Paying The Fine Or Not After Shoplifting

[jk]

concerning New York attorneys;

it may be as simple as that is where this particular stores main office and as such, they employ New York attorneys. Don;t forget, the costs of collection are also passed on to you should they sue and win.

concerning charges; I would speak with your attorney to investigate if there is any way for any possible charges to be dropped if you simply pay the demand. Pressing charges are up to the state but I would suspect that the pros. attorney may be receptive to such a deal.

The store is after the demand money. They do not gain anything from yo being prosecuted unless they truly want you to be punished via the legal system. It actually costs them money for you to be prosecuted since they would have to have somebody testify in court which they would probably get paid for.

[billbill]

Dear Panther10758:

Thank you again for the advices.

[billbill]

Dear JK,

Thank for again for your response. For me, I didn't intend to steal, but forget to pay and got caught at the outside of the store. I really suspected that the store set me up, becasue the securty alarm at the doorway didn't make any warning for un-paid merchandise, becasue the tag on the merchendise didn't not removed, if I intended to do so why not took off the tag and get me the chacne to be caught. I was not in a hurry and walked around and selected the merchandise. they saw the good in mt open bag and I was aware I was watched, but just didn't realize for what reason. I was totally forget the merchandise in the bag. I suspected that they turned off the security alarm and set me up to caught me. I am not the first time buying stuff in this store and I know tiem to time the doorway alarm working and reminding people to get back to pay.

This is really frustrated experience and I get punishment that I don't think I deserved. but what I can do, just leave this to my lawyer and the proscutor.

Is there anything I can do at this point. my lawyer told me he will discuss my case withthe proscutor shortly afer this long weekend.

Thank you again for so many advice and I still feel I am at middle of nowhere and want to get more inputs.

[panther10758]

You meet the legal criteria for theft. Your "intent" cannot be proved. Ask your Lawyer to get the best possible plea deal he can diversion if on the table would be great

[billbill]

Dear Panther10758

Thank you for the addition response. what might be the best results that I can passoble get since the "Case and the charge" is established. I am in the process of immigration I-485 / status adjustment and I am trying to avoid the scenario of the denial for my immigration process.

thanks

[panther10758]

Diversion! Talk with your Attorney about diversion and it you qualify

[jk]

You meet the legal criteria for theft. Your "intent" cannot be proved. Ask your Lawyer to get the best possible plea deal he can diversion if on the table would be great

Haven't researched the statutes involved but sometimes "intent" is an implied finding by the action itself of not paying for merchandise.

One thing you need to understand, billbill. In many states, leaving the premises is not required to show intent to steal. Mere concealment is often enough to charge theft. I have not researched the germane states laws, but the fact the "security alarm" not activating would typically not be any sort of defense. Once a person reaches that point (in many states) and the alarm is triggered, it would then be up to the store to prosecute the charge or not, depending on what they believe the truth to be. At that point, they are not there to remind you to pay but to prevent one from stealing and with a (legit) alarm, you have been discovered.

[BOR]

Haven't researched the statutes involved but sometimes "intent" is an implied finding by the action itself of not paying for merchandise.

One thing you need to understand, billbill. In many states, leaving the premises is not required to show intent to steal. Mere concealment is often enough to charge theft. I have not researched the germane states laws, but the fact the "security alarm" not activating would typically not be any sort of defense. Once a person reaches that point (in many states) and the alarm is triggered, it would then be up to the store to prosecute the charge or not, depending on what they believe the truth to be. At that point, they are not there to remind you to pay but to prevent one from stealing and with a (legit) alarm, you have been discovered.

jk, I coud not find a "specific" concealment law in MO criminal statutes concerning theft/stealing/shoplifting, however I did find this in Torts, concerning suing a person/merchant who detains a shoplifter: # 3.

The poster did not conceal it from what I gather and simply walked out with it in hand. Criminal intent is one thing, and can be argued in a court of law, but civily as damages discussed her, there is no defense I would say.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes...5370000125.HTM

[jk]

actually, this is where the item was concealed:

they saw the good in mt open bag and I was aware I was watched,

It was apparently within a bag, hence, concealment

and, from the link provided:

3. Any person willfully concealing unpurchased merchandise of any mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such establishment, shall be presumed to have so concealed such merchandise with the intention of committing a wrongful taking of such merchandise within the meaning of subsection 1, and the finding of such unpurchased merchandise concealed upon the person or among the belongings of such person shall be evidence of reasonable grounds and probable cause for the detention in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time, of such person by a merchant, his agent or employee, in order that recovery of such merchandise may be effected, and any such reasonable detention shall not be deemed to be unlawful, nor render such merchant, his agent or employee criminally or civilly liable.

implied intent.

additional from the link

(1972) This section adds to previously existing law a presumption that the willful concealment of property supplies the intent to steal. It is still, however, a jury issue as to whether there existed a willful concealment. The presumption is rebuttable by evidence such as that accused placed the tape recorder batteries in his pocket to aid in inspecting a magazine on a rack, and that he had no intent to steal. Schwane v. Broger Company (A.), 480 S.W.2d 113.

this does allow for a defense to the implied intent but like I stated before, any defense will be viewed with a jaded eye due to the fact the accused is obvioulsy trying to escape conviction.

Not sure if correct, but this is the only applicable criminal statute:

570.030. 1. A person commits the crime of stealing if he or she appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by means of deceit or coercion.

That, along with the clarifications within the torts situation, would wrap things up unless OP has a believable defense due to lack of mens rea.

Along with all of this, we do not know if the OP admitted to the theft or signed a confession or really anything else that may play on the situation.

[BOR]

snip

actually, this is where the item was concealed:

It was apparently within a bag, hence, concealment

Oh thanks, I missed that part jk.