our approaches is that you seem to be unable to state that the law gives the retailers more than the moment of theft to apprehend the thief.

And, believe it or not, people come to "expert law" to understand the legal aspects of their question. That is kinda what we do.

300 dollar item...dont know....was it misdemeanor or a felony....thats what you need to look at.... if 499 dollars of stuff was taken and a felony is 500 then guess.....what.....its still treated with the priority of a misdemeanor....
also....do yourself a favor and look up the in presence requirement for warrantless arrests concerning misdemeanors and how they are applied to shoplifting charges

anything is possible..the question is what is probable......


it doesnt matter if Im a prosecutor or not...its obvious youre not either....that I used to fill out affidavits for arrests..and unless the LP does it...the prosecutor in all liklihood is not gonna touch it......thats the facts...it basically is up to the store to follow thru with the action...end of story!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

300 dollar item...dont know....was it misdemeanor or a felony....thats what you need to look at.... if 499 dollars of stuff was taken and a felony is 500 then guess.....what.....its still treated with the priority of a misdemeanor....
also....do yourself a favor and look up the in presence requirement for warrantless arrests concerning misdemeanors and how they are applied to shoplifting charges

---

The above statute fully defines the dollar amounts and associated charges. Heck, I even highlighted it.

Please read it.

Completely.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

anything is possible..the question is what is probable......


it doesnt matter if Im a prosecutor or not...

---

Except that you just said that you had prosecuted these cases before as a reference point for your knowledge.

Law language is precise. Please use care.

Quote:

---

its obvious youre not either....that I used to fill out affidavits for arrests..and unless the LP does it...the prosecutor in all liklihood is not gonna touch it......thats the facts...it basically is up to the store to follow thru with the action...end of story!!!!!!!

---

And, again, there is no way of knowing what the retailer will or will not do in the time remaining. Will the store make a police report for a $300 item? I don't know.

Are you also saying that you not only have to witness the theft but also catch the accused to file that report?

Of course not. The observation of the RESULTS of the theft are enough.

For instance, I come home and find my home burglarized. I didn't witness the theft.. I don't have the "perp" in custody, but I still call the police.

Right?

Your thoughts or odds on it happening are interesting, but not compelling.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

unless the LP does it...the prosecutor in all liklihood is not gonna touch it......thats the facts...it basically is up to the store to follow thru with the action...end of story!!!!!!!

---

First of all, your spelling is not that of a 3rd year law student but that's not the issue. You stated, and I quote "

Quote:

---

unless the LP does it...the prosecutor in all liklihood is not gonna touch it......thats the facts..."

---

THAT is an assumption! Not all states, counties, parishes handle these matters in a same fashion; each case is unique in and of itself. You are simply stating an assumption based on your thinking.

Saying that "In all liklihood (sp)..." is NOT fact but, again, YOUR assumption. You have not proven that your statements are indeed a fact of law. You have failed to provide case law or to present any solid evidence that backs up your stance on this matter.

That is a fact...end of story!

Quote:

---

Quoting M'sta Mikey

---

First of all, your spelling is not that of a 3rd year law student but that's not the issue. You stated, and I quote "

THAT is an assumption! Not all states, counties, parishes handle these matters in a same fashion; each case is unique in and of itself. You are simply stating an assumption based on your thinking.

Saying that "In all liklihood (sp)..." is NOT fact but, again, YOUR assumption. You have not proven that your statements are indeed a fact of law. You have failed to provide case law or to present any solid evidence that backs up your stance on this matter.

That is a fact...end of story!

---

He's also on the law review.

well with any certainty I dont think anyone knows..and if we knew with certainty...well wouldn't be getting questions for advice and the likelihood of and offense being prosecuted now would we? All anyone on here can go by is what they have experience with. If not I can answer these questions with one simple answer. GUILTY!!!!


BTW is there a pending rule of law that says law student have to spell a certain way? When was the last time you went to a lawyers office and watched them spell?

lastly and you people really need to listen and heed this..LP's do not work from the strict letter of the law, and most times cops do not either. Thats why they have something called police discretion. Prosecutors have this also. LP's work strictly from company policy..and that company policy doesn't always allow for a prosecution of theft simply cause a person was caught on camera concealing. Most retailers keep what is called a bad guys list of people they know steal but they haven't been able to apprehend. And its pretty obvious most of these people on here are knowledgeable about the law on theft....even if vaguely I suggest people stick to answering the question at hand..not giving generalizations of what the law is.. I have yet to hear anyone asking did they break the law...they already presume that they have....It's obvious the law was broken in 99% of these cases.


Also since we're talking law...I suggest people refresh their knowledge of "in presence' requirements in misdemeanor arrests and how it applies to shoplifting cases.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

lastly and you people really need to listen and heed this..LP's do not work from the strict letter of the law, and most times cops do not either. Thats why they have something called police discretion. Prosecutors have this also. LP's work strictly from company policy..and that company policy doesn't always allow for a prosecution of theft simply cause a person was caught on camera concealing. Most retailers keep what is called a bad guys list of people they know steal but they haven't been able to apprehend. And its pretty obvious most of these people on here are knowledgeable about the law on theft....even if vaguely I suggest people stick to answering the question at hand..not giving generalizations of what the law is.. I have yet to hear anyone asking did they break the law...they already presume that they have....It's obvious the law was broken in 99% of these cases.

---

Because, counselor, it would be VERY stupid to get a person to first give the full accounting of their crimes and then have them confess to them on a board able to be searched by nothing more sophisticated than "Google".

Quote:

---

Also since we're talking law...I suggest people refresh their knowledge of "in presence' requirements in misdemeanor arrests and how it applies to shoplifting cases.

---

Please quote the relevant statute. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Because, counselor, it would be VERY stupid to get a person to first give the full accounting of their crimes and then have them confess to them on a board able to be searched by nothing more sophisticated than "Google".




Please quote the relevant statute. Thanks.

---

thats the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. First, anything that can be searched by Google has a hard time being pinned on a particular person or any particular case unless the person specifically identifies themselves the store the date and the nature of the offense,of which I would for the life of me NOT understand why someone would do that to themselves. But hey stranger things have happened.

Also the "in Presence" requirement that most states have concerning misdemeanor arrests is NOT a statue..its an elemental requirement. Do your homework

here it is for people that need to know.

The presence requirement:
In general, the misdemeanor arrest rule requires a crime to be committed in an officer’s presence
before an officer can make a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor arrest.5 Presence means that the
officer perceived the offense through his or her senses, usually through direct observation.

There is an important timing aspect that is implicit in the presence requirement – if an officer was
not there at the time the crime was committed, the presence requirement is not satisfied.11 Under
the completed misdemeanor rule, officers cannot make an arrest – or an investigatory stop – for a
completed misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense that is days old.12
However, courts have also carved out an exception for crimes that have been completed “in the
very recent past.”13 When an officer arrives on the scene within moments after the crime was
completed, courts still give officers the authority to stop the individuals who committed the crime
and make an arrest.14
Minnesota courts have yet to precisely decide the duration of “the very recent past exception,” but
do offer some guidelines. For example, in one case, the court held that “very recent past” rule
would allow an arrest for a misdemeanor one hour after the offense.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

...
Also the "in Presence" requirement that most states have concerning misdemeanor arrests is NOT a statue..its an elemental requirement. Do your homework
...

---

If it is an "elemental requirement," then it must be in the statute.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

Also the "in Presence" requirement that most states have concerning misdemeanor arrests is NOT a statue..its an elemental requirement. Do your homework

---

Sure it's a statute: AND there ARE exceptions:


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/CR.14.htm

Quote:

---

The presence requirement:
In general, the misdemeanor arrest rule requires a crime to be committed in an officer’s presence before an officer can make a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor arrest.5 Presence means that the officer perceived the offense through his or her senses, usually through direct observation.

There is an important timing aspect that is implicit in the presence requirement – if an officer was not there at the time the crime was committed, the presence requirement is not satisfied.11 Under
the completed misdemeanor rule, officers cannot make an arrest – or an investigatory stop – for acompleted misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense that is days old.12 However, courts have also carved out an exception for crimes that have been completed “in thevery recent past.”13 When an officer arrives on the scene within moments after the crime was
completed, courts still give officers the authority to stop the individuals who committed the crimand make an arrest.14
Minnesota courts have yet to precisely decide the duration of “the very recent past exception,” budo offer some guidelines. For example, in one case, the court held that “very recent past” rulwould allow an arrest for a misdemeanor one hour after the offense.

---

I don't know what your source is here, but I have a better one:

Scroll down to APPENDIX:

State Statutes Authorizing Warrantless Misdemeanor Arrests

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZO.html

My state, Ohio, permits an arrest for a misdemeanor theft not committed "in presence" as long as it is within a reasonable time after it's commission.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Sure it's a statute: AND there ARE exceptions:


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/CR.14.htm



I don't know what your source is here, but I have a better one:

Scroll down to APPENDIX:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZO.html

My state, Ohio, permits an arrest for a misdemeanor theft not committed "in presence" as long as it is within a reasonable time after it's commission.

---

that may be true but the exceptions dont apply to this set of facts.

'Round these parts, some stores photocopy a shoplifting suspect's ID, take a photo, try to get a statement/admission, and ship all of that along with an incident report to the police department. The suspect is released after the store completes its investigation, but may well get a summons some time later.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

that may be true but the exceptions dont apply to this set of facts.

---

I never said they did, I was just posting the actual statute to the in presence law. You did say it was not statutory though, which it is.


Also, although I have not sifted through Texas law concerning it, either a summons could be issued OR a "Warrant on complaint", as in my state.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

'Round these parts, some stores photocopy a shoplifting suspect's ID, take a photo, try to get a statement/admission, and ship all of that along with an incident report to the police department. The suspect is released after the store completes its investigation, but may well get a summons some time later.

---

maybe but that would apply only if the suspect was detained. Outside of that they shouldnt have any of these things in their possession.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

My state, Ohio, permits an arrest for a misdemeanor theft not committed "in presence" as long as it is within a reasonable time after it's commission.

---

(F) Any peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any act described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section , that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed an unlawful taking in a mercantile establishment, or that the officer has reasonable cause to believe has committed an act prohibited by section 2913.07 of the Revised Code. An arrest under this division shall be made within a reasonable time after the commission of the act or unlawful taking.




http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041


There are other exeptions to the "in presence" requirement.


The federal constitution has NEVER mandated a crime, even a minor one, be committed 'in the presence" of an officer to conform to the 4th AM.

Quote:

---

Quoting dagreat1

---

maybe but that would apply only if the suspect was detained. Outside of that they shouldnt have any of these things in their possession.

---

Who shouldn't have any of what things?

BOR & Aaron...

Would reasonable time start from the time of the theft or the time of the DISCOVERY of the theft?

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Who shouldn't have any of what things?

---

Jeez, Aaron. Do I have to translate everything for you?

They shouldn't have any of those things.

dagreat is a law student.

Everything is purfectly cleer.

:D

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Who shouldn't have any of what things?

---

Aaron, dagreat1 is operating under the assumption that the moment a shoplifter leaves the store that the victim has no further recourse.

In this case, if the STORE doesn't have the id and associated information on the thief, then there is nothing for the victim to do.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

BOR & Aaron...

Would reasonable time start from the time of the theft or the time of the DISCOVERY of the theft?

---

Discovery ... this ain't tag.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Everything is purfectly cleer.

---

Thanks. :)

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Aaron, dagreat1 is operating under the assumption that the moment a shoplifter leaves the store that the victim has no further recourse.

In this case, if the STORE doesn't have the id and associated information on the thief, then there is nothing for the victim to do.

---

That's because he's focusing on restrictions relating to the warrantless arrest of a suspect, and appears not to know about the police to issue misdemeanor citations without arresting somebody, courts to initiate prosecutions of people who are never formally arrested, and the ability of judge's to issue arrest warrants.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Would reasonable time start from the time of the theft or the time of the DISCOVERY of the theft?

---

For a warrantless misdemeanor arrest, it's hard to speak in absolutes due to differences in statutes and state constitutions. In contexts where a warrantless arrest is allowed, it could depend upon the length of the delay between the offense and discovery. Speaking of the federal Constitution, I am not personally aware of a reason why a statute could not authorize the arrest of a misdemeanor, provided the arrest occurred in a place the officer could lawfully enter (e.g., a public place, the victim's home when responding to a domestic violence call) and the officer has probable cause.

In my state there ARE statutory exceptions to the presence required for certain misdemeanor arrests. In the case of a shoplifting case, unless it involves actively pursuing the suspect, we would generally have to seek an arrest warrant to make the collar. If the defendant has been identified, we frequently CAN and DO get such a warrant. If the defendant is not identified, then the issue is moot as he wouldn't have to worry about the police showing up, anyway.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

In my state there ARE statutory exceptions to the presence required for certain misdemeanor arrests. In the case of a shoplifting case, unless it involves actively pursuing the suspect, we would generally have to seek an arrest warrant to make the collar. If the defendant has been identified, we frequently CAN and DO get such a warrant. If the defendant is not identified, then the issue is moot as he wouldn't have to worry about the police showing up, anyway.

- Carl

---

But could the footage of a previous theft be used in the future if that thief is identified later?

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

For a warrantless misdemeanor arrest, it's hard to speak in absolutes due to differences in statutes and state constitutions. In contexts where a warrantless arrest is allowed, it could depend upon the length of the delay between the offense and discovery.



Speaking of the federal Constitution, I am not personally aware of a reason why a statute could not authorize the arrest of a misdemeanor, provided the arrest occurred in a place the officer could lawfully enter (e.g., a public place, the victim's home when responding to a domestic violence call) and the officer has probable cause.

---

Welsh, which also cites Watson: Dealing with a hot pursuit into a home for a misdemeanor:

Dissent, only for the case decision, but this stands:


"a peace officer was permitted to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor or felony committed in his presence as well as for a felony not committed in his presence if there was reasonable ground for making the arrest."

United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 423 U. S. 418 (1976).


But the requirement that a misdemeanor must have occurred in the officer's presence to justify a warrantless arrest is not grounded in the Fourth Amendment, see Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368, 371-372 (CA4 1974); 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.1 (1978), and we have never held that a warrant is constitutionally required to arrest for nonfelony offenses occurring out of the officer's presence.

"it is generally recognized today that the common law authority to arrest without a warrant in misdemeanor cases may be enlarged by statute, and this has been done in many of the states."


http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/740/case.html

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

BOR & Aaron...

Would reasonable time start from the time of the theft or the time of the DISCOVERY of the theft?

---

From the time of detainment at the store OR IF call was placed within a reasonable time after they left. If they discovered it 2 days later on video, that is not "contemporaneous" with the theft.

I have read the case law on this before and the general time frame, if I am not mistaken, was 2-3 hours.

In other words Joe's grocery store sees Tom leave with a bag of apples not paid for, he calls police. IF the police can locate him, in a public place, within 2-3 hours, it is a valid warrantless misdemeanor arrest. As I said though, no state requires a warrant or a felony arrest.

The original poster said the in presence requirement was not statutory anywhere, but TX has such a statute, plus exceptions, so he could not have looked to see if TX permitted what my state does as he did not think any state codified such!!

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

But could the footage of a previous theft be used in the future if that thief is identified later?

---

Yep - it could be used as part of the evidence in support of an arrest warrant, but not to go out and make a warrantless arrest if the suspect has already left the location and no active "pursuit" of the suspect is in progress. If any real time has elapsed, they'd generally have to go for a warrant.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If the defendant has been identified, we frequently CAN and DO get such a warrant. If the defendant is not identified, then the issue is moot as he wouldn't have to worry about the police showing up, anyway.

---

What exactly do you mean by "identified"? Clear shot of the suspect on the camera? Or does somebody actually have to recognize him/her?

Quote:

---

Quoting FDP414

---

What exactly do you mean by "identified"? Clear shot of the suspect on the camera? Or does somebody actually have to recognize him/her?

---

Identified ... as in, "I know who he is."

Even if I have a great shot of his face with eyes and pearly whites smiling up at the camera, if I don't know who he is then I cannot get a warrant.

- Carl