Shoplifting

Shoplifting (also known as commercial burglary) is theft of merchandise for sale in a shop, or of money from the cash register of a retail establishment, by an ostensible patron. It is one of the most common crimes for police and courts.

Most shoplifters are amateurs; however, there are people and groups who make their living from shoplifting, and they tend to be more skilled. Some individuals shoplift in an effort to resist selling their labor, and/or to protest corporate power.^[who?] These individuals target—often exclusively—chain stores; Wal-Mart is an especially popular target for political shoplifters in America. Sainsbury's and Tesco are primary targets in the UK (see Evasion).

The costs of shoplifting are not always absorbed by the targeted company, but instead may result in price increases.^[1] Therefore, shoplifting ultimately harms paying consumers.

A common slang term for shoplifting in Australia and the United States is "five-finger discount." The "five-finger" aspect of the term refers to the fact there are five fingers on the hand which is used to grab the stolen merchandise. In the US, it is often referred to as "jacking" or "racking" and in the UK as "nicking" or "chaving." Professional shoplifters or organized shoplifting groups are often referred to as "boosters."

Economic impact and response from shops

Retailers report that shoplifting has significant effect on their bottom line, stating that about 0.6% of all inventory disappears to shoplifters. In 2001 it was claimed that shoplifting cost US retailers $25 million a day. Other observers, however, believe industry shoplifting numbers to be greatly exaggerated. Studies have found that over half of what is reported as shoplifting is either employee theft or fraud. Of course, in apprehended shoplifting, the merchandise is generally recovered by the retailers and there is often no loss to the store owner when the merchandise is surrendered to the store by the suspects. Most of the research concerning shoplifting has been sponsored by those in the Loss Prevention Industry and can be read on line. The University of Florida prepared the 2000 National Retail Security Survey, 9th Edition, Excecutive Summary, sponsored by Sensomatic, that was prepared from the answers to a questionnaire "received from separate retail chains representing seventeen (17) different vertical markets." (http://www.partypics.com/ver2/ViewImage.aspx?OrderNo=26210004&Roll=0001)

Shoplifting is an economic crime (the crime of misdemeanor or felony larceny) that has been treated with special civil laws in the fifty states of the United States. A good example of a Civil Recovery Law and a Civil Recovery Demand Letter for shoplifting from Tennessee can be viewed at DAG, 7th JD, TN:Shoplifting - (http://www.attorneygeneral.org/shoplit.html -accessed 1/29/2008)

Each state has its own civil recovery for shoplifting laws but the laws in all of the states permit demand letters to be mailed to suspected shoplifters demanding statutory minimum damages that have been set by the legislatures, which can be demanded before civil lawsuits are filed. As indicated in the Tennessee Statute "A conviction for the offense of shoplifting is not a prerequisite to the maintenance of a civil action authorized by this subsection." This is true in all civil recovery for shoplifting state laws and permits those cities who have policies in place that they hope will deter "first offenders" from second attempts to shoplift through diverting these first offenders, who have been arrested or ticketed by city commissioned police, into rehabilitation and/or plea bargains with the lower city courts.

The application of both a criminal sanction and a civil sanction in the law has caused confusion but in the online publication of Spotlight, a publication of the Loss Production and Security Industry, in August 1997, an attorney, Audrey Aronsohn, for Civil Recovery Services in Simi Valley, California and Tarpon Springs, Florida, indicated that "states have started to word their statutes more clearly, "For instance, Alabama's statute succinctly states that a merchant can recover security expenses and sets a flat rate. She said "It takes out all of the guesswork for all of us." (Obviously, the criminal courts can't order restitution when the merchandise is recovered by the store, and most "first offenders" are diverted from the court or agree to plea bargains, but the Civil Laws CAN award damages to cover the costs of security personnel) (Spotlight August 1997 =http://66,250.218.74library/000392.html --accessed 1/27/2008)

In this same publication of Spotlight August 1997 as cited above, an attorney with Loss Prevention Specialists of Winter Park, Florida, comments that "the courts have found that civil recovery is a settlement process, not a debt collection activity and "There hasn't been one case that says settlement of a tort claim constitutes a debt."

However, in 2002, the Department of Defense (DOD) implemented a policy to demand $200 as civil recovery (an Administrative Fee) for shoplifting in government retail stores from active duty military personnel based on a Congressional Enabling Amendment to the Debt Collection Section of Treasury Law placed in the 2001 National Defense Appropriations Bill. Prior to the passage of this enabling amendment and new DOD policy implemented in 2002, the government retail stores could only conduct civil recoveries under the State statute of the state in which the government retail stores were located against civilians and dependents. They could not make civil recovery demands to active duty personnel because this offense was covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Legal aspects

Rights of store operators

In the state of California, and in most cases the rest of the United States and other countries, store employees and managers have certain powers of arrest. Store officials may detain for investigation (for a reasonable length of time), the person whom they have probable cause to believe is attempting to take or has unlawfully taken merchandise. Generally, in the United States, the store employees who detain suspects are licensed by the city police authority with limited powers of arrest and have the power to initiate criminal arrests and/or civil sanctions, or both, depending upon the policy of the retailer.^{[citation needed]}

In the state of California, merchants may conduct a limited search to recover the item by those authorized to make the detention. Only packages, shopping bags, handbags or other property in the immediate possession of the person detained may be searched, but not any clothing worn by the person because this would require a search warrant under the law.^{[citation needed]} Licensed security police in the United States can, under the law, ask suspects to VOLUNTARILY empty their purses, pockets, wallets, handbags, etc. and most first offenders and amateur shoplifters generally agree to do this when suggested.

Rights of shoplifters

An accused shoplifter has rights that protects him or her from being falsely detained. An accused is subject to many of the same rights as would be present in an arrest from sworn law enforcement, such as the right to remain silent.

Anti-shoplifting options

Closed circuit television

CCTV monitoring is an important anti-shoplifting technology. Retailers focusing on loss prevention often devote most of their resources to this technology. Using CCTVs to apprehend shoplifters in the act requires full-time human monitoring of the cameras. CCTV is very effective if used in conjunction with EAS as the EAS system will alert of a potential shoplifter and the video will provide ample proof to procecute the shoplifter if the shoplifter is allowed to exit past checkout points or store premises with store merchandise that hasn't been paid for at final checkout points.

Electronic article surveillance

Electronic article surveillance is second only to CCTV in popularity amongst retailers looking for inventory protection. EAS refers to the security tags that attach to a garment and cause an alarm to sound on exiting the store. Regularly, even when an alarm does sound, a shoplifter walks out casually and is not confronted if no guards are present. This is due to the high number of false alarms, especially in malls, due to "tag pollution" whereby non-deactivated tags from other stores set off the alarm. This can be overcome with newer systems and a properly trained staff. Some new systems either dont alarm from "tag pollution" or they produce a specific alarm when a customer enters the store with a non-deactivated tag so that store personal can remove or deactivate it so it does not produce a false alarm when exiting the store.

Phony shoppers

Loss Prevention personnel will patrol the store acting as if they are real shoppers. They may try on merchandise and browse the racks, all the while looking for signs of shoplifting and looking for possible shoplifters. Many large retail companies utilize this technique, and will watch a shoplifter conceal an item then stop them after they have exited the store.

Uniformed guards

The presence of uniformed guards acts as a deterrent to shoplifting activity and they are mostly used by high end retail establishments.

Exit inspections

Shoppers in some large stores cannot leave the premises until cart contents are checked against the register tape. In most of the US, shoppers are under no obligation to accede to a search unless the employee has reasonable grounds to suspect shoplifting.^[2]^[3]

Close customer service

Floor attendants are instructed to greet, follow, and offer help with customer shopping. Shoplifters are not comfortable with this attention and will go somewhere else where they can work unnoticed.

BOB mirrors

Bottom of basket mirrors are commonly used in grocery stores where the checkout lanes are close together and the cashier might be unable to see the entire basket to ensure payment of all items.

Locked merchandise

Some merchandise will be in a locked case requiring an employee to get items at a customer's request. The customer is either required to purchase the merchandise immediately or it is left at the checkout area for the customer to purchase when finishing shopping. This prevents the customer from having a chance to conceal the item.

Another way of locking merchandise, especially popular in liquor stores, is to place a secure, store-administered hard-plastic cap on a regular bottle top. Once purchased the clerk will remove the cap with a store key. It is not otherwise easily removable.

Personnel policy

The choice of store and security personnel can strongly affect the ability of shoplifters to succeed. All personnel must be trained in the techniques shoplifters use to steal merchandise and the proper actions to take.

Famous cases

A famous legal case involving shoplifting occurred in 2001 when actress Winona Ryder was arrested for shoplifting at Saks Fifth Avenue department store in Beverly Hills, California. Ryder was eventually convicted of misdemeanor theft and vandalism and will be eligible for espungement of the conviction after finishing probation. Ryder was originally convicted by a jury of felony larceny/vandalism and was sentenced in a nationally televised California Superior Court proceeding in December of 2002. ^[4] In 2003, Will & Grace actress Shelley Morrison (who played Rosario Salazar) was arrested for shoplifting at a Robinsons-May store in California; the charges were later dropped. In early 2006, former White House aide Claude Allen was arrested for an alleged return scam at a Target store in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Jean Eaton, while mayor of Albert Lea, MN, was accused of stealing hundreds of dollars worth of clothing from Marshall Field's stores in Rochester, Edina and St. Cloud in an alleged clothing swap scam. Eaton had claimed that police acted illegally when they executed a search warrant that gathered evidence used to support a felony theft charge against her. Eaton later reached a plea agreement with Olmsted County prosecutors to have the felony charges dropped, by entering into an adult diversion program, which includes restitution, and possible community service.

'Atypical Theft Offenders'

Some shoplifters (who are almost invariably, and erroneously, labelled as suffering from kleptomania) are persons who clinical investigator Dr. Will Cupchik has labelled 'Atypical Theft Offenders.' These usually honest persons may steal in response to personally meaningful losses and/or other stressors. His book, Why Honest People Shoplift or Commit Other Acts of Theft (2002) provides data and conclusions of two studies conducted by Dr. Cupchik, as well as assessment and treatment methods. The major reasons that these persons should not be labelled as kleptomaniacs are that there are virtually always external triggering events identified as having preceded the theft activity, and because the stealing is virtually always an act of vengeance carried out in anger (although seldom recognized as such by the offender). The existence of an external trigger and the feelings of anger and desire for vengeance are factors that, according to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, would exclude the diagnosis of 'kleptomania.'

A small number of shoplifters may be influenced by their use of benzodiazapene medications.^[5]

References

^ http://www.nrf.com/content/press/release2002/costshoplifting.htm
^ http://www.lps1.com/bw.digg.html
^ http://www.die.net/musings/bestbuy/
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3821355.stm
^ Williams R, Dalby JT. (1986). "Benzodiazepines and shoplifting". International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 30: 35-39.