More details to this question:
So lets say 3 items at a store were shoplifted. All under $30. The one shoplifting is a minor under 18. If the shoplifter was being followed by the manager for a good amount of time without the shoplifter knowing. Wouldn't it had been fair if the minor had been approached during the time they had been caught to prevent anymore damage to the owner? The minor was then approached by the time they had taken 2 more things with the manager knowing. Is that still bad if the manager did nothing but wait to accuse the shoplifter of more offenses before taking action, which was after the shoplifter had paid for a service in that store as they were stopped from exiting?
1 ANSWER
Criminal Law Attorney serving Naperville, IL
at
Law Office of Ken Wang
Update Your Profile
Shops have something called a "million dollar stop" policy. Basically, the idea is if the shopkeeper makes an unlawful stop, they could be sued and it could cost them a million dollars. Stopping someone once they are outside of the store is a way to be guaranteed they have stolen. Under Illinois law, evidence that someone has taken an item from the store past the last point of sale can be considered evidence of intent to steal.
Typically what happens in reality is this: The store gets stolen from multiple times. The first time, they don't realize it. The second time, they have a camera watching you and they follow you for as long as possible. Otherwise, why would the manager follow you if you have not stolen? So, they follow you until you walk out the door, at which point they make the stop. That's why they let you steal multiple times - because they are rarely certain the first time that they have been stolen from.
Answered on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56 PM