mamas comma. Miss A 3mm
soon CHAIN .sus‘sa MARKET

Thnshforthefioem‘nffik -‘
MICH’EGAN STATE ”COLLEGE
Mifton L Berry
1953

I‘Stéttx‘: "n I in (.-'.:.. . ‘. ‘ r. . .

. M..-
....-._
n..-”

—;—’?:=~;’.-‘~‘ 4

     

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PILFERAGE CONTROL WITHIN A RETAIL _
FOOD CHAIN SUPERMARKET

presented by

MILTON L. BERRY
has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_}$Ldegree in General Business
Curriculum in Food Distribution

 

      

Major professor

Date I 9km

 

   

 

PILFERAGE CONTROL WITHIN A RETAIL
FOOD CHAIN SUPER MARKET

By

Milton L. Be rry'

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of General Business Curriculum
in Food Distribution

1953

1 I. '1‘ l V I

THESIS

lull ll! lulll lclll III.

Jul-I'll. l

(I ill I:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION .....................
Purpose ........................
Definition of the Words "Pilfer,"
"Pilferer, " and ”Shoplifter" ..........
Why the Study was Made .‘I I ...........
Limitations of the Study .............
Procedure Followed in Gathering "55’
Data ...........................
Chapter Organization ...............
II. METHODS OF SHOPLIFTING ............
Modes of Operation ................
*I'Ilrr"“---M*'LEGA1‘I"ASP‘E'G‘TS"". . ~.--.-- .......... '. . .
IV. PROPER PROCEDURE ................
V. METHODS OF COMBATING PILFERING
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . ...........................
APPENDIX A ...............................

CO
CD
CD
CD
Cl

'1

18

59

78

94

98

{all} ‘Il f I

.llnnll‘lll l.4

Figure

1a.

LIST OF FIGURES

Voluntary Confession Form, Penn Fruit

Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .‘ ........

Voluntary Confession Form, verso of

Figure 1 ' .............................

Voluntary Confession Form, Commercial

Service Systems, Inc . ....................

Voluntary Confession Form, The Grand Union

Company, East Paterson, New Jersey .........

Voluntary Confession Form, Stop and Shop,

Inc ., Boston, Mas sachusetts ...............

Notification that Parcels must be Checked .....

Notification that Food Chain is Protected

by Private Detective Agency ..... . .........

Page

72

73

74

75

76

85

86

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Grateful acknowledgment is due Dr. Kenneth Wilson, Director
of the Curriculum in Food Distribution at Michigan State College,
for his constant supervision, guidance, interest, and suggestions

which contributed to the completion of this thesis.

l lull l 1.1 1-...

‘4‘ ll. ‘4. 1

ll ‘ Ill

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this thesis; “Pilferage Control within a Retail
WlmajLai—mmm

Food Chain Super Market, " is to discuss thefiitoras~ ausmg pilfer-

AW gfixm. MM€¢+~W ..u/lw H-u—LQ . ”inf!” {L‘ML'I-rvld‘-
\— \..s_ (‘4 / /
ing.,_t e Jilegal “responsibilities of food merchants in the handling of
tL-‘Pr W Llfit—ufiy
pilfere-r-s, and to explore .the methods and the approaches"; toward les-
sening this evil which harrases the supeLmarket field today.
p.33 ’lr‘ ,

It is hoped that this thesis will provide a more complete
understanding of the problem of pilfering, which in this. study will be
defined, described, and discussed in a manner which will convey to
the reader an over-all view of the subject.

Definition of the Words ”Pilfer," "Pilferer,"
and “Shoplifter”

According to the definition in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,

 

fifth—edition, the word ”pilfer" means to—--steal--orplm1d~e~r,- or,
specifically, to practice petty theft. In the language of the food

trade)a "pilferer" is synonymous with the word "shoplifter," which

means one who steals from a store goods exposed for sale. Conse-
quently, throughout this paper the reader'will find the words "pil-
ferer" and "shoplifter" used interchangeably, since they have the

same meaning .

("T2

0

Why the Study was Made

Whenever the super market chains undertake the regulation
of pilfering, the question of the extent to which control should be
permitted inevitably arises.’ In the process of gathering the data for
this study, the writer became aware of the sharp difference of opin-
ion among super market executives about a firm approach to be
‘ used in combating pilfering. While all chains rec0gnize the. menace
of pilfering, the methods used by the respective chains are varied,
and there is little agreement as to the best and most effective
method.

The differences of Opinion range from a "What can I do?"
attitude of one large. southern chain to an excessive amount of vigi-
lance practiced by a small eastern chain. The author will, there-
fore, take the opinions and practices used by many chains in

curbing pilfering, eliminate what he thinks is unnecessary, and then

prepose a concrete method of dealing effectively with this situation.

With just a few percentage points separating high operating
costs and mark-ups, it is essential that the chain executive look for
ways of eliminating losses which formerly have been overlooked in
his op’eration. One of the greatest sources of loss is through
customer pilferage, a problem of long standing which now is re-
ceiving the much needed attention of food chain operators everywhere.

It is not too hard to realize that when a woman steals a 69¢
tube of tooth paste that it means the net profit on $35.00 sales
and that in many cases the market could have been opened an
hour later that morning without losing much more.1

Because of continuing rises in prices, a troubled period in
our history, the laxity. of control of crime in many of our cities‘and
towns, and the serious lack of qualified men for police protection,
the subject of pilfering has become a major concern not only of

grocery chains and department stores but of civic organizations and

local govermnent' officials as well.
Limitations of-th-e—«Study

This study will be concerned with the subject of pilfering

only in relationship to the customer. Because of various checks

 

Harold E. Nelson. ”Pilferage versus Profits," manuscript
of an article, p. Z.

and controls currently in use, losses of merchandise between the
warehouse and the super marketusually can be determined. Once
the merchandise is on the shelves, however, the unknown factor in
the form of the customer enters the scene. By means of careful
screening processes, most food chains are reasonably sure of the
honesty of their employees, but there is no known means of judging
the honesty of their customers. Most shoplifters are customers,
but most customers are not shoplifters. ' In this study, therefore,
inmknto givethe reader a more completenunderstandingof. one
of—thc-more important and serious phases of pilfering, the central
theme has been narrowed,‘. to a--~speei~fi—e-~—£ield. ore-sue 5,19» "‘ L. thy-u

'1", gm 1" f. I : t . " -' I U
1 . . h ‘ l 1 ‘ . . l i - a . I“ j A ’ ~ fl J

‘ II, ‘
C ) ::‘.""‘I l‘ l "' ‘ ~“ 4' ’ ,\ ~’ I. .I I: 1% I l l' l’ ‘ ‘5 < ‘~ gar t ‘7 “- I 1* ‘ ' l I I. . f
1' I
" '- :1! I
1 l s .

Procedure Followed in Gathering Data ’5

From the “t954” Directory of Grocery and Super Market
.-.0

Chains") the author selected a sample of ~75 of the nation's largest
food chains. To each of the chains in the sample was sent a letter
requesting specific information about pilfering. Replies received

t, £th f; ,—m .
from fifty“ of the chains ranged from a "no-approach" attitude to a
complete and highly efficient plan for controlling pilfering. A copy

of the letter sent to each chain in the smnple is included in Ap-

pendix A.

The same letter, with minor variations, was sent to twenty
of the leading food publications requesting information about articles
which might have been printed in past issues of their magazines.
Eighteen replies were received. Many of these consisted of reprints
of articles which had appeared earlier in publications dealing with
the subject of pilferage control.

‘\

Since a major portion of this study is concerned with the legal.

\T\

_.I
.4
/
a

responsibilities of food merchants in the handling of shoplifters, it
was necessary to use ”thewfacilities of the law library/of the Detroit
Bar Association. The workluin the law library consisted of delving
into cases and in textbooks dealing iwiththe legal aspects of the
subject of pilfering. To be more specific, knowledge had to be
gained abgut'false imprisonment, lawsuits governing false imprison-
”A. successful prosecutions of apprehended shoplifters.

Once the material had been gathered from the respondents
and from the research in the law library, then came the task of
analyzing, editing, and placing the proper emphasis on the impor-
tant practices utilized by the major food chains in controlling pil-

fering within their store operations. Thus, what was in the beginning

a mass of letters and notes gradually began to take shape and form.

\\ Chapte r Organization
\

\‘
\
\
\ K

The chapters, in this thesis, have been arranged in'xthe order

N,

\
that most logically conforms to the actual situation: theft, appre-
‘\

\

x. '
hension, prosecution, and prevention. The following is the order
that has been chosen:

Chapter II - Methods of Shoplifting

Chapter III Legal Aspects

' Chapter IV

- Proper Procedure
Chapter V - Methods of Combating Pilfering
( '1 n r:
""""- L" "”3“ h .- (9);) Clficci‘U—tJ df.—t_1_‘- :rJ I4“ Wyl‘t “nl‘ C- 41.4" r/‘e- (IJ’L'cxflt-‘Z/

gin“. K392. “Ugh-1o Leigh-WE pr- 34. rig, )bfl9 {*-
wmmaflf I l“"" ”<7

. ., J‘s; «Slog-erg *7“;
mm?“ Ht 0L H

 

CHAPTER II
METHODS OF SHOPLIF TING

Today the problem of shoplifting is greater in self-service
food chains than at any other time during the past twenty years.
The introduction of self-service and its utilization to the fullest
possible extent has given the shoplifter more and better opportunity V
to pilfer, since now most of the merchandise for sale is displayed
openly, within the convenient reach of every customer. In the past
the customer's contact with the goods selected in a grocery store
came only when he made his purchase, for the counter acted as a
barrier between the shopper and the merchandise desired. The actual
handling of the goods by the customer was in most cases under the
direct supervision of the grocer or one of his clerks. If, by any
chance, there was need for the customer to have access to the mer-
chandise prior to the actual sales transaction, the grocer, or one of
his clerks whose task it was to serve the customer, was present.
Now everyone has the right to purchase goods at his own leisure

and not under the watchful eyes of the grocer, who before the advent

of self-service actually guided the selections of the consumer.

Thus we see that while self-service operations have given to
the customer many advantages, it has presented the merchant with
many ensuing problems. One of the major problems facing the food
chain industry is the curbing of losses resulting from pilfering which
now has reached major proportions. This evil must be dealt with
sensibly, wisely, and must be kept under control without jeopardizing
sales and profits. In order to arrive at a sane and workable solu-
tion to the problem of shoplifting, one must first acquaint himself
with some-of-~the--mental-~-factorscausing an individual—«to steal; and--
with the many modes of operation used by the pilferer in obtaining

merchandise from the food chain. (To V' H...)

l. The professional shoplifter. This type of shoplifter is

 

not truly a psychiatric problem. For such individuals, shoplifting

is a premeditated means of livelihood and must pay very well in
order to insure eno‘ugh proceeds to take care lof all the "exigencies."
The activities of the professional shoplifter are limited in the food
chains, since the return for the amount of risk involved is very
small. Only about one out of ten shoplifters arrested in food chains
is a professional. He is ordinarily calm and composed and will try
to bluff his way out of the situation if he is apprehended. He knows

his legal rights and will insist upon getting them.

9

2. The amateur shoplifter. The only real difference between

 

the amateur pilferer and his counterpart, the professional, is that

the amateur does not use sheplifting as a premeditated means of
livelihood. Many times the amateur is just as "smooth" and "slick"
as the professional. Ordinarily the amateur will show either extreme
, nervousness or exaggerated nonchalance when under observation.

Both the amateur and the professional shoplifter are usually con-
sidered normal mentally, and when apprehended are tried in the

criminal court of the proper jurisdiction.

3. General delinquents. For this type of pilferer shOplifting

 

is an overt manifestation of a delinquent personality, or a common

incident of comprehensive delinquency.

4. -The klgatomanic or compulsive shoplifter. This type of

 

individual is considered more or less a neurotic personality.
Kleptomania is variously defined as an irresistible desire to steal,
as the disease of stealing, as a morbid propensity to steal, whether
consciously or unconsciously. It has been characterized as a species
of insanity, or as a weakening of the will power to an extent that

the afflicted one is powerless to control his impulse to steal,

10

without regard to whether such impulse is inspired by avarice, greed,

or idle fancy.

5. The more or less normal personality. Here shoplifting

 

occurs as an accident due to some overpowering emotional stress or

strain.

 

6. Shcmliffinggaused by oyganic injury. Shoplifting which is
the result of some organic brain disease or psychosis is of lesser
significance today than‘it was fonnerly thought to be. Very few
incidences of stealing appear to be the result of psychotic or de-

mented personality.

The study of Arrief and Bowiel of 338 shoplifting cases re-
ferred to the Municipal Psychiatric Institute of Chicago, of which
the authors were joint heads from 1941 to 1946, reveals that a
considerable number of these cases involved persons of high intel-
ligence who were of some social or political significance. The most

telling fact brought out by the study is that, of all the cases of

 

Alex J. Arrief and Carol G. Bowie. "Some Psychiatrics
of Shoplifting," Journal 3f Clinical PsychopathOIOgy, Vol. 8, No. 3
(January, 1947), pp. 565-76.

 

11
shoplifting studied in the Municipal Psychiatric Institute of Chicago
for the five-year period, 77 percent (265) were labo—ring under some
mental, emotional, or physical disorder, or some combination of
these. Characteristically, the gOods pilfered 'were not only of little
monetary value, but were frequently of no obvious use to the person.

Some of the reasons given for the low percentage of arrests
of persons apprehended are, first, that the individuals were first of-
fenders, and second, that food chains, department stores, and private
detective agencies are somewhat wary of making arrests for sh0p-
lifting. According to the law in most states (explained more fully
in Chapter III), the guilty person must actually leave the store with
the unpaid-for goods before he may legally be declared a shoplifter.
Suits for false arrests do not make for either the good will of the
public or for the good name of the food chain. Furthermore, the
first offense in most instances, even though incontestably bona fide,
does not bring about an arrest. Offenders are usually taken to the
manager, who by various techniques attempts to insure against any
repetition taking place in the future. If the offender pays for the
goods or shows evidence of good faith, the management of many
food chains then allows the shoplifter to depart with little more than

a benign "Go and sin no more." Since the proclivity to shOplifting

12
is not restricted to any particular social or cultural group, in the
cases of those persons suffering with so-called kleptomania the in-
dividuals involved may be so prominent socially, financially, or
politically that no arrest is ever made, in spite of the frequency
of the offense. Therefore, an accurate picture of the ratio of ar-
rested sh0plifters to the general offense presents a difficult problem.
The police records of most cities contain no separate listing of such
arrests except on daily court sheets, so that shoplifting is, in the
usual case, classified under "larceny."

As might be expected, there appears normally to be an em-
phatic impetus in shoplifting during periods of increased buying; i.e., '
in the spring before Easter, just before ThankSgiving, and during the
Christmas shopping rush. Narrowing the interval to a week's time,
one finds that there is an increase in the frequency of shoplifting
on week ends over the first part of the week. During the closing
hour rush, when the store manager and the clerks are getting ready
to suspend operations for the day, the shoplifter is afforded an ex-
cellent opportunity to pilfer.

According to the records of Arrief and Bowie,z women are

the major violators. The total group of 338 in their sample was

 

2 .
Ibid.

13
composed of 313 women and twenty-five men, with the largest repre-
sentation from both sexes falling in the 17-25 age grouping. Next in
frequency was the 35-50 (middle age) age grouping consisting entirely
of women. In other words, the ages at which shoplifting would seem
to be most prevalent are, first, those of late adolescence and very
early maturity (17-25) when desires far outstrip buying power, when
independence is expressed in any number of ways--frequently anti-
social-~and when one still is rather easily influenced by bad and un-
desirable examples; and second, at the onset and prOgression of the
menopause (35-50), a period of increased tension for many women.

It should not be too surprising that, since more women shop
than men--this is true even of window shopping--the opportunities
and temptations for shoplifting are much greater for women. The
fact that the majority of shoplifters are women lends some credence
to the theory that the act of shoplifting may be interpreted as a not
too aggressive rejection of social restrictions. Thus it is more
likely to satisfy women than men, who usually make attempts at ad-
justment in more overt and aggressive ways.

The author feels that in order to curb pilfering properly one
must know something of the background of apprehended shoplifters

who have been referred to court psychiatrists for examination and

14
are, therefore, a matter of record. What sort of persons engage in
stealing? Why do they steal? From whence do they come? In
answering some of these questions, reference will be made again
to the Arrief and Bowie study,3 and their findings will be presented
in condensed form. It should be remembered that this study was
based upon information gathered from selected shoplifters in one

specific city- - Chicago.

1. Between 2.5 and 35 percent of arrested shoplifters were
referred for psychiatric examination by the criminal courts of
Chicago. Arrested shoplifters represented only five percent of all
apprehended shoplifters.

2. In times of stress there is an upsurge in shoplifting,
while the ratio dr0ps when conditions become somewhat stable.

3. Marital discord was not a contributing factor.

4. Low economic level was no majorocause of pilfering.

5. Lack of intellect was not a provocative factor in shop-
lifting.

6. The incidence of shoplifting throughout the city bore no

relationship to the high delinquency areas mapped out by the Chicago

 

3 Ibid.

15
Police Departznent. On the contrary, it was noted that shoplifters
were distributed over the entire city area indiscriminately, with no

particular emphasis in any area.

In order to acquaint the reader with some of the psychOIOgi-
cal reasons for pilfering, the author deems it wise to present in
brief form selected case histories included in the Arrief and Bowie

5 tudy :

1. Case I - Psychoneurotic with mental depression. The sub-

 

ject, a white housewife, age 51, had no record of previous arrests.
She had been married for the first time at the age of 42. Her hus-
band was of low intelligence and a very heavy drinker. Before her
marriage she had been economically independent, but her marriage
had placed her in a marginal economic status. She had been a nun
for eight years earlier in her life. Her brother stated that she had
been asked to leave the convent because of extreme and increasing
nervousness. She was arrested for shoplifting. At the time of the
examination she was markedly depressed, with some motor retarda-

tion, and she was recommended for psychiatric treatment.

2. Ease II - Mental degression; suicidal trends. The subject,

 

with above average intelligence, age 57, was sales manager of a

16
leading Chicago automobile agency. He had never previously been
arrested, but he had been subject to recurrent episodes of mental
depression, particularly since the recent death of his wife. He stated
at the time of his apprehension that he felt "dOpey." He had been
taking codeine. He was arrested for attempting to steal a statue
valued at twenty-four dollars from a department store. He stated
when further. questioned that he did not know why he tried to steal
the statue since he had very little use for it. Private psychiatric

care was recommended.

3. Case III - Acute impulsive incident. This eighteen year
old male, single, with normal intelligence, was attending high school
at the time he was arrested. Upon examination, it was discovered
that no psychiatric factors contributed to the theft of a jacket in a
departznent store. When asked why he took the jacket, he replied
that he did not know what urged him to take it as he neither needed
nor wanted it. He further stated that he stole because of an "in-

nocent impulse" which compelled him to steal.

4...-‘Qase IV - "Get Eyen" motive. The subject, white female,
housewife, age 35, was arrested fOr stealing two nightgowns. The

husband explained the reason for this theft by saying that he was

l7

"s‘topped—‘frorrr-beinghi godfather at a christeninggflb‘ecause the priest

-_ ‘ ‘ “ ‘-

claimed that he and the_,,patient ‘we‘rfie‘u‘not-married according to the

flflv- ‘5‘“
r” ‘Iufl. h

/

/ 1‘ “F ‘ “
chufch. Therefore, his wife was trying to get even with God. "

5. Case V - Recurrentparanoid psychosis. The subject,

 

white female, age 50, single, had not been gainfully employed for ten

or twelve years prior to her arrest. Employment had not been nec-
essary because of an independent income. She had a history of

many arrests in several different states. Twice she had been committed
to mental institutions. Upon examination, it was discovered that she
was subject to delusions of grandeur, that she had a great deal of
money, and that she had an extraordinary literary ability. She was
committed to an institution for the third time.

In the five case histories cited, there seems to have been no
need for the pilfered item p31; _s_e_. Rather the overt act of pilfering
was a manifestation of a troubled background or of a distorted‘mind,
and in most cases was entirely unrelated to economic factors. The
stolen item may have stood for something from the background of
the individual, or it may have been merely a symbol of defiance to
society. Wisely, the court in each case referred the matter to a

psychiatrist who went beyond the surface incident of pilferage.

18

Modes of Operation

The great majority of the customers who come into a food
chain are basically honest. There will always be those individuals
who, when they think no one is watching, will take merchandise
without paying for it. Jn—ordesLtQ-prevent-suchslo-sses-eflmerehan—

Ween-must keep— art's-alert- eye onwsuspicions -.custnrners
Wanton—renegnize the .typiLIaL tricks of {ShQPlifteri Amateur

and-uprofessionak-shoplifterswalikemfollow--- certainmpatterns. and. ..stylas

Wad ~sundr wmfnom...a.iandnghain ._

Sor\ne terms in use by professional shoplifters and law en-
, \x,‘
forcement officers, in referring to various phases of shoplifting",

\~

are of interest in an‘ understanding of the problem. They include:

Bird Dog Person who "cases" the Store and
-. reports his findings to the "oper-
ator" or "booster."

Booster 9}; Heister Shoplifter, thief, the person who
engages in stealing.

Booster Pants A type of pants with legs held
tightly by heavy.“ elastic to prevent
goods placed thereinxfrom being
detected. These are usually worn
underneath the main outer] garments

\
by women. \

 

 

4 The KrOger Company, "Store Manager's Manual," mimeo-

graphed, n. d.

l9

”\\Hgist The articles stolen, the "loot."
Boosting Eg-Heisting The act of stealing or shoplifting.
Operator ‘ ~. _~ The person in a theft ring who

“does the actual stealing or puts on
the ”show" to conceal the actual
theft by the -ffi'booster."

Sleever i The shoplifter who “ceneeals mer-
///’fl chandise by passing it up his sleeve
//-/ for temporary concealment. '

The—author believe-s that some discussion of the many modes. of
W—in---nse- by shoplifters is pertinent to a complete- understanding
Wrobtem. In the pages to follow} the reader will become aware

0f the many ways Of'pilfering which are used successfully by shop-

lifters.

x 1. Purse Operations. «The many uses to which a woman's
Pluse may be put becomes quite amazing. Many female pilferers
80 so far as to carry special two-way purses. One section is for
merchandise, and the other is the one from which money may readily
be taken without disturbing the "merchandise section." In other
tYpes Of shoplifting) purses have the lining cut away, thus giving
more room for stolen items. The large bag lying Open in the

baskart or being carried under the arm provides an excellent

’

-20
J)
receptacle for butter, lunch‘v’meats, salmon tins, small bottles of
Olives, packaged cheese, and self-service meats.

The shoplifter)with her purse lying Open in the baskartlwill
usually head first for the dairy department where she picks up a
pound Of butter or packaged cheese to be placed in the cart. She
then will shop for corn flakes, toilet paper, or some other light-
weight but bulky items. By sleight of hand)the smaller items of
butter or cheese will have been placed in the purse at the bottom
of the cart. Since she will have previously removed her coin purse
from her handbag, there will be no necessity for opening it at the
check out counter. Needless to say, no cheese or butter shows up

Wfl-kffi , ' ' ALIA, (innate... Ml”.
«out counter- Taking into consideration the average size
Of a woman's purse, it is not difficult or unreasonable to visualize
it containing from six to eight dollars worth of groceries. This
assumption is based upon the actual experience/10f taking a woman's

purse into a superppnarket and filling it to capacity.

L 2. Newspaper and magazine carriers. The newspaper carrier
is usually a. man who will enter a feed~ehain super market just be-
fore closing time. He has a newspaper folded under his arm and is

supposedly there for a quart Of milk or a loaf of bread needed for

21
his supper at home. In the fold of the newspaper) this pilferer has
placed a flat package of bacon or meat. This type of shoplifter
works fast, for he wishes to convey the impression that his wife is
waiting for him before she can serve supper. In this type of shop-
lifting,the pilferer will usually know beforehand what item is to be
placed in the paper.

The placing of magazine racks in the super markets has given
rise to shoplifters who will pick up a magazine of the size of L_i_f__e_

or The Saturday Evening Post in which a smaller magazine has been

)

 

placed on the sly. By pretending to be glancing at the larger mag-
azine in his hands while his groceries are being checked at the stand,
he gets by undetected. He may even call the attention of the cashier
to the fact that she has neglected to charge him for the magazine he
is holdingmthe general impression that he is se-rapetleusl-y honest.
As with the “newspaper, the magazine may also conceal flat

packaged items without the possibility of detection-being too great.

3. "Paper roll blues." A roll of hand' towels is usually

 

wrapped around a hollow cardboard cylinder. For the pilferer, this
tube affords an excellent receptacle in which to place merchandise.

Such items as small bottles of Olives, quarter-pound sticks of butter

22
Wye—beem-removed‘Trommflie carton, small tins of spices and
peppers, or any of many other short, narrow items can be concealed
easily in the hollow. One advantage the shoplifter has when placing
items in the tube is that the end flaps covering the paper are strong
enough to hold the merchandise without fear that the goods will fall
out. If} by chance, the items placed in the hollow are not firmly
packed, then a handkerchief or a piece of paper, properly stuffed,
will give the thief a firm package that will not be detected by the
cashier at the check out stand. The articles are placed in the tube
in such a manner that the weight is balanced, rather than being top-

heavy.

/ ”Hat trick.” Many'times in aimed—chain super market)

the man shopping with a hat in his hand may not be the gentleman
1 . . '

people thinkj"; 1l‘By carrying a hat in his hand)the pilferer can place

small items into it without fear of the merchandise falling out and

being detected. Thus) when a man is seen holding his hat while his

groceries areAchecked out by the cashier, he may be conCealing

merchandise rather than being polite to the check out girl.

The really successful thief has the interior Of his hat re-

designed so that it will hold the maximum amount of goods. The

23
redesigned hat will have the lining removed and will contain clips so -

that small items can be held in place.

\1

5. Umbrellas. The umbrella to the shoplifter is not only a

 

means of keeping off the rain, but is also useful as a means of
carrying food items through the check out stand unnoticed. A loose
umbrella is always excellent for concealing items, especially at the
self-service dairy or meat counters. It is not a difficult feat to drop
a package of meat into the folds‘ of an umbrella and nonchalantly con-

tinue shopping .

6/ The other shgpLing bag. The customer comes into the

 

Wm another shopping bag supposedly full of merchandise pur-
chased at another store. The pattern followed is that of going through
the motions of shopping by filling a baskart with groceries. Items
of value that can easily be pilfered are placed in the shopping bag.

At "the check out counter)the pilferer will pay for the visible goods/ I
while the stolen goods remain hidden. If asked by the cashier to open
the bag, the pilferer will willingly oblige, since if he is caught at

this stage he can claim that it is an inexcusable error. The shop-

)

lifter may even suggest that the cashier look into the shopping bag,

24
thereby impressing the cashier with the fact that the shoplifter is an
honest person and that inspection is not necessary.

The double shopping bag is another method employed by many
shoplifters. Between the layers can be placed flat packages that can

easily escape discovery.

$12
A sign that appears in almost all grocery chairs, in one form

or another, states thatthe firm reserves the right to open all pack-
ages. Seldom, however, is the right invoked by the cashier who,
either through neglect or carelessness, will not bother to check. A
good thief must be an excellent judge of human nature. To illustrate
this point, the author presents the following—imaginary conversation

between a shoplifter/ carrying a bag of pilfered items and $133 cash- 3 ,
’ z. a nut (w;
ier) obeying the instructions of the management/,) The conversation -1
begins at the point where the shoplifter opens her bag for inspectioni,
Cashier: "I'm sorry, but I will have to inspect your
shopping bag."

Sh0plifter: (Holding the bag in Such a- manner that the cash-
ier can view the top layer, starts taking out items
for inspection) "This package contains a sweater
for my son. Here in this bag is a box of candy."
.(The shoplifter is taking out each item slowly and
deliberately. The tone of her voice indicates that
she has been insulted.)

Cashier: (Begins to feel embarrassed) "That's enough. I
have seen it all, and I am very sorry to have

25

caused you this inconvenience." (She does not
realize that the remaining items were pilfered
from the store.)

Shoplifter: "I do not blame you, dear, because you would
lose your job if you were not so careful."

 

{fl Here we see how the shoplifter gained the confidence of the
cashier by taking the offensive. In the example presented/the shop-

lifter was permitted to stop emptying her bag after the first two

items.

1/7. "Switcheroo." A pilferer, while shopping in a self-

 

service food store, obtains a bulky bag, containing, for example,
apples that are weighed and sealed in the fruit department. He re-
opens this bag in order to conceal therein a pound of butter. The
bag is then resealed with a portable staple gun which the shoplifter
Wm.mrwmu He continues his shopping as if nothing has
taken place. In order to escape detection, the shoplifter who works

the "switcheroo" method must be fast and not too greedy. He must,

in addition, know beforehand exactly what is to be placed in the bag.

8. "Two of afikind." In this methodIthe shoplifters work

 

in pairs. One of them will push the baskart)while the other indi-

vidual meanders through the aisles. He returns to the baskart from

26
time to time in order to place food items in it. When the second
pilferer decides on an item to be stolen, he will take two of them,
one of which he conceals on his person. The merchandise is hidden
usually at the point when the second person is approaching the

baskart to place the visible items therein.

\\

\9\Switched carton trick. Another method of stealing by

 

x,

shoplifters infik‘m‘any food—shah: super markets is that of remo‘siing

5‘

,1“

k\‘ I)";
butter from its carton‘ and placing it in a margarine car-ton from

a

/

,

which the contents have been removed. The checker, of course,
charges only the price of margarine, and the-food—ehatn suffers a

considerable loss. This method/is now somewhat on the decline,

for margarine manufacturers have rec0gnize ~-this menace and have
- " "\

‘~..

a",

redesignedtheir packages, making it impossible for a‘shoplifter to

I

Witch packages ‘without marring the' margarine carton. ““x.

I

I

10.\/ The use of children. One of the most cruel forms of

 

shoplifting is the employment of children to do the actual stealing.
These children work either for a small remittance or are forced
into pilfering by parents desirous of obtaining something for nothing

at the expense of the children.

27
<“ -~—-If a child is apprehended, the shoplifterr-usually a woman--
WM)WiII punish the child for his misdeed and
apolOgize to the store manager. In reality, of course, the child had
been instructed to steal.

A woman with an overdressed baby may hide all manner of
expensive but small items in the folds of the baby's clothing. This
type of shoplifter operates during the winter months.

A woman who goes shopping with two or three children, one
of whom stays very close to her, may easily pass many small items]
to the child who, in turn, will conceal them in his clothing. Some
children have been found with specially made pockets in their clothing

for this purpose.

f1. gigare’ttes, the "pet" item of shoplifters. The five-pack
cigarette packages, are most convenient for the pilferer to conceal,
for they can easily fit into any average size coat or purse. The in-
dividuallwho goes to the cigarette-stand as soon as he enters the

store, will frequently not have them in his baskart at the check out

stand.

\‘Another often-practiced method of pilfering cigarettes is that

- a.

.—

in ,wkr'rch‘the customer asks for and receives an empty carton to
/

28’

\place in his baskart. Several cartons of cigarettes may be concealed

\5.
\
‘5‘

easify‘in the bottom of the carton by merely'placing a second smaller

..‘x.

. \

empty carton upright or inverted over the cigarettes. As he con-
tinues his shopping, he plaCes the merchandise he selects on t0p of

the inner empty carton. When he goes through the check out stand,

/I/ —

/

he replaces. “the merchandise on top of the concealed cigarettes after

W checker has rung up the sales.

123’." The case carrier. This type of pilferer must be "smooth"

 

and have his wits about him at all times, for'if he is questioned) he
has no chance to make an explanation. He will walk into a feed-ehain
super market and pick up a full case of canned goods or whatever
else of value is lying on the floor. Sometimes he will even boldly
walk into the back supply room for a case of merchandise. \He places
the case on his shoulder and walks out, giving the general impression
that he is on official business and has been ordered to do so by

some department head or other person in authority. This operation
is performed usually when the store manager is not near the check
out stand, for, willingness to call on the manager, ‘when all appears

to be well, is not one of the stronger virtues of most cashiers.

29

13. The elderly senile type of shoplifter. This type of pil-

 

ferer is one who wanders aimlessly‘about the store, seemingly lost,
but all the while placing small fo‘od articles “in. his pockets. Store
employees must exercise extreme caution with this type of individual.
The usual procedure is to inform him amiably that he has placed
this or that item in his pockets. This type of thief is generally told
that, if he wishes to purchase the item he has, the employee will see
to it that he is checked out,immediately, without the necessity of
waiting in line. Always the employee receives a warm ”thank you"
and)in many cases)is greeted by a look of embarrassment on the
part of the elderly shoplifter. He always appears to be astonished

when he is arrested for shoplifting.

14. The friendly cashier. One frequent source of loss to

 

the firm is through the employee who becomes quite familiar and
friendly with many of his customers, and who, when the management
is not completely aware of the situation, will charge under the reg-
ular price for merchandise. Sometimes he arranges to split the
difference with the customer at a later time outside the premises

of the supermarket. This is a very difficult situation to control,

and the management must be on guard at all times.

30

 

._ 15. 'The "dummy" arm. An individual)who appears to have
an artificial arm and is wearing an- overcoat, may bear. watching.
Some pilferers pretend to have an artificial arm in the sleeve of
their overcoats. In fact, it may be a "dummy," the hand of which
is encased in a glove. The "dummy" arm is rested on the sur-
face of the counter or table where the coveted merchandise is dis-
played. One good arm is under the overcoat)and the other is in
the sleeve of the coat in the normal fasion. The hidden arm, or
rather the hidden hand, “slides out under the coat and scoops up

merchandise from the shelf or table. Specially designed and con-

structed pockets on the inside of the coat receive the pilfered goods.

16. The heavy overcoat. Cooler weather demands heavier

 

clothing in the form of topcoats and overcoats.) Hiding merchandise
under a coat is not a difficult feat. Again-the" coat.s---may-contain ~—-

specially -constructedmompantments. for the pilfered goods. Some _
1"“ 6 LLva " ‘- ”V-‘J*1 Lc‘t:hmu '5‘ {Ja‘ggC-ér’M—béhlrf: *7 0.2/1":- J.- J ’

u—f

garments even- I-eontain trick pockets and' inside hooks so that, when
under careful observation, a customer 'may be seen to grow sud-
denly fat during the course of a shopping expedition. Women's
skirts and dresses may be so rigged as to conceal a considerable

amount of merchandise. It is difficult to believe--but nonetheless

31
true--that there are specialized tailors whose sole business itis to
make clothing for shoplifters.

I .
use of baby buggies when pilfering goods from a super market. The

,. r. . . - . l
‘33:wa qL-d’f'fi. a. Lwfiffi'bj’ Lh—l M‘s—’3 "& Lo " WQf£A¢(-
seemingly—landx-monsideratemmotherrwho is afraid-to "leave- her .baby

17. The carriage trade. Sometimes‘women shoplifters make

Weaniage)“alone/outside' the super ‘market may, in reality, bewa-
mes‘t—tlever- “sl'i’op’lifter . Wfirwhich "i "designedmto-w—earry- ..a. “baby.
www-mo -c-ar—ry -- undetectedspilfered- goods . Some-times...
,sthlifimuvfill.-use a baby carriage instead of.....a-....baskar.t..in shopping.
When the pilferer reaches the check out stand, not all merchandise
which was selected/is placed on the counter. The basket or con-
tainer on a buggy, which is designed‘to contain such items as bottles
and diapers, may be used most effectively as a means of carrying
concealed merchandise through the check out counter.

The Red .Owl Stores, Incorporated, of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
effectively summarized the danger signals’of which store managers

5 .. . .
should be aware in the apprehension of shoplifters: 949‘ 4 the” ‘

 

5 Red Owl Stores, Incorporated. "Store Meeting on Shop-

lifting," mimeOgraphed, n. d., p. Z.

32

1. Be suspicious of shoppers who seem particularly
interested in your whereabouts. If you see her eyes locating
the various employees around the store, it's a danger signal.
This same individual will generally avoid other customers.

2. Watch a customer who seems to be taking an un-
usually long time to choose an item from a display or a shelf
where you know there are many small, pocket-sized items, such
as olives, canned meats, etc.

3. Keep an eye on customers carrying other packages,
shopping bags, an extra large purse, magazines, newspapers, or
umbrellas, or wearing extremely bulky clothing such as big
flowing coats. It's a simple matter to conceal small items in
any one of these.

4. Watch customers who don't seem to complete their
shopping in any depariznent, but who keep going back. A meat
department customer who goes back and gets individually wrapped
packages at different times may intend to hide one or more.

She may even get different people to wait on her.

5. Customers who loiter around "hidden spots" in the
store--behind high shelving or displays or between lengths of
gondolas--are often seeking concealment in order to hide some
of the items they have picked up elsewhere.

6. Be alert to the customer who returns to the sales
floor after checking out her order. It's a simple trick to add
items to her previously packaged order before checking out a
relatively inexpensive item. '

\‘Mzmyushoplifters‘are good actors but poor thievesgand'
others are good thieves but poor actors. The good thief is the
easiest with which to do business. Many shoplifters are“ sorry,
at least ”that is what they say. They are not sorry they stole,
_ they'are sorry they were caught.

CHAPTER III
LEGAL ASPECTS

The mere fact that a shoplifter is seen pilfering in a food
chain store does not mean, necessarily, that his apprehension and
arrest can be accomplished without some fear of reprisal in the
form of a costly lawsuit. The store employee must be extremely
careful when apprehending a shoplifter. The manner in which a
pilferer is stopped can sometimes be a factor in favor of the shop-
lifter who can claim that he was held against his will and that he
is therefore entitled to damages for false arrest.

This chapter will be a simple discussion of a number of
leading legal cases involvingishoplifting, false imprisonment, what
constitutes larceny, and a discussion of arrest for a misdemeanor
and felony.

In the case of Collyer versus S. H. Kress Company (5 Cal-
ifornia Reports, 2d, 1'75), the plaintiff, Collyer, was pilfering certain
articles from the open counters on which they were displayed and
was seen putting them in his coat pocket. He was intercepted by

the detective at the main exit of the store just as he was leaving

34
and was escorted back into the store to a room on the second floor,
where the matter was investigated. It appears that the plaintiff was
there accused of pilfering and that he denied the accusations, stating
that he had paid for all the articles in his possession. After con-
siderable difficulty, lasting for some twenty minutes, during which an
attempt was made forcibly to search him, it was revealed that he had
in his possession the articles he was accused of having stolen. He
was then asked to sign a statement to the effect that he had taken
the articles without paying for them. Still insisting that he had paid
for the articles, he refused to sign the statement.

Meanwhile, the police had been summoned, and soon after their
arrival, at the request of the store management, the police placed the
plaintiff under arrest and took him into custody. The goods alleged
to have been stolen were found unwrapped in Collyer's pocket, but
he still insisted that he had purchased them.

At the trial, a jury acquitted him of petty theft. One reason
for the acquittal was the fact that the accused was nearing 70 and
had been a former police officer who happened to be apprehended on
Christmas Eve for shoplifting. The accused them sued the company
in an action for false imprisonment because of his detention for

twenty minutes. Usually, any criminal proceeding against an accused

35
shoplifter who might be old, sick, poor, or handicapped has the
sympathy of the lower court juries. The firm is pictured as rich
and heartless, trying to get a conviction against a poor helpless indi-
vidual who just took a loaf of bread for her poor fatherless children--
in the case of a woman--without first paying for the item. Many
food chains, with the c00peration of their local police departments,
and with proper publicity having been given by the newspapers in the
area, are able to prosecute now without fear of bad feeling. In many
instances after a verdict is given in the lower court favoring the
accused, the finn appeals to the higher court where the decision
rendered will not be influenced by undue sympathy.

In the Collyer case a judgment for the plaintiff was reversed
by the California Supreme Court, whose decision stated that the
right to protect one's property from theft includes the right to de-
tain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of investigation,
when there is reasonable belief that the person is stealing one's
property. Detention on suspicion should be incidental to the right
to protect property; otherwise, it would appear that a person would
be liable for the charge of false imprisonment. Detention by force
without justification is false imprisonment even though the period

of detention is brief.

36

Many states allow a private person to make an arrest for a
felony. The charge of petty theft warrants that a private person
making an arrest must be certain that the person is committing a
misdemeanor. Probable cause means that an employee must 'be
reasonably sure that the shoplifter has the goods on his person.
Probable cause is a defense where a defendant has reason to believe
that the plaintiff is about to injure his person or property, even
though such injury would constitute but a misdemeanor, provided,
of course, that the detention was reasonable in length of time.

The right to detain is a question of law for the judge to de-
cide, while the amount of compulsion and the length of detention be-
comes a question of fact for the jury. False imprisonment has
been said to be the unlawful restraint by one person of the physical
liberty of another. Here, the term "false" seems to be exactly ,
synonymous with the term "unlawful." In false imprisonment, the
essence of the tort (wrongdoing) consists in depriving the plaintiff
of his liberty without lawful justification; and the good intention of
the defendant does not excuse, nor does his evil intention create,
the tort.

The use of force is not necessary to effect false imprison-

ment. Mere words are insufficient to constitute an imprisomnent,

37
if the person to whom they are spoken is not deprived of freedom
of action. Words Spoken in a harsh or commanding manner are
sufficient to constitute an imprisonment if they impose a restraint
upon a person's liberty of action and movement. In numerous cases,
a charge of larceny considered in connection with the circumstances
surrounding such charge has been held to constitute such unlawful
detention as would support an action for false imprisomnent, but in
other cases the circumstances have been insufficient to support such
an action. Any person may make an arrest for a misdemeanor com-
mitted in his presence. The owner of property, such as a food
chain corporation, may, for the purpose of protecting it, restrain
for a reasonable time and for the purpose of investigation one whom
he has reasonable and probable cause to believe has interfered with
or stolen it.

In the case of Bettolo versus Safeway Stores, Incorporated
(11 California Appellate Reports, 2d, 430), a customer entered a
store operated by the corporation, gathered some groceries from
the shelves, which he put in a carrying bag, and some candy which
he placed in his overcoat pocket. He then went to the check out
stand where he exhibited the groceries and paidfor them. Two

employees had seen him take the candy, and when one of the employees

38
learned that it had not been paid for, he followed Bettolo, the
plaintiff, to the sidewalk and forced him to return to the store.
There he was searched, but no candy was found. It was discovered
later among some vegetables at the produce department's counter
where Bettolo had stood just before leaving the store. Bettolo
did not deny that he had taken the candy, nor that he had been
warned to stay away from the store because he had been seen taking
groceries on other occasions.

The court in its decision followed the pattern set in the
Collyer case which was discussed in the previous paragraphs. It
also stated that the undisputed evidence showed reasonable and prob-
able cause for the detention. One of the employees had seen Bettolo
pick up the candy and conceal it in his pocket. This was verified
by another employee in the store. Bettolo had not denied this
charge, and since he had been detained for less than fifteen min-
utes, this was shown not to have been an unreasonable time for the
investigation.

Bettolo had been awarded fifteen hundred dollars in the lower
court; upon appeal by the firm, this judgment was denied, since it

had been granted purely on Sympathy inspired by prejudice and

39
unsupported evidence of damage. The only thing to which he was
entitled would be nominal damages.

In the case of Great Atlantic and (Pacific Tea Company versus
Smith (281 Kentucky Reports, 583) the court ruled in favor of the
customer who was thought to be a shoplifter. An elderly widow,
Mrs. Smith, then approximately 68 years of age, started out from
her home with her neighbor on a shopping expedition. After first
visiting several stores Mrs. Smith purchased a few articles. These
she placed in her shopping bag. Next they went to a store operated
by the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company in the locality so that the
widow could buy some candy which was being advertized at a special
price. Upon entering the store the friend of Mrs. Smith waited at
the door while Mrs. Smith, after, inquiring where the candy sale was
being conducted, went directly to the candy counter. There she pur-
chased the desired candy and then paid the clerk who waited upon
her. This clerk, it later deveIOped, was the store manager, Mr.
Vaughan, who, upon being paid for the candy, placed it in Mrs. Smith's
shopping bag along with the other items she had purchased elsewhere.
Mrs. Smith claimed in her testimony that she then, having bought

the merchandise for which she had come to the store, went no farther

40
about the store, but at once started toward the entrance to rejoin
her friend and leave.

Mrs. Smith stated that as she was leaving and passing through
the narrow turnstile exit next to the checking counter, Mr. Vaughan,
the manager of the store, who had left the candy counter, called to
her in a loud, angry -v'oice, "What have you there?" to which she
immediately replied, "Nothing but what belongs to me." He stepped
around the corner of the check out counter and took her by the wrist
and her shopping bag and pulled her around. He then looked through
her bag, and, finding nothing amiss, permitted her to depart from
the store. She further testified that her neighbor was at the time
standing near the door within easy hearing distance and clear view
of what was said and done by Mr. Vaughan.

Mrs. Smith further contended that Mr. Vaughan, upon taking
hold of her wrist and bag, stopped her without her consent, thus
detaining her against her will. She also stated that after she was
detained by his violently clutching her arm, her shopping bag was
then searched. She then reported that she went immediately home
to bed. She claimed that her nervous system was wrecked and
that, since the incident, she had been unable to sleep at night. Her

regular doctor testified that she suffered no physical injuries but

41
that she had suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of the. hurnil-
iation and mortification of being wrongly accused.

The testimony of the appellant differed very materially from
that of the appellee, Mrs. Smith. He stated that she did not leave
after purchasing the candy but, instead, continued to look around.
When asked by the clerk at the check out counter to show her bag,
she refused. The manager, who was assisting the clerk at the check
out “counter, asked Mrs. Smith again to let him have her shopping
bag. After her reply in an angry tone that she would not, he reached
for her bag but, according to his testimony, did not touch her per-
son.

This case happens to be one of the few major Ones dealing
specifically with the food chain market and the customer wrongfully
accused of being a shoplifter. There follows a direct quotation
from the Opinion of the court, written by Judge Perry, pertaining
to the limits to which a food chain may be forced to go in search-
ing for goods:

Appellants (A 8: P and their employee, Mr. Vaughan, the
manager) contend that by reason of their operating a self—'
service store, there is presented an entirely different situation
from that presented in an ordinary store; that the customer,
under such plan of operation, having free access to all the
merchandise in the store, when not attended by an employee, is

required and becomes obligated to take the merchandise he
selects to the checking counter, where it is inspected, by a

42

clerk, its price computed, wrapped and paid for; that until this
is 'done, the merchandise remains the property of the store and
no sale of it has been made and that, until it is inspected and
paid for, the owner of the property or the storekeeper has the
right to use reasonable force to prevent his property from being
carried away without payment for it.

It may be conceded that where a shopkeeper sees and
knows that a customer is taking and wrongfully carrying away
merchandise from his store, he has the right to accost the
culprit and prevent the attempted "shoplifting" or larceny of
his goods. However, though conceding such legal right of the
storekeeper to guard and protect his property, the instant case
presents a very different situation. Here the appellants contend
that they have become vested with a new and special right to
apprehend and detain a customer only suspected of "shoplifting"
or of attempting to take away the store's goods without paying;
therefore, by reason of a change in the manner of Operating their
business or by substituting self-service for clerk service. They
insist that by reason of the character of their "business setup"
they have made certain rules and regulations which are promin-
ently displayed on signs about the store, and that some are ef-
fective to so change the long established legal rules, regulating
and controlling the personal and correlative rights of merchant
and customer, as to vest the merchant with the new right, created
by his "business setup," to apprehend and detain a customer and
inspect his parcels and packages upon the mere suspicion of his
"shoplifting," based only upon his failure to heed or comply with
some rule or regulation of the self-serving store requiring him
to present for checking the merchandise he is carrying, regard-
less of whether it was elsewhere purchased or paid for when
purchased.

We do not regard this contention as tenable or that the
well-settled legal rules, serving to protect the individual against
wrongful detention may be so breached as amended by privately
made business rules, even though deemed appropriate and need-
ful for the successful conduct of business.

Here the evidence shows that appellee, at the time she
testifies she was taken hold of and wrongfully detained by the

43

defendant, Vaughan, against her will until he had made investi—
gations of her shopping bag and satisfied himself that she was
committing no illegal acts, was not attempting to take from the
store any article of merchandise which did not belong to her or
for which she had not paid, and she had the unqualified right to
leave the premises without restraint. Further, Vaughan knew
that he himself had just served her when she bought the candy
and that she had paid him for it, and he did not claim that he
saw her select or take any other article or merchandise, nor
did he have any reasonable grounds for suspecting her of at-
tempting to wrongfully carry away the store's property.

While not questioning appellant Vaughan's right to ask
appellee, as she was passing out of the store, to allow him to
inspect the contents of her shopping bag, in keeping with the
appellant company's claimed uniform practice in such case, the
jury did not believe under the evidence that he had approached
or treated the appellee in the gentle and reasonable manner he
testified characterized his conduct and behavior toward her upon
this occasion. Even so, it would constitute no defense to plaintiff's
action for false imprisonment that defendant Vaughan, when wrong-
fully detaining her, was .(as store manager) acting under the rules
and directions of his employer, nor can such, fact serve to extend
to the employee the right to violate the legal right of appellee,
protecting her against wrongful imprisonment and detention by de- I
fendant.

Therefore, under the evidence suchright having been vio-
lated, the defendants are to be charged with anticipating the nat—
ural consequences of their Wrongful act, and same having been
shown according. to the evidence, to have resulted in appellee's
mortification and resulting mental and nervous suffering, the evi-
dence was properly submitted to the jury for their determination
of the amount of the damage suffered as the result of her false
arrest.

An unusual case concerning shoplifting was that of McDermott
versus W. R. Grant Company (313 Massachusetts Reports, 736). The

manager of the defendant's store in mistaken belief had a loiterer,

44
standing across the street from the store, arrested as a part of a
gang of men who pilfered the store earlier that morning. The
loiterer was found innocent and began suit for false imprisonment.
The defendants claimed that they were not responsible, for the
manager's action was outside the sc0pe of his authority.

The company wondered if it was liable for the action of the
manager who, in the pursuit of escaping shoplifters, caused an in-
nocent bystander to be arrested. The court ruled that the manager
of the store was acting within the scope of his employment in
causing the arrest outside the store of one accused, by his own
evidence, of being implicated in thefts frOm the store; that this
was warranted because he had complete control “of the store and was
responsible "for seeing that no merchandise went out that was not
purchased," for trying to recover such as he did, and for the ap-
prehension outside the store of anyone whom he saw take merchan-
dise out without paying for it.

The case cited above indicates that food chains are liable for
the over-zealous acts of their employees who sometimes step out of
bounds in obeying a company edict. It is of utmost importance that
care and caution be used in determining the guilt of persons accused

of shoplifting by employees.

45

The case of Crews-Beggs Dry Goods Company. versus Bayle

(97 ColoradOJReports, 568) shows that the firm's employee is not

justified in restraining a suspect, either by force or by fear. When

such is the case, the employee is guilty of an unlawful act. Any

person restrained under such circumstances can sue for damages as

the result of being falsely imprisoned. Physical force is not nec-

essary. The following testimony of the employee in question is il—

lustrative of the act of putting a person in fear:

Question:

Answer:

Question:

Answer:

Question:

Answer:

Que stion:

Answer:

Question:

You accused this woman on the steps of the first
floor, when you stopped her, of taking these socks?

Yes, sir.

You said you wanted to see the socks, didn't you?
Yes.

Why did you say that?

Because I thought she had the socks.

When you went up and stopped this woman on the
stairs and said, "Let me see those socks," what
did you intend to do?

Report her to the manager as a shoplifter.
Report her to the manager for shoplifting and keep

her there until Mr. Dare (the manager) came, is
that correct?

46

Answer: Yes, sir.

Question: At any rate you stOpped her on the stairs and asked
for the socks?

Answer: I stOpped her on the stairs. ‘

The court ruled that the action of an empIOyee of a mercan—
tile establishment in restraining a customer and searching her per-
son for goods which he thought she had taken surreptitiously was
within the scope of his authority as an employee of the finn. In
such circumstances the principal (firm) is liable for damages for
false imprisonment.

This, then, is another case which illustrates the point of law
that firms are liable for the actions of their employees. Employees
of food chains should be thoroughly trained in the proper procedure
to follow in apprehending a shoplifter. Mere suspicion is not enough
to warrant stopping a suspected pilferer. The employee must be
sure that the person he is about to stop for pilfering is actually
the person guilty of the act.

It is always important for a food chain company to have a
competent attorney prepare its cases for trial. Any problem arising
from the apprehension of a shoplifter should be handled by an at-

torney.

47

The decision in the case of Little Stores versus Isenberg (26
Tennessee Appellate Reports, 358) was that a storekeeper has the
right to make a reasonable investigation as to whether merchandise
purchased at his store has been paid for, and to retain the pur-
chaser for a reasonable time for such investigation. He is guilty,
however, of false imprisomnent in holding a purchaser after the
store's cashier has stated that the merchandise has been paid for.
If the employee is in doubt as to the guilt of a suspected shoplifter,
the wise policy is, therefore, to avoid apprehending the suspect im-
mediately. He should delay until such time as he is absolutely sure
of the guilt of the suspected pilferer.

In a decision rendered against a food chain (Robertson versus .
Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 130 Nebraska Reports, 82), the man-
ager unjustly accused a man and his son of taking a package of
candy. He had forced them to leave their truck and return to the
store where they were detained for about forty minutes. This was
held to be false imprisonment. As the presiding judge stated,
"False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint Of a person without
his consent." The awarding of three hundred dollars was held not
to be excessive for damages resulting therefrom. Vastly more

costly lawsuits than this one have resulted from similar situatiOns.

48

The responsibility for an injury caused an innocent bystander
by a fleeing shoplifter was decided in the case of Tippett versus
F. W. Woolworth Company (3 Southern Reports, 2d, 461). A sales-
girl employed in the defendant store saw a thief steal an article of
merchandise from the counter. She screamed and then followed the
thief as he fled through the crowded store. The thief, in his hurry
to escape, knocked over the plaintiff who was standing near the
exit. The plaintiff Sued the defendant for damages caused by the
negligence of the saleSgirl whose scream set the thief in motion
and was, therefore, the proximate cause of the accident and the in-
juries to the plaintiff.

Was the salesgirl's scream an act Of negligence, thus making
the store liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, or was she
performing her duty as a trusted employee protecting the goods of
her employer? The court's opinion stated that there is a wide dif-
ference between a human being fleeing to escape arrest for a crime,
and the act of putting into motion some inanimate thing which causes
damage to another before it is stopped. For example, if this sales-
girl had started a heavy ball rolling toward the front of thestore
and it had struck the plaintiff, causing her physical injury, then

there would be no doubt as to the liability of the defendant. The

49
defendant, however, can in no case be held liable when a thief, in an
effort to escape arrest, flees and collides into someone who happens
to be in the store. Had the saleSgirl put the heavy ball into motion,
she would have been guilty of negligence, but when she attempted to
apprehend the thief merely by screaming, She was not negligent.

She was performing her legal duty to her employer and to society.

If she were required to remain quiet and make no effort to apprehend
the thief for fear someone might be hurt and her employer mulcted
in damages, then all pre-holiday seasons would be field days for
shoplifters who could visit the crowded stores, fill their pockets at
will, and leisurely depart. It is common knowledge that a shoplifter
will flee, when detected in his crime, and, as in the case cited,
successfully make his getaway. An outcry is not required to cause
him to flee; the mere knowledge that he has been detected is suffi-
cient.

If the salesgirl had remained quiet after she saw the thief
take the article and had allowed him to make his way out of the
store unmolested, she would have been derelict in her duty to her
employer and to society. No doubt her screams gave knowledge to
the thief that he had been detected, and her overt action had caused

him to flee. She had no part, however, in the direction Ofthe course

50
of his flight. He, and only he, was the one who controlled the course
he would pursue. He could have gone out another exit, or he could
have pushed the plaintiff aside or gone around him. It was the thief
who controlled his own actions after he started his flight, and the
damage was caused, not by the saleSgirl, but by the thief in his utter
disregard for the rights of others and of the law of the land. There—
fore, the action of the saleSgirl was proper and was in no way re-
sponsible for the injuries caused to the innocent bystander. Another
similar case is that of Knight versus Powers Dry Goods Company
(225 Minnesota Reports, 280).

In the case of People versus Quiel (68 California Appellate
Reports, Second Series, 674), the court decided that mere movement
of property with intent to steal is enough to support a charge of
larceny. The fact that the ShOplifter is frustrated in his attempt to
carry stOlen goods away, or that he may change his mind immedi-
ately after the theft, because the goods might not warrant the risk
involved in retaining them, does not relieve him of the consequences
of the theft. In cases of this sort, however, it is a better procedure
for employees to be instructed to apprehend suspected pilferers out-

side the premises of the store. When a shoplifter is apprehended

51
outside the store with the merchandise on his person, then there can
seldom be any question as to the motive.

The case of State versus Tremont (196 MinnesOta Reports,
36) shows that the oral confession by a shoplifter to three store em-
ployees after merchandise has been found on her person, was suffi-
cient evidence to warrant conviction of the crime of larceny against
the accused. Police action should never be threatened, however, if
the suspect will not Sign an admission-Of-guilt form stating how the
guilty act was committed. Signed statements of theft are not neces-
sary for prosecution if there are witnesses, but the psychOIOgical
effect is lessened without the signature.

In the case of S. H. Kress versus Rust (132 Texas Supreme
Court Reports, 89), the plaintiff, a woman, was accused, outside the
store, of stealing some tatting. She was returned to the premises
where, in one of the dressing rooms, she was completely disrobed
in the process of searching. Nothing was found concealed on her
person or in her clothing, but the manager called the police, who
came and placed Mrs. Rust in custody. The store's attorney came
to the police station in order to rectify the mistake made in wrongly
accusing Mrs. Rust. Mrs. Rust then signed a release which exoner-

ated the store. Later, however, Mrs. Rust claimed that she

52
had Signed under duress, and that, therefore, the release was
not valid.

It was held that she did not Sign the release calmly and de-
liberately. It was shown that the remarks made of threat or im-
prisonment destroyed her free agency and overthrew her will. The
court awarded fifteen hundred dollars actual damages and five hun-
dred dollars exemplary damage. A corporation is liable in exemplary ‘
damages for the wrongful detention of a customer, when such deten—
tion or arrest is without cause. The manager ’of the store accepted
and acted upon information furnished by employees of the company,
even though he had no personal knowledge of his own concerning the
transaction.

Employees of food chains should be instructed never to at-
tempt a search of the suSpect'S person, even though the suspect
gives his consent. The police should be called if the suspect re-
fuses to surrender the stolen items in his possession.

In the case of State versus Priebe (221 Minnesota Reports,
318), a shoplifter was apprehended and then taken to the store's
offices where she was searched. Stolen merchandise was found on
her person; in the presence of three witnesses, She freely admitted

the theft and then signed the following statement:

53
To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that I, Myrtle
Priebe, living at 1616 James North, City of Minneapolis, State
of Minnesota, do freely confess, admit and declare that I did
willfully and unlawfully take from the possession of the Donaldson
Company at the store of said company at Minneapolis, Minnesota,
the following personal property .
Then followed, on the reverse side of the statement, a list of every
item, -with the price included, which Miss Priebe admitted she had
stolen. The court decided that both oral and written confessions are
admissible in a court of law as evidence to support a conviction.
The importance of obtaining a statement of guilt from a suspected
shoplifter lessens the burden of proof required by the prosecution
to prove that the defendant is guilty.

To steal is to commit larceny. Stealing, then, is a taking
without right or leave with intent to keep wrongfullys The word
"steal" has a uniform Significance when used in connection with
personal property, and in common, as well as in legal practice and
parlance, it means the felonious taking and carrying away of the
personal goods of another.

To constitute the crime of larceny there must be an unlawful
taking, the removal from one place to another, and a felonious in-
tent. If the one who intends to steal property abandons the enter-

prise or is forced to terminate it before having acquired dominion

of the property, he is not guilty of the offense of larceny, although

54
he may be convicted of an attempt to cormnit it. The person accused
must be connected with the taking or the setting in mOtion of the act
of stealing in order to be guilty of the crime of larceny. It is not
necessary that the taking be done secretly, for while secrecy is the
usual evidence of felonious intent when one takes the goods of another,
it is by no means the only evidence of such intent. This opinion is
based upon a Texas decision (State versus Powell, 117 Texas Reports,
21), involving the loss of a wallet. It was picked up in the presence
of the owner by the accused who kept it by threatening to kill. The
Texas court ruled that the accused was guilty of the crime of lar-
ceny.

One must, however, connect the person with the unlawful tak-
ing. In addition the element of felonious intent must be present, ex-
cept in those rare instances where a Specific statute declares that
the commission of certain specified acts will constitute larceny
without respect to intent. Criminal design, however, must originate
in the mind of the suspected person and not in the mind of the owner.
An individual may not aid in robbing his own establishment in order
to catch the guilty person. He may, however, lie in wait for the
suspected person and "give him enough rope" to cause him to be

trapped.

55

Under a State Of Wyoming action, Lee Gardner versus the
State of Wyoming (207 Wyoming Reports, 316), it was shown that
one may not be convicted of larceny in a situation where the evi-
dence fails to connect him with the taking. Mere suspicious actions,
or probabilities, however strong, do not supply sufficient basis for
conviction. Employees apprehending shoplifters in super markets
must witness the suspected person actually taking the merchandise
and concealing it on his person. A suspected person must never be
stopped, in spite of his actions, however, if there remains any doubt
as to his actually picking up the item with the intent to steal.

PeOple of the State of Illinois versus Lardner (300 Illinois
Reports, 264) was a case in which an individual took articles from
a Show case in a store and placed them in his pocket. In this in-
stance, the individual clearly acted with intent to steal and was
guilty of larceny. This would have been the case even if he had
left his coat on an adjoining counter. He could not, however, have
been convicted on the grounds of attempting to commit a crime.
One cannot, therefore, be convicted of an attempt to commit a
crime when the evidence shows that the commission of the crime

has been consummated.‘

56

The essential element of larceny, then, is a felonious taking
by which the owner is deprived of possession and the thief acquires
possession for an appreciable period of time. Although it may be
for only a moment, and any change of location whereby control of
the articles is transferred from the owner to the thief, there is suf-
ficient evidence of the taking away. On the‘other hand, the essential
elements of attempt to commit larceny are the intent to commit a
crime, the performance of some overt act toward its commission
and a failure to consummate the crime. In this regard, the failure
to accomplish or complete the crime is an essential element to the
same degree as the intent or the overt act.

If one feloniously takes the goods of another from their ac-
customed place, although he is detected before. they are actually
carried away, the crime of larceny is said to have been completed.
Therefore, in the instance of the shoplifter who runs, after taking
goods from a Show case and concealing them in his overcoat, leav-
ing his overcoat on another show case, the crime of larceny has
been committed, even though his possession was of a very short
duration and the goods were not removed from the store. In like
manner, if a thief, discovered in the very act of taking, immediately

abandons or returns the stolen article, he too has committed larceny.

57
Taking goods and putting them into a place for convenient removal
at a later time is considered the taking of property; and if one takes
the goods of another from the place where they are concealed, even
though he is detected before they are actually carried from the
owner's premises, the crime is said to be complete, as in the case
of the removal of an article from one place to another in the con-
fines of the Same building.

The above case presents the view that is being taken today
by many states with regard to the point at which the crime of
larceny begins. Here, the decision was that mere movement of an
item, coupled with the intent to steal, is sufficient for a charge of
larceny. It is, however, sometimes most difficult to prove such in-
tent. If a shoplifter Should conceal the merchandise on his person,
so that there would be no doubt in the employee's mind as to the
legal interpretation, then apprehension should follow.

In addition to the case discussed above, two others, noted
below, are pertinent in support of the view that mere movement
of an item, plus intent, is sufficient evidence of the taking away.

In the case of State versus Wilson (1 New Jersey Law, 439), it was
held that any Change of location whereby complete control of the

article is transferred from the true owner to the thief is sufficient

58
evidence of the taking away, which is the important factor in the
crime of larceny. The case of Lundy versus State (60 Georgia Re-
ports, 143) Showed that the removal of goods from their accustomed
place to another place in the same store was, in effect, carrying
away and, therefore, constituted the crime of larceny.

The consideration of the legal aspects of pilfering, particu-
larly as they relate to food chain super markets, has brought into
sharp focus a number of legal cases, in various states, “involving
shoplifting, false imprisonment and the legal determination of what
constitutes the act of larceny. In developing the legal aspects of
this problem, it has been necessary to draw upon various decisions
which defined such terms as larceny, and which Specified the con-
ditions which would determine whether or not a particular crime
constituted a felony or a misdemeanor. In presenting the evidence,
the author has condensed into common language--insofar as was

practicable--the legal documents to which he referred.

CHAPTER IV
PROPER PROCEDURE

_Manyfood chain operators do not realize the risk involved
when oneof their employees apprehends a shoplifter. Although there
might not bexlany doubt as to the ,guilt of the pilferer, the manner in
which he is apprehended might mean a costly lawsuit against the
firm. Many times all-thief may have a gOod understanding of the
laws concerning petty larcie‘ny‘and arrest, so that one wrong move
by a store employee might give him” the opportunity to start a suit
for false imprisonment orp.maliciougxp‘rosecution. In some instances,
an accused thief with an'able lawyer can receive remuneration worth
many more tirn/es the value .of the items pilfered.‘ This chapter will

‘\.

,,/’ p x,
be a discussion of the, care and caution to be used byxthe store de-

/ x.
,/

,/
teetive or other employee, in apprehending a shoplifter.

f
.. 1. x“
Q-"kanl-dak \ Lg ‘

Whenever a-feeHh—ain-company decides to prosecute a shop-
lifter, it must realize that} in the courts]. the accused is assumed to
be innocent until proved guilty. This is a fLmdamental tenet of the
Constitution. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the prosecu-

tion. Furthermore the courts, sometimes unintentionally, seem to

60
)tzmfi -._.t,Qo QIAJLF'JL"H=‘-— i, W413)?”-

favor the accused. The following example/lwould seem to bear this _uuw..‘(
7 5" f ‘

(WWW. 12-3, ..44? ad. 1r..£?(
out. In a recent case against a shoplifter in one- of our majOJr cities;

the store detective and two witnesses were positive of the shoplifter's
guilt)but were unable to identify‘specifically/what item had been

WW
pilfered. The law states that in order for one to be guilty of the

crime of larceny.) thevitemolen must be identified in such a man-
ner that there can be no doubt as to exactly what it was. The item
must be marked, identified'and kept as evidence to be used by the
prosecution in securing a conviction against the accused shoplifter.
Since the store detective and the witnesses were unable to agree as
to what had been taken, the case against the shoplifter was dismissed.
- 4w
This ease demonstrates the'fact that evidence should be of a more
certain nature before any action can be taken against the pilferer.
En apprehending 35$ shoplifter, then, thewfeedfscliain employee
must actually see the pilferer take the merchandise and conceal it.
Mere suspicion is not enough. There can be no doubt in the em-
ployee's mind, Since a wrongful accusation can lead to a very ex-
pensive lawsuit. If the employee has any doubts, he should notify.
the manager of the store and another employee to Observe the per-

son under suspicion. In case no action is warranted by the evidence

Of the manager and the employees, then a mental picture of the

61

person should be retainedlso that if he returns he can be kept under

/

constant observation in order to determine prOperly his innocence or

guilt.

'/ The shoplifter should be watched)constantly)during the entire

\
_—

4‘5")

.. c

4

l‘
-| ”4’

time he is in the store. He must be followed and never permitted
out of clear sight at any time. The employe¥ must be certain that f
the shoplifter has not left the merchandise in the store and that he
has not paid for it. x/
..L. ILA-I .
In stopping the suspected shoplifter, the employee must be

\\

positive that merchandise has been taken. ' The shoplifter must have

~.

the merchandise.\o\n his person or under his control when stopped.
Fortunately for one large feed W it was only the store
manager who was embarrassed when he stopped a shoplifter he had
seen take merchandise. The shoplifter, a few moments previous to
this, had stepped into the lavatory where he disposed of the stolen
goodsj In many states) the law reads that a shoplifter must leave
the store with the unpaid merchandise before he can be apprehended.
Other states hold that the shoplifter can be stopped, without fear of
costly lawsuits, as soon as he picks up the merchandise in a sus-
picious manner. In order to be sure of what procedure to follow,

Weed—ehaia—sheuchk‘ the state laws on larcenysyiscLJC-Il Ly

,‘I r; \ {'5 ‘4': ’ I “|
. 1Uk_ j ££1:L_ ‘lvu-’ f-f‘ 1" \L.’ h.—
g .

62

fit is a wise practice to apprehend the ShOplifter outside the
store, for then there can seldom be any doubt as to the motive in
taking the merchandise without paying for it. When outside the
store, the employee should say to the suSpected shoplifter in a
calm manner, "Pardon me, but I think there has been a mistake.
Will you please re-enter the store to help us correct it?"

(There are some important ”musts" which deserve attention

in the apprehension of shoplifters:

1. Never1under any circumstances, accuse the person of

 

stealing. There is always the chance that the employee may have
made a mistake, therefore subjecting the suspected person to humili-
ation and embarrassment)which/lm ns usually that the individual can
receive damages as a result of the mental suffering brought about

by being wrongfully accused.

2. Never touch the person. The mere touching of the per-

 

son casts a different light on the situation and makes the food—chain

firm liable for the actions of its employee.

3. Never use threats of any sort. A threat or—a—di—r-eetive

 

to halt in a manner which puts the suspected shoplifter in fear of

harm can cost the firm huge sums of money in damage suits by the

63
suspected shoplifter’who can claim that his forward motion was
stopped, thus furnishing sufficient evidence for a charge of false im-
prisonment)

a. g... .M....~....ei:4—

It is the purpose of Wain—chain to prevent and control
shoplifting. Therefore, by stopping the shoplifter, even if he does
not wish to return to the store, one has made it perfectly plain to
him that it is known that he has stolen merchandise. Sometimes)
incidents of this nature are sufficient warning to the shoplifter that

he has been rec0gnized,and that it would be extremely unwise for

him to return again for such purposes. lf-r—howeverT-the—shopliftena

-.p—

i~s.—w=i Hing to - returnflto- the storey «the—employee.-. should—.mvenwholdmhis
arm- or-~ touch him. MonaaLWee‘has—re—W“
stgrhehuwith .-.the_ “shoplifter., another... employeeshould accompany- them
to-the (Inanager's office, or some other secluded place in the store
where other customers will not overhear the proceedings. If the
shoplifter is taken to a room, the door should never be closed] and

(_
there should never be anyone standing between the shoplifter and 1’1“ (71
the door. He must at all times feel that he can leave the premises.
Many times the suspected shoplifter will try to do so. There are

individuals who will give the impression that they have been stealing

so as to be apprehended. This type of person is hoping that an

64
employee will make a mistake. He would then start legal action for
damages gr-«approfifihié—in an illegal manner;

(fail-J Many times,the shoplifter when apprehended will either start
an emotional scene or frankly admit that he is guilty. If he should
feign innocence and ignorance as to why he has been asked to return
to the store, the employee who saw him take the merchandise from
the shelf should say, "I saw you place a three-ounce package of
Kraft's Philadelphia Cream Cheese in your purse. Did you pay for

it before you left the store?" or some similar statement. He should

never accuse the shoplifter directly, however.

When a shoplifterw is asked to return to the store, the em-
W WM Ovm “‘UJ. W Leo I-L-cfifi-«Jbe‘ «4‘02“ L
mi: 94,: 1"... MRMQ'QCL

ployee should/\summon- the manager, orq person in charge, Ato assume

control of the situation. If the shoplifter is a female, a woman em-

ployee of the store should be present. This is absolutely necessary

in order to avoid the common countercharge by women that they

have been personally mistreated. Extreme caution should be taken

if the woman appears to be pregnant, for sudden shock can cause a

miscargiz‘gghand could 58:11:.inaiftiixffrgig—fih‘d: 4% M; fC‘Kt“ J“ (J
KG.“ (“Under no éficumestances should employees make any promises

or threaten the shoplifter in any manner in order to get an admis-

sion of guilt. Any confession not the free will of the individual will

65
not be valid in a court of law. The person in charge of the store
should, however, make every attempt to get a voluntary statement
from the ShOplifter as to the facts in the case. Promises to keep
the incident quiet or not to prosecute should never be made. In
short, the policy of the firm should never be to promise anything
or threaten anyone in order to get an admission of guilt.

The employees of the firm have no legal right to conduct a
search of the person unless they have a warrant giving them this
authority, or they have the written permission of the individual.
This permission to search should never be requested. In most in-
stances, the pilferer will voluntarily divulge how much stolen mer-
chandise he has.

[It has been the practice of many food—em to have the
apprehended shoplifter make a signed statement in the presence of
two witnesses, usually the store manager and the employee discover-
ing the theft. The identity of the shoplifter should be known, but
under no circumstances should the manager forcibly gain such
knowledge by seizing the belongings of the accused. Identification
can usually be made by courteously asking the pilferer WWII“)
his driver's license or social security card, or, if the person is a

male, his draft registration carcg

66

The words ”to steal" or "to pilfer" or other similar words
that would tend to draw any conclusion should be avoided in the body
of the written voluntary confession. The actual facts relating to what
happened should be stated in a clear, concise manner in the shop-
lifter's own handwriting, if possible. Once in a while} the shoplifter's
statement will require more than one page. If so, he should initial
each page in addition to signing his name at the end. of the statement.
It is a wise _practice to use only one side of the paper. If an error
has been made in the statement,and it is necessary to make a cor-
rection, do not erase. The error should be crossed out) and the
person’signing the statementlshould place his initials near the error
in order to indicate that the correction had been made at the time
the statement was signed and had not been changed after he had left
the store.

If the shoplifter should admit other thefts made from'the
store in the past, do not include these in the signed statement re-
lating to the theft for which he was apprehended. The admission
of past thefts should be set forth in a new statement, separate and
in no way related to the first statement.

If the person giving the statement refuses to sign it, then

make sure that he admits that the statement is true in the presence

67
of at least two other persons. When the signature is not given, the
two witnesses should write on the statement that the accused person
refused to sign it, but that he has read it (or has had it read to
him if he cannot read) and that the information is true. This method
will not be as good as a signed statement but will, nevertheless, con-
stitute a statement against the interest of the shoplifter made by him
in the presence of witnesses; it can then'be used in court to refresh
the recollection of the witness who took the statement.

All statements made by the shoplifter should be in the first
person. One reason for this is that the admission has a personal
touch and, therefore, is authentic. If statements were made in the
third person, then the shoplifter might claim that he did not know
what he was signing.

w—a “H .

Many food chain operators realize that, in order to have a
successful conviction of a pilferer, the evidence must be preserved
and presented to the court in a manner which will make it accept-
able as evidence. When the evidence has been turned over to an
employee, usually the manager, by the shoplifter, that evidence must
be safeguarded. The evidence should be identified by the employee
who saw the shoplifter take the merchandise, and by each employee

who heard an admission that the merchandise had been taken. All

68
persons making identification should place their initials on the items
in question so that positive identification will be made. Included with
the initials should be a notation of the date and the location of the
occurrence. fin—aceeptable~practi-ee~i-3""towscratch- the -- desired -- infor-
matiefi—Gn-thc—surfaewf-the~objeetr~e=—1~-thewusenof ~a~~~simpleml.'.xl_'..-might
sxaf—fiee.

Once the articles have been identified, they should be held in
safekeeping by the store manager until they are needed, if a trial is
to follow. The law states that in order to admit articles as evidence
in a trial for theft, it is necessary that some indication be made of
every person who has come in contact with the stolen articles from
the time of their recovery tothe time they are introduced as evi-
dence in the courtroom. Herein lies the importance of the store
manager's keeping the evidence under his control at all times.

If criminal proceedings are instituted, it will be necessary
for the store's employees to testify in court. It is well worth re-
membering that many good cases have been lost because of the ap-
pearance, attitude, or manner of the witnesses in a court of law.
Therefore, it would be very wise for mficfiaiglirms to require

that their store managerstgbe familiar with the fundamentals of

69
courtroom procedure. Each manager, in turn, should then be re-
quired to pass along such knowledge to all of his employeesj

The actions of an individual must be in keeping with the
dignity and respect of the court. Any employee called upon to testify
should be clean and neatly dressed. On the witness standjhe should '
speak clearly and loud enough to be heard by everyone in the court-
room. The intonation of the voice should suggest calmness and im-
partiality, and the replies to questions should always be in a courteous
and dignified manner, for the emplOyee is representing the firm.

A ShOplifting case usually attracts a few reporters from the
major newspapers of the city. They go there to see if a human in-
terest story might be found in the situation--the poor, helpless shop-
lifter held at the mercy of the rich, powerful corporation which is
willing and eager to send a man to prison for stealing, perhaps, a
bar of soap. Most of the time, newspapers give an honest, factual
report of the trial. Only when news items are lagging do some re-
porters resort to sensational reporting.

The employee should be aware of the fact that once he is
on the stand he should not show anger, especially during the course
of a cross-examination. Many attorneys find it advantageous to de-

liberately confuse the witness so that he will be led to say something

70
which he does not actually mean. This is particularly true when the
attorney is faced with a case which he might lose. It is a good
practice for the firm's attorney to brief the employees in regard
to what they may expect on the witness stand. Understanding the
exact meaning of a question before replying is of utrnohst importance.
There is nothing wrong with a person's saying, "I do not understand
the question."

Many lawyers use the double question to shatter the testimony
of a witness. Such questions as the following represent this practice:
"When you implied that you were going to call the police, did the
accused admit that the items on his person were stolen from the
store?" Here, while the actual fact may have been that the ac-
cused admitted stealing the merchandise, if the witness were to
answer "Yes,’' the interpretation would be that threat had been
used in order to get a signed statement. If the witness feels that
it is impossible to answer a simple "yes” or "no" to a question,
he would be perfectly in order to ask the judge to have the ques-
tion rephrased in a manner that does not trap him into admitting
things that are not related to the actual happening.

[The employee, who is to testify on the witness stand) should

be instructed to think before answering even the simplest question,

4‘ “W M\M_”—~

71
although this may cause some delay in the proceedings. If the truth
is told in an unbiased, thoughtful and unprejudiced manner, the wit-

ness has nothing to fear when called to the stand to testify]

4A.,“ .

fig) 0 It is a wise policy for a ’hain to have printed forms to

be used on the occasions when a statement from an apprehended
ShOplifter is desired. These forms should be simple and brief--
they should never attempt to be legal masterpieces. Figures 1, la,
X, 3, and 4 are four acceptable types for forms currently in use by

leading food chains. To indicate which form, if any, is the best is

. law
not a decision to be made by the author. The gel-dramas ' attorney

’

is qualified to- select the form that best fits his client's operation.

All forms should include the following information: the name
and address of the shoplifter (usually obtained from such identifica-
tion cards as drivers' licenses); the date and the location of the
ShOplifting; the name and address of the firm; an itemized list of
the items with their value; and the signature of the shoplifter. If
the shoplifter is unable to read or write, then the statement should
be read to him and his signature indicated by an "x". The wit-

nesses of his mark, then, would need to sign the form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ~
. - tl
Date «I l
FoH‘s Fwd Shrts /
This is to certify that I have today returned to Wm merchandise having I
the value of 3 which I selected iron steel: hot neglected to present to the ;‘
cashiet and her which I did not pay. This happened at . I
I am signing this Jinx.» oi my own free will without threats or ptonIise ot ill
treatment by anyone. \ ‘
\
\\ 2:,
WITNESSES: \\ f
. ~ \ I
\ Customer’s Signstme "~
l
W I
ITEMS, INVOLVED PRICE I
l
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
Q.

Figure 1. Voluntary Confession Form, Penn Fruit Company, Phila-I
delphia, Pennsylvania. ‘ I

I33

kWh——

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DAL I 73
l
HOUR 1
TIME ELAPSED \
\
NAME '
\
ADDRESS \\
AGE - I}
DESCRIPTION: :
“KT” ‘
l
° Vow I
\ I
Color of Hut I
\ f}
\ I
Sta“ present at tine W was W 1
"K \. l
q I
\x I
\g l
l
\
, I
STATEMENT MADE/BY CUSTOMER ‘ I
1': \
‘ I
l
l
l
l
\l
EXACTLY WAT YOU SAID l
l
l
l
l
l
_.— I
so?» Mans-I‘- SW \

Aese.“ T

Figure la. Voluntary Confession Form, verso of Figure 1.!

C»

7Ӥ

saorurTIsa raEvgaTIgII 15mg:
couusthAL sEtvIcE srsTENs, Isc.

STITEIEIT 0F Tliil

DATE Iss—
TIut A.l"_________P.I.

 

'I, the undersigned. do voluntarily adnit and state that I have stolen itens listed below free the

 

preeises of located at
City of . State of California.'

ITEI PllCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

'I, the undersigned. in signing this Statement of Theft and surrendering the forenentioned itees. do so
voluntarily and of ray can free will and eithout force or threats or promises of innunity free crInIinal
prosecution and eith the understanding that I fully release the above-mentioned store or company and
all its agencies and representatives individually and personally; and representatives of the Commercial
Service Systems. Incorporated. individually and personally; and Commercial Service Systems. Incorporated
or any one connected eitn this Shoplifting Prevention Service frog all types of civil liability.'

SIcvtD ‘4’

ADDREss_/l
vITatss ADDREssfir, .6
vITatss ADDRESS !

saDrLIrTER's mac-AL D‘Egggmm AIID ImTIrIgATIDII

(To be coupleted in full by person apprehending)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all! ‘f'faasa"riIarI R£SIOEICE
CITr or STATE g TtLthan so.
OCCUPATIOI :(h'LOYED or \I
SDcIat stcuaITr no. If” DRIvER's LICEIS no. CAR tIctsst IO.
Stu RAC: Act’ nEIouT ; uEIch constthDs
cIAssts nAIR (Color) IUILD \. trEs (Color)
scAas ARD nARxS (Defects) fi/' \ar
ntTnoD or orEnATIov __.” 31.

1:;
STATtntsT nADt sv suspect
lake thIs report In trIplIcate. STORE #

 

Send original and duplicate to

connERcIAt sthICE SYSIEHS. Inc.

Suite 220. Cherokee Building It >
6636 Noliylood Ioulevard

hollyeood 28, California

Retain/triplicate for your file.

/

Figure 2. Voluntary Confession Form, Commercial Service Systems,
Ikicz.

 

 

N IISWXV

u mmmwmzaHB .lIIIIIIII.

 

 

 

x. . .vocofipcfle 200.8: Soc
. and has on» and: as new cameo: H .mommmm: mmmzaH: 2H

 

K
_ am as ,uui» no aaa IIImw n I mans apnoea m.»zamzoo
_\ \\ Iwmiv
_ onza nzamu may no «so an on weaoa no sea on» an caged an: ace

.

\i. § .
z i. \‘ 1%“ \IIVXQ‘VM 3 I g
, N m WWW % w \n. ,
H seamzoo onzs azamu mus
. hp egdhomo 20pm Songs. 05. pd ..Z .8.“ wagon ho acapcopg use
.052» 033.30an 0x3 00 cBmsopss H 9.93. .nosapdpconoumop 3“ .Ho .
a. has no $2.328 onzo fizéo E mo whom 05 so dog has .Ho cannon.” \«ifié

 

 

on

 

“'fiififissidwvms muons)

. so 9.08:» 9595?; a308,“ panes Rohooow and H33 och.“ :30 he .3 on

ABSQI 558 .8 new”; C0855 a 900.33

q
. \\ I» I‘\ . \. VIV I IU\\v..- gt. r
\W Y “tum. NW. IXIIVN \\..Q&V \fiww/ Ski ,,

no JWiwmmx .ivIIwuwv ..vsaxwv H
9.

Voluntary Confession Form, The Grand Union Company,

East Paterson, New Jersey.

Figure 3.

\K‘NS
\i

N? 504 I 7"

\ J"
L : ~. , Mldm‘ at I

and knowing I
I

that I need make no sthtement. do so of my own free will and not being under the influence I
of {ear produced by any\flreats of anyone, and without any threat or promise of any kind, I

I.
\
\

 

 

admitanddeolarethatonthe: dayoL 4'19 ;I
\. I

I took from the possession of Stpp & Shop, Ina, at the store of Stop &_Shop, Inc. located at I
\x in the State of . - : ll

 

 

without makin‘ payment therefor and with the intent to take for my own use or disposition, I
certain articles of pet-soul property \of which Stop & Shop Inc is the owner, and said l
I

k‘t

articlesare:

 

l
l
l
I
l

 

_-—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Said III-sale. being valued ac #:10th an cents. I
Dated in: :in III. Sm L 2

(Oh as To") . ‘

this my of a 19 - l
. :21.

WITNESS: v ‘ SIGNATUREL l
WITNESS: . ' ADDRESS: l
wnNESSu’ I

Kiss Rev. ...IID.49 mo ,
,Figure 4. Voluntary Confession Form, Stop and Shop, Inc. Boston,

Mas sachusetts . -,\ '1:

t.

77

\in the discussion of the proper procedures in apprehending.

u

. /‘
. 1""

and bringing \to_:justice persons guilty of shoplifting, not only has
reference been madéwto currently accepted methods of operation, _
but suggestions for other prosedures havebeen made. Educational

programs for all levels of persohneI"Should be initiated, so that

s \_
,1
I:

the interests of the company-'will at all‘""'ti.mes be foremost in the

\
,.
,-
I

,/

minds of the employees. Some knowledge of the“ legal applications

should also. be generally known. The problem will n5t~..be controlled .
x" , \\

/’ _
‘ x.

\.

without intensive programs of prevention. \\

CHAPTER V
METHODS OF COMBATING PILFERING

The rapid growth of the grocery store from the general
store to the present-day super market has (resulted in increased
efficiencies, but at the same time has created a number of prob-
lems. The contributions of ,the super market to the food industry
and to the public were determining factors in its rapid growth. One
of the resulting problems has been an increase in shoplifting.

Not all food chains agree that the menace of shiplifting is

0“: l w" LLv‘“; 1,5; 01") Lt‘AZCLa {LI-{L (l. Ira-t 6,
great enough to. warrant thanmount of ‘time and thought new—being
devoted to the subject. Some even believe that shoplifting cannot be
given too much blame for store inventory losses/ because it is very
difficult to pinpoint the actual causes of shortages.

Store losses due to theft, however, can be _materially reduced

/ “it: .
if the proper preventive measures are taken. Of course, there is

no cure-all answer to this problem. A prOgram based on the'fol-

lowing suggestions will not eliminate thefts, (but, is ? comprehensive “I
[9 _IE ,\_WIQ éth..-4-( E ‘l1t :1.,II. 2 )

'A"I” [1’ «fit/rug)“: g/L‘Mc' "‘-""'" "1 V

one in which all employees are educated to “make theft prevention a

part of their daily routine.‘ Management will be well repaid for the

79
time and encouragement given such a project. A pilferage control
prOgram that is based on the education of all store personnel can
soon cut down markedly the losses due to' theft. Thieves, both
amateur and professional, soon learn that they cannot operate with
ease in a food chain store. where all employees are alert to the
problem.

Trained, alert employees are safeguards against shoplifting.
A certain portion of store meetings 51;er be devoted to pilferage
control. The importance of curbing the losses arising from unaware-
ness of the problem should be stressed in a manner that the em-

ployees will realize that these losses (are actually cutting into tileir
Erhw(pfibfat WA L4. MAI-Gui W J_ #W f‘fi‘j twirl“
f’QlU-fl +JILHN‘H" L...— (41—1. )J—w‘} 4.. {J J

earning power. Key employees should be taught the proper procedure

and-should. learn the terminOIOgy- useful in the apprehension of shop-

lifterswhidh will reduce the possibilities of costly lawsuits. Store
j .

employers should understand the importance of seeking key personnel,

such as managers and assistant managers, who are trained in these

T‘i-j f..""""' " LL'- lay!” ”‘2; —- I -ee‘ -) L‘ f "'E J 1'- "I a... 9.4“ -.Lrtc‘
Tlfi ‘Nec MA (.11.ch link/I. ' ...'." ftftfr—f( Lat-Lit”. (”#:"9‘ 5“
proper procedures. ,1 IJ; “a... by”. I.-.) u. .ILO. .. J- n: -.....I- .J. ..
7 fight!“ ‘1 [(2. k ‘_- J ah Jti-‘Ju {L .Ll...‘ Iatr (£4.11, VJJLo’ \,,..tL-‘ ‘ffl \t
puck. : LL 5 ,- aura-4“ l.-'( r .sg- ‘

Employees should be couraged to suggest ideas regarding
the control of shoplifting. Each idea should be carefully checked—and,
P}. J' la“). _...4‘. Q'H—g {ti-(i

4Lusedr-proper.-.re.wards.-.giv,en. If necessary, advice should be sought

from experts in the field of pilferage control. Sometimes talking to

80
the local police pilfering detail about proper methods to use in ap-
prehending shoplifters can prove beneficial.

Prevention and control should make it difficult for the shop-
’7
lifter to steal. '1 Practices and methods now in use by many of the
country's leading food chains will be discussed so that the reader
may apply such_i_nfo_rmation as he believes useful to lessen the evils

1%

of pilfering in his storesfl..»"m€

_-

1. mare—stere—sheutd—bmderobmtien.g”_The em-
ployees of a store should be made responsible for definite areas
which they can observe while working. The employee) who glances
at the shoppers as they pass the area in which he is working)will
convey to them that this area is being observed. This should not

{4'41'Cfl' \
be carried to the pointjthat shoppers will be made to feel uncom-
fortable in the presence of an employee.
(I . . . . .

ZqIIc-Jlse of mirrors 15 an effect1ve way 1n wh1ch a store's
area can be observed. Transparent glass mirrorsywisely placed in
doors and wallslcan provide points from which employees may ob-

? '5‘ ‘ '
r,
serve without being seen.‘I Peepholes, if properly constructed, can
bwfiLJxr')

be used just as effectively/I One southern food chain has in each

of its stores 'a large picture of its president on the back wall. A

81
person standing on the ledge in the back room can look through the
eyes of the president's picture and observe the whole store without
\fear of detection. (Mirrors) at a slight angle in a well-lighted store,
enable employees to keep an eye on the activities of the shoppers
in each aisle. These mirrors should cover large sections of the
wall. They; must not be objectionable to the consumer, however, but?) ‘50
should be placed in such a fashion that the shoplifter will realize
that the store is under observation and that the chances are slim
that he can Operate successfully in the store.)
3.9fiProper store layout is important in lessening losses from
thefts.
a. r{fl-All aisleways should be open to view. Small valuable items

)

such as cigaretteslshould be placed in a position that the can

' 1.2 L .rwfi‘. ~

be under constant observation. A good location is near the
check out counter. Large, bulky, inexpensive items should be
stocked in the Spots which are difficult to observe.
I . k5 + . .
b. Gondolas—and d1splays should be/Igelow eye level. Th1s d1s-
courages the shoplifter from hiding merchandise. All displays
should be orderly, neat, and in even stacks. Huge, untidy piles

of merchandisers-which- invite shoplifting-I- should be avoidechl. A
“(j-re»? 3” 11-4.,

5" "J T)

82

5

will", :7
display properly built can be largeland-yet not encourage pil-

/

ferers to steal.
[\ . .

c. ’It should be the practice of every «food—chaimfirm to see that
its stores a-rc correctly lighted. Theme-q should be brilliantly
illuminated so that there are no dark corners where observation
of shoplifters would be difficult. Sometimes corners far away
from the usual line of traffic do exist and cannot be avoided
without expensive alterations. Merchandiseithat is not easily
pilfered

/
ployees should still give careful attention to them. Lillie—food-

should be placed in the poorly lighted sections, but em-

4hain~ can—consult- a lighting “engineer-associated—with~ a. reputable
. electrical firm and have- -him--—tes—t- scientifically-the lighting. needs

of the—store. Many times the cost of installing new lighting fix-

/

tures is so slight, considering the losses involved from shop-

that k. £2.pr «66‘s- 6?. sinth’fi L'H’i’ K); LEI/kt" Adi-L.»
lifting ) that-‘eachsstorLinJhe;.chain7.~can—b§— profits . ly- —‘- che d.
Smwz‘lu T~Lc.4.£—{> MWL L9 '3, WfirL‘Asz L42. ”Cc—ks. fig-£41,“, V “641-” o Owe #1,‘,(£:'+

MWQM ‘UG-éil as, properly lighted store illuminates not only the pi ferer, but
the merchandise on display as well.
(1. “\With the exception of the entrance, there should be only one
possible means of exit, preferably through the manned check

out counter. This often requires the erection of rails or the

movement of equipment to shut off any other means of exit, in

83
order to prevent customers from slipping out during rush hours
without passing the cashier. Empty check out booths can be shut
off by means of a snap chain across the end nearest the sales
area. A temporary but unsightly method is the filling of the
unused checking aisle with two or three shopping carts. Quan-
tities of stacked goods should not obstruct the cashier's view,
and unnecessary cross aisles should be eliminated. These are
. 43.x...
fertile spots for pilfering or"; passing items to confederates.

4. Stapling machines can be fastened to produce scales .in
such a manner that it will encourage the stapling of all prod-tree bags

by the clerk. This is extremely important as a great deal of pil-

fering is accomplished by putting articles in the -rniddle of a bag of

produce.
I?) :UL “d!
5. ’Some Maia—4m hesitate to post warning signs in
iD‘V-~"’"°“’°“"° ,- Nausea-e;
U their-stores, feeling that they ‘might offend customers. Generally,

9405’, GM-H-firi’a“ L7
honest people do not take offense at such notices, and food-chains

using such signs/report very substantial reductions in pilferage.

Often a sign reading ”We reserve the right to inspect your shopping

7
bag," posted prominently, is helpful. ‘Sometimes) Mains—have—
What—the installation of a parcel checking station is worthwhile.

‘TLL:
The—letter requires almost full-time personnel, plus space and

84
equipment, including both tags and shelves. However, a sign reading
"Please leave all parcels at the check stand. Thank you," plainly
establishes the right of checkers to inspect any packages which
have been carried into the store.

-On the following pages are types of signs used by food .-

‘m {P
"‘5 I "a

chains in California. Figure 5 is one used to inforrn'qustomers

.k
"

i A.-

1“. fl.-

that they must check their’parcels before'ewntering the sales area.
\‘\,fi ’1: _m'

Figure 6 shows types of signs/thatEarekpilaced throughout the store
1"" A” “WK

r

which state that the store is protected and seracfie‘dmby a private de-

7" ’ m
.1 ‘

t/ee‘tive agency. “r

5 pl .. lbw, 1.4—4.4. tr El”

'6. Merchandise displayed outside the alto-re should be at-
tended by a store employee. In parking lot or sidewalk promotions,
an inventory should be kept tolenable the store manager to be cer-
tain that his promotion has not been detrimental to store profits.

It is not difficult to keep inventory control of such promotions if

a cash register is used.

fiAAw-g C.../(.
7. The check out clerk should be very—eareful- to watch for

partially concealed items such as small bottles inside a roll of

/

hand towels, or butter in margarine cartons, or items which have

- - Lr’c'c..._,.¢.l_
been placed in produce bags and restapled. Checkers need also,\te—

I

notice if there is any merchandise which has not been placed on

{HQ-6': 'II'

1: an": 1;-

 

r—————-fi
PROTECTED AND SERVICED BY

  

COMMERCIAL SERVICE SYSTEMS INC

86

PROTECTED and SERVICED
by

COMMERCIAL SERVICE SYSTEMS, Inc.

-.§‘2HI‘-‘Ht *3;- ibit-Zé-It-l'r-fI-Ibfi-lHH?ii-IHI'ibiHrif‘Hr-fi-fi’kifir‘IH:iii." "r iria f it'll- ‘23-} '4" 'r- I? 'IHF} b

SHOPLIFTING IS A CRIME
Punishable by Law!

Commercial Sen-cc Systems. Inc. Keep: a Record of All Violators
. -. HHt-IHS kirk-2h? e ‘-'r 2': .Hl-zr ."£--‘;"

(a Eran you 3m

 

J

Figure 6. Notification that food chain is protected by private detec-

tive agency.

87
the counter. Such items as mops, brooms, or other types of mer-
chandise may be lying on the bottom of the baskart. The checker

L19
should ask if the merchandise is from this store. The answer in-

variably will be, "Oh, yes, I forgot to put it on the counter."

14. TM'EAQD ‘53

8.(If meat purchases are paid for at the check out counter,

it is necessary that multiple meat packages be marked. If the g/ta.--
I},

customer's meat purchase is in two packages, the meat man should

put the figure two in a circle under the price on each package; if

three packages, the figure threeft This eliminates the possibility

of a customer pocketing the high-priced package of meat and paying
w

only for «the- lower-priced items-.- The cashier must, of course, check

the figures against the number of meat packagesf)

6Many food chains have converted their meat counters into

\\ -"
\\ ’-
‘x‘ (J1

HH‘»- . ' ”If“
self-service operations where the customer 15 able-"to select the

..r

\ ,-

meat he wants. This means that the food chain should instruct each

\

x
2‘

meat manager to have,“ his self-service counters under frequent ob-

// \ “'H-

x" \.
servation. _.....Th'e clerks should also keep the self-service cases under

9,bservation/.2
I D ) or) { ClefI \ i-‘ .‘\

9. Extreme care should be taken to insure that merchandise

put away) to be called for later is paid for before it is taken from

I

the store. The number of packages, name of the customer, and

87
the counter. Such items as mops, brooms, or other types of mer-

chandise may be lying on the bottom of the baskart. The checker

LJo
should ask if the merchandise is from this store. The answer in-

variably will be, "Oh, yes, I forgot to put it on the counter."

8.(If meat purchases are paid for at the check out counter,
it is necessary that multiple meat packages be marked. If the {1/
customer's meat purchase is in two packages, the meat man should
put the figure two in a circle under the price on each package; if
three packages, the figure threeft This eliminates the possibility

”a.
of a customer pocketing the high-priced package of meat and paying
a,

only for the" lower-priced items-.- The cashier must, of course, check
the figures against the number of meat packagesf)

filany food chains have converted their meat counters into '

self-service operations where the customer is able tofselect the

meat he wants. This means that the food ‘chain should instruct each
\\ ,

)5

meat manager to have”, his "self-service counters under frequent ob-
/"'- 3”“

a,

/F .
‘—.

If "-

servation. _. ,Th’e clerks should also keep the sElf-service cases under

observation/.2
h; x m .
I“) I { 'J Cu 2}}..- ,\

9. Extreme care should be taken to insure that merchandise

K

put away‘ to be called for later/is paid for before it is taken from
/

the store. The number of packages, name _of the customer, and

88
amount due should be clearly marked on all packages, and the man-
ager or other designated employee should be informed of the details
of the "lay-away" when the merchandise is set aside.

10 WWMM MW‘ERWMOJ—Jw
. WriLwould—Wmme—mmg
2:32 WW water-amber 19".st
' -ehaain-—te—-eentact~ the di-sWtafiomoms
Wafien-,--- or inmfooduchainsmhavingnsteres—iamsmallermeemmfi-
tapes -te--have- the-i r rummagersrcontact'io cai‘poiieey-aeicplaining.-.thewprob -
Wand—askingfortheir assistance, advice, and cooperation. In
many instanceint will be possible to obtain photOgraphs, names, and
other data which will assist in identifying known shoplifters in the
community.
11. In controlling shoplifting, one of the important factors
is for the manager to be on the sales floor as much as possible,
especially during/I rush hours. He should not take his lunch period
at the same hour each day, if possible, but should change the sched-

ule from time to time so that a shoplifter cannot know for sure

when the manager will be away from the store.

(Ea-LEW 12. In addition to the store personnel who have regular work
J\A.I' FLA—Q . I . . "u
stations, there are always those whose—duties requiresIthet—they move

. “mama 5““ 5"“va “4

about the storelffls ocking the shelves, cleaning and hauling to the

shelves ,merchandise which is to be stackedleEach of these employees

89
should be well trained to be on the alert. If two or more clerks
are working in the same general area, they should not work as a
group, but should place themselves so that their preSence and con-
stant glances over the area will make it more difficult for the pil-
ferer to steal. All employees should use a connnon signal to
notify the manager when they suspect or actually see a ShOplifter.
Regardless of the system‘used, the clerks should notify the man-
ager immediately when someone is under suspicion..

IS. During certain periods of the day/shoplifters can op-
erate with greater ease. These times occur when employees are
busy with special duties and leave some sections of the store un-
observed. The greatest opportunity, however, occurs during the rush
hours, especially at lunch periods and just before closing time in
the evening. During such hours, clerks, department heads, and
managers must be particularly alert.

1, I“Ill!“ The cashier Watethmcheekweut—eeunter should
always ask to inspect every shopping bag. In order not to antagon-
ize customers, this inspection should be done in a very impersonal
and routine way, using a uniform procedure. The request should be

made before the cashier begins to record on the cash register. In

a polite tone, she should ask, "May I see your shopping bag, please?"

90
No issue should be made if the customer refuses to comply, and
under no circumstances/ should the bag be taken away forcibly from
the customer. A large sign, placed near the entrance, which states
that all shopping bags will be inspected, should help materially in
securing the customer's cooperation.

15. The back door ofihe market should be locked at all
times, exceptwhen it is in use. Whenever anyone not employed by
the firm has occasion to use the back door, he should be accom-
panied by an employee. No back-door sales should ever be made.

After work, all employees should leave by the main entrance
rather than through the back entrances. Under no circumstances/
should friends of employees'be permitted to wait for them in the
store after closing hours. This rule should apply to all levels of
employees, from the managerfrg the part-time emphyees. The

individual) in charge of the store keys should always keep them in

I
his possession. It takes only a moment for someone to make a
wax impression of a key.

16. All delivery men, whether bringing merchandise into
the store or picking up waste materials to carry out, should be

accompanied, at all times, by a store employee. No driver deliverer,

whether or not employed by the firm, should be permitted to check

91

merchandiseimarry a basket in or out, tar—serva——a&a—-~-piECE“C'ounter;‘

unless he is accompanied by and is assisting a store employee.

17. An adequatempply- of baskarts should be provided in
each store. If this is done, shoppers will be discouraged from carry-
ing merchandise with them while shopping in a store.

18. Some food figs employ private detective agencies in.
the-W7 to handle the pilferage control problem. Some of the ad-
vantages of this method are that the ideas used in preventing sh0p—
lifting have already been’tried, and the agency becomes responsible
for what follows after the arrest of a shoplifter. The cost incurred
[by utilizing the resources of a private detective agency/minim much

less than the losses which result from shoplifting.

"During the nineteenth annual meeting of the National 'Associa-
tion of Food Chains, October 29, 1952, at Miami Beach, Florida, one
of the subjects under discussion was "Pilferage Control." Mr.
Nathan W. Lurie, Secretary of the Wrigley Stores, Incorporated, of

Detroit, Michigan, was one of the speakers on the subject. His

 

'f\ I O n. - l
k-preee—eounter 1~s--one---who counts-merchandise as it 15

\being carried. into ..fl, glaze“.--

92
speech, quoted in part, explained the "Detroit Plan," a method
proved successful in the stores of food chains in. Detroit.

. An idea was hatched that the best way to cope with the
situatiOnz was with the combined strength and facilities of all
the Operators . . . It was simple enough for the operators to
apprehend the thieves, but the combined efforts of a group
would assure prosecution and publicity after they were caught.

The best agency to deve10p and put the plan into effect was the
Food Industry Committee, which represents the major food re-
tailing groups . .

. the necessary contacts [were made] with the Detroit Police
Department, the Wayne Comty Prosecutor's Office, and the pre-
siding Judge of the Recorder' s Court. These three agencies
were well satisfied with the merits of the plan and agreed to
lend their cooperation and assistance. The three local news-
papers were then contacted and the editors agreed to give the
story full coverage, even to assigning feature writers.

The Committee then prepared a letter of instructions which was
sent to all participating companies . . . [This letter contained]
the complete procedure, including instructions as to how, man-
agers and personnel were to watch for shoplifters; the procedure
in catching them; arresting them and how to follow the matter
up in court.

. Here's how the plan worked--Friday and Saturday, April
4th and 5th, were chosen for the concerted effort. -

All major markets and their personnel were on the alert for,
shoplifters. To simplify the legal procedure only stores within
the city limits of Detroit were involved. All personnel were \‘3
briefed on the subject and imbued with the idea of "catch as

 

The situation referred to is that of shoplifting. Taken
from a typewritten copy of Mr. Lurie's speech.

93

many-shoplifters as possible." Only.in a very few cases was
anyone released once they were caught . . . The two day drive
netted 58 shoplifters and resulted in 58 convictions . . . The
drive was well covered by the newspapers . . . Much publicity
space was _.devoted to the problem, together with many photo-
graphs andhurnan interest stories . . . the Food Industry Com-
mittee met and it was generally agreed that the plan was
sound . . . but we sincerely believe that the Detroit plan has
pointed out a practical solution for a reduction of this menace

.to our operation.
x

. ‘ I
Shoplifting cannot be reduced overnight, er-in one single-~ef—\.,,/,j
,_ . _ , .

\erL. It is a long-range prOgram requiring many plans. It must be!

C 71""
I
i

a continuous campaign, with the objectives of making the stores of I,

I I
I
I

the food chain known among pilferers as places where the risk is /

. . /
too great for the amount that can be stolen. /

In relation to the subject under discussion, circumstances

a"

’4

not discussed. _here will undoubtedly arise in relation to t11e"’problem.

mm“ “A, .
It is felt, however, that the foregoing treatxnefint of the general prin-
“x “as"

RN”. __,..-"‘J
ciples of conduct}! policy, and thenglaw may serve as a basic guide

..g

/"’f a-

M/ “‘x.
for food chains in the/controlling of shopliftingafldthe protection
a!”

H’-

/"
of their rights without danger of lawsuits, unfavorab e‘-publicity and

\'\..i
es declines . ‘~

BIBLIOGRAPHY

‘_.——___——n—___‘_ __—.__._——-

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_ Articles

’Arrief, Alex J., and Carol C. Bowie. "Some Psychiatrics of Shop-

lifting." Journal of Clinical Psychopatholo o,’gy vcsi. 8, No. 3
(January, 1947), pp 565- 57fiwmmfim

 

L‘.“
r».
,_—-

Nelson, Harold E. "Filferage versus Profits." Unpub'lished__manu-
/4Cript, n. d.

/"/

Speeches

Lurie, Nathan W. "The Detroit Plan." An address to the Na-
tional Association of Food .Chains, October 29, 1952.

Store Manuals
The KrOger Company. ”Store Manager's Manual." Cincinnati,
Ohio. MimeOgraphed, n. d.
Red Owl Stores, Incorporated. "Store Meeting on Shoplifting."
Minneapolis, Minnesota. MimeOgraphed, n. d.

List of“ Cases

Bertollo versus Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 11 CaliforniaA Appellate
Reports, 2d, 430.

_....—

Collyer versus S. H. Kress Company, 5 California Reports, 2d, 175.

96

Crews-Beggs Dry Goods Company versus Bayle, 97 Colorado Reports,
568. .

Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company versus Smith, 281 Kentucky
Reports, 583.

Knight versus Powers Dry Goods Company, 225 Minnesota Reports,
280.

Lee Gardner versus State of Wyoming, 207 Wyoming Reports, 316.
Little Stores versus Isenberg, 26 Tennessee Appellate Reports, 358.
Lundy versus State, 60 Georgia Reports, 143.

McDermott versus W. T. Grant Company, 313 Massachusetts Reports,
736.

People of the State of Illinois versus Lardner, 300 Illinois Reports,
264.

Pe0ple versus Quiel, 68 California Appellate Reports, 2d, 674.

Robertson versus Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 130 Nebraska 5.2"

ports, 82.

S. H. Kress and Company versus Rust, 132 Texas Supreme Court

Reports, 89.

 

State versus Powell, 117 Texas Reports, 21.
State versus Pri‘e/be,'221 Minnesota Reports, 318.
State versus Tremont, 196 Minnesota Reports, 36.
State versus Wilson, I New Jersey Law, 439.

Tippett versus F. W. Woolworth Company, 3 Southern Reports, 2d,

_ 46 1 .
/’/

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

Letter Requesting Information

Gentlemen:

I am engaged at the present time in writing a thesis on
"Pilferage Control for the Super Market" at Michigan State College
under the guidance of Dr. Kenneth Wilson. Since pilfering is an im-
portant problem confronting the chains, 1 have decided to write my
paper on methods and approaches in lessening and eliminating pilfer-
age. '

Information and facts needed for this report must come from
the chains themselves, because there is very little written on the
subject at this time. I would, therefore, appreciate your providing
me with any pamphlets or reports you may have on the topic of
pilfering, procedures for store managers to follow, as well as any
sample forms used in obtaining signed statements from those shop-
lifters who are apprehended.

If by chance you have no formal reports then a brief explan-
ation of how you control pilfering in your chain would be gratefully

accepted. I thank you for your consideration.

Ve ry truly yours ,

Milton L . Berry

100M usa om.

\

“13.2.? , ROOM use ow '
0d 75 BS: Jam-mm
"0" H owns-LL“w

w 17 '56 W
M , so EMT? \‘923. E}

feb 29%? flip 5 I954 X

III-“j a, 4;! //

“um .51 Mg

”c7 ’ r "‘J ‘ , f / I
Dec 16 '57 ‘
Nov 3 ‘ APR. ._ ,/

,"W 20's: \ 9' ~
.11, (O . -. i

I a, 59‘ W1
Fab II 50

, J ‘7

 

UFO “.1153ch

MD .19 I‘m“ .7

 

 

 

03"“-