Be Safe Policy Case Study

Dispatch advised me that Walmart loss prevention was currently observing a male subject attempting to pry open a necklace while in the jewelry department of the store. Loss prevention described the subject as a white male, wearing a green tee-shirt, and black baseball cap.

The shopkeeper’s privilege does not protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of the case. Although Navarro had the right to exercise shopkeeper’s privilege, Navarro had not enough evidence to consider Cockrell as a suspect and it is not reasonable that Navarro asked Cockrell to take off the bandage. According to the merchant protection statutes, merchants can stop, detain, and investigate suspected shoplifters without being held liable for false imprisonment if (1) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion, (2) suspects are detained for only reasonable time, and (3) investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner (Cheeseman, 2015, P.87). Navarro was not fulfilled for the third condition because the investigation is unreasonable on putting the suspect in a risk of death. Since there was a risk of bacterial infection and it may cause death after the wound area exposed under the air, Navarro should

In 2001, Donnell Battie sued Walmart because a 16-year-old shopper picked up the store’s public address microphone and announced “Attention Walmart customers: all black people must leave the store.” Battie claimed that this incident caused him “severe and disabling emotional and physical harm” and sued Walmart for $1,000,000. Battie’s lawyer argued that his client was a subject of racial discrimination because Walmart did not properly secure its speaker system. The outcome of the case was not stated but Walmart was forced to change the PA systems throughout all its

The appellant, Mr. Sprod who was acting drunk and assaulting inside a pizza shop, prompted the owner of the shop to call security guards from the respondent, Public Relations Oriented Security Ptd Ltd. The assault occurred after the appellant

Both Brasch and Stewart were issued trespass warnings per Edwards request. I advised both subjects that they would be arrested if the returned to Walmart, located at 8701 U.S. Highway 19 in Port Richey. Steward acknowledged, and she signed the trespass warning before leaving the scene with Brasch's cell phone (per her request). Brasch later signed the trespass warning at central booking.

Both the family, and the Wal-Mart acknowledge that the family was detained. The Wal-Mart associates believed that they had the right to stop the family based on the assumption of shoplifting, although they should not have physically restrained the family from advancing out of the store, nor denied Debra McCann’s offer of verifying the family’s identity.

Castro told me he was able to recover all of the lost except for a black Michael Kors purse, valued at $159.99. Castro said the total value of the recovered lost is $354.96. Castro gave me E-1 a DVD of the shoplifting captured on video surveillance. I booked the DVD into property as evidence. Castro said TJ Maxx desires prosecution if the suspects are located. Refer to Castro’s report for further details on the incident. See attached copy of Castro’s

I told both that I had seen them on CCTV footage walking into and out of the YMCA and then walking to the Dodge Charger, entering it and leaving the parking lot. I asked Jalen if that sounded right, he nodded his head. Jalen would later admit that he and Marlon went to the YMCA, signed the guest information sheet using Marlon’s brother’s name of Adonte Burnell, and going into lockers taking the keys and then taking the Dodge Charger. Jalen said he did not drive the Charger, but Marlon did.

Can you explain why the store did not take pictures of the incident scene and the plaintiffs’ shopping cart? This question would cast doubt on if the store was trying

There is an ethical side to this story because there may be the possibility that the store associate or customer had lied and said that they stole something when they really had not. Sometimes if there is a conflict between two people one person might say something bad in order to get the other person into serious trouble. In a case like this then there would be some serious issues that come into play. The person that is accusing the wrongdoer would get into trouble for false accusations. Then again they may also be correct and that person may be guilty of stealing items in the store. It is helpful when there are cameras involved that can be reviewed so that there is more evidence to suggest whether or not a crime had been committed. It just goes to show that no matter what the situation is the police always need to look at both sides of the situation.

In the case Tardif v. Wiebe, Tardif, a bouncer, was liable for physically assaulting a patron of a bar. But what is interesting is that the Hotel was vicariously liable for Tardifs “ excessive and unjustified force”. This applies to this case because Dale acted with excessive and unjustifiable force on Bob. In Tardif v. Weibe, the courts ruled the fact that the business instructed employees not to use force does not operate as a defense. So, even though Wal-Marts training video that clearly states that no chokeholds are to be used on any suspected shoplifter, Wal-Mart can not use this as a defense. Investing in training one’s staff could have prevented this.

The alleged tortfeasor, Ryan, was in a department store when the store security guard walked up to him, took him by the arm, and dragged him into an office. The security officer turned around walked out of the office locked the door and never spoke to the alleged tortfeasor. After several hours of being locked in the small office, Ryan tried the door to leave. Finally, the security guard returned and stated he was waited to check video surveillance and thought Ryan shoplifted, however, did not see any evidence on the videotape and was free to go.

Gold clearly exits the store without paying for the five items. Uliano provided a statement and DVD surveillance. The DVD surveillance was later entered into evidence at the Port Richey Police Department.

Thanks. The safe call cases do help me to understand our organizations and business. I hope I have met your expectations both assignments. Please do not hesitate to let me know if there are areas that I can improve.

As a company, would you describe PPI as having an identifiable philosophy of moral values? How do its policies contribute to this philosophy?