View Single Post
Old 06-07-2008, 12:18 PM   #26 (permalink)
Default
tazape
Full Registered User
I'm an employee
 
tazape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK London
Posts: 111
Thanks: 76
Thanked 91 Times in 34 Posts
Groaned others: 3
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 9
tazape will become famous soon enoughtazape will become famous soon enough
Send a message via MSN to tazape Send a message via Skype™ to tazape
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayLiver View Post
Well I used to work in the retail environment and as far as we was aware. I f we think someone hasn't paid for goods an get passed all points of payment we was able to search bags. But only shopping bags we was never allowed to search personal bags if we still had suspition they had goods in there personal bags we would detain them until the police came and could search them. But we was told what we can and can't do by our Security Manager it maybe different for different retail stores. I'm not sure

Regards
Jay
Without permission you are not allowed to search person or property. If a company chooses to allow their security teams to stop and search a person's property without permission, then that company is putting themselves at risk of all sorts of litigation that could be taken against them, not only that but they are putting their security staff at risk as well. Thinking that somone has not payed for goods and proving it are 2 different things, P.A.C.E deals with this below 3 sections you must prove to stop and make an arrest
DISHONESTY. An honest taker is not a thief. If for instance, a client wrongly believes that he/she has paid for goods, then his/her error does not turn him/her into a thief.
APPROPRIATION. The goods must have been taken away from their proper place, with the necessary dishonest intent. The moment they have been removed (from the store) you may arrest.
AN INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE. This separates theft from borrowing. For instance; the employee who takes goods home to wear for an occasion, with the intention of having them cleaned and put back into stock, is not a thief. She may have earned herself the sack, but there was no “intention to permanently deprive”.
tazape is offline   Reply With Quote