Treatened with arrest in Boots

[Hoogadad]

I was recently in a large Boots the Chemist store looking to buy some deodorant. I saw a large display advertising the new flavours of Lynx.

As the display only had a few cans of Lynx on it, I assumed they were test cans and proceeded to have a quick "squirt and sniff". Almost immediately (obviously been hoverring) a plain clothed security guard whipped out his ID and, in a pretty threatening manner, informed me that I had just committed a criminal act by breaking the seal and squirting a perfume, and that HE could now arrest me. He didn't arrest me as I was on my way to a crappy week in Centre Parcs (another story). I incidentally baught 2 cans of Lynx, both had already been opened.

 

So, before I write a snotty letter to Boots I was hoping to get my facts straight.

1. What law was he refferring to regarding the Squirt and sniff offence ?

2. What powers of arrest do the security guards have?

 

Thanks

[Conniff]

Hi Hoogadad and welcome to cag.

 

He has the same powers of arrest as you do.

I suppose he was refering to criminal damage, sounds like he was just being dramatic.

 

I take it this was one of those outside pretend policeman companies that they all seem to be hiring now-a-days. I think you should write to Boots, let us know what they reply, you never know, they might send you some vouchers.

 

Your remark about 'Center Parcs. Would you like to tell your story in the Holiday Companies forum as my son and daughter in law are thinking of going there this summer.

[Aequitas]

I don't think criminal damage quite covers it. You "stole" one squirt. I think stores accept (or ought to accept) that customers will open and test perfumed products - that is why many have "testers" on display. If they do not want customers to do this, they should put up a warning sign.

 

It needs to be remembered that stores risk prosecution if they sell underweight goods. And, when you think about it, there is no difference between having a quick squirt from a can and opening a packet of biscuits and trying one.

 

I shouldn't bother about writing to Boots. The security guard was a bit over the top, but in the end technicallly right, even though every does it.

[Conniff]

Sorry, I didn't read properly, I thought the op said she broke the seal.

 

It is as you say 'expected' that people try perfume products just as you ask for a taste of cheese before you buy.

It's not as if you lifted your jumper and sprayed your armpits is it (you didn't did you )

 

I still think she should still write about his not understanding the try and sniff thing normal with this type of product.

 

My wife bought me a 'Dove' roll on, I wish she had tried it before buying, the smell is terrible, like an old attic.

[Aequitas]

How can the OP write without admitting the "offence?"

[Hoogadad]

Thanks for your responses.

 

I did think the cans on display were testers as the stock of the item was a few shelves down. ( although on inspection, most of them had been opened).

 

I was more annoyed with his attitude and threat of arrest. Had I not been going on holiday I would of gladly been arrested .

[Tezcatlipoca]

I was more annoyed with his attitude and threat of arrest. Had I not been going on holiday I would of gladly been arrested .

 

He evidently takes his little job a lot more seriously than he feels the world takes him.

 

How can the OP write without admitting the "offence?"

 

I'm not so sure. The OP could quite easily state that Boots failed to provide adequate indication that these products were not testers designed for public use. I personally think you should write to them, if only to register your dissatisfaction with the way you were spoken to by the guard, not necessarily that you were spoken to.

[Aequitas]

The OP could quite easily state that Boots failed to provide adequate indication that these products were not testers designed for public use.

 

Say 30 cans on a shelf and you want a sign saying that none of them are testers.

 

It is, as I have suggested, a fact of life that someone who would not dream of opening a packet of biscuits to try one might have a quick squirt from a can or open a bottle of aftershave. I have done it. Everyone does it. No one thinks of it as a crime. It is almost, but not quite, an accepted practice. If stores do not want people to do it, they should put up a sign.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Say 30 cans on a shelf and you want a sign saying that none of them are testers.

 

You have of course already answered your own question, once in post 3 ("If they do not want customers to do this, they should put up a warning sign."), and once in post 8 ("If stores do not want people to do it, they should put up a sign.")

 

Further, the OP clearly states that said cans were contained in a separate advertising display. It is quite common to have testers in such displays, ergo it is not entirely clear that one should not be sampling the product.

 

The point of mentioning inadequate indication is to provide the OP with a potential answer to your question, 'How can the OP write without admitting the "offence?".

 

Personally, I agree with you. Not only does everybody test perfumes and sprays, but the guard in question was as intolerant as he was melodramatic. However, I am still of the opinion that if, as the OP seems to indicate, they are incensed at the guard's behaviour, then they should write a letter of complaint.

[Hoogadad]

Again, Thanks all for you responses.

 

Can anyone clarify the point regarding powers of arrest?

To what extent can a Store security guard detain (or arrest using his words) a member of the public?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Again, Thanks all for you responses.

 

Can anyone clarify the point regarding powers of arrest?

To what extent can a Store security guard detain (or arrest using his words) a member of the public?

 

As Conriff has already said, he [the guard] has exactly the same powers as you and I; the right to make a Citizens Arrest. Anyone can make one (indeed, Community Support Officers can only make a Citizens Arrest), as stipulated by section 2-3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (link) and section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (link)

 

If you want some more information, there is an excellent page to be found here, which is updated to include the latest changes in the relevant laws.

[Hoogadad]

Thanks. Exactly what I wanted.

[dave]

This is quite a contrast to most of the rest of the world - in France for example, it's expected that you would, say eat grapes from a bunch as you walk around, perhaps open a pack of biscuits while you are queing to pay.

 

It's loosely known as customer service - something that has all but dissapeared from the UK over the last 15 years.

 

...but it seems now, they would rather prosecute their customers for doing this instead of encouraging them to actually buy their usually overpriced goods.

[Hoogadad]

I agree Dave. I have often opened a snack for my children while walking around the supermarket and then presented the empty container at the checkout. I have yet to be threatened with arrest for this.

[Bookworm]

I would also argue that unless you leave the store, you haven't actually committed any criminal act, as you still haven't left the premises, so the squirt and yourself are still there, and if you then go on purchasing that very same can, that squirt becomes your property and you are generously leaving it behind when you finally leave the premises.

 

Absurd? Well, not much more than the jobsworth's actions!

[revolting peasant]

I would also argue that unless you leave the store, you haven't actually committed any criminal act, as you still haven't left the premises, so the squirt and yourself are still there, and if you then go on purchasing that very same can, that squirt becomes your property and you are generously leaving it behind when you finally leave the premises.

 

Absurd? Well, not much more than the jobsworth's actions!

 

The crucial part there BW is that you go on to purchase the can. Theft is the taking of goods with the intention of permanently depriving the owner, in this case Boots. If you don't like it you can't exactly give it back once you've squirted it into your armpit:o .

 

It would be sensible if there is nothing clearly marked as a tester to ask a member of staff before taking a sniff. I agree that jobsworth was a bit over the top here but nor would I want to get home to find I'd just bought half a can of Lynx cos every bloke in the supermarket had tried a bit.

 

Funny how they have testers displayed for 60 quid perfume but not 2 quid deodrant though.

[patdavies]

As Conriff has already said, he [the guard] has exactly the same powers as you and I; the right to make a Citizens Arrest. Anyone can make one (indeed, Community Support Officers can only make a Citizens Arrest), as stipulated by section 2-3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (link) and section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (link)

 

If you want some more information, there is an excellent page to be found here, which is updated to include the latest changes in the relevant laws.

 

PCSOs also have the power to detain for up to 30 minutes.

[crash3903]

I have often opened a snack for my children while walking around the supermarket and then presented the empty container at the checkout

What if your kids didn't like the biscuits? Would you put them back on the shelf opened?

 

If the biscuits were eaten and you decided not to buy them then not leaving the store is irrelevant as the appropriation has taken place = Theft (Would take an overzealous security guard or cashier to address it though)

[Bookworm]

The crucial part there BW is that you go on to purchase the can. Theft is the taking of goods with the intention of permanently depriving the owner, in this case Boots.

My point precisely. At the point of intervention as above described, the guy did not know whether OP would go on to purchase the item or not, and therefore acted incorrectly. To be valid, he should have waited until OP left empty-handed and THEN confronted him/her.

 

To go further into the realms of absurdity, though, Boots, like many other companies, has a returns policy which allows you to return the goods if you're unhappy with them, so say OP purchases goods, then takes a sniff, doesn't like, and returns item for refund. Boots will then in all likelihood discard the returned item (as it's been opened), result, complete loss.

 

Logic, anyone?

[patdavies]

What if your kids didn't like the biscuits? Would you put them back on the shelf opened?

 

If the biscuits were eaten and you decided not to buy them then not leaving the store is irrelevant as the appropriation has taken place = Theft (Would take an overzealous security guard or cashier to address it though)

 

No.

 

It was be impossible for the store/security guard to prove the mens rea of the offence (ie the intention not to pay).

 

Until you attempt to leave the store w/o paying or had no means to pay, the offence is incomplete as far as any court is concerned as you cannot read someone's mind to ascertain what they have 'decided'.

[crash3903]

No.

 

It was be impossible for the store/security guard to prove the mens rea of the offence (ie the intention not to pay).

 

Until you attempt to leave the store w/o paying or had no means to pay, the offence is incomplete as far as any court is concerned as you cannot read someone's mind to ascertain what they have 'decided'.

 

sorry Pat but you are talking about practicalities of proving the offence as opposed to the law

 

the appropriation has already taken place and it is common practice to allow the person to leave the store to prove the intent to steal

[Rideout]

As An SIA member for the NHS , I know For FACT security can only citizens arrest, However breaking a seal on the product is a different matter you could of been arrested by a cop, I Alos know you will need to get the security officers SIA number which will be on his ID badge he shown you as they have strict laws against not displaying the badge on your self so people can see, unless it is done for extream matters. Complain and leagally demand to have his badge number then go to www.the-sia.org.uk/home and see if he is still leagal to work first of all then complain like hell.

ps do boots know you broke the seal?