Grounds and tactics of security work to check buyers suspected of committing theft.
In the course of practical activities, security officers of retail enterprises very often face the need to check suspicious buyers and visitors to shopping centers for their «honesty», that is, for the presence or absence of unpaid (or more precisely, stolen) goods.
It is the actions of security personnel in carrying out this procedure that most often cause indignation and resentment of customers, especially in cases where suspicion is not confirmed. For this reason, a security officer must clearly understand the limits of the legality of his actions. And also calculate the possible negative consequences for the trading enterprise in terms of eliminating or minimizing the possibility of creating a conflict situation that can lead to the loss of loyalty of both the customer being checked and citizens who witnessed such a situation. Accordingly, in order to protect yourself from possible legal prosecution, to avoid the possible negative consequences indicated above, you need to understand and adhere to a certain algorithm of actions, which we will try to define in this article.
Legal component.
The consideration of such a concept as «personal search» should begin with the definition of the legal component of the implementation of this procedure. In accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to freedom and personal inviolability. Naturally, the procedure for a personal search is a certain limitation of this right and requires strict compliance with the norms of both the Basic Law and other legislative acts. The procedure and grounds for conducting a personal search are regulated by Article 27.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. In accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, a personal search, a search of things in the possession of an individual, that is, an examination of things carried out without violating their structural integrity, are carried out if necessary in order to detect the instruments of commission or objects of an administrative offense. The same article enshrines the provision according to which a personal search of individuals may be carried out strictly limited by federal legislation, a circle of persons.
IMPORTANT: Based on the above, it can be concluded that neither the security service employees of the retail structural divisions of a trading company, nor the employees of a private security company on duty at retail facilities on a contractual basis, have the right to carry out personal searches of citizens.
Since, as stated above, security service employees, like private security company employees, do not have the right to conduct personal searches, this article can only discuss the search of buyers suspected of «bad faith» as one of the extra-legal forms of control used by security officers. At the same time, we will avoid the term «search», using a more appropriate term for this procedure — «checking for the presence of unpaid goods». In official documents of a trading company, such as instructions and regulations, memos, information notes, reports, etc., it would be recommended to PROHIBIT the use of the term «search».
One of the prerequisites for the implementation of the procedure for checking buyers suspected of theft is that it should be carried out only by the most trained employees from among the security service employees, in a position not lower than the shift supervisor (or directly by the head of the security service). It would be recommended to prohibit private security company employees, including private security company shift supervisors, from directly carrying out this procedure if possible (that is, if the retail enterprise has its own control service). Participation of private security company employees or ordinary employees of the retail enterprise's control service as escorts or providing additional physical security for the participants in the procedure in question is permissible.
The implementation of a check of a buyer suspected of dishonesty can be conditionally divided into several stages:
1. Determining the need to check a customer or a visitor to a shopping center for the presence or absence of unpaid goods. 2. Accompanying this person to the room designated for the check. 3. The check procedure itself. 4. Documenting the check results. 5. Making a decision regarding the person who stole the goods.
The basis for carrying out actions aimed at checking a buyer or visitor to the Company's shopping center for the presence of unpaid goods (this check is not always associated with a personal search by police officers) is the availability of sufficient data allowing us to assume that the person has unpaid goods.
Such data may be:
- direct visual observation by a security officer of the buyer's actions that may be regarded as concealment of goods;
- receiving information about such actions from security officers working in covert mode;
- receiving information through video surveillance systems;
- receiving information from other employees of the shopping center;
- receiving information from buyers or visitors to the shopping center;
- triggering an anti-theft system on a buyer or his carry-on baggage;
- availability of information that the person has previously been repeatedly detained for theft;
- visually noticeable protruding elements of clothing, footwear, headwear, etc., suggesting the presence of hidden foreign objects;
- discovery of unpaid goods in the possession of the buyer that were not hidden, but there was an attempt to take them out openly;
- behavior, condition, appearance of the buyer, indicating possible «bad faith» on his part.
Any security officer may determine or indicate the need to conduct a check of a person, and the shift supervisor is immediately notified of this. The latter must immediately arrive at the scene and independently assess the sufficiency of the data to suspect the person of committing theft and the need to conduct a check.
Any work with a person suspected of committing theft is permissible subject to the condition of isolating this person from the rest of the customer flow.
Having determined the need to check a person for unpaid goods, the shift supervisor organizes his/her escort to the room where this check is carried out. Not always the person voluntarily agrees to go to the room, therefore the shift supervisor must coordinate his/her actions and the actions of other security officers in such a way that:
a) to prevent the development of a conflict situation in the sales area, checkout area or entrance area;
b) to prevent the possibility of “dumping” possibly stolen goods;
c) to prevent a person suspected of committing theft from leaving the shopping center territory
As a rule, persons who have committed petty theft in a shopping mall are not interested in their actions becoming public knowledge, so there are usually no particular problems with escorting them to the inspection room. However, when escorting a person, the shift supervisor must anticipate the possibility of any of the three situations described above. It is preferable to organize the escort in such a way that the shift supervisor follows the detainee and another security officer, with one of the escorts located between the entrance (or other areas of possible exit from the controlled area) and the detainee. It is desirable that another security officer follows the detainee at some distance, unnoticed by the latter, in order to record the possible fact of «dumping» of the stolen goods.
It should be remembered that the security guards of a shopping center do not have the right to detain or, in general, exert any physical influence on citizens, therefore any physical obstruction of a citizen to leave the shopping center can only be applied in the case where there is 100% certainty that a theft has been committed. In other cases, if a person ignores or does not obey the requests of the security guards to follow them for an inspection, since we cannot call them «legal demands», the only lawful actions will be to immediately call the police, while accompanying the citizen without using physical force against him, remembering his features, brand, car number, direction of travel and other actions to record what happened, within the framework provided by law.
In different shopping centers, the conditions in which you have to work with «detained» customers are different. Ideally, this is a special room for inspection, that is, a room designed specifically for this. Unfortunately, not all shopping centers have this option. Therefore, where there is no special room, you have to use the shift supervisor's room, or the so-called «monitor room» (the room of the video surveillance system operators) or other utility rooms as such a room. Naturally, if the «suspect» is checked in the «monitor room», all video surveillance system monitor screens must be turned off.
Regardless of the premises used for the inspection, it must meet certain requirements: — the premises in which the inspection is to be carried out must be thoroughly inspected by the security service of the commercial enterprise before the inspection; — this premises must be monitored by means of a video surveillance system; — doors to adjacent premises and windows, if any, must be closed (closed, — tinted), objects that can be used as means of attack — removed; — access to the premises where the inspection is carried out for the presence of unpaid goods, persons not participating in this inspection and the possibility of observing the inspection by such persons, with the exception of the operators of the video surveillance system, must be excluded.
The actual procedure of checking a customer or a visitor to a shopping center must begin with a question from the person conducting the check (we repeat, not lower than the shift supervisor), «Does the citizen subject to check have goods that were not paid for at the checkout?» If the basis for a possible check was the activation of an anti-theft system, then the question should be formulated differently, for example, «Can you assume what caused the anti-theft system to be activated?» It is necessary to remember that not always, even sufficient grounds for checking, subsequently confirm the fact of the presence of unpaid goods. Therefore, in any case, the checking procedure, including asking questions, must be as correct as possible. Further developments depend on the behavior of the citizen being checked. In any case, the security officer must legally avoid the inspection procedure and force the unscrupulous buyer to independently present the unpaid goods.
Option 1. The detained citizen voluntarily takes out and presents the hidden goods. This option is the most acceptable for the security officers, since all further actions of the security officers, from a legal point of view, are completely legal, since the detainee voluntarily went to the room to conduct the check and voluntarily presented the unpaid goods. Further actions of the security officer who carried out the check are aimed either at documenting this fact by bringing the citizen to legal responsibility, or at carrying out work to compensate for the damage previously caused by unidentified persons. It is natural to assume that there can be no certainty that the buyer will voluntarily present ALL the hidden unpaid goods. In the event that the citizen presented the unpaid goods and the security officer working with him decided to call the police, then his task is to ensure proper control over the behavior of the detainee until the police arrive in order to exclude the «dumping» of the rest of the goods. If the dumping did occur, then it is necessary to take measures to record this fact. As stated above, the premises must be monitored by a video surveillance system, and it is necessary to convey to the detainee that the fact of the dumping, recorded on the CCTV recordings, confirmed by witness testimony, only aggravates his guilt. Based on this fact, it is possible to build a tactic for further work with this buyer, using the psychological superiority of the security officer and the legal illiteracy of the detainee. Upon arrival of the police officers, they will independently, legally and in compliance with the necessary formalities, carry out the procedure of personal inspection. If, after the presentation of unpaid goods by the «unscrupulous» buyer, the security officer, having carried out certain work, decided to accept the offer of the detainee to compensate for a certain amount of damage, previously caused by the actions of unidentified persons, then it is necessary to independently take measures to check this buyer for the presence of other unpaid goods. In this case, the procedure of the so-called “inspection” is simplified, since there is already data that 100% indicates that this buyer committed theft.
Option 2. The detainee states that he does not have the unpaid goods with him. The development of events in this option may also vary. First of all, it depends on the reliability of the information about the likelihood of hiding the goods. If the security service employee has sufficient confidence that the information about a possible theft is reliable — the triggering of the anti-theft gate directly on the buyer or his hand luggage, information from a specific employee about the concealment of the goods and their failure to present them for payment, etc. — then the police are definitely called in to carry out and procedurally secure the personal search procedure. In this case, again, the task of the security service employees is — Ensuring proper control over the detainee in order to exclude the possible «dumping» of the stolen goods, and if the fact of «dumping» is established, recording this fact and securing it by possible legal means (video surveillance system recordings, witness testimony, ensuring the safety of fingerprints on the «dumped» goods, etc.). If the security officer does not have sufficient confidence in the commission of illegal actions by the detainee, but there are grounds for verification, for example, the person has previously been repeatedly detained for theft, his behavior, condition, appearance indicate the «bad faith» of the buyer, or the actions about which information was received did not directly indicate the concealment of goods, but did not exclude such a possibility, the security officer must take measures to verify this citizen.
Tactical methods of verification:
When checking a buyer who has stated that he does not have the unpaid goods with him, various tactical and psychological methods can be used:
- One of the psychological techniques that can be used is the following: using a citizen's legal illiteracy, as a result of which the latter is given the illusion that the actions of the security service employees are legitimate. For example, one can refer to the Rules for conducting searches at enterprises and organizations, approved by Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers of March 19, 1984, No. 241. These Rules state that searches of things of persons located in the premises or on the territory of enterprises and organizations, and in exceptional cases personal searches, are carried out if the administration or employees providing security have sufficient evidence that theft has been committed. The Rules list specific grounds for conducting a search: — the person is caught in the act of committing theft or immediately after it has been committed; — there are traces on the person's clothes and things that suggest that he or she has committed theft; — eyewitnesses directly point to this person as having committed the theft; — the access control has been violated or there are corresponding indications from technical means. Having explained to the citizen that the security officers of the trading enterprise have the right to carry out a search, the employee carrying out the inspection may again ask the citizen to present the unpaid goods. It is not difficult to assume that, having convinced the citizen of the inevitability of finding unpaid goods on him, it is possible to achieve that the latter will nevertheless independently present the goods in his possession;
- If the buyer, who needs to be checked, is in a state of alcoholic intoxication, regardless of its degree, this circumstance should be used first of all. The security officer should explain to this citizen that even without checking, he already has sufficient grounds for calling the police, since the citizen appeared in a public place intoxicated. The discovery of unpaid goods by the police will only worsen his situation. As a rule, people who are intoxicated already feel guilty and are quite tolerant of the procedure of checking them for unpaid goods. Of course, there are situations «exactly the opposite», that is, an aggressive attitude of citizens to the fact of their detention. In this case, the security officer can also use the citizen's behavior as a basis for immediately calling the police, and in the course of registering the citizen for petty hooliganism, voice his suspicions regarding possible theft by the same citizen.
The stage that we have formulated as documenting the results of the inspection is quite conditional. It is legally established that the procedure of personal search is recorded in the protocol of personal search, which is drawn up by the official who carried out the personal search in compliance with all necessary requirements. Since we initially determined that the employees of the security service of a trading company, like the employees of a private security company, are not subjects of the right to carry out a personal search, they do not have the right to document any results. When we talk about documenting the results of the inspection, we are talking about cases when the police are not involved in the investigation of the committed petty theft. In these cases, documenting comes down to the following:
- recording the offender's personal data in the records of the security service employees of the trading enterprise (See the article «Forms of records of the senior shift security» http://psj.ru/saver_people/detail.php?ID=67664);
- photographing the offender for possible subsequent posting of the photograph on the «they take other people's things» stand (which is currently used very rarely), as well as for orienting the security service employees to monitor this citizen during subsequent visits to the trading enterprise.
If the police were involved in identifying and recording the fact of theft, then the security officers may act as eyewitnesses, witnesses of the theft, applicants (in the event of the presence of the appropriate power of attorney to represent the interests of the enterprise), and accordingly give written testimony, statements, provide other material evidence of the committed offense or crime, etc.
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that legally and tactically competent and, at the same time, correct actions of security service employees are necessary in working with all customers and visitors of a retail enterprise, including «unscrupulous» customers. Following the recommendations set out in this article will allow the maximum use of the opportunities available to the security service units to minimize the losses of a trading company from the actions of citizens «who like to take other people's things.»
June 1, 2011
Belov Viktor Nikolaevich.