Utah Guns Forum banner
41 - 59 of 59 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
I have to agree, TMG.

The fact that you have been pulled over for speeding or some other traffic violation means that the officer has every right to take you straight to jail because you have broken the law. He can write you a ticket and release you on your own recognizance, but that is UP TO HIM.

The time to ask questions and object is in court, with a judge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
OR.... you could just not speed, and not worry about any of it. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
xmirage2kx said:
OR.... you could just not speed, and not worry about any of it. :wink:
Thats not a good idea!..... Half the cops in this state would be out of a job... and what would all the LE administrator types do with all their free time?? (since half their day is spent fielding complaints from people who get tickets /or get tazed..lol) :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
bane said:
.....but in fact what they are saying is that the person acted without a somewhat VALID reason (not necessarily a 100% justifiable reason......
I am a scientist I get obtuse some times.

Cause yes

Valid or Justifiable..... not always

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Cinhil said:
Now, the only person I have not seen comment on this issue is Hunter. We know he is an officer. Has he been on vacation? I would have thought he would have chimed in by now & let us know his thoughts on this. For all we know, he could perhaps lend some definition or comments which could be useful in this discussion. And if he did comment, I must have missed it, for which I will apologize now.
I haven't responded on this topic yet because I haven't had the time, until now, to read the thread, watch the video all the way through, and look up what some of the other people were stating or asking. Then as time went on, a lot of people had all ready clarified or answered what I was going to put down. I didn't feel the need to post something that was all ready covered. If you still have a question I will try to answer it the honestly and the best I can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Hunter, I think they were inquiring as to your opinion on it, since you are LEO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
From my point of view, a lot of what the Trooper did seemed to be legal. It may not have been the most popular way of doing things, or even the best way of doing things, but if he can articulate why he did what he did and what was going through his mind I don't see him being charged criminally. Courts seriouslly consider Officer Safety as a justification as to why the Officer did what he did and this is taken on a case by case situation.

I think LEO's and the General Public can learn a lot from this, by way of what to do and what not to do in situations like this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
TMG, Thank you for reading my mind. I did not even know how to respond to an article when I specifically said post proof from the Utah Revised Statutes.

I am in Loss Prevention and every day I deal with people yelling about their rights. I have all the respect in the world for a persons rights. They just need to fully understand them.

I get people telling me "you can't cuff me" or even better yet "you have no right to search me"

Nothing surprises me anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Thomas said:
...people yelling about their rights. I have all the respect in the world for a persons rights. They just need to fully understand them.
Boy, if this ain't the truth! I've been learning these lessons the hard way by certain people in my family who are ****-bent on Rights but don't have a full understanding of them -- it's gotten them into some SERIOUS trouble... major life-altering type of trouble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
Thomas said:
I am in Loss Prevention and every day I deal with people yelling about their rights. I have all the respect in the world for a persons rights. They just need to fully understand them.

I get people telling me "you can't cuff me" or even better yet "you have no right to search me"
Do you have a right to search someone you suspect of theft? It seems that section 76-6-603, specifically (1)(a) allows you to detain someone to make a 'reasonable inquiry' as to whether he/she has unpaid merchandise, but what allows you to search that person?

I'm curious... I always say that I will never submit to such a search if asked for a number of reasons. But if prevented from leaving I would wait for a LEO before submitting to a search.

Also, what constitutes probable cause sufficient for a defense against false imprisonment/arrest? My brother-in-law worked LP for many years for different companies and they had different policies on stopping a suspected shoplifter to avoid being sued if they were wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
Easier to explain by looking at the code:

76-6-602. Retail theft, acts constituting.
A person commits the offense of retail theft when he knowingly:
(1) Takes possession of, conceals, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment with the intention of retaining such merchandise or with the intention of depriving the merchant permanently of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the retail value of such merchandise; or
(2) Alters, transfers, or removes any label, price tag, marking, indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value of any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale, in a retail mercantile establishment and attempts to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of the retail value of such merchandise; or
(3) Transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which such merchandise is displayed to any other container with the intention of depriving the merchant of the retail value of such merchandise; or
(4) Under-rings with the intention of depriving the merchant of the retail value of the merchandise; or
(5) Removes a shopping cart from the premises of a retail mercantile establishment with the intent of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such cart.

76-6-603. Detention of suspected violator by merchant -- Purposes.
(1) Any merchant who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed retail theft may detain such person, on or off the premises of a retail mercantile establishment, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time for all or any of the following purposes:
(a) to make reasonable inquiry as to whether such person has in his possession unpurchased merchandise and to make reasonable investigation of the ownership of such merchandise;
(b) to request identification;
(c) to verify such identification;
(d) to make a reasonable request of such person to place or keep in full view any merchandise such individual may have removed, or which the merchant has reason to believe he may have removed, from its place of display or elsewhere, whether for examination, purchase, or for any other reasonable purpose;
(e) to inform a peace officer of the detention of the person and surrender that person to the custody of a peace officer;
(f) in the case of a minor, to inform a peace officer, the parents, guardian, or other private person interested in the welfare of that minor immediately, if possible, of this detention and to surrender custody of such minor to such person.
(2) A merchant may make a detention as permitted herein off the premises of a retail mercantile establishment only if such detention is pursuant to an immediate pursuit of such person.

76-6-604. Defense to action by person detained.
In any action for false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detention, defamation of character, assault, trespass, or invasion of civil rights brought by any person detained by the merchant, it shall be a defense to such action that the merchant detaining such person had probable cause to believe that the person had committed retail theft and that the merchant acted reasonably under all circumstances.
As you can see in 76-6-604 we are protected from most allegations of rights violations. We also have a responsibilty for the protection of the suspect, our customers, and the Loss Prevention Agent. Therefor we can make a search for two purposes (1) to retrieve the items that belong to the store and (2) to make sure the suspect does not have any weapons that can be used to harm themselves or another. Usually a cursury search we might get in trouble if we started doing rubber glove exams. :)

Also, they just changed the law a few months back giving us the probable cause scenario. We used to be very restricted on who we could stop. Now if for instance someone selects and item and walks down an isle. When they leave the isle the merchandise is gone and there is no sign of it in the isle. Also, we know they did not return it to the original location. This would give us probable cause to stop and question the suspect on where the merchandise is.

It is also theft the minute they conceal an item however we always wait until they pass all points of sale so our case is stronger if it does end up in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Thomas said:
It is also theft the minute they conceal an item however we always wait until they pass all points of sale so our case is stronger if it does end up in court.
YIKES! My whole life I have had the habit of picking food up at the store and eating it while I shop. Now, I'm not the type to then throw the wrapper away or feel like I can eat a couple of free grapes... I only eat wrapped food and I keep the wrappers and pay for them at the register... but I *AM* concealing them in my belly prior... is that theft, or is the wrapper what needs to stay in view???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
but I *AM* concealing them in my belly prior... is that theft, or is the wrapper what needs to stay in view???
Not sure if this will help answer your question...
Traffic Offenses are, in court, referred to as Strict Liability offenses. Basically meaning the officer does Not have to show 'Intent' (mens rea) With Theft, like other Criminal acts, the officer Does have to show/prove Intent.

Thats why, usually, an LP person will wait till the customer by-passes the register and heads toward the door. Proving intent then becomes much easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Oh, good info, thanks! So I guess I better be really careful, though -- one time I stuck the wrapper in my pocket and almost forgot to hand it to the cashier! :shock:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
While I was out of town on travel, I was watching Fox and Friends (on Fox News Channel) early in the morning at the hotel while dressing for work. The guy who got tasered by this cop came on Fox and Friends came on the program and said that he wants the anger to stop, as well as the death threats to the cop and to himself. He says it has gotten out of hand.

When pressed on it, he said that he still feels that the cop could have done it better. I think I recall that he said that he could have done it better too.

This has garnered national attention too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
Ah, here's a link to that story, but I couldn't find the Fox and Friends archive video.

Driver Who Was Tasered Begs for Threats Against Utah Trooper to Stop

That article was several days before the Fox and Friends appearance.

I trust and expect that none of our friends here on our forum would stoop to the tactic of sending threats to the trooper. That's just very wrong, as well as illegal, I believe.
 
41 - 59 of 59 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top