he issue in this case is whether or not Stallmart is protected under the shopkeeper exception act due to having probable cause. Indiana courts have adopted a standard, which set forth the a test that “probable cause exists only where the facts found on reasonable inquiry would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that the accused had committed the crime charge.” Overall, a judge would likely find the factor of probable cause in favor of Stallmart. The court typically determines that probable cause can be inferred if an individual passes the cash registers and has possession of merchandise that has not been purchased. This is seen in Bowman v. Indiana, the store employee saw the suspect conceal a saw and “did not stop …show more content…
Probable cause cannot be reasonably pressured before the last rack of merchandise due. A prudent person in these cases would have the opposite presumption of that the suspect could be shopping still. These two cases extend the point of reasonable presumption past the point of cash registers, in order for a store to have proper probable cause. The manner and actions of the suspect at the time of the incident will also be reason for a store to presume probable cause. In Haltom v. Burner, the probable cause was clear due to the actions Haltom performed by trying to exchange reported stolen items.(cite) Is manner that a prudent person would deem that a theft has occurred. Merely just examining merchandise within a store does not give rise to probable cause. In Cease v. Highland Village the store claimed probable cause due to seeing the suspect pick up and examine a item while within the store. (cite) A store must clearly distinguish the actions of a normal shopper and those of a prudent person would deem as theft. Probable cause can also be deemed reasonable when an employee notice a suspect concealing a
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
According to the court case on Pam Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am in agreement with the fact that the “district court granted summary judgment in favor of Huber” (Morgan, p.413) and that Wal-Mart gave Pam Huber, a maintenance associated job due to her disability. In doing so, I am also in agreement with the fact that Wal-Mart did not breach the American with Disability Act of 1990 due to the fact that Wal-Mart specifically stated what was required of Pam Huber to do on the job. Due to that, I am in agreement with Wal-Mart’s decision to hire a capable candidate in replace of Pam Huber due to their policy.
Exigent circumstances are when immediate action needs to be taken. When a cop pulls someone, and the officer needs to search the vehicle immediately and doesn’t have time for a search warrant to get there or be issued. If the vehicles driver or other passengers are going to destroy evidence, then the cop needs to get everyone out of the vehicle search them and the vehicle. It is the cop’s discernment and the cop has to have probable cause. Now the only thing that is needed is probable cause for a vehicle stop, this justifies a search and seizure on a vehicle.
This case is about an overzealous convenient store clerk who, in his desperate attempt to catch the bad guys, abused and traumatized an innocent store patron. The plaintiff, Richard Flynn, entered The All Niter convenience store one late night in September 2016 to purchase milk. What he expected to be a quick stop on his way home, soon became one of the most humiliating nights of his life when he encountered an officious store clerk, Defendant Mark Schenkly. After developing an unfounded suspicion that Mr. Flynn had stolen a beer from a cooler in the store, Defendant Mark Schenkly made the decision to detain and frisk Mr. Flynn. The Defendant stated that his suspicion that Mr. Flynn was shoplifting was based on a crime alert flier circulated
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
Law enforcement officers need a reason to stop you. Remember, it cannot be just a hunch the police officer had. Their action has to be backed up with facts that led him to believe you, or someone else had committed a crime. Like the Supreme Court cases we went over, all dealt with reasonable suspicion in some way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard police officers need to stop and frisk someone. They will need probable cause, a higher standard, to search and arrest a person. Remember, officers need reasonable suspicion to stop, question, and
Harvey Mickens had a $10,000 life insurance policy through CMFG Life Insurance Company. In March 2014, Harvey changed his policy, via telephone, from a term life insurance policy, which named his late wife as the beneficiary, to a whole life policy, which named appellant Carl Mickens, Harvey’s brother, as the beneficiary. Following Harvey’s death in July of 2014, there was a dispute over whether Harvey’s life insurance policy should be paid to Carl or to Harvey’s Estate. The Harvey Estate, administrated by Synovia Vardiman and Pearline Harris, sued Carl Mickens.
The shopkeeper's privilege permits a business to stop, detain, and investigate alleged shoplifters. (Cheeseman, H. R., 2013, p. 110)
According to the plain view doctrine, an officer is allowed to seize contraband or evidence without a warrant, as long as they are lawfully present in an area protected by the 4th amendment (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). However, three provisions contained in the three-pong Horton test must be satisfied as follows;
The various aspect of the plain view doctrine is that an officer must observe the item in plain view, also the officer must already have a lawful presence in an area that's protected by the 4th constitutional amendment. It's important that officers immediately recognize the item as evidence or either contraband without making further intrusion. Officers should consider making routinely Plainview observation (Jack Ryan).
This due to the historic nature that “concealed property… is an intent to deprive the owner of any part of its value and that the person exerted unauthorized control over the property.” (cite) In Chestnet v. K-Mart Corp., the court held for probable cause to be deemed reasonable when an employee notices a suspect concealing a piece of merchandise on their person and attempts to leave the store. In Duvall v. Kroger Co, the court further extends the weight of concealment to be sufficient alone to presume probable. Even if the suspect does not go beyond the point of purchase. While the notion of concealment is commonly been held valid for probable cause, the action of concealment must be free from all other creditable alternative reasoning. When a suspect has a conclusive alternative reason for concealment, this action cannot alone be deemed proper probable cause. In Street v. Shoe Carnival, the store witnessed the suspect conceal socks on her person. When analyzing the incident as a whole, a reasonable person would’ve deemed that the conceal was due to helping her young child out and not for the purpose of theft. In Sutherline v. Lazarus, the court ruled that concealment of a blouse while still remaining in the store and entering the changing room is an action cannot be reasonably presumed as theft. (cite) Courts when allowing for alternative reasons, need to be persuaded by the
Shoplifting is considered a type of theft but the punishments are specific and approached differently (PLM Attorneys, 2017). Theft is considered a broader term because it can range depending on the severity of a crime but both theft and shoplifting fall under the category of larceny. Shoplifting and theft are also considered comparable based on “the degree of crime classification depending on the value of the items involved” (RioLearn, 2017). It is clear as to how people can commonly mistake shoplifting and theft because both terms fall under the classification of larceny but when considering further evidence that make up both terms it is evident they are different.
example a person could break into a house or store, and will rob the place, but
One ethical problem with shoplifting, one being profiling the wrong candidates. I personally have been profiled in a store, because I was with a group of people. They thought that we were probably about to steal, they were harassing throughout the store. While they were focusing on us the real shoplifter, was an older lady and they didn’t even notice they things she was sneaking in her purse. I kind of don’t understand the other ethical issues completely & that is the only one I could think of....
“Taking is the act of obtaining physical possession or control of another’s property (Gardner & Anderson, 2012, p. 349)”. Retail theft or shoplifting has always been an issue for merchants. Shoplifting is defined as the unlawful concealment and/or taking of property offered for sale and as an attempt to deprive the owner of said property, usually the retail merchant, and the possession of that property without paying for it (Thomson Reuters, 2014). Taking in shoplifting cases can also be described as willful intent to deceive by way of