Walmart Fraud Report

Estrela also requested that Cantie be trespassed from Walmart, located at 8701 U.S. Highway 19. Cantie was issued a trespass warning, which he later acknowledged, and signed while at central booking.

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

The defendant believed that the $100 deposit, together with his initial $28.45 payment, would secure for him the $106.00 per week rental rate in lieu of the higher daily rate. When the defendant was arrested after a report stated that his vehicle was stolen. The officers returned to his room to get his companion out of the room. Additionally, a complete search of the room was ordered without a warrant. Inside a closed dresser drawer the officers found a cloth bag secured at the top with a draw string. They opened the closed bag and found over two ounces of cocaine. As a result, the court found that the above factors constituted the defendant 's had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room for three reasons. First, a few days earlier, when the defendant had stayed past check-out time, instead of evicting him the hotel permitted him to extend his stay and pay for the additional term of occupancy. Second, the manager testified that it was the motel 's policy to ask those guests staying past checkout time whether they would be leaving or extending their stay. It was not the motel 's policy to evict guests who were staying past checkout time for brief periods. Third, the defendant had given the hotel a large cash deposit, which may have led him to believe that he was paid up through the rest of the week.

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.

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Georgia Shopkeeper’s Defense statute guarantees immunity to R-Mart because it had a reasonable suspicion and investigated in a reasonable time and manner.

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 spoke with Marlon about additional items in the vehicle the victims said should be in there. I asked if the items would still be in the vehicle. Marlon said “Probably not, but I didn’t take them” he said there was seven other persons in the vehicle at some point. Marlon was asked what time “he” parked the car on Copperstone Circle. He said between 10pm and midnight.

seized illegally and the exclusionary rule applied. As such the items seized may not be presented

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

ISSUE: (1) The police department continued with the interrogations process that led to incriminating statements without reading the defendant’s rights.

The pickup truck’s owner arrived, the defendant got his keys, told him to sit in the truck, and gave him beer. He then got back under the truck to wait some more. Passerby’s alerted the police who arrested the defendant. He also testified that while waiting for his friend, he started sobering up and thinking things over. He removed the bullets from the gun and put them in his pocket, and made plans to have a party at his house with the people in the pickup. They were drinking and conversing when the police arrived.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants made a series of purchases on the following dates. On November 23rd, 2013, defendant Gonzalez attempted to buy cartons of cigarettes that totaled 128 dollars via counterfeit access devices. On March 6, 2016, Gonzalez and Pierre-Charles drove to a convenience store and bought items totaling 527.26 dollars via the counterfeit access device. Following, on March 20th the defendants Durandis and Gonzalez traveled to another convenience store in Berks County, Pennsylvania making a purchase that totaled roughly 1,915.73 dollars via the use of the access devices (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al, 2014). A week later, on March 27th it was discovered that within a vehicle driven by defendants Durandis and Charles it contained a fraudulent New York driver’s licenses, an expired Pennsylvania id card, 80 cartons of Newport cigarettes, and over 250 counterfeit access devices (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al,

On October 17, 2015, AP closed an internal fraud case at the Hudson’s Bay Oakridge store for a value of $67,666. Information received regarding large markdowns on auto locate purchase. Investigation revealed that the merchandise was markdown and sold to a friend and then later returned at full price. Further investigation revealed several other purchases and returns matching the same process with used merchandise or no merchandise being returned. The associate was interviewed and admitted to several fraud refunds and sale markdowns. The associate also informed on 2 other associates and 2 customers.

The given fact is concerned about the intentional tort of false imprisonment of Donna (D), intrusion and vicarious liability to establish liability against the store. The answer will also discuss possible damages for D.