Best Buy had me trespassed after they stole my property and I called the police

Hello,

I live in the state of Florida. I am disabled and receive public assistance due to a mental disorder (Bi-Polar with anxiety and paranoid disorders).

This December, I went shopping at a local Best Buy department store. As is often the case when I go out to places with large amounts of people, I wear yellow ear plugs that help cut down on the din of noise in the background and so I don't overhear conversations and get distracted.

This was a return visit to the store to purchase a Hard Drive that was advertised at $40 (after rebate). They didn't have it and I bought another drive instead. I also purchased a CD. I took my two items to the cash register, paid for them with my credit card and received a 20" receipt and my items bagged in a yellow Best Buy bag. I kept the receipt in my left hand and the bag in my right.

As I exited the first set of doors, I heard the security guard say, "Excuse me, I need to see your receipt." I was in the middle of the outside set of sliding doors and the inside set when I turned slightly and held up my left hand and said, "Here it is, I have it thank you." and turned to leave. Again he spoke and said, "I need to see what's in your bag." And I said, "No you don't, I paid for these, they are mine and I have my receipt." I left the store. I was now outside in front of the door when the security guard approached me and blocked my way.

At this point, my heart started racing and I was getting very panicky. I carry a bottle of diazapam with me for such panic and axiety attacks, however it was in my car about 75 feet away. The guard said, "I need to see your receipt." I again held it up no less than 2 feet from him and said, "I have my receipt here." He snatched at my receipt, but I pulled back. He then said he needed to see inside my bag and again I said no. He started to get closer to me and continued to step in front of my path and prevent me from getting to my car. I was afraid that he was going to grab me or hit me and I said very sternly, "You can't touch me, Don't touch me, You have no right to touch me." I realized at some point that the alarm must have been set off by an inventory control device that the cashier forgot to remove. I again tried to walk around him and he blocked me and demanded to see the receipt one more time and made an effort to snatch it again. As I pulled my left hand back, my right arm exposed the yellow bag and the security guard grabbed it out of my hand and rushed into the store with it.

I turned around to see one other Best Buy employee enter the building and about 7 or 8 people staring at me. I was so humiliated and afraid as I called 911 I was now having a full on panic attack. Two officer's arrived and asked me what happened. I explained what happened. I showed the officers my ear plugs that were out when since when I called 911 and my receipt. I said I wanted to file charges against the man who stole my property out of my hands and I wanted it back and to speak to the manager.

I waited while the officer's when inside the building. They came out with my bag and the officer explained, "They only wanted to deactivate the sensor in case you had to return the item." I said they didn't say that to me. I was then informed that the manager would be out and that SHE was going to trespass me from her store. I reluctantly gave my information to the police officer after asking if she recommended the trespass and she said she didn't. All my information was written down and given to the Best Buy manager on duty. She didn't apologize, she just sat and listend as I explained how upset I was. She wouldn't tell me the name of the associate who took my bag either.

As a person with a disability, I believe I was discriminated against. As for the suspicion of a crime or a shop lifting, i'm aware that Florida law 812.015(3)(b) gives them "reasonable cause" to detain me if sufficient notice has been posted. However, I don't believe they had the right to deprive me of my property by stealing it from my hands and then to ban me from the store.

I am seeking advice on how to proceed in this situation. My use of prescription medication for anxiety and depressing has increased to no avail. In addition I have an irrational fear of shopping where I think that someone might slip a security tag on me or in my pocket or something (I read about that on a website where employees had done this as a joke).

I'm sorry for the long post. But I don't know what to do. Seems with my disability I am always having to live in YOUR world where no one sees things in MY world.

A few things I don't understand:

If you noticed someone talking to you (you stated you showed them the receipt) why would you not take out the ear plugs for the few minutes?

Why would you not allow them to search your bag? This has happened to me at stores and it does not bother me to allow them to look. They are only trying to prevent shoplifting. If you had not shoplifted, why not let them look?

Since they did not know of your disability, I would not think it is a discrimination case. They did not single you out; they would have done this to a non-disabled person.

I agree. This is not discrimination. You can see if an attorney might take the case of you being treated improperly by Best Buy, but I doubt that you'll get any takers - and certainly not for discrimination.

- Carl

CMORRIS:

At the point when I heard the associate talking to me I didn't take out my ear plugs because that is one of the primary reasons why I wear them. As I stated, I'm bipolar and have difficulty interacting with people, I have to leave my sanctuary of home and go out in public. The less interactions I have the better. If I can't hear people talking at a distance, it doesn't bother me.

As for the discrimination, I'm not certain, however, when they opted to use the police, who I called, to exclude me from the store by issuing a trespass warning, I feel they discriminated against me.

Admittedly, I have difficulty with my disability in social situations. In my community, some people with more visible mental handicapes, e.g. retarded persons, have been trespassed. In those situations, they have been overturned by lawyers who have threatened lawsuits based on discrimination. That is why I feel I fall into a special class...

As far as what Best Buy did, the only reason they had to believe I had stolen something was that the alarm went off. I complied with the request of "Showing" my receipt. The alarm system was set off NOT because I stole something but because of a cashier's mistake. NOT MINE. I have heard of cases where Judges have ruled that the antishoplifing devices are 99 percent false. If I had ran because of fear, and the associate attacked me, surely sympathy would be in my court.

So, I hope that sums it up. If they came out and said, "I'm sorry the clerk forgot to deactivate the sensor." I wouldn't feel so bad. Consider if YOU were embarassed by everyone around you for no legitimate reason?

pcgumshoe said:

As for the discrimination, I'm not certain, however, when they opted to use the police, who I called, to exclude me from the store by issuing a trespass warning, I feel they discriminated against me.

Click to expand...

Since they would have likely done that to anyone - not JUST to someone who had an inobvious disability (which they could not have known about ... and likely wouldn't have cared about), it is not unlawful discrimination.

Your condition may be a defense for certain actions on your part, but it does not invalidate the actions of others who have no way of knowing your condition or any requirement to have to accomodate it instantly.

As far as what Best Buy did, the only reason they had to believe I had stolen something was that the alarm went off.

Click to expand...

In my state we call that "reasonable suspicion" and that would EASILY justify a detention. Someone leaving the store after that would just strengthen that justification to the point where they could probably make a lawful arrest for suspicion of theft.

I complied with the request of "Showing" my receipt. The alarm system was set off NOT because I stole something but because of a cashier's mistake.

Click to expand...

Either way, it was still sufficient cause to detain you. And waving a tiny piece of paper as you walk away is not proving anything! Especially since the guy couldn't check it with what was in your bag! Heck I can bring a receipt into a store along with a bag and then fill the bag and wave a receipt on the way out ... it's something that thieves do.

I have heard of cases where Judges have ruled that the antishoplifing devices are 99 percent false.

Click to expand...

I've never heard that. Even so, it does not remove the justification they had to detain you.

If I had ran because of fear, and the associate attacked me, surely sympathy would be in my court.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not.

And I wouldn't characterize the employee's actions as an attack.

So, I hope that sums it up. If they came out and said, "I'm sorry the clerk forgot to deactivate the sensor." I wouldn't feel so bad.

Click to expand...

They probably didn't know WHAT happened until they compared the receipt with the item in the bag. For all the guy at the door knew you had something stolen in the bag.

- Carl

In talking to the Store Manager a few days later, he indicated that Best Buy's security officers are instructed NOT to follow customers into the parking lot. If that is an official policy, and they pursued me, I was singled out. He also indicated that he would look at the security tape. He said that "If you showed your receipt, the associate should have let you leave."

With regards to the sensormatic systems, my state requires: "provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized."

My disability aside, this would be an embarassment to anyone. In as much as the alarm, I did not hear it. I was NOT made aware of its activation until sometime later. As far as I knew, I was being "routinely checked" for a receipt. Such checks are voluntary (I knew that and don't stop for them).

As far as "Reasonable Cause" vs "Probable Cause" both are used in the state statute but not interchangeable. In my state, Home Depot now has a "SELF CHECK OUT" section where customer ring up their OWN purchases. Should a customer purchase, and pay for, a product that has a sensor on it, there is very little likelihood that the item will be deactivated.

I have read a lot about this and subscribed to Westlaw for a two week trial period to review these types of cases. When the clerk took MY property, that's conversion in addition, I had to stay until the police arrived to get the store to return my merchandise. I have read some points here on this site.

I will say that when a friend conveyed my story to her boyfriends father (an attorney) they mis-conveyed that I was jumped and roughed up. He was very eager to talk to me about the case. When he heard there was no "Physical" injury he opted out. My life has been a constant battle of this type of discrimination. When the Federal Government told me I was disabled and my doctors said I needed a specific type of treatment, the Goverment wouldn't pay for it. I explained, "You say I need a wheelchair (figuratively) and then say that you don't have any." I was told it happens.

I'm not hear to moan about my personal life long plight, I'm looking for solutions to a situation where a reasonable person could have said, "Okay, I understand that you are disabled and perhaps our conduct was a little over zealous, we will lift the trespass warning and welcome you back. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you." I'd be fine. Instead, I looked at a person who had no sympathy for me as if they STILL feel that the goods were stolen.

By the way, the receipt was not some SMALL item. As I said, it was 20 inches long. And I don't know about you, but when someone asks to see something I am reminded of the old expression, "See with your eyes, not with your hands."

On the issue of "Probable Cause" as you say to where they could probably make a lawful arrest for suspicion of theft the clerks actions did NOT comply with the statute. They should have continued to detain me. Instead, the left me to leave and alone OUTSIDE on the sidewalk as I called 911. As it was my property I was in a dilema. Leave and validate in their minds that the merchandise was stolen or stay. By proxy, I was detained WAITING for my property. Florida law allows them to arrest or detain me, NOT my property. He didn't ask me inside to the security office, he took MY bag into the building, effectively personafying an inanimate object and arresting IT. That isn't covered under the statute.


Some people will voluntarily give up their civil liberties in the fear of bad charma or whatever. I don't like interactions with people and try to keep them to a minimum.

While on a personal level, I can sympathize with your plight (I never even show receipts when they ask - I bought it, it's mine) but you have a number of problems if you think there are valid grounds for a lawsuit.

First, no matter what the store's internal policy states, a violation of it is not grounds to sue them. Their policy is not law. Unless they violate a law, then they are not liable.

Which brings up point two - you got your goods back. Thus, if you were to bring a conversion suit and somehow get it to a plaintiff's verdict without it being dismissed, you will win a whopping $1 for your nominal damages. But you'll still be barred from the store.

And, as was already noted, you have absolutely no case of discrimination at all.

End result, why not convert your original post here to a letter to the store's corporate office and see what they do. While not required to, they certainly have the power to offer you some sort of compensation.

Perhaps this will help to clarify.

FL. ST. 812.015: (Farming and Transit sections omitted)

(3)(a) …[A] merchant…or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft…has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail…, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time…. In the event the merchant, merchant's employee, … or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.

(c) The taking into custody and detention by… merchant, merchant's employee, … or agent, if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such … merchant, merchant's employee, … agent, criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

Okay, here is the pertinent part of the Florida code with regards to “Shoplifting” or “Retail Theft.” One of my arguments is that for the person who attempted to detain me did not comply with these requirements. I was stopped, I refused to comply with the stop and I demanded he let me go. He didn't until he, for lack of a better word, stole my property.

I was never told I was suspected of shoplifting and I was never told that the alarm went off. The statute does not permit the employee or agent to take “My Property” into custody, but only the “Offender.” Which, you all seem to think he had the right to do, but he didn't. He took my property and rushed back inside the store with IT, not me. He left me unattended and free to leave.

Therefore, it can’t stand up that he complied with the code. Even section (3)(b) which was the initial “right” they had to stop me did not result in a “text book” apprehension of me. My actions, perhaps increased the “reasonable cause” to “probable cause” for the purposes of a full arrest or detention as in (3)(a). However, the employee did NOT comply with the code. I have yet to confirm, but I will do some research and see if the police were called by just me or me and the store. Again, if my actions elevated this situation from a (3)(b) to (3)(a) then they must immediately call the police to the scene, I doubt they did, because they didn't have ME in custody.

For all intents and purposes, I had the right to wait for a police officer to show up on the scene to search me and my person. I do not have to subject myself or my property to any search ESPECIALLY outside the store. If I were still inside the store, yes maybe they could “Forcibly” search me, however, they would then just exacerbate the situation and they should be trained well enough to know that if I say, “I won’t let you search me, call the police,” They have to make a choice, call the police if they feel they have enough “probable cause” or let me go. If they make any OTHER choice, then the detention becomes unreasonab.e.

I'm not upset with your responses, however, I wish I got ONE good one in my favor. I am just seeking justice where I feel I was wronged, maybe this is not an issue for discrimination, however, by precluding me, just as if I were a retarded person and they didn't like how I acted in public, I feel that is moderately a form of discrimination. But I won't care if that becomes part of this or not. Some states believe in "Throw as much as possible in a law suit and see what sticks." Other's do not. I don't know about Florida, I've only lived here since July.

Thanks for your continued input, it might help to know what type of experience you have when you are responding, clearly a police officer, security consultant, attorney, judge, and lay person would all have different opinions, knowledge and background.

Like I said originally, even if you got a charge to stick, what are your damages? A "fear of shopping malls" for someone with a pre-existing diagnosed serious psychological impairment is worth next to nothing when up against a seasoned trial attorney. (Not to mention, if that was a penal statute you cited, you don't have the standing to enforce it in the first place.)

Others may disagree with my opinion, (although I doubt they will here). Let's wait and see what the consensus is.





PS: I'm a mere litigation attorney, so I am most certainly biased.

As I understand from my reading, it isn't a Penal Statute if I believe you mean "CRIMINAL" California is a Penal Code System. This is a statute that codifies for Florida the "Shopkeeper's Priviledge" and also outlines the criminal conduct. I'd post the entire Fl. St., however, I just posted what I believed to be the importat parts. The first 1/2 of the 812.015 outlines the definitions. This is a statute for other states and it takes and applies a statute for the common law version of the shopkeeper's priviledge. The code outlines when the Merchant will NOT be held liable in court. Again, there is no mention in the code that they may take my property into custody however there is case law that says that by taking that property, I was detained. In that case, they would have to comply with the code and call the police.

I will call the police to see how I can find out if a call went out FROM best buy.

My call to the police was the only call to that address between the time that I was there and afterwards. Clearly they didn't even comply with the code. Once they took the merchandise into their possession, if they felt they had "Probable Cause" they were required to call the police. Otherwise, they should have returned my product to me.

I feel the police are at fault here too, but I don't know how that would factor in. And I know that "YOU ARE GUILTY" won't agree with me, but maybe someone else out there will

Okay, if you think you are morally right - so be it.

But what is the end result you desire, here? If you want money from Best Buy, get an attorney ... though I personally do not think one will be able to secure you much - if any.

If you want an apology, write a letter and point all this out to them.

The employee is NOT going to be charged with a crime against you, so if that's what you seek, you'll have to keep on waiting. And if you DO go to court you will have to deal with a lot of people ... in court.

So, what do you want from all this? Are you just venting your frustration? Or are you seeking a couple bucks?

- Carl

3)(a) …[A] merchant…or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft…has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail…, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time…. In the event the merchant, merchant's employee, … or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.


You weren't taken into custody, so they didn't need to call law enforcement.

That's the way I'm reading it.

pcgumshoe, I agree with the others. Write a letter to Best Buy asking for an apology and let it go. You may be able to find a lawyer to take up your cause (though I doubt it); however, and I'm sorry to be blunt, the whole situation will be chalked up to the fact that you are mentally ill. No one at the store knew that except you, and you started the entire thing by behaving inappropriately.

In response to what do I want: A few bucks, yes. I admit it. Okay, I'm not looking to "WIN THE LOTTERY" here. I have been a loyal patron of Best Buy ever since its first inception. When I asked my mother, who used to be a store manager for Mervyn's, whether or not she would sue, she said no. She said because she doesn't shop at Best Buy that often (maybe one time a year). Then she said that she knows how much I shop there and that if I can handle the stress of the case (emotionally) that I should sue. For her, she admitted she wouldn't stand up for anything more than an apology and for them to rescind the trespass warning and permit her back in the store.

I don't know if I would ever go back, given the circumstances and the bad taste in my mouth for this, however, that trespass warning is a public document now. As I explained to the Police Sergeant, "Were I to run for President, that would come up." I wasn't really joking at the time and I will never run for office, but that WAS an invasion of my privacy, especially since I called the police and they didn't.

Also, the police officer lied. I asked her directly whether or not she was the one who recommended the trespass, she said no that it was the store's decision. I knew officers suggest trespassing customers having them recommend it to me but only when I called them. When I later called the store manager (not the manager who I dealt with on the day of the incident) he said that it was the POLICE who recommended the trespass and that he wouldn't rescind it based on that. Also, he said that he did not review the tapes of the exit door which would clearly have shown me showing my receipt. He said in our first conversation that if I showed a receipt, the security guard should have let me be.

HAPPY TRAILS: I was detained and/or arrested when he blocked me from moving freely to my vehicle (which is also where my medication was that I needed when this was done).

I have read some laws where when a merchant takes the property of a suspect (or customer) that by taking that property I can be considered detained or I abandon the property. Remember, I didn't steal something, I had it in a bag and it was mine after I paid for it. The clerk merely didn't de-activate the security sensor.

Now, the next argument might be, well then (3)(b) comes into play. They had the right to detain me, however, "Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device."

The police officer said to me, when SHE brought my merchandise out to me nearly 45 minutes after this all took place, "They only wanted to de-activate the security sensor in case you needed to return it."

Clearly the security guard walked back into the store the my product and the alarm was activated by something in the bag. They should have identified which item it was, found the checker that rang me up and confirmed that I just paid for that item. The time span from purchase to exit was less than 2 minutes... however long it took for the cashier to bag it, give me my receipt and I to head for the door. I didn't hang around, so there was no way they could claim I added something.

In any event, the fact remains that were I to sue them, they could not plead immunity. Their actions did NOT comply with the statute (in that they didn't take my PERSON into custody, but my property - and that's not covered by the statute) No charges were made against me, they didn't call the police, they merely stole my merchandise. They didn't even come out and talk to me.

I sort of remember the associate that took my bag say something like, "Now we are going to refund this merchandise." In that they were going to give me my money back and send me on my way.

AS FAR AS GRIPPING: I found this forum and it is what it is, free advice. I have not yet found an attorney for my case. Every lawyer I have talked to says, "You have a case, but you need to find a lawyer who has dealt with this type of thing before." "False Arrest" applies mostly to criminal actions, although this falls into that category. "Personal Injury" could be applicable here, however it is a emotional trauma. I'm still learning some of these terms. I posted this here because I felt that it was discriminatory for the police to take the side of the store and not take into account that I was disabled. If I were in a wheel chair and I wouldn't let them search my wheel chair and they decided to trespass me because of that, I think the discrimination would be more evident. So I live in a wheel chair in my mind