• 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.

Who (If Anyone) Is Liable?

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

CuriousMe

Junior Member
What is the name of your state?****land

Scenario: Adult Male #1 and Adult Male #2 enter a retail store. They act in a somewhat suspicious manner, bringing attention of both management and store loss prevention personnel to them. On video surveillance, #2 is observed possibly pocketing a store item. Both males look like they could become violent in the event of being approached. Local police are called in case they will be needed as "backup". At some point during their stay in the store, the camera angles are not sufficient enough to maintain constant sight of hands and pockets of #2(he is bent down several times at the bottom of racks). Police arrive and loss prevention employee is unsure as to whether or not to stop them. He informs police that he will only attempt to stop them if the security alarm goes off on their way out of the store. The officer is waiting outside of the retail establishment on the sidewalk and states that he does not need the alarm to sound in order to stop and search the individuals since the store initially called with a "reasonable suspicion". After about 20-30 minutes in the store, #1 male purchases a CD and both males leave the building. They do not set off the alarm. Store Loss Prevention personnel do not stop them. However, the police officer stops them on the sidewalk directly outside of the store exit. Both males state that they knew "something was up", because "the fat guy" was following them. Both males are searched fully by the police officer only. They have no unpaid store merchandise in their possession. A single pill was found in the coin pocket of #1 by the officer and the officer throws it out because he does not know what it is. The full search included ankle to groin, but did not involve removal of any clothing, etc. #1 and #2 are detained by the police for no longer than 5 minutes and then released. Side note: the police officer knew #2 by name due to previous interactions. Both males are in their late 20's. The mother of #1 called the store to complain about the "illegal search and sexual assault"(her words) of her son by the police. She is also very upset that his "prescription" medication was disposed of by the police officer. She is indicating that she is a lawyer, but has not once represented herself as his legal counsel - only as his mother. She is repeatedly calling the store asking for peoples names, information, etc. However, her adult son has not called or complained even once.
Questions:
1. Was the search legal?
2. If not, who is liable. The store, the police, or both?
3. If anyone is liable, should the individual who was searched be following up on this instead of his mother, since he is not a minor?

Thank You for your insight and comments.
 


CuriousMe said:
What is the name of your state?****land

Scenario: Adult Male #1 and Adult Male #2 enter a retail store. They act in a somewhat suspicious manner, bringing attention of both management and store loss prevention personnel to them. On video surveillance, #2 is observed possibly pocketing a store item. Both males look like they could become violent in the event of being approached. Local police are called in case they will be needed as "backup". At some point during their stay in the store, the camera angles are not sufficient enough to maintain constant sight of hands and pockets of #2(he is bent down several times at the bottom of racks). Police arrive and loss prevention employee is unsure as to whether or not to stop them. He informs police that he will only attempt to stop them if the security alarm goes off on their way out of the store. The officer is waiting outside of the retail establishment on the sidewalk and states that he does not need the alarm to sound in order to stop and search the individuals since the store initially called with a "reasonable suspicion". After about 20-30 minutes in the store, #1 male purchases a CD and both males leave the building. They do not set off the alarm. Store Loss Prevention personnel do not stop them. However, the police officer stops them on the sidewalk directly outside of the store exit. Both males state that they knew "something was up", because "the fat guy" was following them. Both males are searched fully by the police officer only. They have no unpaid store merchandise in their possession. A single pill was found in the coin pocket of #1 by the officer and the officer throws it out because he does not know what it is. The full search included ankle to groin, but did not involve removal of any clothing, etc. #1 and #2 are detained by the police for no longer than 5 minutes and then released. Side note: the police officer knew #2 by name due to previous interactions. Both males are in their late 20's. The mother of #1 called the store to complain about the "illegal search and sexual assault"(her words) of her son by the police. She is also very upset that his "prescription" medication was disposed of by the police officer. She is indicating that she is a lawyer, but has not once represented herself as his legal counsel - only as his mother. She is repeatedly calling the store asking for peoples names, information, etc. However, her adult son has not called or complained even once.
Questions:
1. Was the search legal?
2. If not, who is liable. The store, the police, or both?
3. If anyone is liable, should the individual who was searched be following up on this instead of his mother, since he is not a minor?

Thank You for your insight and comments.
Homework assignments require a $5K retainer fee.
 

Kane

Member
Mom's liable for fraudulently holding herself out as an attorney. Other than that, I don't see anybody getting any money out of the situation.

How much do you think a jury would award for five minutes' inconvenience, and a pill?
 

CuriousMe

Junior Member
LOL. It does sort of read like a homework assignment, doesn't it? The reason I posted this question is because I am the manager of the store that was involved in this. I personally allowed my LP employee to call the police as "backup", if it became necessary. My employer is one of the largest retailers in the country and is very concerned with lawsuits. It has pretty much been told to me by my bosses that IF the search was illegal, and IF she decides to pursue this, and IF our legal department then believes that we might be liable - then someone, i.e. ME, would most likely have to be held accountable, i.e. FIRED. I have been at this company for 7 years and, unlike most retail managers, I love my job. I am just trying to figure out if the search by the officers was legal, because then I know whether or not I have to update my resume. Thanks for any insight.
 

CuriousMe

Junior Member
Oh, sorry. I also left out the fact that I "Googled" mom and she is infact a member of the bar in my state. She is supposedly an attorney with the Office of Management and Budget Watch, but I can't figure out exactly what that means she does or how well she would know the law pertaining to this incident. Especially considering that she is convinced that the search of her adult son constituted "sexual assault".
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
1. Was the search legal?

A: Yes.


2. If not, who is liable. The store, the police, or both?

A: See first answer.


3. If anyone is liable, should the individual who was searched be following up on this instead of his mother, since he is not a minor?

A: See first answer.


I don't see how a store or store employee can be held responsible for what a cop did!
 

Kane

Member
Unless you have a contract, the store can fire you anytime they want, and for (just about) any reason, including calling police on people who turned out not to be shoplifters.

As far as I can tell from your post, though, what the police did was legal, and I can't imagine any theory that would make you or your store liable for their conduct, even if it wasn't.

Anybody can sue anybody for any reason. All it takes is a trip to the clerk's office, and a check for the filing fee. Having said that, this doesn't sound like a lawsuit that would result in anything (except perhaps a grievance against the lawyer who filed it). And even if it did, the "damages" could be paid with pocket change.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
How come one of the "largest retailers in the country" doesn't have its own legal department to run this past?

Ah, it doesn't matter, mom is just blowing smoke.
 

CuriousMe

Junior Member
Oh, believe me, we have a huge legal department at our corporate offices. I just really wanted to get some objective opinions from people who are not afraid of being sued. My direct boss called "Mom" today and explained that any further communications concerning this matter would need to be directed to our legal department (to which I and my LP employee have already supplied detailed statements). Mom then asked how she would get in touch with them. To which to my boss replied "Well, seeing as you are an attorney, you should be able to figure that out". I just can't believe that she is obviously more concerned about this than the 2 adults who were searched. I'm thinking ambulance chaser at this point, but I would assume she would have to get her son to agree to any sort of attempt at legal action anyway. Wouldn't HE have to be the complainant?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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