Some people equate the civil demand with a "fine".I don't understand your statement that "It . . . was never charged." If you paid a fine, then you almost certainly were charged with a crime.
Some people equate the civil demand with a "fine".I don't understand your statement that "It . . . was never charged." If you paid a fine, then you almost certainly were charged with a crime.
He was not fined at all. He we asked to pay for the items that were in his cart...that the checker neglected to ring up.
The only crime here would be if the OP admitted that he knew the goods in his cart were not paid for and he was trying to take them anyway.
Not correct.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...tn=8&subsctn=0§ 8308. Damages in actions on retail theft.
(a) General rule.--In a civil action based on retail theft, as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a) (relating to retail theft), a court of competent jurisdiction shall utilize the following remedies:
(1) Order the defendant to restore the merchandise to the plaintiff in its original condition, if possible.
(2) Award damages as follows:
(i) If it is not possible to restore the merchandise in its original condition under paragraph (1), award the value of the merchandise as damages.
(ii) Award actual damages arising from the incident. Damages under this subparagraph do not include the loss of time or wages incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the apprehension and prosecution of the defendant.
(iii) Award reasonable attorney fees and reasonable court costs.
(3) Award a civil penalty to the plaintiff in the amount of the value of the merchandise plus $150.
(b) Minors.--If the defendant is a minor, the act of July 27, 1967 (P.L.186, No.58), entitled "An act imposing liability upon parents for personal injury, or theft, destruction, or loss of property caused by the willful, tortious acts of children under eighteen years of age, setting forth limitations, and providing procedure for recovery," applies.
(c) Criminal disposition.--Criminal prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929 is not a prerequisite to the applicability of this section.
(d) Limitations.--
(1) The plaintiff shall send a notice to the defendant's last known address giving the defendant 20 days to respond before a civil action may be commenced.
(2) No civil action under this section may be maintained if the defendant has paid the plaintiff a penalty equal to the retail value of the merchandise, not to exceed $500, plus the sum of $150.
(e) Release.--If the person to whom a written demand is made complies with such demand within 20 days after the receipt of the demand, that person shall be given a written release from further civil liability with respect to the specific act of retail theft.
(Nov. 21, 1990, P.L.563, No.141, eff. 60 days)
1990 Amendment. Act 141 added section 8308.
References in Text. The act of July 27, 1967, P.L.186, No.58, referred to in subsec. (b), was repealed by the act of December 19, 1990, P.L.1240, No.206. The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 55 of Title 23 (Domestic Relations).
Pretty much all states have laws in place allowing for civil demands. Pretty much all retailers make use of those laws and demand that the shoplifter (or accused shoplifter) pay a civil demand. The theory is that the civil demands that are paid help cover or cover the cost of in store LPOs.
So, yes, the OP might very well have paid a civil demand, which the OP might have viewed as a fine.
It was not a fine or a civil demand. It was the cost of the groceries that he most likely took home with him that day.
Also, the store did not "drop charges" unless they arrested him and charged him with shoplifting in the first place. They intimidated him into taking a class so the store security could get some kudos for catching a thief, which they did not.
This is very simple to figure out. It was in a high crime area where stores get away with treating patrons badly. They thought they had a hot one so the store went outside their rights and accused the OP of shoplifting. If this happened to me I'd be indignant and let them arrest me for shoplifting. What they'd learn is that they'd immediately back down once the cop told them the requirements of shoplifting, which this does not fit. But, the OP appeared scared so the they got emboldened and took advantage of him.
There are a$$holes around every corner and when you empower them, as the OP did, they will screw you every time. But then maybe we are not getting the whole story. Maybe it was a $300 item that he had hidden inside another item? And he left that part out...but I highly doubt it.
When was the last time that you forgot that you had merchandize under your shopping cart? I bet never. It was a conscious act of shoplifting should OP have left the premises of the store. They cut OP a break and did not charge him/her with shoplifting.
And you would likely have been convicted.
You guys are so accustomed to telling people that they are hopelessly guilty that it has altered your sense of reason.
You can't think of a defense that would explain why a customer was not following the checker through their every move? How about "I was texting," or "I was talking to my friend," or "I was thinking about something else," or "it isn't my job to follow the checker's every move," or " I was trying to recall if I forgot something?"
As a prosecutor, your only argument would be "most people would have noticed those items skipped?" ...And you think that would be a slam dunk conviction?
My advice: Start seeing through the eyes of a defense attorney, not a wishful prosecutor. But since most here want to see people convicted, the tide here flows in the opposite direction than it should.
The only way they'd even hope for a conviction is if they found an I-phone stuffed in a box of Cheerios...and not even then unless they had video of him actually doing it.