New York Law Review

Tag: shoplifting

  • People v. Olivo, 428 N.E.2d 313 (N.Y. 1981): Establishing Larceny in Self-Service Stores Before Exit

    People v. Olivo, 428 N.E.2d 313 (N.Y. 1981)

    In the context of self-service stores, larceny can be established if a customer exercises control over merchandise that is wholly inconsistent with the store’s continued rights, even if the customer is apprehended before leaving the store.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a person could be convicted of larceny for shoplifting if apprehended with goods inside a store, before exiting. The Court held that a larceny conviction could be sustained even if the shoplifter was caught inside the store, provided that the customer’s actions demonstrated control over the merchandise inconsistent with the owner’s rights. The Court emphasized that the evolution of larceny law necessitates a focus on the defendant’s intent and exercise of dominion and control over the property, particularly within the context of self-service stores.

    Facts

    In People v. Olivo, the defendant concealed wrenches in his clothing while in a department store and was apprehended a few feet from the exit. In People v. Gasparik, the defendant removed the price tag and sensormatic device from a leather jacket, put it on, and headed toward the exit of the floor before being stopped. In People v. Spatzier, the defendant placed a book in his attaché case while in a bookstore, and an altercation ensued when he was accused of stealing.

    Procedural History

    In all three cases, the defendants were convicted of petit larceny. The convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Term. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the New York Court of Appeals due to the common legal issue.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to establish the elements of larceny when the shoplifter was apprehended inside the store, before exiting.

    Holding

    Yes, because in the context of self-service stores, a taking can be established by evidence that a customer exercised control over merchandise wholly inconsistent with the store’s continued rights, even without leaving the store.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court traced the evolution of larceny from common law to modern statutes, noting that the emphasis has shifted from a trespassory taking to the intent and exercise of dominion and control over the property. The Court acknowledged that self-service stores invite customers to handle merchandise, thus implying consent to possession for a limited purpose. However, this consent does not preclude a larceny conviction if the customer’s actions are inconsistent with the owner’s rights.

    The Court stated, “If the customer exercises dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and the other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred. Such conduct on the part of a customer satisfies the ‘taking’ element of the crime.”

    The Court identified several factors that could demonstrate such control, including concealment of goods, furtive behavior, proximity to an exit, and possession of shoplifting devices.

    The court reasoned that it is impossible to delineate all situations establishing a taking, but any attending circumstance bearing on whether the shopper exercised control inconsistent with the owner’s rights is relevant.

    Applying these principles, the Court found sufficient evidence in each case to raise a factual question as to the defendants’ guilt. In Olivo, the defendant concealed goods and was near the exit. In Gasparik, the defendant removed the price tag and sensor and attempted to leave the floor. In Spatzier, the defendant concealed a book in his attaché case after looking furtively around.

    The Court concluded that a customer crossing the line between limited rights to handle merchandise and the store owner’s rights may be prosecuted for larceny. This rule supports the interests and operation of self-service shops.

    There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.

  • Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 30 N.Y.2d 466 (1972): Merchant’s Defense for Reasonable Detention in Shoplifting Cases

    Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 30 N.Y.2d 466 (1972)

    Under New York General Business Law § 218, a retail merchant has a defense against false arrest and imprisonment claims if they detain a suspected shoplifter reasonably, and this defense extends to arrests outside the store and to the continued custody by the police, provided the initial detention was reasonable.

    Summary

    Jacques was stopped by a Sears security officer in the parking lot after leaving the store with unpaid merchandise. He admitted to taking the items and was detained until police arrived. Jacques was then arrested and taken to the police station, but the charges were later dismissed. Jacques sued Sears for false arrest. The jury found that Sears had detained Jacques for a reasonable time and with reasonable grounds, but still awarded damages. The Appellate Division dismissed the complaint, finding the verdict inconsistent with the jury’s finding of reasonable detention, holding that the merchant’s statutory defense extended to the police custody following a reasonable initial detention.

    Facts

    Jacques entered a Sears store to buy business supplies, placing 19 reflectorized letters/numbers (worth 10 cents each) in his pocket. He purchased other items (mailbox, keys), but not the letters. Sears security officer, Yarisco, observed Jacques placing the letters in his pocket and leaving without paying. Yarisco stopped Jacques in the parking lot and escorted him back to the security office. Jacques admitted to taking the letters without paying, expressed remorse, and offered to pay for them. Jacques had over $600 cash and a $400 check on his person at the time.

    Procedural History

    Jacques sued Sears for false arrest, false imprisonment, etc., in City Court of Syracuse. The jury returned a general verdict for Jacques, but also answered an interrogatory stating the detention by Sears was reasonable. The County Court reversed the City Court judgment and ordered a new trial, finding the general verdict inconsistent with the answer to the interrogatory. The Appellate Division modified the County Court order to dismiss the complaint.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the term “detention” in Section 218 of the General Business Law encompasses a formal arrest, thus providing a defense for a “reasonable” arrest in a shoplifting situation. Whether a merchant’s defense of reasonable detention extends to the subsequent custody of the suspect by the police.

    Holding

    Yes, because the words “arrest” and “detention” are often used interchangeably, and Section 218 of the General Business Law provides a defense for merchants in false arrest suits when the detention is reasonable. Yes, because the merchant’s defense for reasonable detention extends to turning over the suspect to the police under reasonable circumstances, implementing the policy of the statute.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that Section 218 of the General Business Law was enacted to protect merchants from false arrest suits, even if the criminal charges are eventually dismissed. The court stated: “Section 218 of the General Business Law makes reasonableness of arrest available to retail stores and their employees as a defense to civil false arrest suits”. The court also noted legislative history indicating the statute’s purpose was to reduce merchants’ reluctance to apprehend shoplifters due to vulnerability to false arrest suits. The court found the terms “arrest” and “detention” are often used synonymously, and “reasonable detention” includes a full-fledged arrest if there is sufficient cause. Here, the court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the finding of a reasonable detention, from the initial stop to the arrival of the police. Jacques admitted to taking the goods without paying, and offered no exculpatory explanation. Regarding the police custody, the court reasoned that Sears was justified in handing Jacques over to the police after the reasonable detention. The court stated that the merchant’s defense for reasonable detention extends “to the turning over of the suspect to the police under reasonable circumstances”.