Turns our Walmart has made money accusing innocent people of stealing to tune of 300 million dollars!! Solution? Don't shop at Walmart!! You could be next!!!
Here's the problem with that: he didn't really file a police report in this instant because no one really saw her steal anything; if they were to claim that, and it could be proved this was malicious, then yes: a false police report was filed. In this case, Walmart called the police to issue this innocent woman a trespass notice and warning. Can she go to a different Walmart location? If she can't because of this story and incident, then she will have even more grounds to sue.
@@reynaldoacosta5732 Just trespassing? They ended up looking through her things anyway, and I'm sure they would have pressed charges if something was stolen. It's just some legalese.
“What did it really cost her “ it cost her dignity and emotional distress! Hope she wins her lawsuit cause that’s the only way they stop behaving badly.
Cost her? Possibly future work for her business. Area DA CAN AND WOULD be able to get security footage. If Walmart says they no longer have it or continue to refuse DA should file against them. I hope she wins.
@@denisemiller1562 Are you braindead by any chance or just greedy wishing this was you and what you can get out of it. Suing Walmart I agree but suing the cops? For what, doing their job? They even stated theirs doubts of the woman shoplifting.
under the laws of discloser, they are required by law to produce them. that's why the sandyhook parents dropped their lawsuit against wolfgang halbig and why they will drop the lawsuit against alex jones.
@@Cableguy5770 Partially correct. Walmart would only be compelled to produce the evidence automatically as a routine part of discovery if they actually charged her with shoplifting and they were preparing for a criminal trial. But a court can absolutely compel them to produce the video footage if it's deemed relevant to any civil action the woman pursues.
@@Rowgue51 Yes, this is why security is supposed to archive suspicious/liable activity on video. If it went to court and Walmart was to say that they don't have the footage anymore, then they don't have any real proof.
Okay I used to work at retail. The person who is most likely stealing is a manager or a clerk. If they check past cameras half the store will be fired including manager.
I worked for (and was fired from - because i was a whistleblower) a Family Dollar. Our GM let her felonious lover come in and (not as an employee of FD) unload the trucks. Over the course of 6 months $60,000 worth of merch went into her camaro and to God knows where because we were a small store in the poor section of town that no one wanted to mess with. I can say without a doubt it was the manager trying to cover their hind ends and Walmart on a corporate level letting their individual stores run wild. They could care less about loss prevention. It's an insurance write off on merch they are making a 300% or more profit on to begin with. Employees 'damage out' goods day in and day out to buy them themselves at a discounted (usually half) price. I hope she makes them pay. They'll write that off as insurance too.
@@zer-fv3qs You heard about that black woman with the Jesus shirt who did not enter store and was accused of shoplifting. Yeah Safeway employees are stealing and blaming it on other people. This is getting really old.
In my state, being falsely accused of shoplifting is a massive civil tort - stores have been successfully sued for it. This Walmart is demonstrating a "pattern and practice" of falsely accusing/trespassing innocent, paying customers.
@@shawncarroll5255 As far as I know, a business is civilly liable in any state if they falsely arrest somebody for theft. Being detained by store security personnel against your will is the same as being arrested. In this case, it 'appears' she was never detained, just served the ban by the PD. The store may still be liable for defamation of character.
....CITATION CONTINUED Specifically, subsection (B) provides: If a merchant utilizes electronic devices which are designed to detect the unauthorized removal of marked merchandise from the store, and if sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized, a signal from the device to the merchant or his employee or agent indicating the removal of specially marked merchandise shall constitute a sufficient basis for reasonable cause to detain the person. Therefore, sufficient reasonable cause to detain a person pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 215 occurs when: (1) sufficient notice is posted to advise patrons that an electronic device designed to detect the unauthorized removal of marked merchandise from the store is being utilized; and (2) a signal from the device to the merchant or his employee or agent indicating the removal of specifically market merchandise. La. C.Cr.P. art. 215(B). a. Patron’s Guilt or Innocence is Immaterial to “Reasonable Cause” “[R]easonable cause” for purposes of article 215 is not based upon the store patron’s actual guilt or innocence, but rather on the reasonableness of the store employee’s action in detaining the patron under all of the circumstances. Durand v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 98-1738 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/30/99); 747 So.2d 89, 91 citing Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 So.2d 502, 504 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1991); Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 98-1215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99); 734 So.2d 156. A store may be absolved from liability notwithstanding the customer’s innocence. Vaughn, 734 So.2d at 156; Freeman v. Kar Way, Inc., 96-8 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96); 686 So.2d 51, writ denied, 970524 (La. 4/18/97); 692 So.2d 429; Estorge v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 604 So.2d 1012 (1992). However, once a customer’s innocence is established, the customer must be released immediately and unconditionally. McNeely v. National Tea Co., 94-392 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/28/95); 653 So.2d 1231, rehearing denied, writ denied, 1995-1531 (La. 9/29/95); 660 So.2d 880. Below are summaries of cases wherein courts found reasonable cause for a detention in spite of the plaintiffs’ innocence. In Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court found that the Wal-Mart employee, who stopped plaintiffs, had reasonable cause to believe plaintiffs committed a theft, even though it was later confirmed that a theft had not taken place. 98-1215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99); 734 So.2d 156, 160-61. It reasoned that the employee saw plaintiffs standing near a closed register in a secluded part of the store and saw one of the plaintiffs reaching into a bag. Id. The court further reasoned that the stop was reasonable because once it was confirmed that a theft had not taken place, plaintiffs were free to go. Id. at 161-62. In Freeman v. Kar Way, Inc., the court held that the defendant-merchant had “reasonable cause” for a detention pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 215 even though the detention revealed that plaintiff did not have stolen merchandise on her person. 96-8 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96); 686 So.2d 51, writ denied, 970524 (La. 4/18/97); 692 So.2d 429. The court reasoned that the store employees had reasonable cause to suspect the plaintiff of shoplifting after they saw the plaintiff near the earring counter, lift her shirt, and place her hand under it. Id. In Estorge v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., the court found that the defendant- merchant had reasonable cause to detain three customers for twenty-five minutes despite the fact that the detention revealed that plaintiffs had not committed a theft. 604 So.2d 1012 (1992). The court reasoned that the store employees had reasonable cause to suspect the customers of shoplifting after they observed plaintiffs pick up a carton of cigarettes, later found an empty carton of the same brand of cigarettes in another area of the store, observed one of the customers putting something in his pocket and then putting it back on the shelf, and observed that same customer with a bulge in his pocket the size of two packs of cigarettes. Id. signal from the device to the merchant or his employee or agent indicating the removal of specifically market merchandise. La. C.Cr.P. art. 215(B). ....CONTINUED
....CITATION CONTINUED a. Patron’s Guilt or Innocence is Immaterial to “Reasonable Cause” “[R]easonable cause” for purposes of article 215 is not based upon the store patron’s actual guilt or innocence, but rather on the reasonableness of the store employee’s action in detaining the patron under all of the circumstances. Durand v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 98-1738 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/30/99); 747 So.2d 89, 91 citing Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 So.2d 502, 504 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1991); Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 98-1215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99); 734 So.2d 156. A store may be absolved from liability notwithstanding the customer’s innocence. Vaughn, 734 So.2d at 156; Freeman v. Kar Way, Inc., 96-8 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96); 686 So.2d 51, writ denied, 970524 (La. 4/18/97); 692 So.2d 429; Estorge v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 604 So.2d 1012 (1992). However, once a customer’s innocence is established, the customer must be released immediately and unconditionally. McNeely v. National Tea Co., 94-392 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/28/95); 653 So.2d 1231, rehearing denied, writ denied, 1995-1531 (La. 9/29/95); 660 So.2d 880. Below are summaries of cases wherein courts found reasonable cause for a detention in spite of the plaintiffs’ innocence. In Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court found that the Wal-Mart employee, who stopped plaintiffs, had reasonable cause to believe plaintiffs committed a theft, even though it was later confirmed that a theft had not taken place. 98-1215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99); 734 So.2d 156, 160-61. It reasoned that the employee saw plaintiffs standing near a closed register in a secluded part of the store and saw one of the plaintiffs reaching into a bag. Id. The court further reasoned that the stop was reasonable because once it was confirmed that a theft had not taken place, plaintiffs were free to go. Id. at 161-62. In Freeman v. Kar Way, Inc., the court held that the defendant-merchant had “reasonable cause” for a detention pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 215 even though the detention revealed that plaintiff did not have stolen merchandise on her person. 96-8 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96); 686 So.2d 51, writ denied, 970524 (La. 4/18/97); 692 So.2d 429. The court reasoned that the store employees had reasonable cause to suspect the plaintiff of shoplifting after they saw the plaintiff near the earring counter, lift her shirt, and place her hand under it. Id. In Estorge v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., the court found that the defendant- merchant had reasonable cause to detain three customers for twenty-five minutes despite the fact that the detention revealed that plaintiffs had not committed a theft. 604 So.2d 1012 (1992). The court reasoned that the store employees had reasonable cause to suspect the customers of shoplifting after they observed plaintiffs pick up a carton of cigarettes, later found an empty carton of the same brand of cigarettes in another area of the store, observed one of the customers putting something in his pocket and then putting it back on the shelf, and observed that same customer with a bulge in his pocket the size of two packs of cigarettes. Id.... ....ii. Lack of “Reasonable Cause” In Thomas v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarket, Inc., the court found that Schwegmann Supermarket lacked reasonable cause to detain the plaintiff, a suspected shoplifter, and thus, civil immunity from liability for false imprisonment was not applicable. 561 So.2d 992 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990). The Thomas security guard detained the plaintiff for theft of glue from a false nail kit where the kit did not in fact contain glue. Id. The court reasoned there was not reasonable cause to detain the customer because the security guard, who had thirteen years of experience in the field and was a former member of the city police department, should have inspected the package in question before detaining the customer and accusing the customer of theft. Id. A. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 215-Immunity to Store Merchants and Their Agents Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 215(A) permits a merchant or authorized employee or agent to stop a customer who is suspected of shoplifting for questioning or verification of payment and subsequently hold such customer for arrest. The article gives quasi- police powers to merchants and their agents and gives them immunity from civil and criminal liability when such merchant has reasonable cause to believe that a theft of goods has occurred on the premises. La. C.Cr.P. art. 215, cmt. (e); Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98-1215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99); 734 So.2d 156, 159 citing McNeely v. Nat’l Tea Co., 94-392 (La. App 5 Cir. 3/28/95); 653 So.2d 1231, writ denied, 95-1531 (La. 9/29/95); 660 So.2d 880. La. C.Cr.P. art. 215(A) provides: A. (1) A peace officer, merchant, or a specifically authorized employee or agent of a merchant, may use reasonable force to detain a person for questioning on the merchant’s premises, for a length of time, not to exceed sixty minutes, unless it is reasonable under the circumstances that the person be detained longer, when he has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a theft of goods held for sale by the merchant, regardless of the actual value of the goods. The merchant or his employee or agent may also detain such a person for arrest by a peace officer. The detention shall not constitute an arrest. Therefore, for a merchant to be afforded immunity under La. C.Cr.P. art. 215 in connection with the detention of a person suspected of shoplifting for questioning the following is required: (1) the person effecting the detention must be a peace officer, a merchant, or a specifically authorized employee of the merchant; (2) the party making the detention must have a reasonable cause to believe the detained person has committed theft of goods held for sale by the merchant; (3) unreasonable force may not be used in detaining the suspect for interrogation; (4) the detention must occur on the merchant’s premises; and (5) the detention may not last longer than sixty minutes, unless it is reasonable under the circumstances that the person be detained longer. La. C.Cr.P. art. 215; Rhymes v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 2010-1357 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11); 58 So.3d 1068.
Haven't shopped at a Walmart in years.. They're destructive to small businesses in thier communities..they use illegal labor practices for which they've been sued for Wisconsin- and lost... And the pay is low..the attitudes and professionalism of staff is very uneven..some associates are so glued to thier cellphones they can't be bothered with customers
70% of commercial theft is committed by employees, my college professor used to work professional loss prevention for a big company that works for all these stores
THis is not a good way to treat PAYING customers. The people that made a false police report should be charged and fired. Walmart needs to apologize publicly for this FAST...
Well if they were following her on the camera’s, wouldn’t they see her at the register paying for her items? Not to mention the person at the door checking receipts, would’ve verified she paid. Seems a bit much.
Times a changing,when its from a different angle ,they sence what the melanated go through daily,and this is just a glimpse of it,and see how they analyze the whole case,its gonna happen more often ,its just got to. So now its worth analyzing?? Sorry but not Sorry.
@@gerdavandersan2018 good point and we'll put. The Walmart made a fatal mistake trying to treat a white woman like a black person. The mainstream media always try and show that white people go thru similar struggles as blacks here. Smdh not true as we all know. It is only fuel to the ws and wss fire. It gives them more of an opportunity to say we should just b blindly obedient it will turn out just like this. We all know the justice system is built to allow white offenders to b multiple offenders while blacks get life for one crime (at a smaller level).
Yes. I have heard about. A black woman asking for a refund and she have the receipt to prove it. And she gets put in handcuffs by the police. It's a very embarrassing situation and it hurts to be accused of shoplifting in a store especially when you paid for the items you purchased and have the sales slips on you. The manager is still not convinced. The store banned you for life. It's hard to get cleared of those charges of shoplifting. If the store have surveillance cameras on the woman the whole time. Then the video footage should have been enough proof. She didn't take nothing she have paid for. When you didn't take nothing you have paid for. The manager told the woman who he accused of shoplifting not to come back to the store no more. I'll say this. What about the store employees, they steal too. I won't go back to that store never again. The woman who was accused of shoplifting in a department store should never accept no apologies from the corporate headquarters of the department store. Technically all department stores have that right to ban a person from their property for life whether he or she have shoplifted in the store or not. It's going to be a huge law suit with the three parties involved.
My dad went through that, no footage, still full racks, and more product accused of being stolen than David Copperfield could get into a backpack full of work clothes. Only thing they had was an associate saying she saw him doing it who they caught stealing 3 tv's a week later. They lost 50+ regular customers And the kicker, she did not report it for 3 days. That is highly suspicious.
She was banned for a "hypothetical crime" being committed. Sounds almost exactly like police behavior. "We stop you for "suspicious activity," and you fit the description of the suspisious activity in the area so I need to see some ID, or your gonna go to jail." Make them pay for their transgressions.
I would contact a attorney ASAP. She has constitutional rights and how embarrassing. You just can't accuse people then tresspass when you don't know for sure if they are guilty.
I hope she refused to sign the trespass warning paper issued by Titusville police and if Walmart did that to me what they did to that lady I would boy cott the company and find a way to cause trouble with this company
There are other ways than suing to deliver justice. My husband, who's a professional MMA fighter, would be waiting for both the loss prevention guy, AND the manager, outside the store, when they got off work.
The lady was mistaken for someone they suspected was a habitual thief. Listen to the loss prevention recording. Dunno if she’s the right person or not, but this is where its coming from. They think she’s a repeat thief.
It's been over a week, they have probably wiped it -continuous re-recording on a 7 day loop because she was not charged -therefore the video was not needed as evidence. Companies do this all the time and seem to get away with it.
KENT ROBINSON Not to mention that stupid robot thing that cruises the aisles and you can’t get your cart past it. You redirect and go down another aisle there’s that damned robot.
I would like to find out if there is a pattern of bullying in the towns they have invaded and put most mom and pop stores out of work and they are basically the only game in town !
Yes it can happen to anyone. I had a friend whos purse broke, leaving the Walmart after already buying food She was rushing, so she bought a tote instead of a purse. The security guard refused to let her leave and made a huge problem. Even though the cashier told him she bought it as well as she showing the receipt. It's the ego of the person. He was fired she was allowed to leave, after 30 minutes. She missed her ride and appointment.
At least he was held accountable and fired, so kudos to the management at that Walmart for doing the right thing. A lot depends upon whether the managers at a particular location are people of good or bad character.
I had Walmart pharmacy in Texas switch out my pain pills with duds but there was nothing I could really do about it. Somebody got 180 pills which were worth about $2000 dollars street value. I guess they had a pretty good incentive ?
Wow, that's really scary!! An unsuspecting customer could get hurt, or perhaps even lose their life, if they received duds instead of a medication their life depends upon, or those "duds" contain a harmful substance. I hope whoever did that got caught and went to prison. Tampering with medication is extremely dangerous.
How embarrassing being accused of stealing when in fact you have the receipt and still get a no trespassing on your record. This lady is a working women that this could possibly cost her in future jobs and opportunities. This lawsuit is going to be strict bc of the laws and if her lawyer can in fact get the store footage. Also the police even stated that she believed that she didn’t steal and have no proof. This lady had eyes on her everytime she stepped foot in that store. If there is a no trespassing for ALL Walmart’s instead of the one in her neighborhood then she will have a higher chance of winning this case also her picture is in the back where all the employees can see but no proof of ever no wrong doings. I simply wish her nothing but the very best and I hope that she wins her case with the lawsuit.
I hope she sues successfully. Isn't that defamation? I think it is! That is embarrassing and humiliating. If she had stolen something they would have found it on her!
I've been looking for an update, I know exactly how she feels, I've never taken a penny, but was accused. I recall the feeling of seeing a police car and being afraid. Go get 'em!
If retailers are court ordered to pay huge cash settlements by innocently accessed then the court needs to order the same amount of settlements by thieves to pay retailers.
I've been looking for an update too, and it appears that this case is still slowly grinding its way through the legal system three years later. The victim's name is Robin Marsh and the designation for her lawsuit she filed against Walmart is "MARSH et al v. WALMART, INC." You can use that information to google for updates as they occur. I found some updates on the docket for this case about a week before I posted this reply (March 18, 2022) so it still appears to be ongoing and unresolved.
Cops use to be peace officers. There was a time when they would help both parties get along. Now they just do whatever the business (especially multi billion dollar ones) tells them, even when they know the business is wrong.
Sorry but no again unless you are the member of a club store they are unable to detain you from leaving. They can ask all they want but you do not have to show it. Now if they want to try and detain you from leaving so that the police can “deal” with this issue false imprisonment which can lead to civil and possible fed charges
This happen to a friend when we went to Walmart, security approached him about shoplifting an item and wanted to search him. He told them to call the Police and he would let them search him but he wanted a Police Report of the event so when they found nothing he could Sue them. They dropped the issue right there and couldn't apologize fast enough to him as they let him leave the store, he stole nothing from them. The Police being there worked in this woman's favor for her lawsuit.
I’m adopted. My mother is white, I myself her daughter, is black. Any time if my mother hands me bags to hold when we walk out of the store with groceries that we paid for, I always ask my mom if she has the receipt and put it in the bag. She’s always unaware of why I ask, and she won’t get to know cause I know she wouldn’t understand. But yeah.
Ironically Walmart sells the reusable bags. They also don’t handle firearms safely. I have been laughed at for pointing out their unsafe practices to them many times.
That Woman is being accused of shoplifting it happens every day to Black people in America. If If I understand in the United-States you could be accusd by any shop owner at any time, and any moment of year.
Walmart will never admit to being wrong. I have worked there, and they will back up AP people who have been clearly proven wrong in court, and refuse to rehire employees back that lost their jobs over false accusations.
Amazon is going to slay wal mart due to their customer treatment. They have installed cattle gates at entrances here and check receipts for ambiguous reasons. I used to shop there often but these days I only do so when I need something NOW. If I can wait 2 days it is Amazon all the way. Not that I have no issues with Amazon but they do not ask to see my receipt when I check out.
I speak with my feet and wallet. I shop elsewhere, I shop mostly locally. I avoid corporate stores and want my moneys to stay local. I may spend a little more but I get the result I want. Consumer power.
Years ago back when the bar codes were just starting to be placed on products, my then husband bought me a bottle of cologne at a store that was not yet set up for utilizing the system (not sure if that played a part). After using the bottle several times I had thrown it into my purse and gave little further thought into it - until I went shopping at another store that was set up for the system. When I finished shopping and started to leave apparently the bar code on the bottle in my purse set off their alarm. The manager was called out to the front who in front of everyone had me empty my purse out for all to see. While doing so I over heard one sales clerk make a comment that maybe it was all just a mistake. The other clerk gave me a "knowing look" and stated that "no it wasn't." Talk about feeling crushed, embarrassed and angry all at once. The manager then narrowed in on the obviously partially used bottle of cologne - snatched it up and had me follow him back to the cosmetic department so he could ask the staff there if they were missing of all things a stupid sample bottle. After verifying that they weren't, without any apologies he let me leave. I was so embarrassed by the whole thing I did not do what I should have done - which was to put that one "knowing" sales clerk in her place before leaving.
Damn I did have a teacher that had that experience in the 6th grade! I couldn't believe it! But I feel all of you! As my own family has done it to me and I'm hispanic!!!
and just to let everyone know..you do not have to give ID for a trespass warning. just leave.the only time you need to ID is for a traffic citation or you have been legally arrested.
If they want “every customer to have a pleasant experience in their store” then start by making sure there are enough working carts when you walk in plus clean bathrooms
They treat their staff badly. In the UK they changed the staff contact. A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties. If one side can just change the agreement it is not a contract. Nothing happened sign or the sack. Personally I would have said to shove it upwards and sideways. Lots of people I know will not shop there or any other of their companies. People power!
