Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Stealing from a grocery store

[CdwJava]

Well I don't know the numbers, but yes.
What I am getting at is that the punishment should fit the crime. The person who steals the $3 item and returns it should not face the same penalty as the person who steals the $300 item and doesn't return it.
The $400 penalty in this case is absurd.

Actually, it's probably quite low when you think about the cost of anti-theft measures and personnel per incident. If you parsed out the penalties for prevention, apprehension, and lost revenue from the item, I suspect that the cost would be far greater.

CA law allows law enforcement to seek compensation for their costs for vehicle impounds, DUI responses, etc. and do you really think that it costs the agency $120 to fill out the CHP 180 and the release document? There are elements of state law that permit organizations to seek compensation beyond direct costs.

If a person does not want to pay, and they feel they can actually beat the claim in civil court (good luck with that) or pray that the business will no pursue them, they have a right to force the business's hand. But, if they lose that coin toss, it will cost them many times more than the original demand. And, believe me, the evidence of the theft is usually quite substantial in most cases.

 

[CdwJava]

When ridiculous demands are made they should be dismissed. Come with a reasonable offer or don't come at all!

Hey, it's a gamble. Don't pay the $400 and hope that they don't pursue. But, if the choice is $400 versus $2,000 or so, I'll pay the $400 to avoid a court record that says I was sued, a hit on my credit report, and a potential criminal violation if the business reports the offense to the police.

As for how many demands are actually pursued, I cannot say. I imagine the industry would not prefer to say, either. I have heard anecdotal stories of people getting hammered in the Bay Area, but I do not know any first hand.

I guess I'm not a gambler. When I go to Tahoe, I play in the snow or on the water. And Vegas? Well, a little too much debauchery for me ... though it was entertaining the last time I was there a little more than 11 years ago.

 

[jacksgal]

going to Vegas in just a couple weeks!

 

[mightymoose]

So your advice is ignore letter risk higher fines as well potential criminal charges, law suit for thousands, negative credit rating etc etc?

My advice is to wait and see if they pursue any legal action. If they do then weigh options at that time. I certainly wouldn't cough up $400 just because they asked for it.
A theft of this type would be handled as an infraction, so there is no risk of any significant criminal charge.
These demands are made in the hope that people will be scared and cough up the money to avoid court. I highly doubt anyone would pursue this $3 matter very far. They could- but I doubt it. I also doubt any judge would order the offender to pay $400 in this case, especially if it is a first offense.

 

[jacksgal]

Ok to be clear your advice is to wait till they triple fine(normal first action) or take legal action to pay? Thats pretty big gamble. Far as the criminal part goes yes your righ tit could likely be plead down to infraction thats if store had not yet filed criminal complaint but chose to as result of not paying civil demand

 

[mightymoose]

Actually, it's probably quite low when you think about the cost of anti-theft measures and personnel per incident. If you parsed out the penalties for prevention, apprehension, and lost revenue from the item, I suspect that the cost would be far greater.

The offender is responsible for his own actions, not the cumulative effect of everybody else's.

CA law allows law enforcement to seek compensation for their costs for vehicle impounds, DUI responses, etc. and do you really think that it costs the agency $120 to fill out the CHP 180 and the release document? There are elements of state law that permit organizations to seek compensation beyond direct costs.

That is a flat fee. It does not allow for a lesser or greater amount depending on the circumstances as the civil demand over theft does. If the fee was $25 for vehicles towed for parking/registration issues, and $120 for vehicles towed incident to arrest, it would be unfair to demand every person pay $120. That is what happens here. A lesser offense deserves a lesser penalty. The law you cited only allows up to $500, so it is near maximum for a $3 incident in which property was recovered. The amount requested is unreasonable. If it was a reasonable amount I would encourage the OP to pay it. Absurd demands don't warrant a response.

If a person does not want to pay, and they feel they can actually beat the claim in civil court (good luck with that) or pray that the business will no pursue them, they have a right to force the business's hand. But, if they lose that coin toss, it will cost them many times more than the original demand. And, believe me, the evidence of the theft is usually quite substantial in most cases.

It isn't about not paying- it is about paying a reasonable amount. In this case I doubt they would pursue anything, but if they did I suspect the OP could get the amount requested reduced. It is small claims- costs would be minimal.

 

[mightymoose]

Ok to be clear your advice is to wait till they triple fine(normal first action) or take legal action to pay? Thats pretty big gamble. Far as the criminal part goes yes your righ tit could likely be plead down to infraction thats if store had not yet filed criminal complaint but chose to as result of not paying civil demand

No- I'm saying wait and see if they seek anything further. If they do, and the OP is actually served something, they will still almost certainly accept the original offer to settle and be done with it. Or the OP could let a judge hear it and maybe get the amount reduced to something reasonable. No need to worry about it until they show they are willing to take the next step over the $3.
If this is a situation where punitive damages are allowed then it is up to the judge to decide the amount. In this case, tripling the damages would be $9. It wouldn't be their arbitrary $400 that is tripled.
There would be no plea necessary to make this an infraction- I suspect there are very few DA's that would prosecute a first time offender on misdemeanor theft charges over a $3 item that was recovered. I think the general rule, at least here in my county, is that just about any petty theft under $100 is handled as an infraction unless it is a second offense. Circumstances would dictate.
There are plenty of circumstances in which the $400 demand would be reasonable. This just isn't one of them. I wonder what would happen of the OP sent them a check for $50 marked as "settlement".

 

[jacksgal]

Your solution is based on assumption and gambles. If op ignore letter and fine is tripled what makes you so certain they will accept original amount? My husband has actually talked to some of these agencies and I can tell you they dont do negotiation in most cases

 

[CdwJava]

The offender is responsible for his own actions, not the cumulative effect of everybody else's.

And when the law allows for a recovery that far exceeds the actual costs, should they not avail themselves of it?

Why, then, should a convicted misdemeanor be forced to pay, say, $1,000 for a fine? After all, it didn't cost the state that much money to write a report for some offense such as battery, and the state can seek compensation for jail costs separately. The fine is above and beyond compensation.

It seems clear that the CA legislature understands that the costs of theft prevention should be borne by the thieves and this statute was enacted to enable that.

That is a flat fee. It does not allow for a lesser or greater amount depending on the circumstances as the civil demand over theft does.

There will be additional costs borne by the loser in a civil suit including the possibility of attorneys fees, and in those cases where the matter is enforceable as a contractual debt, an additional cost ($500+) off the top when the debt is not paid and goes to collections.

If the fee was $25 for vehicles towed for parking/registration issues, and $120 for vehicles towed incident to arrest, it would be unfair to demand every person pay $120.

In those agencies I am aware of with such fees, they charge that for ANY release except for those where no fee is permitted by statute.

That is what happens here. A lesser offense deserves a lesser penalty. The law you cited only allows up to $500, so it is near maximum for a $3 incident in which property was recovered. The amount requested is unreasonable. If it was a reasonable amount I would encourage the OP to pay it. Absurd demands don't warrant a response.

And, as I said, it's a gamble. Gamble that they will not come after you and cost you even MORE money, or pay the $400. As I said, I am not a gambler. But, if someone who steals wants to be, well, they can give it a whirl.

It isn't about not paying- it is about paying a reasonable amount. In this case I doubt they would pursue anything, but if they did I suspect the OP could get the amount requested reduced. It is small claims- costs would be minimal.

What is "reasonable" is subjective. Personally, I would have thieves pay much, much more.

And now, with the amount for Grand Theft rising to $950 from $400, I predict we will see thefts rise as more high ticket items will be petty thefts, and the costs to prevent thefts will escalate and you and I will pay more for the actions of a few.

There is a reason why theft is a crime of moral turpitude. Perhaps the person should consider themselves lucky that the police did not get called and that all they have to worry about is a civil demand. Personally, I am tired of paying for the action of thieves. Let them pay their own freight.

And, Moose, if you really believe those kids that tell you it was the first time they ever stole anything, then I have a bridge to sell ya ...

 

[mightymoose]

Your solution is based on assumption and gambles. If op ignore letter and fine is tripled what makes you so certain they will accept original amount? My husband has actually talked to some of these agencies and I can tell you they dont do negotiation in most cases

And the civil demand is made on the assumption the offender will pay an unreasonable fine in order to avoid court. The company making the demand certainly has the upper hand as they are entitled to something- my point is to let the matter go to court in order to seek a more reasonable amount when they come with unreasonable demands. It is one thing for a person to simply refuse to pay where the law allows for the victim to receive compensation, but it is another thing to refuse to pay an unreasonable demand. The law you referenced allows for a range from $50 to $500. It allows for that range in recognition of lesser offenses that deserve lesser fines. This situation is certainly one that is deserving of a fine on the low end. Personally, I don't think the OP would be penalized further to refusing to pay an unreasonable amount.

 

[CdwJava]

Since the law permits a civil demand within a specific range without establishing guidelines, it is no more "unreasonable" than imposing a maximum fine on someone without articulated justification.

I doubt that the OP or anyone else would be able to get a court to rule that the demand is unreasonable since the business entity could likely EASILY articulate the cost of their preventative and apprehension actions to exceed the amount of the civil demand if i came to that.

But, the OP can pay or not pay as he or she sees fit. It might add a level of uncertainty in their life for some time, or until they find it has gone to collections, but that's their choice.

 

[mightymoose]

Perhaps the person should consider themselves lucky that the police did not get called and that all they have to worry about is a civil demand. Personally, I am tired of paying for the action of thieves. Let them pay their own freight.

And, Moose, if you really believe those kids that tell you it was the first time they ever stole anything, then I have a bridge to sell ya ...

If they had called police then the matter would likely have disappeared and the company would get nothing. It is in their interest to not call police and make these demands instead. Getting a DA to file on this charge would have been a trick, and even if it had proceeded to court I'm certain the offender would have escaped with less than $400 damage, even with court costs... plus maybe some community service hours.

I am assuming this was the OP's first offense. Nothing was said about that. If there is no record then its a first offense, regardless of how many times they may have gotten away with it.

 

[mightymoose]

Since the law permits a civil demand within a specific range without establishing guidelines, it is no more "unreasonable" than imposing a maximum fine on someone without articulated justification.

I doubt that the OP or anyone else would be able to get a court to rule that the demand is unreasonable since the business entity could likely EASILY articulate the cost of their preventative and apprehension actions to exceed the amount of the civil demand if i came to that.

But, the OP can pay or not pay as he or she sees fit. It might add a level of uncertainty in their life for some time, or until they find it has gone to collections, but that's their choice.

All the more reason for a judge to decide. If there are no guidelines then there is no basis for their $400 demand.

 

[jacksgal]

Lets look at some costs randomly that Civil Demand is designed to help retailers

LPO pay averages around $20,000.00 Average Big Box retailer has around 4 LPO's Total $80,000.00 a year
LPM (Manager) average around $30,000.00 new total 110,000.00

Add to this training costs, CCTV and other equitment and the cost is staggering!

Not to mention the 15 Billion in loses from shoplifting alone!

How does this impact the rest of us? Simple

. Higher prices
. Reduce hours for employees
. Reduced benefits for employees
. Lay offs

To name a few. Again I draw attention to fact MM your comments on the actions the service might take are your assumptions! The law on this is clear we make no assumptions. Yes we all agree OP (who hasnt visited this thread in some time now) can ignore the letter. I can assure you a second and third letter "will" come one or both will have new inflated amount along with legal threats. What happens after that will depend on what the service feels is best for them as they do not get paid unless they retreive these funds so they have everything to gain. Its a gamble! The question for OP is are you a gambler are you willing to risk thousands of dollars (potentially) in the hopes the service wont take legal action.

 

[mightymoose]

If it was really about those costs then it is a wonder why they don't seek criminal prosecution. The criminal proceedings would be more of a deterrent than their silly demands.
Oh wait I know why- it's because they won't get nearly as much otherwise.

 

[CdwJava]

If it was really about those costs then it is a wonder why they don't seek criminal prosecution. The criminal proceedings would be more of a deterrent than their silly demands.
Oh wait I know why- it's because they won't get nearly as much otherwise.

Sure they could.

The civil demand is above and beyond court ordered restitution. They can get direct restitution (which could still be in the hundreds of dollars) in addition to the civil demand.

In essence, the business is cutting the thief a break by not giving them a criminal record and then getting kicked in the teeth for it. But, I suppose if a business gets enough rejections to these demands, they will do just that.

And understand that many shoplifters sign an acknowledgement of their acts and essentially agree to pay the civil demand. As such, if the demand is ignored, they can take it straight to collections as a bad debt and that will add at least $500 on top of the civil demand AND hit their credit rating as well as possibly having to go to court.

As with most things in the human experience, we evaluate actions based on a perception of risk and reward. If the risk is deemed worth taking, people will take it. Some of us like the adrenaline rush and enjoy living with uncertainty and adversity. Others of us prefer to steer their own course and choose to proceed down the certain path.

If it were my son's, I'd make him pay it.

The OP can choose their own path and cross their fingers if they wish.