Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016)

315 E Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA, White office Building Edelstein Payne Criminal Defense Attorneys at Law

https://edelsteinpayne.com/criminal-defense

Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device

Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016 (0 Comments)
As I am still fairly new to the North Carolina Bar and the practice of criminal defense here in NC, I was surprised to recently be in a consultation with an individual whose petty shoplifting allegation was charged as a felony because of the additional allegation that he had removed a security device.  Shoplifting in North Carolina can be charged as a felony if the value of the goods stolen exceeds $1,000.00. It can also be a felony in some other circumstances, including if the person has four or more prior convictions for larceny. 
Under North Carolina General Statute Sect. 14-72.11(2), a person is guilty of a Class H felony if the person commits larceny against a merchant "by removing, destroying, or deactivating a component of an antishoplifting or inventory control device to prevent the activation of any antishoplifting or inventory control device. In my recent case, it turned out that the "antishoplifting device" in question was a piece of plastic designed to prevent removal of the merchandise (in this case, a small electronic device). The police report confirmed this, alleging that the accused "defeated two anti theft devices by cutting the merchandise from the anti-theft ring or hook it was attached to." 
Obviously, it is important to read criminal statutes very carefully, piece by piece. By my reading of the statute, an essential element of felony shoplifting involving tampering with antitheft device is the purpose of the tampering: to prevent activation of the device. In my mind, this requires a device that can be "activated," such as an exploding dye pack or a magnetic strip that sets off alarms if not deactivated. The device my client was accused of tampering with was, in my mind, a "passive" security device because there was no way to activate it or tamper with it to prevent its activation. By my reading of the statute, my client was innocent of any felonious behavior and the case was overcharged as a felony. Research revealed no direct guidance from the courts, so I took the argument to the assigned prosecutor. She was not particularly interested in the issue so much as my client's record, and possibly sensing a fight over a relatively minor factual scenario, rather reasonably agreed to allow us to enter a misdemeanor deferral agreement whereby my client would secure dismissal of the case if he stayed out of trouble for six months, paid restitution, and performed some community service. If he failed the agreement, his greatest exposure was to a misdemeanor conviction. I had already decided that, based on the known facts, the best we could hope to accomplish was to beat the felony allegation, so we accepted the offer rather than push further. 
In my mind, it seems rather arbitrary to increase the severity of a shoplifting charge to a felony merely because there was an anti-shoplifting device involved. I have recently begun trying to build more of a criminal defense practice, and would be happy to argue in a different case that removal of a "passive" security device does not meet the essential elements of felony shoplifting. I provide free consultations regarding criminal charges or investigations (I prefer to get involved in cases prior to formal charges being filed) and am charging reduced rates as I build my familiarity with the system here in North Carolina. 
_______________________
If you, a co-worker, friend, neighbor, family member, or a loved one was injured on the job, please know we're here to help.  We provide complimentary case evaluations for workplace accidents any where in the state of North Carolina

For Valuable Tips, Join us, Follow and Subscribe to Edelstein Payne:

Facebook:

Twitter:

Google+

Youtube:

Blogger:

Google Places:

Instagram:

Linkedin:

Pinterest:

Tumblr:

Yelp:

YP.com:
Location: 315 E Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2015 Federal Employment Law Update Published (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 19, 2015)

Image
www.edelsteinpayne.com 2015 Federal Employment Law Update Published Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 19, 2015  (0 Comments)  We just added firm partner   Vanessa Lucas '  2015 Employment Law Update manuscript from her presentation at the recent North Carolina Advocates for Justice CLE. It contains detailed review and analysis from U.S. Supreme Court and 4th Circuit rulings over the past year, and shorter summaries of rulings from other circuits.  Detailed Summary Below: On Target Disability Rights North Carolina Champions for Equality and Justice Volume 20 • Summer 2015 2015 Summer Law Interns Bring Commitment, Build Real Life Experience We are fortunate this summer to have four dynamic law school interns volunteering to help advance critical work in our target areas. While their backgrounds vary, our interns share a common interest in their commitment to disability rights and their eagerness to make an impact outside of the law school classroom.
Read more

Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/employment-law Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016 (0 Comments) Long the subject of a terribly unfair rule that exempted them from such standard employment rights as overtime and minimum wage, home healthcare workers are among the worst treated of American workers. Home Healthcare workers hired through a third-party staffing agency have been exempted from those rules since 1974! The Obama administration attempted to remedy this injustice in 2013, and the result has been tied up in courts until last week, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that they would not hear further appeal (the administration's rulemaking prevailed in the court of appeals) effectively ratifying the rule. Home healthcare workers, including, nurses, certified nursing assistants, physical therapists, and others who provide services to the elderly and infirm to help keep them out of nursing homes, provid
Read more