It is my understanding that city-licensed retail security personnel
have the authority under law to make and sign criminal complaints to
the courts.  It is my understanding that they also have the authority
under law with probable cause to detain and recover merchandise from
suspects who have not payed for store merchandise at the final
checkout points, and who are departing the stores with the retail
merchandise in their possession. It is my understanding that once the
suspect, who has been under constant surveillance, departs final
checkout and the store itself,  the suspect is not allowed to pay for
the store merchandise when stopped and detained.    The suspect is
requested to accompany security to the store security offices where
the suspect surrenders the merchandise to the licensed city security
personnel.  It is my understanding that the  surrender of the
merchandise by the suspect in the security office of the retail store
is then considered to be a completed larceny, and not just a "failed"
attempt,  because the city-licensed retail security personnel are
operating only in their agency of city police and not in their agency
of private employees of the private retail stores.
Since the city-licensed retail security personnel  can make and sign
complaints directly to the courts on behalf of the city police
authorities  who license them with certain police powers,  why do they
always call the commissioned police to come to the stores and why is
it necessary for the commissioned police to respond to these calls?
Couldn't the city-licensed security personnel directly  furnish the
prosecutor with their probable cause evidence, and couldn't the
prosecutor then issue a summons to the suspected shoplifter.  A
summons would offer more "due process" protection for the suspect, 
and the double-agent retail security personnel and his employer would
bear at least a little of the expense and responsibility for making
the complaint
Wouldn't this mean that the people's commissioned police and city
resources  would not have to be used unnecessarily and wastefully as
is now the case?
Or, do the commissioned police have to respond to the calls from the
retail security offices for the purpose of providing the immediate
fulcrums for the cost effective civil recovery demand letters sent by
the retail stores after the city commissioned police have ticketed
suspects for "stealing" in the corporate retail stores?

---

Request for Question Clarification by hagan-ga on 20 Jun 2005 07:42 PDT

Security licensing varies from state to state -- did you have a
particular jurisdiction in mind?

---

Clarification of Question by cjkc-ga on 20 Jun 2005 13:45 PDT

How about Florida, Washington State, and Missouri.  Florida and
Washington States have the highest minimum punitive civil recovery
damages of $200.  I think all delegated police power has to come from
state government and most of the states are using the azdministrative
authority granted  from the States to license uniformed security
guards to also license "secret" (no uniform or badge is worn) 
security personnel in the retail stores.
It is my understanding that city-licensed security personnel have the
discretion to file criminal and civil complaints for shoplifting in
the courts, or perhaps both?---- but they appear to always call the
police to the stores and file their complaints with the sworn
commissioned police who then are required by law  to ticket or arrest
suspects when there is probable cause to believe a crime has been
committed.  This means that the cities in which the stores are located
and in which the security personnel are licenced with certain police
powers  assume  all of the  responsibility and the expense for the
tickets and/or arrests and any prosecutions of the charge of
larceny-shoplifting  in the courts.  This means, of course, that there
is an unconstitutional bias in the lower courts and the lower courts
are closed to any defense to tickets for "stealing".    This means,
also, that the retailers do not have to actually file civil suits in
the courts to  demand civil recovery damages  and almost immediately
after the tickets or arrests for shoplifting has been completed,  they
or their agents prepare  37c letters demanding  punitive damages from
the criminal defendants under the THREAT of filing civil suits for
"shoplifting" against these defendants in the civil courts.  There
have been practically no civil suits filed for civil recovery damages
in the states.
The arrest or ticket from the city provides the fulcrum for the
cost-effective 37c letters of demand for civil recovery damages that
are sent from  the retail corporations or their collection attorneys.
But, is this "scheme" in the best interests of the taxpayers?  Should
the retailers be allowed to use our city police and our lower courts
to provide the fulcrums for their letter demands for punitive damages
from the "criminal" defendants?
I believe that many of the elected representatives in the legislatures
  intended the retailers to use one or the other sanction; i.e.
criminal or civil, when they passed these laws,  and I believe that
they didn't envisage or understand how the city police and the courts
would be subsidizing the retailers  to provide "deterrence of
shoplifting" on behalf of the private retailers and their private
profits.  Or, perhaps they did know that millions of "first-time"
arrested shoplifters would be diverted from the courts or diverted
into rehab or plea bargains where they can avoid a criminal record for
a crime of moral turpitude ----larceny shoplifting.
But, how can the cities justify the great use of our sworn  police and
our prosecutors if  these city-licensed security personnel have the
authority to file their criminal and/or  complaints and probable cause
evidence directly to the courts on behalf of the city who licenses
them.
If the retail security personnel were to file a "civil" complaint in
the civil court for civil recovery damages allowed by law,    the
store owner of the merchandise, or the legal business agent, would
have to join the civil complaint.
I guess my question for you is:

In most of the jurisdictions of the United States, particularly
Florida, Washington State, and Missouri,  do retail security personnel
who are licensed by the city police authorities have the authority to
file and sign  criminal complaints for larceny shoplifting (ticketed
as stealing) directly to the city/town/state courts

If the answer is "yes" ----- why don't they do this instead of calling
the commissioned police--who would then be free to respond to  or
prevent real crimes against the people?  (For over 200 years in the
law of the United States, apprehended shoplifting was an "attempt", an
inchoate offense, that was prosecuted upon the complaint of the owner
of the merchandise or his legal agent.  Apprehended shoplifting is
only a completed larceny because the cities have sold the people's
"police power" to the American retail establishments who use secret
security personnel, secret detection devices in the merchndise, and
secret video surveillance to entrap shoppers for completed larcenies. 
The cities assume all of the responsibility for the arrests and
prosecutions and the retailers collect millions of dollars in punitive
civil recovery demands ----and in 99.9% of all apprehended
shoplifting,  they suffer no actual loss whatsoever!)

Wouldn't a city summons provide more due process protections for the
accused shoplifters who have voluntarily accompanied the licensed
security police to the retail security offices -------and who have
voluntarily surrendered the so called "stolen" merchandise within the
security offices of the private retail stores ------ usually before
the police arrive?

Or, would the city prosecutors be unable to charge a completed larceny
on the summons if the city commissioned police are NOT called to the
stores and the complaints are made directly to the courts by the
city-licensed retail police?

Isn't shoplifting stealing, a criminal offense?
Criminal offenses are not matters for civil prosecution.  It is not a
question of damages but one of criminal intent.
Stating that an apprehended shoplifter (who has left the store's
premises without paying) is "voluntarily" returning to the the store's
security office is expressing the situation too nicely.  If the person
did not return "voluntarily", he or she would be aggrevating the
offense, perhaps attempting to resist arrest, either a "citizen
arrest" or an arrest by the security officer as an agent of the city
police.
At this point, it seems appropriate to call in the uniformed police. 
This is not an additional burden on the police department if one
considers that it has the responsibility and obligation to pursue
criminal offenses.  Admittedly, in the case of shoplifting, this is a
task it can seldom handle effectively, hence the authorization of
private security officers as agents.
The police are not being used (or misused) to protect the interests of
shopowners but rather to uphold the law, and it has been broken by a
shoplifter who steals.

To make it simple, I will post a link to Washington States "Retailers
Shoplifting Prevention Guide" which cites various definitions of the
questions posted.  It clearly emphasizes that the civil and criminal
charges are cumulative and not supposed to be separate.

http://wscp.innw.com/Manuals/shoplift.html