Quote Quoting Prospective
View Post
In Florida, theft is only when you completely pass the cash register and all points of sale without paying for merchandise.
Even if we assume this is correct, since when is New York located in Florida? (And the statement does not appear to be correct for Florida.)
Quote Quoting Florida Statutes, Sec. 812.015(6). Retail and farm theft; transit fare evasion; mandatory fine; alternative punishment; detention and arrest; exemption from liability for false arrest; resisting arrest; penalties.
(6) An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, transit fare evasion, or trespass, resists the reasonable effort of a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent to recover the property or cause the individual to pay the proper transit fare or vacate the transit facility which the law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent had probable cause to believe the individual had concealed or removed from its place of display or elsewhere or perpetrated a transit fare evasion or trespass commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the individual did not know, or did not have reason to know, that the person seeking to recover the property was a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent. For purposes of this section the charge of theft and the charge of resisting may be tried concurrently.
Quote Quoting flyingron
View Post
The case history in NY shows that concealment (which you admit) is not of itself larceny.
With some degree of qualification. See, e.g., People v. Olivo, 52 NY 2d 309 (1981).
Quote Quoting People v. Olivo, 52 NY 2d 309 (1981)
These cases present a recurring question in this era of the self-service store which has never been resolved by this court: may a person be convicted of larceny for shoplifting if the person is caught with goods while still inside the store? For reasons outlined below, it is concluded that a larceny conviction may be sustained, in certain situations, even though the shoplifter was apprehended before leaving the store.
* * *
Under these principles, there was ample evidence in each case to raise a factual question as to the defendants' guilt. In People v Olivo, defendant not only concealed goods in his clothing, but he did so in a particularly suspicious manner. And, when defendant was stopped, he was moving towards the door, just three feet short of exiting the store. It cannot be said as a matter of law that these circumstances fail to establish a taking.

In People v Gasparik, defendant removed the price tag and sensor device from a jacket, abandoned his own garment, put the jacket on and ultimately headed for the main floor of the store. Removal of the price tag and sensor device, and careful concealment of those items, is highly unusual and suspicious conduct for a shopper. Coupled with defendant's abandonment of his own coat and his attempt to leave the floor, those factors were sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a taking.

In People v Spatzier, defendant concealed a book in an attache case. Unaware that he was being observed in an overhead mirror, defendant looked furtively up and down the aisle before secreting the book. In these circumstances, given the manner in which defendant concealed the book and his suspicious behavior, the evidence was not insufficient as a matter of law.
* * *
In sum, in view of the modern definition of the crime of larceny, and its purpose of protecting individual property rights, a taking of property in the self-service store context can be established by evidence that a customer exercised control over merchandise wholly inconsistent with the store's continued rights. Quite simply, a customer who crosses the line between the limited right he or she has to deal with merchandise and the store owner's rights may be subject to prosecution for larceny. Such a rule should foster the legitimate interests and continued operation of self-service shops, a convenience which most members of the society enjoy.
Quote Quoting Security Consultant
View Post
They told me that NYS law considers it a shoplifting if one goes 2 floors up without paying for the selected items.They are grossly misinformed. New York law allowsor says nothing of the sort. I've recently come across a department store chain that has this written into their shoplifter apprehension policy and they are just wrong and this policy will come back to bite them.
I agree, merely moving items between floors of a store does not appear consistent with the case law on what can constitute evidence of an actual intent to deprive the store of its property.