Accused of Theft In A Shop

hollydays

S.C.O.N.E is an acronym used in retail security to assist loss prevention staff in how to handle a suspected shoplifting. I don’t like the term shoplifting, as theft is theft; I feel creating what some see as a unique offence has led to some common misunderstandings about the act (such as no crime is committed until the culprit leaves the store – not true). However, it is true that being sued for wrongful arrest can be very costly for a company, both in financial and brand terms, so we have our friend S.C.O.N.E.

scone retail security, picture of shop door


The purpose of S.C.O.N.E is therefore to ensure that security staff only detain a person when they are 100% correct in their actions.

With this in mind, S.C.O.N.E does tend to air on the side of caution, however, overall given the wish to avoid wrongful arrests and the minimal training given to many security staff, it is a useful tool.

So what does this acronym stand for:

S….. selects

C….. conceals

O….. observed

N.…. no attempt to pay

E….. exits store

The idea is that if you as a security officer or other type of loss prevention staff see someone whom you suspect of theft, oh ok, shoplifting, then you should work through S.C.O.N.E in your mind. Before you stop or approach someone for the offence, you should be able to say ‘yes’ to each point.

To expand on the points in question:

Selects. Person looks at items and actually takes one, bit like shopping really. You probably wont have much trouble spotting this but imagine a scenario where something falls from the shelf into their trolley by itself (perhaps they barged into the shelf or something) – might sound improbable, but my point being in this case there is no select, so even if person walked out of the shop pushing the trolley with the item in it, you would (under the guidelines of S.C.O.N.E) not stop them for theft.

Conceals. There must be some attempt to hide the item, which most shoplifters will try to do. For example placing the item into a pocket or bag out of site. As said, shoplifting is theft and one of the points to prove with theft is ‘dishonesty’ – the act of concealment can help prove that.

Observed. In the strictest meaning of S.C.O.N.E this one means that you as an officer must have had the suspect under observation from the moment the offence started (selection) to when you approach them to act on the theft. If you have lost them from sight at all, then you cannot count as having had them under constance surveillance. It is possible that the person has become spooked and dumped the item they were trying to steal and so you would be wrong to approach them. I said strictest meaning as depending on what policy you may be working under, it may be sufficient for the constant observation to have been carried out by a team, perhaps with assistance from a CCTV operator. The primary thing is that at no time could the suspect have had the opportunity to ditch the item. In some stores it is also the policy that the person who carried out the observation approaches the suspect and makes any subsequent detention. If witnessed by shop staff, they have to make the approach assisted by security.

No attempt to pay. Might seem a bit daft, but if someone joins the que at the payment till, and then walks out without paying, under S.C.O.N.E you would not stop them. Why, because you can’t say ‘yes’ to ‘no attempt to pay’. Remember, S.C.O.N.E is aimed at keeping things very simple and any subsequent legal action water-tight. In reality, 9 times out of 10, the shoplifter will not go anywhere near a till, so clearly no attempt to pay.

Exits store. Fairly simple and the part that gives rise to the myth that you can’t be ‘done’ for shoplifting if you have not left the shop. In fact, the offence is committed once all the points to prove for theft have been satisfied, irrelevant of weather the person has exited or not. However, once again, to keep things ‘water-tight’ it is considered best policy to wait for the suspect to leave the store before approaching. Of course, this can leave the security officer with the dilema that they now have to approach someone in a less controlled environment (outside) but that said, if the person wishes to evade capture and make off, they can do so far more easily now they are outside. This may seem counter-intuitive to stopping them for theft, but from a safety point of view it is generally better to let the shop-lifter escape than risk a potentially dangerous confrontation. How to approach a suspected shop-lifter is a lesson in itself and shall be dealt with shortly at this guide.

So there we have S.C.O.N.E. It’s not perfect and there may be times where you are sure as an officer that someone has committed the act of shoplifting, but I would urge you to think carefully before acting if you cannot ‘tick’ all the S.C.O.N.E ‘boxes’. It is generally not worth taking the risk. Let’s face it, that’s why S.C.O.N.E was devised in the first place.

Ignore it at your peril.

agrinnall

hollydays wrote: »

Deanna , this may help everyone to understand the thought processes staff SHOULD go through before having a confrontation with a " suspect ".
Paraphrased as " ignore S.C.O.N.E. at your peril":)

If you're going to illustrate your point with an acronym then you need to explain what that acronym means, I can see nothing in the thread that does that for S.C.O.N.E. and I for one didn't have a clue what it meant until I looked it up.

http://thesecurityofficersguide.co.uk/scone-retail-security/

Edit: Cross posted with hollyday's further explanation.

hollydays

agrinnall wrote: »

If you're going to illustrate your point with an acronym then you need to explain what that acronym means, I can see nothing in the thread that does that for S.C.O.N.E. and I for one didn't have a clue what it meant until I looked it up.

http://thesecurityofficersguide.co.uk/scone-retail-security/

I accept your apology. Thanks for googling what I'd posted.:cool:

George_Michael

hollydays wrote: »

I accept your apology

Why should agrinnall apologise?

You posted at 11.06 agrinnall posted at 11.07 then you amended your post at 11.08 which is after the question about the acronym was asked.

agrinnall

hollydays wrote: »

I accept your apology. Thanks for googling what I'd posted.:cool:

No apology needed, I responded to your post before your explanations were added. I will amend my post to explain that but I won't be apologising for your failure to explain in the first place.

spadoosh

SCONE isnt law its policy.

Dont see they did too much wrong.

A few things. Would you have preferred they asked you to go to a back room/office to make enquiries? I'd imagine that would look more like theft.

A checkout operator is rarely going to see someone pick up something and conceal, theyre normally quite busy and focused on the person in front of them. They are also the stores last line.

As was said, a lot of stores run on minimal staff, the chances of seeing theft taking place are actually quite rare,not to mention there would need to be a certain amount of suspicion prior to deciding to watch someone.

Ive worked in retail and understand the very real losses (And subsequent increase in price due to theft). I will always try and mitigate the chance of accusations but understand if your acting in a suspicious manner or have goods that could be from the store youre in then someone might ask questions.

Whilst you might see as an attack on your integrity a thief will rarely make themselves out in a bad light and there is no knowledge of your character to be able to form a suitable opinion. All they had was you had products they sell in that store in your trolley and you showing no inclination to pay.

I would be quite happy for any checks (but then i understand there point of view) i see it as a good thing as the company attempting to reduce costs.

Its like dealing with police officers, they have a habit of thinking worst case as its normally what they have to deal with. Better to ask an intrusive/accusatory question than allow a loss. Where as you who doesnt deal with the issue everyday just likely see as an attack against you. Its not, its an attack against theft. From your pov youre not a thief, from there pov youre just as likely as the next person.

Similar with airport security. It can be quite invasive, i always get picked out for more thorough checks, its annoying but i understand checks need to be made to make things better for everyone.

hollydays

George_Michael wrote: »

Why should agrinnall apologise?

You posted at 11.06 agrinnall posted at 11.07 then you amended your post at 11.08 which is after the question about the acronym was asked.

Agrinall didn't see my post, which I edited to make it shorter.
I posted before agrinall , let's try to concentrate on the op..

hollydays

agrinnall wrote: »

No apology needed, I responded to your post before your explanations were added. I will amend my post to explain that but I won't be apologising for your failure to explain in the first place.

You cross posted agrinall, and that happens sometimes. There are some very long passages there and it took me a whole minute to add it after my previous post.

spadoosh

hollydays wrote: »

Agrinall didn't see my post, which I edited to make it shorter.
I posted before agrinall , let's try to concentrate on the op..

You didnt describe what scone was, im guessing youve been frantically googling to try and back up your argument. SCONE is policy not law.

marliepanda

This all seems like a huge mountain out of a molehill.

Staff asked a questions because there were items unpaid for that they sell.
Customer says 'oh silly me, I got these over the road, here's my receipt/feel free to check the cctv showing them in my possession as I walked in'

The end. All this faff on with embarassment is just silly. You go shopping, you think about what you're doing. I wouldn't walk into Tesco then take a multipack of coke cans out of my bag and start swigging, for example, without expecting someone to question it.