Walmart Observation Paper

On the day of 2nd March, 2009, the above-named defendant was granted twelve months supervised probation for the crime of violation of Section 18.2-96 as a Class 1 misdemeanor of the Virginia Penal Code.

On 04/26/16 APM Jakub Orlando reviewed CCTV to confirm this allegation. CCTV confirmed that on 04/07/16 Mr. Nichols allegedly was blocking the door and physically trying to stop the suspected individual from leaving the store.

The Georgia Shopkeeper’s Defense statute bars the Plaintiff’s suit. The statute bars recovery for false imprisonment by merchants or their agents when all of its elements are met. The Shopkeeper’s Defense statute provides in order to preclude recover the following three elements must be present: (1) reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, (2) reasonable time of detention, and (3) reasonable manner of detention. Ga. Code Ann. § 51-7-60 (2015). The Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff’s behavior on September 29, 2015, was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to suspect her of shoplifting, and that the length of the Plaintiff’s detention was reasonable. Therefore, the only element in dispute is the reasonableness of the manner in which the Plaintiff was detained. As such, R-Mart should be protected under the statute and the Plaintiff could only recover for false imprisonment if the facts alleged in the complaint demonstrates the manner was unreasonable.

Castro said the male suspect was wearing a grey shirt, black shorts, and pushing a shopping cart. Castro said the female suspect was wearing a white top, dark shorts, and carrying a large TJ Maxx reusable shopping bag. Castro saw the suspects go to different sections of the store concealing items in their shopping bag. The suspects attempted to leave the store with the unpaid for items. Castro contacted the suspects at the front entrance of the store. Castro told the suspects to give the items back and the male suspect handed Castro the items and the female suspect dropped additional loss on the ground. Both suspects left on foot south on Lake Ave.

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS: Two armed men rob a bank in Alhambra, CA. One of defendant steals money, holds a women teller hostage and shoots at a police officer severely wounding him. The second defendant is offered money by one of the robbers to steal a white automobile as the “getaway car” for the robbery. The police takes the defendants into custody. One of the defendant’s statement was used as evidence.

K-9 officer told Mr. Solomon to stop and he continues to run. Mr. Solomon heard the officer say he was going to release the dog and Mr. Solomon gave up. Mr. Solomon was then taken into police custody. When the victim came home, Detective Gibbs went into the home and found a black backpack at the top of the stairs. The victims stated that the backpack was not theirs. Detective Gibbs opened the backpack and the victim’s stolen laptop was inside and Daniel Solomon’s homework was also inside. Mr. Solomon and Mr. Powell were brought to 311 County Street and they both confessed to breaking the window and going inside of the home. They both blamed each other for taking items.”

On 07-25-17 at 0908 hours, I contacted Lopez at the above location for trespassing on State Property. I conducted a records check on Lopez, which revealed an outstanding arrest warrant. I handcuffed and arrested Lopez on the outstanding warrant. The handcuffs were double locked. I then transported Lopez to the Pasadena City Jail for booking.

The defendant again entered the store and concealed several other items in his pockets and down his pants. The defendant attempted to exit the store, but he was caught and detained by both Estrela and Edwards. The defendant cooperated and agreed to wait for the police in the loss prevention office.

On 12-27-2016 at 2300 hours I was at the north door of Walmart when I was advised by an employee a subject that just exited the store was shoplifting.

R-Mart, a retail establishment in Albany, Georgia brings this Motion to Dismiss against the action for false imprisonment brought by the Plaintiff. R-Mart briefly held the Plaintiff for suspicions of shoplifting; however, the Plaintiff was only held until R-Mart verified she did not obtain the product from the store. Because there is no relief that can be granted based on the facts alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, R-Mart should be protected under the Georgia Shopkeeper’s Defense statute and the action should be dismissed.

On December 30, 2016 the Probation Department conducted a field visit to the offender’s reported address of 424 Belondo Street Pittsburgh, PA 15210, which is a ¾ residential house. During this time, the probation

Upon arrival, Officer Peal and I observed a male subject attempting to exit the grocery side of the store. Behind the subject was the complainant, Steven Uliano.

While conducting the business check, we observed a White male subject walking out of the store wearing a dark baseball cap with a tag attached. Th subject, later identifed as Peter John Betz, observed Officer Hartmann and quickly removed the hat.

The next thing we knew there was Walmart’s head security guard ran past us towards the back room. After about five minutes the security guard came back out and walked up to me and my step-brother to ask if we have seen this man. We said no then next thing we knew the guy that he was looking for ran