CCTV operator screw up, Store detective pays?

F

Fluxocity

Full Registered User
Today two in-house store detectives noticed a man enter their store who had been indicated as attempting at several stores throughout the city over the city-centre radio system.

SD1 went up to the street to wait outside for the man, in case he did steal something.
SD2 operated the CCTV system and told SD1 via radio that he had seen the man conceal an item and to stop him and bring him downstairs once he left the store.
SD1 took the man by the arm once he left and asked him to come with him to the basement holding room where it was found that he had no stock on him.
SD1 asked the man to stay in the holding room with a uniformed guard whilst he reviewed the CCTV with SD2 which showed that the man had not concealed anything.
SD1 escorted the man back to street level.

SD1 and SD2 both have over ten years experience in front line security, SD1 trusted SD2's judgement based on this. Hypothetically, if the man complained to the SIA/Police/whoever, could SD1 face any sort of legal repercussions (civil or criminal) or suffer any threat to his SIA license because of following SD2's instruction?

Your thwarts and onions are greatly received.
 
I've asked the police before about where you stand if you make a very genuine mistake such as being told by a collegue that someone has taken something and they always say there is no chance of being prosecuted (may be different if you wrestle him to the ground). However, in your scenario I'm not sure where the CCTV person would stand if it appeared he said there were grounds for arrest when there weren't, a genuine mistake or malicous?

It should be noted however that the shoplifters often work in pairs with one acting suspiciously enough to draw attention and the other nicking stuff whilst security are busily watching or dealing with the other. If you've had a false alarm like this you should review all other footage from that time period.
 
I still find it shocking how a private employee can take a member of the public down to a 'basement holding room', sounds like the gestapo.
 
Dont think the sia would bother with things like this and also sometimes if they complain the store management get a bit worried. However if the said gentleman was seen attempting in other stores doubt very much anyone would take his complaint seriously

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
Cheers all for the input which, happily, was both as expected and hoped for. My personal opinion is that if a team cannot rely on the instruction of a CCTV operator to detain a suspected shoplifter then very few detentions would be possible. This particular shoplifter was just that, and not very good at it. I don't believe there was a secondary but there's always scope for error.

It is very rare that we see anyone like this in the store because their appearance is very different to our usual clientelle. We are regularly (around once a month) hit by professional roaming shoplifters and, to be quite honest, sometimes don't notice them 'til they've left. The McGoverns are case in point and have visited three times over the last two years. We've never stopped a member of their team.

Finally, and just to allay HT's concerns, although SD1 had this chap by the arm, he did ask very nicely if he would come downstairs and kept asking if he was OK to stay because SD1 had doubts about SD2's level of confidence even though SD2 had said he was 100% sure. Arse coverage was in full effect and, SD1 does hope he doesn't have to work with SD2 again in a similar situation because its fairly clear his judgement cannot be relied upon.
 
Fluxocity said:
The McGoverns are case in point and have visited three times over the last two years. We've never stopped a member of their team.
Click to expand...
I remember them lot from Carlisle although if I remember correctly they were from Glasgow. Do you mind telling me roughly where you are based, the county will do. Just wondering how far they travel.
 
Yes, I'm pretty sure they're from Glasgow. I'm located on the border of North and West Yorkshire, though I've seen stills of them in another of our stores - apologies but I cannot remember if it was London or Manchester. I'll have a look tomorrow.
 
Fluxocity said:
I just googled it, it was London, they did Harrods too and it looks like Jean was nicked for that.
Click to expand...
The legal system still treats shoplifting like its a petty offence. This is a team of around 10 people (no doubt with more occasional members) that travel all over the country shoplifting. They'll send one person in to detag a row of clothes then another will go in and dump the lot in a hold all whilst others keep the staff busy. Considering they are based in Glasgow and yet travel to London and reccy and hit Harrods, yet may just as well be in Peacocks in Carlisle, it gives some idea how seriously they take their "business".

Carlisle was like shoplifting central with thieves coming from Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool. All the guards there worked together, along with other shop staff. Any known people seen would be watched and radioed from shop to shop (whether they entered or not) and guards would regularly follow a suspect from another shop whilst the shop checked they definitely had evidence, then whoever was following would make the arrest. So people were frequently reliant on guards from other shops and other companies to get it right when they made an arrest.


Just to comment on something said earlier about powers of arrest. "Arrest" means "stop" you have no power to take them anywhere else. Most of the time people are quite keen to get away from public view if you've been caught and for that reason most people will go to the detention room, but there is no power to make them do that. You can probably in some cases justify moving someone to protect yourself, for instance moving someone from an alley into the main street where there are more witnesses around and CCTV, DS will sometimes move people inside to protect themselves from their mates and random passers by.
 
In my experience, the courts seem to relate the sentences they hand down to the fiscal value of the theft, which I think is the right way of going about things. Sentences also vary based on personal circumstances (ie. drug dependency/first timer) which I don't think is a poor way of managing the situation either. Banging someone up for nicking a sandwich from Gregs is just going to cost the tax payer at the end of the day and it doesn't change the behaviours so they're right back at it as soon as they get out.

Yes, the McGoverns and other 'professionals' treat it as a business, I suppose that's why they're so successful at what they do. Speaking of business, that links in with the previous paragraph: That's essentially what the country is. Any punishment handed to a criminal is supposed to be in line with the cost to the government, there's no profit in jailing many of these people because it costs so much more to keep them inside than it saves the taxpayer in lost revenue from business profits. I suppose that's why there's such a disparity between the sentences handed down for major frauds and rape for example. Rape doesn't cost much in terms of pounds and pence but frauds can be millions. Don't try defrauding the government, that's a whole other level of punishment coming your way!

I like the sound of Carlisle, it reminds me of Coventry. I think the city I work in now is similar but we rarely listen to the radio because its just not relevant to us and some of the numpties they give radios to nowadays can be quite irritating to listen to.

I don't know if you're right or wrong on the moving of a 'detainee' but it wont stop me taking them to the holding room in future. I am a DS because we have a licensed bar on the premises but, regardless of this, it has always been my method to immediately take anyone I've detained (I know I've arrested them but I will never use that word) to a holding room.
 
in this case, I would always try to argue that the scrote was free to go at any time but in reality, there is a distinct possibility that false imprisonment/unlawful detention/whatever its called charges could well be brought.
 
Back
Top