Wal-Mart and Target Spy on Their Employees

AlBeMet is right.. Someone who conceals something cannot be stopped by Loss Prevention until they leave the doors, then it's theft. If there is any type of struggle or fight, or if the thief decides not to comply with the requests of the store reps OR if the thief is armed or brandishes a weapon then its robbery.

Originally posted by AlBeMet
Retail cannot in any way search you without consent If you tell them NO all they can do is call the police and ask you to leave (he says they call the police before the thief even knows there on to them) And even when the cops respond they cannot search you without probable cause or a warrant. Thats where the video of the thief shoving a gallon of milk down his pants comes in.

This kind of depends on the situation. If the security guard says they witnessed a theft and have placed the crook into their custody (citizen arrest); when the police arrive they are not arresting them but taking them into custody from the citizen for booking purposes. At this point an officer does have the legal right to a search incident to arrest ... this has been upheld in courts under the premise of officer safety ... an officer can not rely on security to have properly secured a criminal. And more than one officer has been killed by a handcuffed suspect.

If there is no arrest and it's just a detention then the normal probable cause and detention rules would apply to the officer that arrives on scene.

You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store. Although not technically necessary, following this step eliminates all possibility that the shoplifter still intends to pay for the stolen product. A few courts have held that detaining someone for shoplifting inside a retail store does not establish the criminal intent of theft. However, in several states shoplifters can be detained once they have concealed the merchandise. When approaching a shoplifter outside of the store always have a least one trained employee as a witness. There is safety in numbers and most shoplifters will cooperate if they believe fighting or running is futile. When you approach a shoplifter outside it is important to identify yourself clearly and your authority for stopping them. Plain-clothes loss prevention agents carry badges or official looking ID cards so the shoplifter has no doubt who they are. Most shoplifter apprehensions should be accomplished with no force or if necessary, minimal force like touching or guiding. Professional loss prevention agents sometimes will use handcuffs to take someone into custody, if they are first trained how and when to legally apply them properly.

Basically the rentacop is or should be aware the Thief has more rights but the thief is not aware of said rights which retacops exploit.

Source

AlBeMeT

Most security won't get very "hands on" when arresting shoplifters and if they suspect a problem or see a knife or other weapon just call PD with the info and if lucky a veh description. But there are those times when they approach someone who's failry cooperative and things spiral out of control; such as a friend or family member who was waiting in the car getting involved and turning the situation into a brawl.

Those individuals are truly idiotic because by using force they've changed the charge from a misdemeanor shoplifting to a felony strong-arm robbery (throught the use of force or fear). And even better fighting with security will guarantee the call to the PD is bumped up from low priority shoplifter to a high priority call ... thus better ensuring they get located and taken into custody.

I have no problem with private security they serve a very valuable purpose and without them the stores would lose so much more than they already do. I just think some of them have a little weak of an idea of what the laws in their particular state are and how they apply to them. I personally know of instances where private security has called 911 to say they are "in pursuit of a veh" at 100+ on a freeway ... yeah, sorry but don't think so.

Citizen's Arrest can only be done if:
A) It is a felony crime (most states do not allow for citizen's arrest if it is a misdemeanor.)
B) They have directly seen it happen.

Theft is not a felony, Grand Theft is. Robbery is also a felony, but they have to be seizing property through violence or intimidation.

More often than not security guards in fact break the law, but the Police will never enforce the law to the letter and well they all stick together anyway.

What kind of powers does an off-duty cop have when he/she is moonlighting as security in a retail store?

When I was in high school, I worked for a large grocery store chain in PHX as a stocker. All of our security were cops and they all carried concealed weapons. There were many times I and others would "back-up" the security when they approached someone outside for theft. I was also involved in quite a few foot chases into the surrounding neighborhood after thiefs. How wrong was this? Did we have the right to chase these people?

Wow, the stench of ignorance fills this thread!

There are no blanket laws that cover any of the topics on this thread nationwide. The constitution does not apply to private citizens, I cannot, as a private person, violate your 4th amendment rights.

In NEVADA, store LP CAN detain a person before they leave the store if they rip off a price tag, attempt to conceal, or walk past several cashiers.

Any person making an arrest can use restraints, and not just handcuffs. One of the casinos I worked for had a holding cell with a wooden bench and chains. If a handcuffed person refused to sit, they were chained to the seat. It they were fond of spitting, a hood was placed over their heads.


No time right now, but here is a little taste of truth for your confused minds:

This is the ACTUAL LAW in my state.



Nevada Revised Statutes

NRS 171.126 Arrest by private person. A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.

2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1402)



NRS 171.132 Person making arrest may summon assistance. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1402)

NRS 171.134 Escape or rescue of arrested person: Pursuit and retaking at any time and place in State. If a person arrested escapes or is rescued, the person from whose custody he escaped or was rescued may immediately pursue and retake him at any time and in any place within the State.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1402)

NRS 171.136 When arrest may be made.

1. If the offense charged is a felony or gross misdemeanor, the arrest may be made on any day, and at any time of day or night.

2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., except:

(a) Upon the direction of a magistrate, endorsed upon the warrant;

(b) When the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer;

(c) When the person is found and the arrest is made in a public place or a place that is open to the public and:

(1) There is a warrant of arrest against the person; and

(2) The misdemeanor is discovered because there was probable cause for the arresting officer to stop, detain or arrest the person for another alleged violation or offense;

(d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and he makes an arrest immediately after the offense is committed;

(e) When the offense charged is battery that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018 and the arrest is made in the manner provided in NRS 171.137;

(f) When the offense charged is a violation of a temporary or extended order for protection against domestic violence issued pursuant to NRS 33.017 to 33.100, inclusive;

(g) When the person is already in custody as a result of another lawful arrest; or

(h) When the person voluntarily surrenders himself in response to an outstanding warrant of arrest.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1402; A 1977, 874; 1985, 6, 2023; 1991, 331; 1993, 119; 2001, 1431)

[edit on 8-4-2007 by cavscout]

Oh, and about those bag checkers at Wal-Mart and Fry’s: you do not have to stop for them, however if they think you stole something they can and will stop you (at least at fry’s for sure, I never worked for Wal-Mart.) If they do detain you and can’t prove you stole something, however, it is lawsuit city and they know it. That is why they have hundreds of cameras they can watch you with.

Originally posted by luckypuck
Under any conditions, you only can be detained for "probable cause," but, since our Constitution insists that you be considered innocent until proven guilty, you must be shown the evidence that underpins their probable cause. It must be concrete, verifiable evidence, so hearsay evidence is insufficient in and of itself. The store security people cannot say, "So-and-so says you did this" or "you were seen doing that." They can add that to concrete, but otherwise inconclusive evidence to create a "preponderance of evidence," and then they have a right to detain you. Lacking that, they cannot hold you any longer.

Well I tried to look this subject up to double check it in my “Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook” (the same book that officers use), but I’ll be darned if I cannot find it. I put in a call to a friend of mine who will know the exact laws (for this state) and I will post them once I hear back. In the interim I am pretty darn sure that the following is true:

I am pretty certain that they cannot hold you for “Probable Cause”, only a police officer can do this to initiate further investigation. For a civilian to detain a civilian, they have to see the person commit a crime, no doubt or question about it. The reason being is that if they detain you or search you and find out that you have not committed a crime, then they themselves have broken the law. A security officer who detains you in error has actually committed the crime of “False Imprisonment” (FSS 787.02) which is a third degree felony in this state, and first degree if done to a minor. If they forcefully detain you then you can also add Battery (fss 784.03), which is a first degree misdemeanor, and if they cuff you like CavScout was talking about it becomes Aggravated Battery (fss 784.045), which is a second degree felony. After all of this their company is also liable for damages and reparations in civil court. As you can tell these charges are much more serious then shoplifting or petit theft, and obviously none of them apply if you have in fact committed a crime.

Originally posted by luckypuck
Theoretically, anything you say to someone who isn't a bona fide law enforcement agent isn't admissible in a court of law. It's hearsay.

I think you’ll find that most attorneys will tell you that guilty or innocent, and whether it’s a law enforcement person or a private security company, you should refuse to answer all questions, even basic ones. The only thing that you should be saying is “I would like to speak with my attorney”. Now that does not mean resist, you should go along peacefully and not get emotional, as that tends to be the worst thing you can do. Someone innocent is going to feel violated in that situation, but if you have done nothing wrong then you can sit there with the smug satisfaction that eventually they are going to be the ones in the hot seat either in civil or criminal court.

Originally posted by luckypuck
Most states don't dole out that much power to private security. I'm guessing Nevada has these private security laws because of the casinos in Vegas. Here in California a private security, armed or unarmed is nothing more than a citizen

There are a number of different laws in Nevada and additional powers granted to private security due to crimes centered around the gambling facilities. This is because of the wide number of scams, and ways to trick or cheat in a casino.

Originally posted by luckypuck
Here in Calif even a peace officer can't arrest someone for a misdemeanor that wasn't committed in their prescence let alone JOE CITIZEN.

Absolutely correct, even in my state. The crime must be witnessed by a law enforcement officer, caught on video tape, or there has to be sufficient physical evidence to prosecute the crime, if it is less then a felony.

Originally posted by luckypuck
I find this very amusing, and very believable. But most police officers I know will evade the question when asked and will certainly never introduce themselves to people out of their circle as an officer. The most common is "I work for the city" ... if pressed further "I clean the streets".

Most of the actual street officers I know don’t go about making a big secret of them being officers, but they don’t advertise it either. As I said though, it seems like the ones that aren’t what most consider to be normal road officers who make a big thing out of it.

Originally posted by luckypuck
It's kind of like the vanity plates here in California ... the firefighters have a special plate where if they show proof they are an active firefighter they can get a plate with a firemans hat on it. And the ones that don't have that have the Firefighter Union stickers all over them

Most of them have BPA stickers on their cars, as well as the “Blue Stripe”. The PBA stickers they get are different then the ones that are given out to normal civilian contributors, and are an actually metal shield.

Originally posted by Odium
It is about time people start to put this slave society down. Walmart do not:
Pay fair prices to their workers.
Pay fair prices to those who they buy from.
Trade fairly.

And people have the option to not do business with them if they feel this to be the case. Stealing from them is not the legal, mature, ethical, or proper way to handle this, or any, situation. Theft is theft, and it is wrong no matter if it is for a penny or for a million dollars.

Originally posted by luckypuck
I personally know of instances where private security has called 911 to say they are "in pursuit of a veh" at 100+ on a freeway ... yeah, sorry but don't think so.

Disney security here in Florida used to have almost full police powers based on some technical loophole that they had in the laws in Orlando, which gave them almost the status of being a city unto itself. This exact thing, a high speed chase involving security officers on an expressway, is what finally put an end to some of their BS security tactics.

If you ever want to read some interesting stories, do a search on Disney security police, they did some truly heinous stuff in their day. One story that I will never forget was about a lady who was killed on a “Sea Sprite”, which got sucked under a ferry, on their lake in front of the Polynesian resort. Instead of bringing the body to shore they anchored it to a buoy out on the lake, in sight of the family, and left it stay there until after dark so as not to disturb other guests at the hotel.

Disney Security
Disney Security does not technically have any jurisdiction over the Reedy Creek Improvement District as it is not actually a law enforcement agency. However, it can perform certain law enforcement actions as prescribed under Florida law, including initiating traffic stops on public roads, arresting shoplifters, temporarily holding offenders until law enforcement arrives, and ejecting unruly or unwanted visitors from the park.
At times, the lack of government oversight found in the Reedy Creek Improvement District has been blamed for controversy surrounding Disney Security. Various whistleblower sources have documented alleged cases of criminal rights abuses, including indefinite holding without a criminal charge, unfounded arrest, impeding the investigations of bona fide law enforcement agencies, and one case where a Disney Security officer participated in an illegal high-speed pursuit which resulted in a collision and the subsequent deaths of those in the car being pursued.

Ford also used to have a security force along these lines, many years ago, called STAR. These guys similarly got away with more things then even modern cops can. They even used to tote around Tommy Guns like the old gangsters.

Ford Criticism
Throughout its history, the company has faced a wide range of criticism. Detractors of the company in the past have accused the early Fordist model of production of being extremely dehumanizing and exploitative, as well as characterizing the company as oppresive and unscrupulous, willing to collaborate with dictatorships or hire mobs to intimidate union leaders and increase their profits through unethical means. Detractors of the company often point out to the fact that Ford refused to allow collective bargaining until 1941, with the Ford Service Department being set up as an internal security, intimidation, and espionage unit within the company, and quickly gained a reputation of using violence against union organizers and sympathizers (see The Battle of the Overpass).

Originally posted by cavscout
There are no blanket laws that cover any of the topics on this thread nationwide.

First off Cav, you’re in Nevada. Nevada is a place where they depend on the Casinos and tourism for a massive amount of their income. This makes the line between the local government, the casinos, and organized crime a very blurry one, which obviously shows up in your laws there. This is a similar situation to the ones I mentioned above about both Disney Security and Ford STAR. So the authority given to security in Nevada is going to exceed much of the rest of the country.

Originally posted by cavscout
The constitution does not apply to private citizens, I cannot, as a private person, violate your 4th amendment rights.

Criminal and Civil Law are all about person A violating person B’s rights. If you search me, you best not touch me to do it, if so you have committed a Battery, if you touch me with anything besides your empty hand, including handcuffs (which most states consider a deadly weapon), you have committed an Aggravated Battery. A police officer may only search you if he is arresting you, he has probable cause, or he has a warrant to do so, how do you figure that a private individual has more rights then an Law Enforcement Officer does?

Originally posted by cavscout
In NEVADA, store LP CAN detain a person before they leave the store if they rip off a price tag, attempt to conceal, or walk past several cashiers.

I can agree with the part about removing or swapping tags, but not the rest. A good example is that here Wal-Mart has cashiers within certain departments in the store, I can walk past them all day long with merchandise and they best not lay a finger on me. I can also hold the merchandise anyway that I please, as long as I pay for it prior to leaving the store. If I pay for an item at the back of the store, and continue shopping I can open that item up and do with it as I please, as under contract law that is now my property same as anything else I walked into the store with. Now is this a smart thing to do? Nope, but its not illegal in any way shape or form as under contract law the transaction has been fulfilled.

Originally posted by cavscout
Any person making an arrest can use restraints, and not just handcuffs. One of the casinos I worked for had a holding cell with a wooden bench and chains. If a handcuffed person refused to sit, they were chained to the seat. It they were fond of spitting, a hood was placed over their heads.

Yeah you can restrain a person like this if you have caught them committing a crime; no one is arguing that factor. As far as spitting is concerned, that can be considered a battery and even attempted murder in certain situations where the person has a communicable disease.

As to your laws:
Florida State Statues Chapter 901 Arrests
No one outside an Sheriff may arrest for a warrant, unless its another law enforcement officer who has tangled with the person during another procedure:

901.04 Direction and execution of warrant.--Warrants shall be directed to all sheriffs of the state. A warrant shall be executed only by the sheriff of the county in which the arrest is made unless the arrest is made in fresh pursuit, in which event it may be executed by any sheriff who is advised of the existence of the warrant. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.

Arrest without a warrant:

901.15 When arrest by officer without warrant is lawful.--A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant when:
(1) The person has committed a felony or misdemeanor or violated a municipal or county ordinance in the presence of the officer. An arrest for the commission of a misdemeanor or the violation of a municipal or county ordinance shall be made immediately or in fresh pursuit.
(2) A felony has been committed and he or she reasonably believes that the person committed it.
(3) He or she reasonably believes that a felony has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing it.
(4) A warrant for the arrest has been issued and is held by another peace officer for execution.
(5) A violation of chapter 316 has been committed in the presence of the officer. Such an arrest may be made immediately or in fresh pursuit. Any law enforcement officer, upon receiving information relayed to him or her from a fellow officer stationed on the ground or in the air that a driver of a vehicle has violated chapter 316, may arrest the driver for violation of those laws when reasonable and proper identification of the vehicle and the violation has been communicated to the arresting officer.
(6) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed a criminal act according to s. 790.233 or according to s. 741.31 or s. 784.047 which violates an injunction for protection entered pursuant to s. 741.30 or s. 784.046, or a foreign protection order accorded full faith and credit pursuant to s. 741.315, over the objection of the petitioner, if necessary.
(7) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed an act of domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28. The decision to arrest shall not require consent of the victim or consideration of the relationship of the parties. It is the public policy of this state to strongly discourage arrest and charges of both parties for domestic violence on each other and to encourage training of law enforcement and prosecutors in this area. A law enforcement officer who acts in good faith and exercises due care in making an arrest under this subsection, under s. 741.31(4) or s. 784.047, or pursuant to a foreign order of protection accorded full faith and credit pursuant to s. 741.315, is immune from civil liability that otherwise might result by reason of his or her action.
(8) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed child abuse, as defined in s. 827.03, or has violated s. 787.025, relating to luring or enticing a child for unlawful purposes. The decision to arrest does not require consent of the victim or consideration of the relationship of the parties. It is the public policy of this state to protect abused children by strongly encouraging the arrest and prosecution of persons who commit child abuse. A law enforcement officer who acts in good faith and exercises due care in making an arrest under this subsection is immune from civil liability that otherwise might result by reason of his or her action.
(9) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed:
(a) Any battery upon another person, as defined in s. 784.03.
(b) An act of criminal mischief or a graffiti-related offense as described in s. 806.13.
(c) A violation of a safety zone, security zone, regulated navigation area, or naval vessel protection zone as described in s. 327.461.
(10) The officer has determined that he or she has probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor has been committed, based upon a signed affidavit provided to the officer by a law enforcement officer of the United States Government, recognized as such by United States statute, or a United States military law enforcement officer, recognized as such by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the United States Department of Defense Regulations, when the misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the United States law enforcement officer or the United States military law enforcement officer on federal military property over which the state has maintained exclusive jurisdiction for such a misdemeanor.
(11)(a) A law enforcement officer of the Florida National Guard, recognized as such by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the United States Department of Defense Regulations, has probable cause to believe a felony was committed on state military property or when a felony or misdemeanor was committed in his or her presence on such property.
(b) All law enforcement officers of the Florida National Guard shall promptly surrender all persons arrested and charged with a felony to the sheriff of the county within which the state military property is located, and all persons arrested and charged with misdemeanors shall be surrendered to the applicable authority as may be provided by law, but otherwise to the sheriff of the county in which the state military property is located. The Florida National Guard shall promptly notify the applicable law enforcement agency of an arrest and the location of the prisoner.
(c) The Adjutant General, in consultation with the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, shall prescribe minimum training standards for such law enforcement officers of the Florida National Guard.
(12) He or she is employed by the State of Florida as a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(1) or part-time law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(6), and:
(a) He or she reasonably believes that a felony involving violence has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing the felony;
(b) While engaged in the exercise of his or her state law enforcement duties, the officer reasonably believes that a felony has been or is being committed; or
(c) A felony warrant for the arrest has been issued and is being held for execution by another peace officer.

I got to cut it off here as its too long for the post...
You can read the rest at the link above though.
I know it’s a long quote, but I don’t think it’s a violation of the T&C as state statues are public information and not copywrited.

crap like this happens all the time i was a store dick back in 96 and my boss did the same kinda crap. one day he came to my store from his headquarters store in wilimington nc and told me to go to my office and
bring with me a blank tape and asked me to sit in on an interview but not say anything. next he called the nighttime music clerk into the office he was a 18 yearold african american guy who was hard working went to church every sunday and my boss was going to interogate him.
my boss told him to have a seat then pulled out a circuit board with batteries hooked to wires and a blinking red diode and a round dial from a radio glued to it. he asked gregg if he had every seen a microchip camera gregg said no. then he pulled out a video tape that was blank and asked him if he wanted to come clean about what he had done. now gregg was a former highschool football player about 250 pounds and he got up and sad what are you talking about getting agitated.well my boss told him that they had video tape evidence on him. greg said i diddn't do anything lets see the tape. m y boss said he was fired because he was being insubordinate to a manger. truth being told he had no proof the guy did anything the guys size scared my boss so he decided to cut him lose instead of trying to get him admit to stealing. see in north carolinaa if you get an employeee to admit to stealing you can make a deal with them to pay back triple the amount they stole and my boss got a bosus when he caught employees stealing above a certsain amount. the boy was innocent

This reminds me of my own experiences in the corporate world on both sides, as an employee and security.

I remember when I worked for Slaveway, the manager (middle) told me that if I did not cut my fingernails that minute he would fire me. So I lifted a set off the shelf, went in back, cut my nails, disposed of the package and pocketed the clippers. By the time I got back to the front I was fired for theft. Later on when I worked as security for Slaveway I was told not to bother the theives taking beer and alcohol out of the beer isle. Just do the regular job with the rest of the site, but under no circumstances mess with anyone on the beer isle. It was O-K for the beer to go out the door. So apparently some theft is not stealing.

When I worked for Radio Shaft the manager went on a leave of absence to Baltimore for neurosurgery, and the asst. mgr. left for Mexico on vacation. A stand in was relocated to my store, some son of a regional manager. He emptied that store of all the car stero equipment over the course of the summer, and when my manager arrived from his absence he was forced to fire me for theft and embezzlement, but as a friend he gave me the option of resigning. There was no way I could have proven I was innocent. Spying in that case would have helped me out!

I never worked for Wall-Fart, but my fiance at the time did. She couldn't wait to move on, and it ruined her so badly she never rose above fast food prep. That was 22 years ago.

Working for small outfits is no guarantee either. I worked at a private school, but when a supervisor heard I had been in touch with another former staff member who had a same sex orientation I got my walking papers the next day. Then there was the issue of a report that I was fingering another faculty member, but I distinctly said in the email I had fingered her email account as per request, but they thought I was fingering something else...so I left that job as a thief, sexual predator, and God knows what else they put in that file. If someone had been spying on me they certainly were not fulfilling their job description!

It goes on and on. One day I had so many indescretions I decided to put them all down on a job app. Wow, did they want to talk to me! So some good came out of it after all.

Originally posted by scooler1
What kind of powers does an off-duty cop have when he/she is moonlighting as security in a retail store?

When I was in high school, I worked for a large grocery store chain in PHX as a stocker. All of our security were cops and they all carried concealed weapons. There were many times I and others would "back-up" the security when they approached someone outside for theft. I was also involved in quite a few foot chases into the surrounding neighborhood after thiefs. How wrong was this? Did we have the right to chase these people?

In California, most peace officers are considered peace officer 100% of the time until they retire. Meaning they can carry concealed at any place of business (including banks). It also means they have their powers of arrest and detention ... but when offduty then don't neccessarily have the protection of their employers deep wallet for lawsuits.

Being a security guard, in my opinion, is a poor choice for a moonlighting officer. It is more likely to put them into situation where they may be forced to make enforcement situations (ie being on duty during an armed robbery) and they are doing so without the protection of their employer.

Most agencies encourage their off duty officers to be a "good witness" and reporting party to crimes they witness ... unless of course someone's life or safety is an issue.

Originally posted by proteus33
my boss told him to have a seat then pulled out a circuit board with batteries hooked to wires and a blinking red diode and a round dial from a radio glued to it. he asked gregg if he had every seen a microchip camera gregg said no. then he pulled out a video tape that was blank and asked him if he wanted to come clean about what he had done.

If he is trying to act like he is putting people on a polygraph machine then he is violating federal law. I hope he is aware of this. The gentleman that left the company due to this activity can take them to civil court for wrongful termination of his employment over this activity.

EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION

2002. Prohibitions on lie detector use
Except as provided in sections and 2007 of this title, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce:
(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;
(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee;
(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against -
(A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test, or
(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test; or
(4) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against, any employee or prospective employee because -
(A) such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter,
(B) such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or
(C) of the exercise by such employee or prospective employee, on behalf of such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this chapter.

This is a federal law, so it applies to all states…
So ask your friend if he would like to make a quick $10 grand…

2005. Enforcement provisions
(a) Civil penalties
(1) In general
Subject to paragraph (2), any employer who violates any provision of this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $10,000.
(2) Determination of amount
In determining the amount of any penalty under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into account the previous record of the person in terms of compliance with this chapter and the gravity of the violation.
(3) Collection
Any civil penalty assessed under this subsection shall be collected in the same manner as is required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 1853 of this title with respect to civil penalties assessed under subsection (a) of such section.
(b) Injunctive actions by Secretary
The Secretary may bring an action under this section to restrain violations of this chapter. The Solicitor of Labor may appear for and represent the Secretary in any litigation brought under this chapter. In any action brought under this section, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to issue temporary or permanent restraining orders and injunctions to require compliance with this chapter, including such legal or equitable relief incident thereto as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.
(c) Private civil actions
(1) Liability
An employer who violates this chapter shall be liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by such violation. Such employer shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.
(2) Court
An action to recover the liability prescribed in paragraph (1) may be maintained against the employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by an employee or prospective employee for or on behalf of such employee, prospective employee, and other employees or prospective employees similarly situated. No such action may be commenced more than 3 years after the date of the alleged violation.
(3) Costs
The court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party (other than the United States) reasonable costs, including attorney's fees.
(d) Waiver of rights prohibited
The rights and procedures provided by this chapter may not be waived by contract or otherwise, unless such waiver is part of a written settlement agreed to and signed by the parties to the pending action or complaint under this chapter.

If you still work for the company you should let your bosses superiors know what he has been up to, cause its only a matter of time until they get sued.

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
Being a security guard, in my opinion, is a poor choice for a moonlighting officer. It is more likely to put them into situation where they may be forced to make enforcement situations (ie being on duty during an armed robbery) and they are doing so without the protection of their employer.

What they do in this state is allow the officers to work off duty jobs that are provided by the sheriff department so they are covered as an officer and can actually use their cruiser and wear their uniform. So lets say the mall wants an officer on duty there at all times they submit the paperwork to the sheriff office and pay them an amount to cover the officers time and expenses, plus the added liability expenses for stress on the vehicle and officer liability. The Sheriffs office then posts that job and officers can apply to work there as an extra off duty job.

[edit on 4/9/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by cavscout

So you did steal, or rather, embezzle. Sounds like they had good reason to be watching you.

You are lucky they didn’t prosecute you. Even though it is such a small amount it is still a misdemeanor (in my state, anyway) and if had caught you, I would have prosecuted you as an example. I definitely would have fired you immediately.

Small amount or not, stealing is stealing.

So i was guilty of embezzling 80 cents... I could have bought the cards myself and given them to him. That would be essentially the same thing.
I did something wrong, I realize that. In a perfect world I should have been prosecuted. However, this world is far from perfect.

When one works at a large corporation, one starts to learn and catch on to the things that go on -- things the ordinary joe who worked at the store wouldn't know about. I had dirt on half the store - from cashiers sleeping with managers, to security guards themselves stealing hundreds of dollars in merchandise daily, and how they did it. It was like a soap opera.

If i was to go report these things, no one would have listened, because the source itself was corrupt. It would have all fallen back on me and I'd be the rat. I saw other people try and report things and in the end they sufferend. - not all the time - but some of the time. The whole store was operating on this severly skewed level.

So, making an example of me? It wouldn't have mattered...

I had a supervisor who worked in the consumables section of the store. Sometimes he and I would be working a project together, he'd look at me, look at a can of slim jims, then crush it open and say "oops! looks like this is damaged!" and we'd eat the slim jims.

So really, my whole store should have prosectued itself. If that place operated on a better level, i would have an easier time accepting their treatment of me.

I believe I will chime in on this issue:
For starters, with Wal-Mart spying on their employees, well lets consider this. They both were in a position of authority, one being over the other. Most companies have a non fratinization rules. Now if they were not out on company business, and at home, then yes it is an invasion of privacy. But as they were sent by Wal-Mart to another location for company business, the rules would still apply. I believe, that there was probably suspicion already for them to be spied on.
As the manager of a retail store, I can tell you that I have only had to let a person go once for theft, but I did not intimidate the person. I called them into my office and showed them the evidence, very clear cut where it showed the person taking an item off of the shelf, putting into their bag and walking out. I believe that would be the correct action. However, anything else, is technically against the rights of the employee. I have known people, a good friend of mine who was terminated, under false pretenses at the time, did once everything was resolved, get an apology and an offer for re-employment.
Unforetunately most in the upper branches of retail usually have the mind set that the employees under them are stealing from them blindly, and they have to catch them. Though as a manager I do not subscribe to that line of thought, as it is just plain wrong, and shows no trust in the employees.

Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Unforetunately most in the upper branches of retail usually have the mind set that the employees under them are stealing from them blindly, and they have to catch them. Though as a manager I do not subscribe to that line of thought, as it is just plain wrong, and shows no trust in the employees.

Just my thoughts.

This hits the nail right on the head. Trust is a major factor in any relationship, and when trust and fairness are functioning at a high level in a work environment, quality improves on all fronts. Just as when there is no trust, things go quickly south.

Originally posted by cavscout

hate to be around cops because each and every one of them is an enemy to the constitution.

of course you can prove this of each and every police officer



seems to me that your mad at the world or at least our Government and the Army, I can't say that I blame you, I appreciate what you did by joining up and fighting in Iraq, I'm very sorry for your injury and the rest of what happened to you. I wish you well.



[edit on 9-4-2007 by elevatedone]

[edit on 9-4-2007 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by elevatedone

of course you can prove this of each and every police officer

Sure. Each and every one works for a department that, while promising to protect and defend the constitution, actually does the opposite. I did swear to defend the constitution against all enemies, and take the promise seriously.

seems to me that your mad at the world

No, actually I am content. I know my place in the world. I do not hold any grudge, but that is not to say that I am happy certain individuals (or departments) idea of what it means to protect the constitution.

I appreciate what you did by joining up and fighting in Iraq, I'm very sorry for your injury and the rest of what happened to you.

Well, if you have read enough of my posts to know my background, then you probably know that I despise your appreciation.

I wish you well.

And I you.

Here's another article regarding Wal-Mart and spying.

"Wal-Mart Fires Worker for Spying"
www.thestreet.com...

It sounds like someone found out they were recording phone conversations "without authorization."

Here's some more info regarding the new article I posted above.

"Report: Fired Employee Says Wal-Mart Condoned Large-Scale Surveillance Operation"
www.foxnews.com...

What are your views on this?