Mistakes happen. As an dog bite attorney in Orange County, Paul W. Ralph knows this better than most. However, in cases of harm or personal injury, it is important to see those responsible held accountable for their actions. That is why he works so hard to get redress for his clients, working also as a Orange County personal injury attorneys.
In most unlawful arrest or imprisonment cases, private security is involved. While the law in California allows for any private person to make a “citizen’s arrest”, there are restrictions and limited authority to do so. Compared to a police officer, a security officer has far less authority in detaining individuals. When a person has been detained or arrested unlawfully, that person becomes a victim and has a right to be compensated for any physical harm or emotional upset that results.
To protect their property and maintain business peace, most retailers and large property owners hire guard and agents. These are generally uniformed guards from a security service patrolling the location. Their primary function is to ensure certain rules are obeyed (relative to parking and other activities), and they rarely have the chance to capture suspected law violators. When guards detain or arrest a person, they are taking a chance of violating that individual's right to be free of unlawful imprisonment. For instance, if someone is detained by a guard for breaking into a car, which happens to be that individuals own car, that person has the right for compensation for any unlawful use of force in the arrest. In the worst case scenario, a guard can use his weapon and hurt someone that he wrongly believes committed a crime. For this situation, there may be some liability issues for substantial damages and injuries, and the employer and guard may be legally responsible.
Agents in retail security and loss prevention probably come into contact with more suspected law violators than others in the field of private law enforcement. It is not unusual for an "undercover" shoplift agent to catch an alleged shoplifter and follow through with criminal prosecution. If the agent is not reasonably sure that the shoplifter really stole something from a shop, compensation may be given to the victim for emotional and physical harm that he suffered. It is possible for the agent to be immune from liability if there is "probable cause" to believe the suspect did in fact take or attempted to take store merchandise unlawfully. This is called "merchant's privilege" and, although not absolute, it can be called into play to protect a retailer in the even of a lawsuit.
Not only may the retailers and property owners be held responsible for false arrest and imprisonment, they may also be held liable for malicious prosecution of a criminal case if the accused is found not guilty in the end. Sometimes, an inexperienced or overzealous guard or agent will unlawfully apprehend or arrest an individual and then add to the trouble by insisting on a criminal prosecution. If the case goes to court resulting in an acquittal, the falsely accused person has a right to be compensated for the initial detention and arrest, as well as the criminal prosecution. They will not impose liability on the guard or agent until it can be proven that said guard was not acting with probable cause. Because most private law enforcement employees do not have the same training or education as police officers, it is common for these errors to occur.
There is an endless amount of harm that can be caused if someone is falsely arrested or imprisoned. A trial lawyer with experience will assist you in sorting through the truths and the legal system to achieve a fair outcome.
- Related Articles
- Related Q&A
- California Motorcycle Accident Lawyer’s Top Ten Last Things You Least Want to See Coming Your Way to Avoid Having a Ca Motorcycle Accident
- Dana Point Bicycle Accident Lawyer’s Top Ten Worst Things to Hear During a Bicycle Accident
- Laguna Niguel Motorcycle Accident Lawyer’s Top Ten Worst Things to Hear From the Police After a Motorcycle Accident
- Preventing California Bicycle Accidents - a Newport and Laguna Beach Bicycle Accident Lawyer Looks at Goofy Bicycle Laws
- Santa Barbara, Long Beach and Palm Desert Catastrophic Accident Lawyer Explains the Difference an Attorney Can Make and the Statute of Limitations
- Fullerton Bicycle Accident Lawyer’s Top Ten Things Lawyers Know Can Make a Bicycle Accident More Serious
- Costa Mesa Bicycle Accident Attorney’s Top Ten Ways Doctors Mess With You After a Bike Accident
- Irvine Bicycle Accident Lawyer’s Top Ten Worst Excuses for Running Into Someone in a Bicycle Accident
This entire incident started because I questioned the customer service of Jewel Foods and I was denied a manager by the Jewel Foods Security Guard. When the Guard denied me a manager he smiled as if it was a joke. I told the security guard, "What do I have to do? Do I have to go down the street and get some of my rich white friends and come back so you can open up the self check out line? That comment made the Jewel Security Guard mad and he followed me to the grocery line and blocked me in, knocked my orange juice out of my hands, grabbed me by the arms and pushed me out of the line. I was pushed to register #3 where I was picked up and slammed to the concrete floor where I yelled for help because I was in pain. I was dragged from register #3 to Register #10 by a Jewel Food Security Guard by one handcuff which cut into my skin and I was dragged by a Monterrey Security Guard by the other arm. I was yelling because I was in pain because of the slam to the floor and the handcuff cutting into my skin while I was being dragged. The security guards were trying to pull me into the Loss Prevention Office which the customer did not allow that to happen because they witnessed the security guard touching me for no reason.
A customer called 911 and once the Chicago Police arrived the customers were trying to explain to them what happen but refused to listen. The customer who called 911 tried to explain to the Chicago Police Officer he called 911 and the officer choose not to listen. In the Chicago Police Report it states, The Reporting Officer Was responding to a battery: The customer who called said, "They are beating this guy up in front of Jewel." I'm wondering why did the Chicago Police refused to take a statement from the customer? Did the Chicago Police look at the video evidence?
I went to court on 4/30 to fight the Charges of Criminal Trespassing and the Jewel Foods filed an additional charge of Battery and Disorderly Conduct.
3/19 Criminal Trespassing to Land: "KNOWINGLY REMAINED UPON THE LAND OF JEWEL FOODS LOCATED AT 1224 S. WABASH AFTERRECIEVING NOTICE FROM OWNER/OCCUPANT.AGENT TO DEPART."
4/30 Battery: The Security Guard signed a complaint in Court claiming Battery. "Intentionally or knowingly without legal justification made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the complainant in that the defendant swung fist at complaint hitting complainant in the arm."
4/30 Disorderly Conduct: The Cashier signed a complaint in Court claiming Disorderly Conduct. Knowingly acted in such an unreasonable manner as to disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peach in that the defendant was screaming and yelling which prevented the complainant from performing her duties as a cashier for Jewel.
Go to Youtube and type in "Jewel-Osco Security Guard Gone Wild"
Video #1 and 2 will show the Security Guard following me to the grocery line.
Video # 3 will show the Security Guard grabbing me and pushing me out of the Grocery Line.
Video # 4 will show the Security Guard lifting me up from behind and slamming me to the floor.
Video # 4, #5 and #6 will show I was dragged by the security guards.
Video # 7 will show I was dragged and jerked by the handcuff and arrested by the Chicago Police Officers.
The Trespassing Charges
The security guard told the judge he told me in the Grocery Line that if I could not keep quiet he would have to tell me to leave. The Judge asked the Security Guard, "So you gave the defendant a condition?" The security guard said, "Yes."
1st My attorney asked the security guard to read the Trespassing Warning in court and when he read the warning he did not know what time it was given to me. There's two different times on the warning.. 1st It states it was given to me at 1:15am and 2nd It states it was given to me at 1:25am. There was no way I received any Trespassing warning because at 1:15am I was grabbed and pushed out of the line and slammed to the floor at. Then I was dragged from register 3 to 10 by one handcuff.
2nd The trespassing warning also state, "The above named person was advised that if he/she returns to said premises that he/she would be in violation of this Trespass Warning and be subject to arrest." In order for the Trespassing Warning to be valid I had to leave and come back onto the Premises I was band from.
3rd My attorney asked the security guard the following question to show I was illegally detain with warning.
A: Where was my client standing? The security guard replied in line.
B: What was on my Client left side? The security guard replied, a pop machine and a candy rack.
C: What was on my Client Right side? The security guard said the self-check out line.
D: Who was standing behind my Client? The security guard said he was.
F: My attorney said, "If my client wanted leave out of the store would he go in the direction you were standing which is behind my client or would he go in the direction the customer were facing. Better yet, would it be easier to say the only Exits would be in the front of the store and not the back? The security guard said the only Exit would be the front of the store?
My attorney said, if you were blocking his rear, the pop machine and the candy rack is blocking his left, the self-check out line was blocking his right and the 10 to 15 customers in front of my client was blocking his front which prevented him from Exiting the Store, please explain to the courts if you gave my client a trespassing warning to leave, how was he going to leave if he was blocked in? The security guard could not answer.
4th The security guard said they gave the Trespassing Warning to the Chicago Police after I was arrested and assumed they gave it to me.
5th In Jewel and Monterrey Security they lied about the security guard was telling me to leave several times and that never occurred.
6th The Security Guard from Monterrey Security was asked why did he sign his name on the Trespassing Warning as a witness? He said I was in the parking lot and I did not know what was going on?
The charges were dropped because it showed he blocked me in, he had no reason to stop follow me to the grocery line which he told the judge he did not follow me, the times were wrong and in order for the trespassing warning to be valid he would have to word it correctly, give it to me directly and time must match.
Battery Charges:
1: The Video Evidence shows I never swung at anyone.
2: The Judge looked at the Video Evidence and said, "It clearly shows the security guard grabbed the defendant and there is not proof of the defendant swinging according the the video evidence."
3: The Security Guard from Monterrey Security wrote in his statement, "At this point the man dropped to the ground of his own will and started to scream."
4. In court the Security Guard told the Judge he could not remember because it's been so long but later said, "1st it look like he dropped to the ground on his own. 2nd it look like Christopher Mendoza laid him on the ground and 3rd I did not have a clear view."
5. The video evidence shows I was slammed to the floor by Jewel Loss Prevention and Monterrey Security Guard was standing directly in front of me.
On May 16, 2008 Christopher Mendoza told the Judge that I swung at him with a bag of Pistachios Nuts and when he blocked my swing with his arm and the Pistachios Nuts when everywhere on the floor. The Monterrey Security Guard support the story also.
March 19, 2007 Christopher Mendoza wrote in his Loss Prevention Incident Report, "He Gestured as if he was going to strike me, I blocked his arem and tried to handcuff the subject. Kerry Kielbon (Monterrey Security) assisted me."
March 19, 2007 Christopher Mendoza told the Chicago Police, "At this time subject was asked to leave premise, subject refused stating he would make a scene if security touched him subject was asked again to leave and refused, at this point security attempted to place subject into customdy, scuffle ensued while handcuffs were being placed on offender."
April 30, 2007 Christopher Mendoza filed a complaint in court stating, "Intentionally or knowingly without legal justification made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the Complainant in that: The defendant swung fist at complainant hitting complainant in the arm.
May 16, 2008 Christopher Mendoza told the judge I swung toward his face with a bag of Pistachios and he blocked the swing with his arm which made the bag of Pistachios fall on the floor.
My attorney asked where did the allege swing take place and the security guard was not able to give that information. My attorney asked did this take place after you tried to arrest my client or before you tried to arrest my client? The Security Guard from Jewel Foods said, "It took place before I tried to arrest him." So my attorney said we should be able to see Pistachios Nuts everywhere on the floor, Correct? The Jewel Food Security Guard agreed?
We showed the Video Evidence from Line #1 Which show no punches were thrown and it clearly showed he grabbed me and pushed me out of the line. We paused the video which showed I had Pistachios in my hand and we showed the floor area where Pistachios show have been and there were not Pistachios on the floor because I had the bag in my hand. We showed Video Evidence from Line #3 which show the Jewel Foods Security Guard picking me up from behind which holding my arms in the air. We pause the video and it showed I had Pistachios in my hands and there were not Pistachios on the floor. We were about to show more of the video and the Judge said, "That's Enough." I'm sure she was in disbelief of what happen and the video showed they were lying..
The judge looked at the video and said, It clearly shows the security guard grabbing the defending and pushing him out of the line. There is no proof showing the defendant swing at anyone and there are no Pistachios on the floor.
The Jewel Security guard was asked if I was handcuff and he replied, "No". The video evidence showed the security guard dragging me from lane #3 to lane #4 and you see customers taking pictures with their phones because he was dragging and jerking me by the handcuff.
Disorderly Conduct:
The Jewel Food Cashier claimed my yelling for help and 911 stopped her from doing her job. The video evidence clearly show she never stop working and did not witnessed the incident.
The cashier wrote the following statement on 4/3/2007: "I was the only line open and the line was long and customers were complaining about the line but there was no help I had no extra bodies to perform the job."
The cashier did not show up to court on April 1, 2008 and on May 16, 2008 my attorney asked to have the disorderly charge dropped but a Manager in the Loss Prevention Department said Linda Williams passed away. The Judge allowed the Disorderly Conduct to stay because the Loss Prevention Manager stood in her place. The charges were later dismissed because there was no proof of Disorderly Conduct I did not need to show any video evidence to prove my innocence.
Jewel Foods and Monterrey Security tried to intimidate me not to come to court and I was harassed for about 8 months. I was also told by the Loss Prevention Manager if I sign a letter no to file Civil Suit they would drop the charges. The Loss Prevention Manager also stated, " Beside, I'm 22 and Zero when I come to court." I told him the charges are weak and false and I'm going to fight this in court.
On May 16, 2008 I was offered a plea of 3 months supervision from Jewel Food Loss Prevention. I was also offered to plea no Contest and to stay out of Jewel. I told my attorney no because I did not do anything wrong and I would rather fight this in court.
On May 16, 2008 I was found Not Guilty of all the charges filed against me.
I was found not Guilty of Criminal Trespassing to Land
I was found not Guilty of Disorderly Conduct
I was found not Guilty of Battery
The Court Transcript will show the Security Guards lied from day 1 and 95% of their statement was conflicting.
Understanding Cyberstalking
By: Dennis | 07/07/2009Cyberstalking is a fairly new term now commonly used to refer to the online version of stalking someone. It is an undesirable product brought about by the effectiveness of the Web into connecting people online. It is a particularly serious subject that still requires careful study and may pose a challenge to law enforcement authorities in terms of prevention and prosecution.
Crisis Intervention Team
By: Michael Hill | 14/06/2009Counselling Services Centre is the only Agency in Counties Manukau providing a 24 hour, 7 day per week response service for victims and survivors of sexual assault.
Who owns the content of your website?
By: Pina Mazzotti | 11/06/2009Website owners need to be vigilant concerning the origin of their website content. If the website owner or employees, whose job it is to design website content have not created all of the content, then it is highly likely that the website owner should have either obtained consents, a licence or an assignment of the rights in the various elements of the website.
Resolving domain name disputes
By: Pina Mazzotti | 11/06/2009Increasingly frequently more and more businesses are promoting themselves via their websites, leading to many of the most popular domain names getting snapped up, and in some cases duplicated, prompting ill-advised and expensive domain name litigation. Pina Mazzotti outlines what can be done to resolve domain name disputes.
3 Important Guidelines for Real Estate Investors
By: Pat Gage | 01/06/2009Every business has its own set of rules and guidelines that you follow. Real estate investing can be difficult to find guidelines to follow if you’re new to the business. While real estate investing....
How Internet Marketing Can Get You In Hot Water
By: Marios Pattihis | 23/04/2009Read how new regulations surrounding internet marketing can make your current advertising activity a criminal offence....
Internet Based Guerilla Armies Attacking National Internet Services and Grind Systems to a Halt
By: Stig Kristoffersen | 10/02/2009Latest attack is Kirgisistan which became isolated from the internet by hackers in January 2009. An internet based guerilla army of hackers makes sure that Kirgistan is having problems with their internet access outside the country.
Hacking – the Last Option for Job as a Computer Specialist in Eastern Europe?
By: Stig Kristoffersen | 10/02/2009Lots of intellectuals within computer science within Eastern Europe have lots of knowledge and know how. However, they are struggling getting a computer related job. Especially during the recessions or depression going on these days all over the globe, but hits the Eastern Europeans more than anywhere on the globe.
Important Information on Insurance Bad Faith
By: Paul W Ralph | 19/09/2008 | Cyber LawIn the State of California, it is a generally held belief that an insurance company is obligated to deal with its policyholders fairly, in good faith, and deal fairly when a claim is presented.
Understanding Wrongful Termination
By: Paul W Ralph | 10/07/2008 | Personal InjuryThe rule usually followed in California is that the employment of an employee may be terminated at the will of the employer even in the absence of lawful reasons. When there is no explicit written or verbal contract of employment that has been entered into, such an employment arrangement is termed "at-will employment," which is usually the case with most employees.