Accused of Theft In A Shop

Billy_Bullocks

hollydays wrote: »

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.

It almost sound like you think no concealment equals not theft and the staff can't do anything.

Which is of course not true and regularly happens.

[Deleted User]

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

It almost sound like you think no concealment equals not theft and the staff can't do anything.

Which is of course not true and regularly happens.

No professional staff member would ask a member of the shopping public about products in their bag unless they actually left the shop with them and there was no attempt to pay. Even then, they really should not be approached at all unless they have been observed taking the items.

It's basic courtesy and good business. Retailers don't want to intimidate innocent customers because such actions are self defeating. Those customers don't come back.

Billy_Bullocks

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

No professional staff member would ask a member of the shopping public about products in their bag unless they actually left the shop with them and there was no attempt to pay. Even then, they really should not be approached at all unless they have been observed taking the items.

It's basic courtesy and good business. Retailers don't want to intimidate innocent customers because such actions are self defeating. Those customers don't come back.

Are you saying the op is mistaken?

dekaspace

On one occasion with me I went to buy 6 bottles of soft drink from a Aldi, to save time when packing I took one bottle out so person could scan it and said to security guard "can I put the other 5 bottles in bag before I go to till to save time" and they said "no problem" I did however make sure the staff could visibly see the bottles.

Though theres a fine line between a lot of things, if you give them the power to do something they can take it to extremes such as what I said earlier about staff attempting to go into customers private bags and being agressive and intimidating.

shaun_from_Africa

dekaspace wrote: »

if you give them the power to do something they can take it to extremes such as what I said earlier about staff attempting to go into customers private bags and being agressive and intimidating.

But staff going into customer's bags without that customer's permission could well be illegal and being aggressive and intimidating may also be illegal depending to what exactly they say and do.

Simply asking someone how an item came to be in their trolley however isn't in any way shape or form, illegal.

dekaspace

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But staff going into customer's bags without that customer's permission could well be illegal and being aggressive and intimidating may also be illegal depending to what exactly they say and do.

Simply asking someone how an item came to be in their trolley however isn't in any way shape or form, illegal.

But that would be how the staff interpret the rules, like what happened to my mother, they assumed they had a right to, and when complained company claimed mother was lying, took about a year and various higher up complaints but the truth came out in end and mother got an apology and staff member was sacked.

bouicca21

I was at the till in Waitrose with items from Lidl in a carrier bag as well as items I was going to buy in my wire basket. Assistant said 'What about those' pointing to carrier bag. I said I bought them elsewhere. I certainly did not expect to be asked to produce a receipt for them (I must have had one but heaven knows where I'd put it) and nor was I. Frankly if I had been asked for proof of purchase then like Deanna I would have been mortified.

Yes I know shops suffer from theft (including what they dub 'shrinkage', i.e. thefts by their own staff) but I don't expect to be treated like a thief when I am going about my normal everyday business and looking for the best price.

And btw M&S Food only issue a receipt if requested.

JReacher1

S C O N E doesn't apply here at all. This is a policy to stop a security guard wrongfully detaining someone for shop lifting.

This didn't happen to the OP. The OP was just asked why she wasn't paying for an item in her bag.

It is a different situation.

[Deleted User]

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

But nowhere does it say they can't ask a customer.

Sometimes it's not what's said (or asked), but the way it's said (or asked).

hollydays

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why on earth should all sales staff know or understand it?
In fact, your earlier post clearly stated that it was aimed at security staff.

They shouldn't.
Only the ones who insist on going in gung ho should .

I find most staff professional , I'm sure a 5 letter acronym isn't beyond them.

Most staff wouldn't have spoken to the op in this way, they'd have told their supervisor and/ or tried a deter.