RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT

I WAS CONTACTED BY THIS GOOGLE RESEARCHER BECAUSE SHE WAS LOOKING FOR ANSWERS FOR A CLIENT WHO WANTED INFORMATION ON HOW TO OPERATE A LOSS PREVENTION DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT SHE POSTED FOR HER CLIENT AFTER CONSULTING WITH ME V.I.A. EMAIL

Subject: Shoplifing in Illinois: Loss prevention negotiation procedure

Category: Relationships and Society > Law

Asked by: genericon-ga

List Price: $140.00

Describe procedures a loss prevention department would follow after one or more security officers have arrived to the location of the suspect who is in posession of a $140 item and alternatively a $300 item, where there is definite clear intent to take the item, and LP has followed procedure up to that point. In Illinois, are security personell authorized to use force to detain someone under such circumstances?

Most important is the negotiation process with the shoplifter. Is there a statistic probability of financial negotiation taking place? For example, would a loss prevention officer if asked, be statistically likely to engage in discussion about an out-of-court cash settlement. If so, what If asked, would a LP officer be statistically likely to entertain an offer regarding the immediate purchase of a large sum of merchandise as compensation?

By "statistic", exact percentages are not expected. General terms such as "likely" and "unlikely" are acceptable. Very significant detail is expected, however; things such as a quote from making a call to a Loss Prevention expert.

Disclaimer: Anything you say would only be for informational/educational purposes and not be legal advice. There is no specific underlying legal issue related to this question. The selected answer will be considered a complete guess with little accuracy regardless of credentials of the researcher.

Clarification of Question by genericon-ga on 15 May 2004 02:26 PDT

I would like to add that it may be that Illinois LP practices may not differ significantly from LP practices in other states. If that is the case, then it of course is not necessary to point out IL specifically.

It may also be that they differ greatly in metro vs. non-metro areas. If that is the case, use the Chicago suburbs as an example.

Hello genericon-ga:

As you're about to learn, the role of LP is really surveillance. In many cases, the police are called in right away. Because of fear of lawsuits, stores can't risk holding suspects on-site for any real length of time. Nor does it usually fall to LP to handle negotiations, although increasingly, stores are opting to pursue civil fines, rather than prosecute in the criminal courts.

UNDERSTANDING ILLINOIS THEFT LAWS:

First, it's important to understand the actual statutes, so I checked shoplifting laws in Illinois.

On January 9, 2003, the governor's office announced that Illinois's 1961 criminal code was being updated: http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=1998

Illinois Felony & Misdemeanor Defense: http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/il/law/felonmisdem.html (I'm not certain if this is from the 2003 revision, or from the original 1961 code):

"Under the law, many crimes are misdemeanors on the first offense, but become felonies on the second offense. This means that, for example, retail theft of property valued at less than $150 is a misdemeanor the first time. If a person already has been convicted of retail theft (shoplifting) and is arrested again for a similar action, the person will be charged with felony retail theft. Misdemeanors carry a maximum punishment of a fine and less than one year of incarceration. Crimes for which a person may be punished by more than one year in jail or in prison are categorized in Illinois as felonies."

So, the $140 item will be a misdemeanor (unless this is a repeat offense), and it appears the $300 item is going to be a felony, even if it's the accused's very first offense.

The Deerfield (about 20 miles from Chicago) IL, Police Department has a very instructive guide on proper procedure for detaining a shoplifting suspect: "Illinois Law Regarding Retail Theft" http://www.deerfield-il.org/police/Retail.htm

"To detain a shoplifter, you must have probable cause.

Presumption
- If any person:
1.) Conceals upon his person or among his belongings, unpurchased merchandise displayed, stored, or offered for sale; and
2.) Removes that merchandise beyond the last known point for receiving payment.

Detention [Here's the part of interest to us!]
Any merchant who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed retail theft may detain such a person (in a reasonable manor [sic] for reasonable time) for all or any of the following purposes:
1.) To request identification.
2.) To verify identification.
3.) To make reasonable inquiry as to whether such as person has unpurchased merchandise in his possession; and to make reasonable investigation of the ownership of such merchandise.
4.) To inform a police officer of the detention of the person and surrender that person to the custody of the police officer. 5.) In the case of a minor, to inform a police officer, parent, or guardian of this detention and to surrender custody of minor to such person."

So, the key passages here are "make reasonable inquiry" . . . "to make reasonable investigation of the ownership of such merchandise" . . . ."

But what IS a reasonable manner and what IS a reasonable length of time? It's crucial to pin down those issues, as failure of LP personnel to follow the code will undermine the store's case -- the case might even be dismissed if the accused's rights have been violated.

And, also note that LP is expected to contact the police and, if the suspect is a juvenile, the suspect's parents, in a timely fashion. But again, what, precisely, is meant by "reasonable"? An hour? Three hours?

The Chicago law firm of Connelly Roberts & McGivney LL provides this very instructive information about defending a person who's been accused of shoplifting. or in aid of a client who is suing for unlawful arrest: http://www.crmlaw.com/articles/torts.htm

What this paper makes clear is, LPS and store management simply can't detain a suspect involuntarily. As soon as a suspect indicates that he or she isn't willing to be detained at the store, or willing to talk to LPS and store management; the police must be notified. (See citations of court cases at that page; you can look up those cases by copying & pasting the titles into a search engine, should you care to read any of those court decisions.)

Connelly Roberts & McGivney's page also notes "The Illinois Retail Theft Act Provides an Affirmative Defense to Merchants Accused of False Arrest/Imprisonment: 'The Illinois Retail Theft Act 720 ILCS 5/16A-5 et seq. states: Any merchant who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed retail theft may detain such person, on or off the premises of a retail mercantile establishment, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time for all or any of the following purposes:
To request identification;
To verify such identification;
To make reasonable inquiry as to whether such person has in his possession unpurchased merchandise and, to make reasonable investigation of the ownership of such merchandise;
To inform a peace officer of the detention of the person and surrender that person to the custody of a peace officer;. . . ."

But again, we're still stuck with define "reasonable.' "

Also see: from Crime Frameset: http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/crime/crimeF.htm "Since the late 1980s, most states have developed a new and far more effective procedure for dealing with shoplifting. Store owners themselves in 43 states can now impose civil fines on shoplifters. The fines range from $40 to three times "actual damages," depending on the state. Without ever going into the criminal court system, the store owner may impose the fine and turn over collection to a lawyer or collection agency. In the case of a juvenile, the store owner may collect from the shoplifter's parent. If the fine is not paid, the store owner can then sue in civil court."

THE ROLE OF LOSS PREVENTION STAFF:

For insights and scenarios into how LP should properly handle alleged shoplifting at either the misdemeanor (under $150) or felony level, I went to an expert:

The site "LPSPY.COM" features a round-up of real-life, Chicago-area LPS encounters with shoplifters: http://chicagolp.8m.com/

(Please note the site's caveat "No Material At This Site Should Be Taken As Legal Advice.")

See "The Six Step Rule" at that site, which also pertains to Illinois shoplifting laws: http://chicagolp.8m.com/training_main.html

I e-mailed Jeff, the site's maintainer. Jeff has worked in several different types of retail operations. (Jeff asked me not to use his last name as he is actively working in LP, and he often receives e-mails -- via his Web site -- from (apparent) shoplifters using various ruses in an effort to obtain details that might help them in committing theft.)

Here's my interview with Jeff:

Nancy: "We would like to know if LP and store management are more likely to offer the shoplifter a chance to settle the matter by civil demand, rather than via the criminal courts. (I understand that, in many states, retailers are now more apt to impose civil fines on shoplifters, rather than pursue the matter in criminal court. That is the law in Illinois, correct?)

Jeff: Yes, that is indeed the law in Illinois. Civil Demand was created to help stores recover some of the losses that they accrue by apprehending shoplifters (such as, paying for all of the security devices that you see in the stores including sensormatic gates at the doors and all of the equipment needed to deactivate them, sensormatic tags, security cameras, and even payroll for security personnel to watch the customers. In addition it helps offset some of the loss that is caused by the shoplifters that don't get caught.)

In Illinois, the law states that stores can impose a Civil Demand amount of not less than $100.00 and not more than $1,000.00 per shoplifting incident. Also, Civil Demand can be imposed WHETHER OR NOT THE SHOPLIFTER IS ARRESTED/PROSECUTED. This means that basically, making the Civil Recovery in this state is 'extra'. Whether or not the shoplifter is arrested actually holds no bearing on the Civil Demand matter.

Nancy: I would also think it would be store management, along with the store's corporate counsel, that would handle any negotiations, not LPS.

Jeff: I have never worked for a company where it is the job of the LPS to collect Civil Demand. That is a separate job in and of itself. All of the companies that I have been involved with follow this procedure: When the shoplifter is in custody (of the store), L.P. will simply hand them a small typed form with the company head on it that:
1) Explains the Civil Demand Laws to the person
2) Informs them that they may be contacted by a company representative requesting them to make payment.

Then once all is said and done, I will fax in all of the shoplifter's information to corporate.

It would be extremely difficult for the LPS that apprehended the shoplifter to then be required to call them back later and request money from them. Also, it kind of creates a conflict especially if the apprehension became physical. The Corporate office usually takes over from that point and they will contact the shoplifter and request a said amount of money. I have been told by shoplifters that I have apprehended that they are usually charged $200.00. Then if they refuse to make payment, the company can take them to court and sue them for Civil Demand and also Attorney's fees and court costs. As you can see, expecting an LPS to handle all of this would be inappropriate.

Nancy: Generally, are Illinois retailers more likely to try to settle the matter with an apprehended shoplifter; or more likely to expect LP personnel to immediately call the police?

Jeff: This is actually a difficult question to answer and the reason is, because it comes down to company policy and also what kind of dollar amount we are looking at. I worked for a company that prosecuted ALL shoplifters except for minors (they were turned over to the parents) and sometimes expecting mothers and senior citizens depending on their health. However, the most inexpensive piece of merchandise that the store sold was probably $20.00.

However, now I work for a grocery/ drug store and I deal with "nickel and dime cases" on a regular basis. If I was to prosecute every one of those shoplifters, I would start to upset the Police and the Criminal Courts because they don't want to be bothered with prosecuting those kinds of low dollar cases when they could be going after the professional thieves.

In this company, I am authorized to make a decision as to whether or not I want to prosecute based on: the age of the shoplifter, the amount stolen, whether I am dealing with a repeat offender, if this person is likely to shoplift again, and other factors of the case.

The only thing that prosecuting a shoplifter does for a company is to get the word out on the street that your store is a tough store to steal from and if you do steal from here, you go to jail. But in most cases, the way I handle it (and the way my company handles it) is as follows: I tell the shoplifter that we are letting them go today. I tell them also that they are banned from the property indefinitely and if they are seen on the property, for any reason, they will be prosecuted for Criminal Trespass. Then you add the shoplifters name to a data base of some kind, and if they are caught stealing again, you double-prosecute them for Retail Theft and Criminal Trespass.

Nancy: I understand that, under the Illinois Retail Theft Act, LPS may detain a suspect for a "reasonable" amount of time, and make "reasonable inquiry," but 'reasonable' seems quite murky! What IS a reasonable length of time for detaining a suspect??? An hour? 15 minutes??

Jeff: Very true....'reasonable' is a very loose word. The reason is, because it depends on the situation at hand. If everything goes well and I decide to cut the shoplifter loose, all they have to do is give me their identification so that I can copy the information onto my paperwork. In a perfect scenario, this will take me 15-20 minutes and the shoplifter is out the door. However, most shoplifting situations are not the 'perfect scenario'.

If the shoplifter doesn't want to cooperate, that takes time. If the shoplifter pretends to cooperate and then you find out that you have received a fake alias, that takes time. If you arrest the shoplifter, you have to wait until the police arrive (and as an LPS, the amount of time that takes is obviously beyond your control), that takes time. At my last job, if I called the police, they would generally be there in 2 minutes. However, in the area I work in now (a rough area where there are lots of gang problems and violent crimes occurring), it is not uncommon for a shoplifting call to be placed on hold for an hour to an hour and a half. So I have to spend that time sitting with the shoplifter, waiting for the police.

That is why they use the word 'reasonable'. If a person feels that they have been detained for an unreasonable amount of time, then that's what we have the courts for (to look at the facts of the case and determine whether the shoplifter was held for an unreasonable amount of time).

Nancy: Along the same lines, what the heck constitutes a 'reasonable inquiry' or negotiation with a shoplifting suspect?

Jeff: There are very little "negotiations" that go on in a shoplifting apprehension. I either say 'yes, they are going to jail' or 'no, I am cutting them loose'. If you start negotiating with the shoplifter, you are dealing with bribery.

The 2 main things that must be avoided at all costs by an apprehending LP agent are 'threats and promises' that are made to shoplifters. This is also another reason why Civil Demand should not be handled at the time of the apprehension. If the shoplifter feels that they have to pay the store money in order to be released, this could backfire big time in civil court. We do not threaten shoplifters for any reason and we also do not make any promises.

Once I announce that a shoplifter is going to jail, that's it. This is the end of the negotiations. It doesn't matter if they fight, yell or cry....they are going to jail, end of story. That is the best way to handle it because that way you are not exposing yourself to possible injustices.

Nancy: Also, does the dollar amount of the stolen merchandise play a role? That is, if a shoplifter has taken more than $150 worth of merchandise (so it's no longer at misdemeanor level), is the store more likely to pursue criminal prosecution?

Jeff: In Illinois, if a shoplifter has taken merchandise with a retail value of $150.00 or more AND has a previous theft conviction, they can be held for a felony. However, the store has no way of knowing whether a shoplifter has a previous theft conviction. So therefore, to answer your question, it plays no role. Whether a case goes felony or misdemeanor is completely up to the State's Attorney and what they want to prosecute the offender for. It could also meet all of the above requirements and still the State's Attorney can choose not to prosecute the shoplifter with a felony.

Regarding the store's role, and whether or not a shoplifter actually gets arrested, I can guarantee you that in any case, if a shoplifter is caught in my store with $150.00 worth of merchandise that they are getting arrested.

I would also like to make a suggestion to your client: I had the pleasure of reading an extremely good book on the legal aspects of Loss Prevention. The name of the book is 'Shoplifters vs. Retailers- The Rights of Both' and the author is Charles Sennewald (a security expert). [New Century Press; 1 edition; March 17, 2000.] The book is very easy reading. They may want to check it out."

I'm very grateful to Jeff for his expert insights!

You can find the book Jeff mentioned at Amazon.com:

I hope my research is of help to you. Should you require clarification, please post a "Request For Clarification," PRIOR to rating my answer.

Best Regards,
nancylynn-ga
Google Answers Researcher

Request for Answer Clarification by genericon-ga on 22 May 2004 14:14 PDT

I am happy with your answer, but there is something I still don't understand. Civil Demand does not seem to be an out-of-court settlement. Once a person has been arrested in an "open-and-shut" case, is it possible for the corporation that pressed charges to accept an out-of-court settlement in exchange for dropping criminal charges?

Also, I would like to note that the links you pointed me to strongly suggest that legally speaking, companies can in fact detain people against their will in Illinois. The law is that they can use reasonable force. The only downside is that if they choose to do that and are found not guilty they may have to deal with a lawsuit. For that reason some companies have "no pursuit" policies. Many others will pursue.

If you read some of these stories you will see that they used force when the person tried to run. http://chicagolp.8m.com/stories.html

Lastly, I'm still not sure about something else. The link you provided at: http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/il/law/felonmisdem.html seems to imply that any item over $150 would be a felony on the first offense, but in the very next paragraph, it says any item of at least $300 is a felony at the first offense. Clearly any valued item is a felony on the second offense, but is the correct amount $150 or $300 for the first offense?

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 23 May 2004 08:01 PDT

Hello genericon-ga:

First of all, when I first researched this matter I'd contacted several Chicago-area lawyers who handle criminal law, but I never heard back from them. I'd very much wanted a legal perspective to go along with Jeff's from-the-trenches stories.

Tomorrow, I'm going to contact the Chicago Bar Assoc. for clarification on the three points you've raised.

1. As I understand it, in any jurisdiction, it's the State's Attorney that determines (misdemeanor or felony), then files charges. Would the State agree to drop charges if defendant is willing to make an out-of-court settlement with the retailer.

2. As to "reasonable force": like all things legal, the definition of "reasonable" seems murky. The anecdotes at: http://chicagolp.8m.com/ The only really violent episode: a shoplifter being hit by a baseball bat: that was a bystander, not LP or police, who did that.

The only other story at that site involving real use of force is: http://chicagolp.8m.com/security.html
"THE OFFICER AGAIN TOLD HER TO STAND UP. WHEN SHE DIDN�T MOVE, HE GRABBED HER HAND. SHE TRIED TO BITE HIM. HE MOVED BACK AND THEN DID IT AGAIN. SHE TOOK A SWING AT HIM. BOTH OF THE OFFICERS THEN EACH GRABBED A HAND AND WHEN SHE TRIED TO BITE, THEY SLAMMED HER TO THE CONCRETE AND FORCED HER DOWN WITH HER HANDS BEHIND HER BACK. SHE STARTED YELLING THAT SHE WAS SORRY AND SHE WOULDN�T FIGHT. SUDDENLY, SHE STARTED HAVING, WHAT APPEARED TO BE, A SEIZURE. THE OFFICERS LET HER UP AND SHE CONTINUED TO HAVE THE SEIZURE. THEY CALLED E.M.S. AND HAD HER TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL."

In all other cases I found there, when a suspect ran out of the store -- got away -- LP immediately called the police.

3. The dollar value -- and any other criteria -- that becomes the line of demarcation between misdemeanor and felony in shoplifting, I'll double-check that too. As far as I know, as long as the amount is under $150 and if there aren't any prior convictions for theft, this will be a misdemeanor case. But I'll double-check that with a lawyer.

We might have to wait a couple of days until I get clarification, but I certainly will follow-up on these points.

nancylynn-ga

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 24 May 2004 19:18 PDT

I put your three follow-up questions to both Jeff, the LP officer who's already helped us out, and to an Illinois criminal defense attorney.

In a nutshell: Yes, under $150 is a misdemeanor on a shoplifting charge, IF it's the first offense; a store agreeing to an out-of-court settlement is highly unlikely; and LP may use reasonable force to detain a shoplifting suspect.

Here's the long version:

1. Misdemeanor/Felony:

Des Planes, Illinois, attorney Steven H. Fagan, P.C., Esq., of Fagan, Fagan & Davis: http://www.MyAttorneysOnline.com kindly came to my rescue on this matter.

I asked him your question "Clearly, any valued item is a felony on the second offense, but is the correct amount $150 or $300? for the first offense?:

Mr. Fagan replied:
"The correct amount is the actual value of the item or items taken.

"An amount under $150 is a misdemeanor so long as the defendant has not been previously convicted of Retail Theft. But a second arrest for someone already convicted of retail theft of any amount is a felony.

"Let the State's Attorney worry about whether to charge with felony status if the amount is under $150.00. It's their job to determine the offender's background, and once they've brought in the police and State's Attorney, the store likely has little or no say what level of charges will be brought in this situation.

"That means an offender who tries to take a pack of cigarettes could be felony eligible, so if LP wants to exercise discretion, the time to do it is before signing any complaints. Likewise, if the actual amount of the items taken is $151.00, the store has discretion to assess the value down $1.00, as 99% of the time, when charging, the police will look to the retailer to set the value."

Btw, I now know why you'd found the $300 amount significant and asked about it in your original question. It IS confusing.

At http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/il/law/felonmisdem.html where I'd quoted to you the passage re: $150 as a misdemeanor, right under that is: "Crimes Causing Harm to Property Theft, burglary, and robbery are felonies in Illinois unless the value of the property taken is under $300."

That IS confusing. But wait, it gets even more confusing (just what we need), thanks to the revision (which went into effect on August 6, 2003) to the 1961 Illinois Criminal Code. I have a feeling that while you were researching this matter, you found this information and that's why you were curious about the $300 amount.

As I noted in my answer, the "Illinois Compiled Statutes Criminal Offenses Criminal Code of 1961 720 ILCS 5" was revised in 2003. During my renewed search I found Illinois bill "SBO265," which, according to the Illinois's General Assembly site went into effect in August of 2003:

http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=265&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=1868#actions (The Webmaster for the Illinois General Assembly replied to my e-mail and assured me the bill did indeed become law on August 6, 2003.0" Senate Bill 265 which was signed into law and became effective 8-6-2003. "When a Public Act number is assigned to a bill such as this 93-520 that means it became law. The floor actions mean that the bill was given to the Governor on 6-6-2003 and he had 60 days to sign it which he failed to do and when that happens, a bill automatically becomes law."

Here's a link to the revised code: http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=265&GAID=3&LegID=1868

Theft of property not from the person and not exceeding $300 in value is a Class A misdemeanor. (1.1) Theft of property not from the person and not exceeding $300 in value is a Class 4 felony if the theft was committed in a school or place of worship. (2) A person who has been convicted of theft of property not from the person and not exceeding $300 in value who has been previously convicted of any type of theft, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, residential burglary, possession of burglary tools, home invasion, forgery, a violation of Section 4-103, 4-103.1, 4-103.2, or 4-103.3 of the Illinois Vehicle Code relating to the possession of a stolen or converted motor vehicle, or a violation of Section 8 of the Illinois Credit Card and Debit Card Act is guilty of a Class 4 felony. When a person has any such prior conviction, the information or indictment charging that person shall state such prior conviction so as to give notice of the State's intention to treat the charge as a felony. "

After taking an aspirin I went back and looked at what I'd quoted to you in my answer:

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/il/law/felonmisdem.html "Under the law, many crimes are misdemeanors on the first offense, but become felonies on the second offense. This means that, for example, retail theft of property valued at less than $150 is a misdemeanor the first time. If a person already has been convicted of retail theft (shoplifting) and is arrested again for a similar action, the person will be charged with felony retail theft. . . ."

Again, small wonder you wondered about a $300 amount.

This couldn't be more bewildering to a non-lawyer, but here's all that matters: Mr. Fagan has confirmed for us that a stolen item valued at under $150 is a misdemeanor if this is the culprit's first shoplifting offense.

2. "Civil Demand does not seem to be an out-of-court settlement. Once a person has been arrested in an 'open-and-shut' case, is it possible for the corporation that pressed charges to accept an out-of-court settlement in exchange for dropping criminal charges?"

I put that question to both Jeff, the LP officer, and to Mr. Fagan.

Jeff replied:
"We would never drop Criminal Charges for any reason. That is an excellent way to get sued . . . If you arrest somebody and then later drop the charges, they can turn around and sue you since you could not prove your case."

Mr. Fagan replied:
"As far as any Civil demand, negotiation at the point of detention would be much more than foolish, and possibly criminal.

"A settlement in Illinois cannot take place without the existence of a dispute. The retail establishment's legal department would usually create this situation by notifying the accused shoplifter of their intention to collect the amount authorized under Illinois statute to which you referred in your earlier answers [in the answer I'd posted for you here]. The accused shoplifter could then send in a payment to settle the matter, or force a lawsuit.

"For the LP personnel to engage in negotiation for anything other that return of the merchandise (in the less common case where the merchandise was not recovered) might be construed as 'intimidation,' Illinois' term for extortion, a serious criminal charge. The retail establishment can decline to prosecute up front, when they have the most control, but once they get the police involved, things become more complicated.

"The police have discretion of their own to decide whether to charge. Once charged by the police, the prosecutor has discretion of their own to decide whether to prosecute and how to proceed. The LP court liaison or witness can try to influence the decisions of the police and prosecutor, but by no means has the final say."

So dropping charges and agreeing to accept an out-of-court settlement from the shoplifter is pretty much out of the question.

3. Use Of Force:

I did fail to address the use of force as specifically as you'd requested -- my apologies. I basically intertwined "detain" with "force" and while those things are certainly related, they are still separate issues!

Mr. Fagan wrote me:
LP can use reasonable force to detain. Reasonable is defined by the circumstances. A good LP department will attempt to define procedures for various circumstances to the extent possible, and train their personnel accordingly. That doesn't mean that a particular procedure is always reasonable just because it is defined, but would at least be of some help in guarding against possible lawsuits. Reasonable force is just enough to get the job done, and no more. That's not a legal definition, just a reasonable one."

Jeff replied:
"In Loss Prevention we tell the shoplifter to stop and if they refuse to, we have the right to tackle them or hold them down. That word 'reasonable' again creates a little confusion. Obviously we cannot start punching a shoplifter or seriously injuring them unless they are attempting to cause us death or great bodily harm. At which point, we have the right to defend ourselves just like any other citizen.

"We can use force to hold a shoplifter and if the shoplifter hits us or causes us any bodily harm, we can charge them with 'aggravated battery (Illinois #15) on a merchant detaining a shoplifter." So basically it is the same charge as hitting a police officer; it is a felony."

I also asked Jeff can LP use handcuffs?

Jeff:
"Yes we can, and I never leave home without them. I have personally never handcuffed anybody myself, but I always have them and I have received the proper training, should the need arise."

I also asked him are LP allowed to be armed with guns?

Jeff:
"They can be armed, but it is extremely risky. The company I work for now does have a few armed guards left, but they have not armed anybody new since the early 90's.

"All of the agents who currently carry are 'Grandfathered in'. It requires a lot of training and licensing from the State (including range qualification every year). Plus, overall, it is not a good idea because there are too many agents that are likely to use force for unnecessary reasons.

"The main thing about all of this (use of force, handcuffing, etc.) is that it depends on what the company wants their L.P. team to do. Just because the law says that WE CAN USE FORCE and WE CAN HANDCUFF does not mean that we have to.

"In fact, because of all of the lawsuits that are out there on L.P. teams, a large majority of companies have adapted a "no touch/no pursuit" policy, meaning just that.

"A Loss Prevention Agent can invite the shoplifter back into the store and if they fight or flight, then the matter is turned over to the police--END OF STORY.

"Although my company still authorizes the use of force and handcuffing, we are not allowed to pursue shoplifters in the parking lot due to liabilities that could occur if either security or the shoplifter were hit by a car.

"Also for safety reasons if there might be an accomplice waiting in the lot. So basically it is up to the company as to how much power they want to give their L.P. agents. With power comes responsibility, and that requires training."

Btw, I stumbled upon this site, which may be of interest to you:

Shoplifting Alternatives:
http://www.shopliftersalternative.org/
At left, see the menu and select either "How SA Works In The Courts" or "How SA Works For Retailers."

You'll have to fill out an online form there with your name, address, and company information in order to access materials about shoplifting court cases.

I hope this clarification is satisfactory.

This was a very interesting matter to research -- despite all that bewildering legalese!

Regards,
nancylynn-ga

genericon-ga rated this answer: 5 out of 5 and gave an additional tip of: $20.00

Could not ask for better. Obviously spent an enormous amount of time on it.