concealment

[msizek]

What is the name of your state? virginia--I was stuffing things in my pockets at the grocery store and then heard security called over the loud speaker. i commenced and succeeded in getting everything out of my pockets and back in the cart and then went and paid by credit card. Security waited outside until I left, but did not stop me. He followed me somewhat to my car and i drove off. Can they use security cameras to verify me and then come get by using the loyaty card I used at the store. which has my business name on the account.

 

[JETX]

They could identify you, but they cannot charge you with any crime since (based solely on your post) none occured. However, you may be contacted and told that you are barred from entering the store in the future, as is their right.

 

[Bravo8]

JETX, is that a Virginia-specific answer?

I ask b/c under PA law, simply concealing the merchandise can amount to Retail Theft, not to mention Criminal Attempt (at theft).

 

[JETX]

"JETX, is that a Virginia-specific answer?"
*** No. It is a general answer that PROBABLY would apply in all states.

"I ask b/c under PA law, simply concealing the merchandise can amount to Retail Theft, not to mention Criminal Attempt (at theft)."
*** Though I agree that it clearly was the writers intent to steal the merchandise, PA law says that if the 'intent' was renounced by returning the merchandise, then 'criminal attempt' did not occur. And though this particular case may not technically comply with the 'renunciation' (due to 'motiviation'), I think it would be a fairly simple issue for a decent defense attorney to handle.

Here is the statute:
"§ 901. Criminal attempt.
(a) Definition of attempt.--A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.
(b) Impossibility.--It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the crime attempted.
(c) Renunciation.--
1. In any prosecution for an attempt to commit a crime, it is a defense that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant avoided the commission of the crime attempted by abandoning his criminal effort and, if the mere abandonment was insufficient to accomplish such avoidance, by taking further and affirmative steps which prevented the commission thereof.
2. A renunciation is not "voluntary and complete" within the meaning of this subsection if it is motivated in whole or part by:
1. a belief that circumstances exist which increase the probability of detection or apprehension of the defendant or another participant in the criminal enterprise, or which render more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose; or
2. a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until another time or to transfer the criminal effort to another victim or another but similar objective."

 

[msizek]

Still need help

What about the security cameras? can they review those tapes and see me putting things back in the cart, then reviewed my receipt off their journal for my name and come get me like that. And the Loyalty card i used is in my company's name but no reference of my name. Also, i have record and convicted for shoplifting with the same grocery chain 2 years ago in another county of virginia. What could they be up to with me?

 

[dequeendistress]

writer, are you serious?

If you have a record of shoplifting you already know the consequence.

 

[BillyBG]

Why are you stuffing things in your pocket anyway? Where you trying to shoplift?

 

[dequeendistress]

were you trying to shoplift, thought you were caught, unloaded your pockets, left and now are worried about the security cameras.

 

[Bravo8]

Point taken, JETX. I can see how a competent attorney could argue "renunciation", but regardless, it still qualifies under Retail Theft (see subsection 3).


§ 3929. Retail theft.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of a retail theft if he:

1. takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof;

2. alters, transfers or removes any label, price tag marking, indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a store or other retail mercantile establishment and attempts to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value of such merchandise;

3. transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the full retail value thereof; or

4. under-rings with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value of the merchandise.

5. destroys, removes, renders inoperative or deactivates any inventory control tag, security strip or any other mechanism designed or employed to prevent an offense under this section with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof.

 

[JETX]

"it still qualifies under Retail Theft"
*** How do you come to that conclusion?? Simply, the actions described by the writer, though clearly with the INTENT to steal them, meets none of the criteria that you offered to establish a valid charge of retail theft.
Please show exactly what part of the statute you offer applies.

 

[Son of Slam]

Please show exactly what part of the statute you offer applies.

How about?

.--A person is guilty of a retail theft if he:
1. takes possession of, ... such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof;


Where I'm at, concealment of merchandise carries the same penalty as stealing it.

 

[JETX]

Sorry, but wrong. To take possession of merchandise is to remove it from thecontrol of its owner. That did not happen in this case. Granted, the writer may very well have INTENDED to take illegal possession and would have done so IF he had left the premises without paying, but picking the item up and then returning it, even if it was 'concealed' during the time is NOT possession.

 

[drago]

Point taken, JETX. I can see how a competent attorney could argue "renunciation", but regardless, it still qualifies under Retail Theft (see subsection 3).


§ 3929. Retail theft.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of a retail theft if he:

1. takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof;

2. alters, transfers or removes any label, price tag marking, indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a store or other retail mercantile establishment and attempts to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value of such merchandise;

3. transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the full retail value thereof; or

4. under-rings with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value of the merchandise.

5. destroys, removes, renders inoperative or deactivates any inventory control tag, security strip or any other mechanism designed or employed to prevent an offense under this section with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof.

*****JETX certainly does not need any help from me but I see nothing in this response that is relevant to the issue at hand.

 

[Bravo8]

"transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the full retail value thereof; or "

Concealing the merchandise is transferring it from the display into "any other container".

While not commonly charged, it has been utilized in that interpretation before and upheld in the courts.

 

[JETX]

Well all, looks like I was wrong and, reluctantly admit it.

Here is the VIRGINIA laws as to shoplifting (retail theft):
"§ 18.2-103. Concealing or taking possession of merchandise; altering price tags; transferring goods from one container to another; counseling, etc., another in performance of such acts.

Whoever, without authority, with the intention of converting goods or merchandise to his own or another's use without having paid the full purchase price thereof, or of defrauding the owner of the value of the goods or merchandise, (i) willfully conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, or (ii) alters the price tag or other price marking on such goods or merchandise, or transfers the goods from one container to another, or (iii) counsels, assists, aids or abets another in the performance of any of the above acts, when the value of the goods or merchandise involved in the offense is less than $200, shall be guilty of petit larceny and, when the value of the goods or merchandise involved in the offense is $200 or more, shall be guilty of grand larceny. The willful concealment of goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, while still on the premises thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner thereof out of the value of the goods or merchandise. "
Source: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-103

Based solely on the last sentence, the writer WOULD be guilty of violating this statute, since he admits to "willful concealment of goods..... while still on the premises".

And since this thread has now taken on a new life (in Pennsyvlania), I have reviewed my previous position there and found I was also wrong again... but not on the actual issue OF theft. My error was in not reading the full statute and only limiting on the definition of the act of theft.

A review of the full statute shows:
"§ 3929. Retail theft.
(c) Presumptions.--Any person intentionally concealing unpurchased property of any store or other mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such store, shall be prima facie presumed to have so concealed such property with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof within the meaning of subsection (a), and the finding of such unpurchased property concealed, upon the person or among the belongings of such person, shall be prima facie evidence of intentional concealment, and, if such person conceals, or causes to be concealed, such unpurchased property, upon the person or among the belongings of another, such fact shall also be prima facie evidence of intentional concealment on the part of the person so concealing such property."
Source: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP3/18PA3929.html