Mavurik said:
No crime YET. They're still investigating it.
WHAT crime?!? Against who? The manager? for what?
Unless he hopes for false imprisonment (and nothing you stated rises to that level), I don't see any criminal violation in what you wrote.
Only by a police. Not by store employees.
Store policies vary. And since what we are talking about is criminal law, store policy is irrelevant to the matter. The elements of theft can be met without leaving the store.
I know this from working in Loss Prevention. It's not theft until they leave the store.
An dthat is a good, safe policy for a store to operate under. But the law does not REQUIRE them to operate under this policy.
My brother was suspicious in no way unless you see being black and looking at food suspicious. Picking up an item and putting it back down is not a shoplift indicator and no jury would see it that way. So I'm sorry, you're just wrong. It's not theft until you leave the store. Only police can stop on suspicion like that.
You weren't there so you don't know WHAT the employee(s) saw. And yes, i CAN be seen as suspicious. And a private person CAN stop someone or ask them to stay - they can even use reasonable force to effect an arrest (though this is highly discouraged in a private person's arrest).
Read PC 836 et al and you will see the laws of arrest for private persons and the police are very similar.
Hah, wait until I get the civil rights groups involved in this. You'll see a civil "tort" alright. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell this manager was in the wrong.
Maybe. And he might have been. The question is going to be what can be proven, and whether any damages can be demonstrated.
"Manipulating the items on a shelf". Oh please. He looked at a ravioli and put it down. Then he went to the bathroom. Since when is that against the law?
It's not. But when you look at a series of otherwise innocuous acts taken together, they can demonstrate reasonable suspicion under the law - and even probable cause to support an arrest. It's all in the articulation and what the observer saw and perceived.
So in this case SAFEWAY is the one with no reason to have stopped him.
Maybe not. But, depending on what the manager saw, they may very well have had cause to detain him long enough to ask him the pointed questions.
My brother's FRIEND was the one who asked him "Why didn't you stop me?" and the manager was the one who responded "Becaues blacks and mexicans have been stealing my alcohol". So there are other factors present and it will be used to show unreasonable bias, not might.
But, the statement by itself does not show prejudicial bias. If it was a statement of fact or perception, it doesn't make it prejudicial. It might be one piece in the whole that shows it was racially motivated, but by itself it is not likely significant. And it would have to be shown that the manager's sole or primary motivation was based upon race. Race CAN play a part in the equation in many cases.
If this ever goes to court Safeway won't have a leg to stand on, contrary to what you think.
I never said they DID have a leg to stand on. But I don't think that the case is as strong as you say it is. Civil torts generally require some damage. The "humiliation" factor here may not be considered much in the way of damage. Safeway may decide to pay a couple thouand dollars in "go away" money, but this is not going to make anyone rich.
Have him consult that attorney and see what the attorney says.
And I am still interested to hear what crime you think was committed here. I can't see any reason for the police to look in to it at all ... unless there is sufficient cause to believe that your brother actually committed a theft.
- Carl