Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
is the op black/hispanic? i find it odd that white kids would be targeted before a non white kid.
in certain malls, white kids are immune to curfew and black kids are usually sent on their way.
Frisking falls under the search and seizure laws - that is all I'm saying. They told her son that he wasn't allowed back in to the store, so they were proceeding as if they had stole something, even after finding that they hadn't found anything.
Unfortunately, Wal-mart has a reputation for the way they approach possible shoplifters. Even if a customer had witnessed a theft Wal-mart is still usually bound by laws that state that an employee has to witness the theft and maintain visual contact all the way to the point of exiting the store. I believe the whole situation would fall under an illegal detention as they were stopped and the police presence likely gave the impression that they couldn't refuse the stop and attempt to leave. It could also be viewed as an illegal search by the police officers. I understand the police were acting on the behalf of Wal-mart but it sounds as if neither Wal-mart or the police officers satisfied the requirements for the frisking.
I don't think it is worth it to try any prosecution, but I believe it was mentioned earlier that complaining to the main office will likely result in some type of compensation. Compensation that I don't feel is all that unreasonable considering the amount Wal-mart will 'legally' claim they are entitled to for the most basic of shoplifting cases that result in the goods being recovered undamaged. It also might be worth expressing concern to the police chief or even mayor's office with regards to how the situation was handled.
***
Let me add that I felt more disgust for the way the police handled the situation than Wal-mart. Part of the stress related to my situation was that I couldn't get any answers. I'm not an expert of law and as I stated earlier I'm looking at it from the perspective of another state. Most often when someone states that their child was stopped for shoplifting most assume the adults involved are telling the truth and the youth is lying. Once you have a situation where you feel a police department has over stepped their bounds it is very hard to look at them the same way again. It is very frustrating and stressful.
First of all, you misread the original post. The kid isn't banned from Walmart. Second, your anger at the police is misdirected. They were called to the scene and told the kids were shoplifting by a supposed witness, checked it out, found out the witness was either wrong or just plain full of it, and then let the kids go. What else were they supposed to do, ignore the call? I hope you don't expect them to do that if you ever need to call them. Police aren't omniscient, they can only act on the information they are given. A generation ago this would have been a complete non-issue, but for some reason today's parents earnestly believe their precious little cherubs are entitled to a life completely free of any type of discomfort.
Frisking falls under the search and seizure laws - that is all I'm saying. They told her son that he wasn't allowed back in to the store, so they were proceeding as if they had stole something, even after finding that they hadn't found anything......
Care to cite the law?
The kids were on private property, the owner's representative had reason to suspect they had stolen something, he called the police to investigate, police investigated and found nothing by patting down the kids, police done with it, owner's rep. informs kids they are banned, later owner's rep apologizes to parent for event.
Oh and you forgot about the part where the kids were out in violation of city curfew laws.
Exactly how else do you think this should have been handled?
Maybe there wasn't time for all of that. And, shoplifters have been known to disable or remove security devices. Get an identity on an anonymous reporter...sure. They could have triangulated the cell phone call and traced it. Or they could have taken the time to find the person on the surveillance tapes and then used facial recognition technology to identify the person. You watch too much CSI, lol.
It sounds like the police were acting in response to a call from the retailer.
But with all due respect to those say the whole incident is being blown out of proportion, I think you need to go back to mrsclmn's post. It echos my understanding that if a retailer wanted to detain you and ask to search you, they'd damn well better find something of theirs on you that you didn't pay for. If not, they'd better be prepared to pay the price.
It sounds like the police were acting in response to a call from the retailer.
But with all due respect to those say the whole incident is being blown out of proportion, I think you need to go back to mrsclmn's post. It echos my understanding that if a retailer wanted to detain you and ask to search you, they'd damn well better find something of theirs on you that you didn't pay for. If not, they'd better be prepared to pay the price.
In the grand scheme of things, I do not believe anyone denies that the store manager handled this incident atrociously. It was blown out of proportion at the store(Manager) and it has been blown WAY out of proportion here(OP).
Oh and you forgot about the part where the kids were out in violation of city curfew laws.
I think you need to learn how to cite your laws properly, because you're incorrect, again......
Sec. 15-154. - Exceptions.
A juvenile who is in a public place or establishment during the restricted hours shall not be in violation of this article if the juvenile is:
(1)
Accompanied by his parent or guardian. (2) Accompanied by an adult 18 years of age or older authorized by the parent or guardian of such juvenile to take the parent's or guardian's place in accompanying the juvenile for a designated period of time and purpose within a specified area.
I think you need to learn how to cite your laws properly, because you're incorrect, again......
Sec. 15-154. - Exceptions.
A juvenile who is in a public place or establishment during the restricted hours shall not be in violation of this article if the juvenile is:
(1)
Accompanied by his parent or guardian. (2) Accompanied by an adult 18 years of age or older authorized by the parent or guardian of such juvenile to take the parent's or guardian's place in accompanying the juvenile for a designated period of time and purpose within a specified area.
Just to fan the flames a bit, the OP said she did NOT authorize the Walmart trip, so they were not in a specified area. That would make them guilty of breaking the curfew.
Just to fan the flames a bit, the OP said she did NOT authorize the Walmart trip, so they were not in a specified area. That would make them guilty of breaking the curfew.
The OP authorized the 20 year old to accompany her son. Do you interpret that this ordinance calls for a written itinerary to be completed by the parent? I don't. And a court wouldn't read it that way either. Nice try at stirring the pot though!
I think you need to learn how to cite your laws properly, because you're incorrect, again..........
No, I know the law. You are assuming the 20 year old was with the kids when this event happened. Read the OP again, which seems to be a challenge for some. The OP said the kids were apparently in violation of the curfew. The details of why were not given. I have said several times here that I am basing my comments solely on what was posted. If you did read it, then you are cherry picking facts.
I questioned this too, and two things come to mind. 1. Either the 20 year old was not with them when this happened and they failed to tell the police this. Or 2. they made a mistake. In either case, this was not raised as an issue so we have to assume, BASED on the OP's account, they were in violation.
No, I know the law. You are assuming the 20 year old was with the kids when this event happened. Read the OP again, which seems to be a challenge for some.
I'm not assuming anything. Read the OP again.:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyrn0224
My son who is 15 went into a Walmart last night with 2 of his friends. The oldest was 20 and the other was 15 like my son.
A 15 year old friend and a 20 year old friend. That equals 2 friends. I'm trying to be patient in explaining this to you, but you're not making things easy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
