Archived ETL-AP using probation officer to harass TMs?

[NPC]

Hi everyone -

Thank you all for the feedback!

I decided to stop by a criminal defense attorney office near my place that I googled a few hours ago just because I was getting paranoid this may not be the end of it and the cops were going to raid my house or something.

Basically, he told me I was SOL. He said that what the probation officer did was called a "consensual encounter" and was totally legal in my state. Basically, he said it was my fault the moment I answered his first question, and that by doing so I basically "gave legal implied consent" to the "encounter". He said what I should have done was immediately told him that I didn't want to answer any questions and asked him to leave me alone, but, because I didn't, he had every right to follow me and ask me questions in a public place. He said that the probation officer also could keep me there because something I may have said could have given him "reason to believe" I had drugs. I told him nothing I said would have implied that. Then he asked me if I had it on video. I told him no, but the store cameras in the parking lot may have. He said unless they had audio there is no way to prove that I didn't say anything incriminating for him to keep me there while a cop came with a drug dog.

He also said that what the cop did was totally legal in my state because both my car and myself was in a public place, and they can walk a police dog anywhere in a public place. He said that all it would have taken was the dog to bark on me or my car and it would have given them probable cause to literally (completely legally) rip my car apart searching it.

He also said that since it was Target's property and someone with management authority basically was cool with him being there, I can't do anything at all about him being there in the future. He also said probation officers have powers to go to places of business to verify that people who are on probation are holding down a job, and I have no way of knowing if that is what he was doing there. He also said the ETL-AP probably didn't do anything illegal and that one of the TMs who heard what I said could have "suspected that a crime was going to occur" if they thought I was serious about getting drugs from the dude that was high, and that they could report that to the police.

So, basically, he told me I was screwed, but to tell him to leave me alone in the future and not answer any questions if it ever happened again.

Oh and the best part? He charged me $80 for the "consultation".

Well if it happened in the parking lot...Target doesn't own the parking lot, so that's not really on their property. I dunno if that makes a difference.

 

[thetargetman]

Id be making several complaints! The first against AP for using an outside entity to intimidate, Id making a complaint against the Probation wannabe cop, and Id make a complaint about that officer with the dog for trying to violate my constitutional rights! If a cop ever asks if they can search my car I always politely say "officer I know you are just doing your job but I do NOT consent to searches."

 

[pfreshdude]

Hi everyone -

Thank you all for the feedback!

I decided to stop by a criminal defense attorney office near my place that I googled a few hours ago just because I was getting paranoid this may not be the end of it and the cops were going to raid my house or something.

Basically, he told me I was SOL. He said that what the probation officer did was called a "consensual encounter" and was totally legal in my state. Basically, he said it was my fault the moment I answered his first question, and that by doing so I basically "gave legal implied consent" to the "encounter". He said what I should have done was immediately told him that I didn't want to answer any questions and asked him to leave me alone, but, because I didn't, he had every right to follow me and ask me questions in a public place. He said that the probation officer also could keep me there because something I may have said could have given him "reason to believe" I had drugs. I told him nothing I said would have implied that. Then he asked me if I had it on video. I told him no, but the store cameras in the parking lot may have. He said unless they had audio there is no way to prove that I didn't say anything incriminating for him to keep me there while a cop came with a drug dog.

He also said that what the cop did was totally legal in my state because both my car and myself was in a public place, and they can walk a police dog anywhere in a public place. He said that all it would have taken was the dog to bark on me or my car and it would have given them probable cause to literally (completely legally) rip my car apart searching it.

He also said that since it was Target's property and someone with management authority basically was cool with him being there, I can't do anything at all about him being there in the future. He also said probation officers have powers to go to places of business to verify that people who are on probation are holding down a job, and I have no way of knowing if that is what he was doing there. He also said the ETL-AP probably didn't do anything illegal and that one of the TMs who heard what I said could have "suspected that a crime was going to occur" if they thought I was serious about getting drugs from the dude that was high, and that they could report that to the police.

So, basically, he told me I was screwed, but to tell him to leave me alone in the future and not answer any questions if it ever happened again.

Oh and the best part? He charged me $80 for the "consultation".

I know he knows the law way better than I do obviously but how is answering questions consensual when he was a former coworker at that store and probably didnt disclose he was an officer or anything. I mean it could just as well be some random guy, and yes I know you knew his position and who he was...idk..just seems kind of dumb to me but idk whatever

Asking is that your car over there....is that really consent to everything else that happened...for real?

 

[anathema]

Some Targets do own the parking lot. Not a lot, but it's a possibility.

Honestly, I would talk to your STL. That person can decide if they want to foster that kind of culture of harassing TMs on their property. It was a dumb joke, sure, but I can't fathom a good STL wanting a probation officer questioning their TMs at the slightest hint of malfeasance.

Never talk to anyone that tries to impose themselves on you or your property. If he came up to me I would have laughed in his face and walked away. It's a shame that people with the slightest hint of authority use it to bring other people down, often without legitimate reason. A probation officer has zero reason to question you or anyone that he isn't directly overseeing.

Go to STL. If STL doesn't work, hotline. If that does nothing, ask yourself if you're comfortable where you work. It's not okay to not be comfortable where you work.

 

[Catfish Rita]

Karma.

 

[masterofalltrades]

Well if it happened in the parking lot...Target doesn't own the parking lot, so that's not really on their property. I dunno if that makes a difference.

Target doesn't need to own the parking lot for it to be private. The only way for the parking lot to be public, is if the city or state owned it.

 

[carramrod]

he's probably just scared to death because as a probation officer he has to deal with real criminals that he is intimidated by and he wishes that he could go back to target and stop teenagers for stealing candy bars. that was probably the pinnacle of his life, never before did he feel more powerful and useful.

I know this is totally off-topic and I really don't want to get up on my soap box and derail the thread here, but I kind of take offense to this. People who steal are real criminals, whether you believe it or not, and some of them are worse then others. AP isn't just stopping kids with candy bars. It's stopping people you don't know, some of whom have serious criminal records, drug problems, or warrants, meaning that they can be desperate and they will do anything to avoid getting stopped and arrested. AP team members have been shoved punched, and had knives, guns, and dirty needles pulled on them. In my relatively short time with the company, I have been swung on twice and had a guy pull a needle on me and tell me he had AIDs. Just last week a loss prevention officer at Wal-Mart tried to stop a guy stealing a TV and was shot and killed. The loss prevention at the grocery store across the street from me stopped a guy who was trying to steal baby formula. He fought them hard, and they managed to drag him back inside in handcuffs. The cops came and found two knives and a large amount of heroin on him. They run his name and find out he was a wanted murderer who had just shot and killed someone a week ago and had escaped the police in a high-speed chase. So no, we're not just a punch of losers who are too afraid to be real cops and like to hang around and mess with teenagers. Loss prevention officers face real risk every day, despite the fact that some people like to think we're just goofy rent-a-cops.
On the actual topic, I am currently in law school (yay tons of fun) and I concur with what you posted from the criminal defense attorney. Nothing here seemed to violate actual law. Many probation officers have full police powers, and contrary to what others have said, the police don't need a warrant to walk a dog around your car. The Supreme Court determined that you have no right to privacy to the air around your car, which is essentially what the dog is searching. If he had indicated on your car, the police could have searched it without a warrant. As the lawyer pointed out, the police (or a probation officer) can approach anyone at any time and ask them questions, just like anybody on the street could. You are, of course, generally free to say "sorry I'm busy, gotta go". If they tell you you can't leave, now you're detained, and that's a different story. Detainment requires reasonable suspicion. Apparently in the course of your consensual conversation, the officer believed that something you said or did gave him reasonable suspicion (generally a very low bar to clear) and thus moved on to the detainment phase. Further, there is nothing to stop the police from approaching you on private property and questioning you. The police routinely patrol parking lots of businesses and stop and question suspicious individuals they come upon there. This is 100% legit. So, unfortunately for you, it seems like this whole encounter was legit, or at least it can't be proven to be not legit.
Now from a perspective of Target policy, it's a different story. If you could prove that the ETL-AP had sent the officer after you, it's definitely a problem. I think the hardest part would be proving that he was the one who sent the officer after you. The officer could say that he overheard you conversation, or that he found out about it from another person. Or he could say he just saw you and thought you were suspicious. Unless a report was filed, either by the police, or by the ETL in TCM that said that he notified the probation officer, there's not much to go on. I think you could complain that you feel harassed by the former TPS, and they might tell him to leave you alone. I highly, highly doubt that they would trespass a law enforcement officer from the store. That's just asking for trouble, and I don't see that happening ever.

 

[On6]

The laws in your state sound.....odd.

Also I'm no lawyer but I seriously doubt the Target parking lot is considered public place. Whether it's owned by Target or the shopping center it still should be considered private property.

 

[invictustaylor]

carramrod,

the ex ap guy was hiding behind the law to harrass somebody. he was also using his superior knowledge of the law to trick the op into forfeiting his constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. it wasn't a consensual encounter, he used his status to intimidate and harrass the op who had done nothing wrong and then ganged up on him with his cop buddy. had he been upfront and said i am concerned you are a marijuana user and you have some on the property right off the bat and asked to search his car and the op agreed, that is consensual.

all because he made a comment about a guest being stoned. but you are right not ever lp is afraid of being a cop. one of the lp at my store was UNABLE to be a cop and walked around addressing every tm as "chief" it was sad.

 

[invictustaylor]

and you are wrong that something was said in their course of conversation to give him reasonable suspicion. it was based off of a stoned guest in the store and the team member made an obvious joke about it. that is not reasonable suspicion.

 

[Amaazingdude]

The laws in your state sound.....odd.

Also I'm no lawyer but I seriously doubt the Target parking lot is considered public place. Whether it's owned by Target or the shopping center it still should be considered private property.

The OP's parking lot might be owned by the city or county or state. My Target's parking lot is owned by the County, and the county police force roams free.

 

[Makeshift TPS]

Never consent to a search. Force whoever wants to search your shit to do actual work and get a damn warrant.

Know your rights.

Technically a car is classified as a mobile asset, as opposed to a house or building, and does not require a warrant to search since mobile assets won't be there by the time you get a warrant, though department policies may have more specific protocols that govern this. Generally, all a Police Officer needs to search a vehicle is Probable Cause, the drug dog scoring a hit would be probable cause. Just trying to clarify.

 

[invictustaylor]

that will be changing soon because someone could have been in colorado or washington and had legal marijuana in their car and then at a later date and different location just because a dog indicates on a car is not probable cause that a law has been broken.

 

[001275]

Well if it happened in the parking lot...Target doesn't own the parking lot, so that's not really on their property. I dunno if that makes a difference.

My store owns the entire parking lot in which the shopping center we are in

 

[Makeshift TPS]

that will be changing soon because someone could have been in colorado or washington and had legal marijuana in their car and then at a later date and different location just because a dog indicates on a car is not probable cause that a law has been broken.

You need to take into account that it's still against federal law. Sure Officer Jon Doe Local might not be able charge you, but federal officers can still get you on a federal offense for it.

 

[invictustaylor]

unless they are feds they don't have the jurisdiction to enforce federal laws....

 

[Life201]

Hi everyone -

Thank you all for the feedback!

I decided to stop by a criminal defense attorney office near my place that I googled a few hours ago just because I was getting paranoid this may not be the end of it and the cops were going to raid my house or something.

Basically, he told me I was SOL. He said that what the probation officer did was called a "consensual encounter" and was totally legal in my state. Basically, he said it was my fault the moment I answered his first question, and that by doing so I basically "gave legal implied consent" to the "encounter". He said what I should have done was immediately told him that I didn't want to answer any questions and asked him to leave me alone, but, because I didn't, he had every right to follow me and ask me questions in a public place. He said that the probation officer also could keep me there because something I may have said could have given him "reason to believe" I had drugs. I told him nothing I said would have implied that. Then he asked me if I had it on video. I told him no, but the store cameras in the parking lot may have. He said unless they had audio there is no way to prove that I didn't say anything incriminating for him to keep me there while a cop came with a drug dog.

He also said that what the cop did was totally legal in my state because both my car and myself was in a public place, and they can walk a police dog anywhere in a public place. He said that all it would have taken was the dog to bark on me or my car and it would have given them probable cause to literally (completely legally) rip my car apart searching it.

He also said that since it was Target's property and someone with management authority basically was cool with him being there, I can't do anything at all about him being there in the future. He also said probation officers have powers to go to places of business to verify that people who are on probation are holding down a job, and I have no way of knowing if that is what he was doing there. He also said the ETL-AP probably didn't do anything illegal and that one of the TMs who heard what I said could have "suspected that a crime was going to occur" if they thought I was serious about getting drugs from the dude that was high, and that they could report that to the police.

So, basically, he told me I was screwed, but to tell him to leave me alone in the future and not answer any questions if it ever happened again.

Oh and the best part? He charged me $80 for the "consultation".

According to what I Googled, when you are being questioned during a "consensual encounter" you only need to ask the police, "Am I free to leave?" and then simply walk away when they say yes.

You don't have to give ANY personal information or hand over your license. And you certainly don't have to stay and be harassed for no reason.

I'd definitely bring this to the attention of HR and my STL. It's unreasonable & they should be aware of the games being played with Target employees.

 

[redeye58]

And the cops WILL get tired of a PO crying wolf too many times.

 

[Life201]

And the cops WILL get tired of a PO crying wolf too many times.

If they are professional & reasonable cops.

The cop who responded might be just as shady as the wannabe cop.

Target should be made aware of what happened so there is a record of the incident in their files.

 

[redeye58]

How many reports of 'suspected drug possession/use' based on a PO's say-so will a desk commander/sheriff tolerate before it starts looking like harassment?

 

[jdruthless88]

I know this is totally off-topic and I really don't want to get up on my soap box and derail the thread here, but I kind of take offense to this. People who steal are real criminals, whether you believe it or not, and some of them are worse then others. AP isn't just stopping kids with candy bars. It's stopping people you don't know, some of whom have serious criminal records, drug problems, or warrants, meaning that they can be desperate and they will do anything to avoid getting stopped and arrested. AP team members have been shoved punched, and had knives, guns, and dirty needles pulled on them. In my relatively short time with the company, I have been swung on twice and had a guy pull a needle on me and tell me he had AIDs. Just last week a loss prevention officer at Wal-Mart tried to stop a guy stealing a TV and was shot and killed. The loss prevention at the grocery store across the street from me stopped a guy who was trying to steal baby formula. He fought them hard, and they managed to drag him back inside in handcuffs. The cops came and found two knives and a large amount of heroin on him. They run his name and find out he was a wanted murderer who had just shot and killed someone a week ago and had escaped the police in a high-speed chase. So no, we're not just a punch of losers who are too afraid to be real cops and like to hang around and mess with teenagers. Loss prevention officers face real risk every day, despite the fact that some people like to think we're just goofy rent-a-cops.
On the actual topic, I am currently in law school (yay tons of fun) and I concur with what you posted from the criminal defense attorney. Nothing here seemed to violate actual law. Many probation officers have full police powers, and contrary to what others have said, the police don't need a warrant to walk a dog around your car. The Supreme Court determined that you have no right to privacy to the air around your car, which is essentially what the dog is searching. If he had indicated on your car, the police could have searched it without a warrant. As the lawyer pointed out, the police (or a probation officer) can approach anyone at any time and ask them questions, just like anybody on the street could. You are, of course, generally free to say "sorry I'm busy, gotta go". If they tell you you can't leave, now you're detained, and that's a different story. Detainment requires reasonable suspicion. Apparently in the course of your consensual conversation, the officer believed that something you said or did gave him reasonable suspicion (generally a very low bar to clear) and thus moved on to the detainment phase. Further, there is nothing to stop the police from approaching you on private property and questioning you. The police routinely patrol parking lots of businesses and stop and question suspicious individuals they come upon there. This is 100% legit. So, unfortunately for you, it seems like this whole encounter was legit, or at least it can't be proven to be not legit.
Now from a perspective of Target policy, it's a different story. If you could prove that the ETL-AP had sent the officer after you, it's definitely a problem. I think the hardest part would be proving that he was the one who sent the officer after you. The officer could say that he overheard you conversation, or that he found out about it from another person. Or he could say he just saw you and thought you were suspicious. Unless a report was filed, either by the police, or by the ETL in TCM that said that he notified the probation officer, there's not much to go on. I think you could complain that you feel harassed by the former TPS, and they might tell him to leave you alone. I highly, highly doubt that they would trespass a law enforcement officer from the store. That's just asking for trouble, and I don't see that happening ever.

Absolutely correct....the officer probably just wrote in his report, that due to an anonymous informant, or concerned citizen etc...the only reason any officer that I know of would say Mr. xyz informed me of this, would be mr. xyz calling 911 and generating an item for a true call for service...there is a difference between flag downs and calls for service...

 

[jdruthless88]

Id be making several complaints! The first against AP for using an outside entity to intimidate, Id making a complaint against the Probation wannabe cop, and Id make a complaint about that officer with the dog for trying to violate my constitutional rights! If a cop ever asks if they can search my car I always politely say "officer I know you are just doing your job but I do NOT consent to searches."

You SHOULD NEVER consent to a search, but always beware of the other probable causes, sight, smell, etc... Ive searched on Plain smell doctrine without consent... be aware of your rights, and the laws of your state/federal government...do not get caught being ignorant on these things!