• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Is This Even Legal?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Maria D

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? I live in Georgia but the event happened in Miami, Fl 2 years ago, my kids at that time were 8 and 15 yrs, we went to buy in Publix super market and my kids ate 1 cookie each of 0.50 cents value without my knowledge, then they hide the wrap so i would not get mad at them, the security man saw them and told me about it, I reprimended them and offered to pay for the cookies, the manager came and said he had to report it to the offices of publix central and refused to accept payment, he said it was all procedures but that i had to sign a paper stating that i was their mother and i was told about the problem, also he wrote my driverlicence number and name and the kids names, he said there was no police report or such but that the kids could not come in the store alone until they were 18 years old, 2 years have goneby and noone sent me any letters or nothing, now I live in georgia and 2 months ago a letter to my name arrived in my old address from some lawyers in miami, saying that is in reference to the situation of that date, it does not explain only says that and that is in reference to publix, they are requesting a payment of 455.00 dollars. to be paid to avoid a lawsuit. ??? I need to know if this is legal, if I should pay, or if this could be a scam. I dont know if 2 years after a thing like that hapens, where no police is called to report the crime, where they declinde my offer of payment, can they charge me as if i did this? or what should i do?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?
 


justalayman

Senior Member
I would think this is due to a "civil forfeiture" law in which an unjured retailer is allowed to demand a payment, often many times the actual amount of theft, in response to the situation.

Getting out of the demand, if possible, could cost you more than the demand itself.

I would contact them and inquire to the basis of their claim. If it is a civil forfeiture demand, then you need to decide if you want to try to fight it.

If you do want to fight it, you will probably end up going back to Florida to resopond to the subsequent lawsuit and defend with whatever is available as a defense. I have not researched any statutes to deetermine if there is a deense available to you but if there is, I would think it is due to the childrens age and lack of intent to commit the theft.

At this point, again without any research, I would think it is past the statute of limitations to actually have your children charged with anything but do not count on this as definitive.
 

marbol

Member
[...] my kids ate 1 cookie each of 0.50 cents
Unbelievable. Publix must be in such poor economic shape as to think your 450 dollars from a .50 cent cookie will singlehandedly save them from their economic woes, or they simply have way too much business to need any more business from anyone else.

Either way, I certainly will steer clear of any Publix stores from here on.

What a retarded way to try to get customers. Unbelievable.

Just tell them the cookies were already yours. Make them prove it - for less than a dollar they'd get laughed out of my court if I were on the jury.
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
Unbelievable. Publix must be in such poor economic shape as to think your 450 dollars from a .50 cent cookie will singlehandedly save them from their economic woes, or they simply have way too much business to need any more business from anyone else.

Either way, I certainly will steer clear of any Publix stores from here on.

What a retarded way to try to get customers. Unbelievable.

Just tell them the cookies were already yours. Make them prove it - for less than a dollar they'd get laughed out of my court if I were on the jury.
Uh huh. Welcome to the world of businesses. These civil demands go towards paying for the theft protection. It is not about the price of the stolen item, it is about the costs associated with enforcing anti-theft laws. While I agree that this probably is in excess of the situation at hand, you do need to realize that most stores will take measures like this.
 
WHAT ROT! Askin' 'aint gettin'. Do not respond to the letter. Let them file suit.
Then send a copy of it to every newspaper and television station in both Florida and Georgia. This will be a great story on a slow news day.

The bakery at our local grocery store GIVES cookies to kids as samples all the time.

I am a retailer and strongly disagree with the occultist's assertion that "most stores will
take measures like this." Employee theft is the largest type of stealing that goes on
in most stores, and it can be substantial. Many thieves are creative and cause distraction
while stealing high ticket items. This is what these measures were employed for.

No response IS a response. Let 'em eat cake!
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
WHAT ROT! Askin' 'aint gettin'. Do not respond to the letter. Let them file suit.
Then send a copy of it to every newspaper and television station in both Florida and Georgia. This will be a great story on a slow news day.

The bakery at our local grocery store GIVES cookies to kids as samples all the time.

I am a retailer and strongly disagree with the occultist's assertion that "most stores will
take measures like this." Employee theft is the largest type of stealing that goes on
in most stores, and it can be substantial. Many thieves are creative and cause distraction
while stealing high ticket items. This is what these measures were employed for.

No response IS a response. Let 'em eat cake!
Don -

That makes for a great emotional response, but sets up our OP for a default judgment that will haunt her for some time to come.
The simple fact of the matter is that OP (her children) never left the store with any stolen merchandise. OP DID attempt to pay for the items before leaving the store, but payment was refused. With that defense, it is doubtful that any judgment would be rendered against our OP. (Assuming, of course, that you never LEFT the store prior to being intercepted by the security agent).
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
Don -

That makes for a great emotional response, but sets up our OP for a default judgment that will haunt her for some time to come.
The simple fact of the matter is that OP (her children) never left the store with any stolen merchandise. OP DID attempt to pay for the items before leaving the store, but payment was refused. With that defense, it is doubtful that any judgment would be rendered against our OP. (Assuming, of course, that you never LEFT the store prior to being intercepted by the security agent).
While I agree with you completely, in all fairness Don did say, don't respond to the letter, and let them file suit. He did not say do not respond to the court proceedings.

It certainly may have sounded that way to the poster however, and it is always good to clarify.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Zigner;1665371].
The simple fact of the matter is that OP (her children) never left the store with any stolen merchandise.
Well, when they walked out of the door they left with stolen merchandise, in their stomachs. In many states, including Forida, you do not have to leave the store to be commiting theft. The kids took control (irrevocable I might add) of the merchandise. That IS theft.

OP DID attempt to pay for the items before leaving the store, but payment was refused.
Ya, that works. We'll let you tell this to all the theifs in Forida that as long as you offer after you get caught stealing, you are OK, NOT!!!

With that defense, it is doubtful that any judgment would be rendered against our OP. (Assuming, of course, that you never LEFT the store prior to being intercepted by the security agent).[/
Leaving the store is not a requirement of the statues involved to have committed a crime. But realize, this is probably concerning a civil demand. Additioanlly, OP admitted knowledge of the theft. Pretty hard to deny it now.
 

Ozark_Sophist

Senior Member
I don't like having to spend more to make up the difference in what walks out of the store. Of course, a dollar is silly, but a uniform policy protects the store's interests. A man got a year ban from a major home improvement store for accidently walking out with a half a pencil. Again, silly, but where do you draw the line?
 

outonbail

Senior Member
A man got a year ban from a major home improvement store for accidently walking out with a half a pencil. Again, silly, but where do you draw the line?
Where the hell did this happen? I find this almost unbelievable unless the store was looking for a reason to keep him from entering the store because he caused other problems for the store.
But if he borrowed someone's pen or pencil to sign a receipt and then accidentally put it in his pocket, I would think the store would have to be called "The Home Idiot Warehouse" if they chased him down and banned him from entering the store for a year because of that single incident.
 
"That makes for a great emotional response, but sets up our OP for a default judgment that will haunt her for some time to come."

NONSENSE.

The poster said "a letter to my name arrived in my old address from some lawyers in miami, saying that is in reference to the situation of that date, it does not explain only says that and that is in reference to publix, they are requesting a payment of 455.00 dollars. to be paid to avoid a lawsuit."

No lawsuit has been filed. How would the OP get a default judgment from a threatening
letter?


Do not respond to the letter. Let them file suit.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
"That makes for a great emotional response, but sets up our OP for a default judgment that will haunt her for some time to come."

NONSENSE.

The poster said "a letter to my name arrived in my old address from some lawyers in miami, saying that is in reference to the situation of that date, it does not explain only says that and that is in reference to publix, they are requesting a payment of 455.00 dollars. to be paid to avoid a lawsuit."

No lawsuit has been filed. How would the OP get a default judgment from a threatening
letter?


Do not respond to the letter. Let them file suit.
As has been addressed previously, I understood your earlier reply to be telling our OP to totally ignore them. It was later clarified that you meant for her to ignore the letter and, not a lawsuit. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Just to be clear, what I am trying to get across is that OP should NOT ignore the lawsuit when/if it comes. I'm sure we can all agree on that ;)
 

Ozark_Sophist

Senior Member
Where the hell did this happen? I find this almost unbelievable unless the store was looking for a reason to keep him from entering the store because he caused other problems for the store.
But if he borrowed someone's pen or pencil to sign a receipt and then accidentally put it in his pocket, I would think the store would have to be called "The Home Idiot Warehouse" if they chased him down and banned him from entering the store for a year because of that single incident.
The pencil was a used $0.41 pencil from the contractor's desk. Security stopped Mr. Panorelli, a regular customer, escorted him to the office and made him sign an agreement banning him from HD for a year. They also told him to expect a civil complaint.

This happened in 2005. National news took hold and ran with it. HD ended up apologizing.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top