6

Somewhat inspired by current events: Suppose in a supermarket, Alice puts the last thirty packages of toilet paper into her shopping cart. Bob then takes one of those packages from her cart without her consent. All of this happens before either of them has checked out. What law, if any, did Bob break?

It is my understanding that the merchandise is the market’s property until paid, and thus does not change its owner and thus, this is not a straightforward theft.

I am not specifying a jurisdiction, since I expect that the answer does not strongly depend on it.

Wrzlprmft
  • 715
  • 4
  • 15
  • It would be better if Bob took 29 of those packages and handed 29 to other shoppers. – gnasher729 Mar 19 '20 at 20:21
  • 1
    Of course, the most likely result in practice is that Alice complains to the store management, who demand that Bob leave without his selections and never come back. – Nate Eldredge Mar 20 '20 at 19:59

2 Answers2

6

This is common law Larceny

While some jurisdictions may have statutorily redefined larceny; it is a very old common-law crime.

For example, the common-law definition is still in use in (even though the punishment is statutorily specified in the Crimes Act 1900) and the first element of the crime is that "the property must belong to someone other than the accused".

The suggested jury direction from the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book says:

The law differentiates in a number of contexts between possession, control and ownership. Each of those concepts can become quite involved and complex. Fortunately, in the circumstances of the present case, it is neither necessary for me to seek to explain all their refinements to you, nor for you to understand all of those refinements.

However, to give you but the broadest of examples: if you were to buy, say, an expensive diamond from a jeweller, assuming that it was legally [his/hers] to sell to you in the first place, then, the moment you took physical delivery of it you would own it, have the control of it, and be in possession of it.

If, however, you proceeded to place it in a bank security box for safe keeping, you would, for some legal purposes anyway, cease to possess it, although you would still own it and be in control of it. If a robber broke into the bank and took your diamond, the robber would then be in possession of it, even though you would, in law, continue to be its owner.

When I direct you that the property must belong to someone other than the accused, all that is required is that, at the time of the taking, it must be owned, controlled or possessed by someone other than the accused. Thus in this context, the law uses the concept of belonging in the widest possible sense.

The overzealous shopper both controls and possesses the toilet rolls even though they are owned by the supermarket.

Community
  • 1
Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
3

If Bob takes packages from Alice's cart without her seeing it, that is theft.

If she sees it and attempts to prevent, like happened here, that is robbery.

It is my understanding that the merchandise is the market’s property until paid, and thus does not change its owner and thus, this is not a straightforward theft.

Legal ownership does not matter here. What matters is that Alice is in legal possession/control of the packages. Depriving her of this possession without her consent is a crime.

It would be up to the supermarket to limit the quantity she can actually purchase, not up to Bob.

Greendrake
  • 27,460
  • 4
  • 63
  • 126
  • In my state robbery requires "intent to steal". – D M Mar 19 '20 at 21:22
  • 1
    @DM Stealing is also about possession, not ownership. – Greendrake Mar 19 '20 at 21:38
  • 3
    The point made by @DM that the exact language of the statute in a particular state or country (as interpreted by case law there), is a good one. There is not "platonic" definition of robbery. It is defined one way in one place and another in another. In "heartland" straightforward cases the produce the same result, but at the margins, such as in the fact pattern in this case, they often produce different results. – ohwilleke Mar 19 '20 at 22:16
  • @Greendrake "If a person seeks to repossess himself of specific property which he owns and to which he has the present right of possession and the means he uses involves a gun or force, he might not have the intention to steal." - Edwards v. State, 181 NW 2d 383 - Wis: Supreme Court 1970. So it's not just about possession. – D M Mar 19 '20 at 22:31
  • @DM "which he owns and to which he has the present right of possession" does not apply to Bob is this scenario. He definitely has the intention to steal. – Greendrake Mar 20 '20 at 01:24
  • He definitely has the intention to steal. – In which case we are back to whether this is stealing or not. I also would not presume force, threat, etc. to be present, as it only unnecessarily complicates things. Bob could just have taken the packages when Alice wasn’t looking at her cart and the same fundamental question arises. – Wrzlprmft Mar 20 '20 at 08:55
  • @Wrzlprmft The key here is that the fact that Alice is not the legal owner yet is not a defence to Bob's crime, be it theft, larceny, robbery or similar. Alice is in legal possession, and Bob unlawfully deprives her of it. – Greendrake Mar 20 '20 at 09:51
  • "Bob takes the packages from Alice's cart blatantly in her presence without her consent." But the OP didn't specify that. According to this definition of "robbery", if Bob takes the merchandise without Alice noticing, then it is no longer robbery. – James Mar 20 '20 at 11:24
  • @James That Alice saw Bob take stuff from her cart was just my assumption (normally you would notice if someone takes stuff from your cart while shopping). If Alice did not see it then it is theft. Again, whether it is theft or robbery is not the main point here. The point is that it is crime despite that Alice is not legal owner of the stuff yet. – Greendrake Mar 20 '20 at 12:24
  • 2
    @Greendrake: I think it's not NICE to take something from someone's cart, but I'm not convinced that it's theft or robbery. Are we even sure that the item is in Alice's possession? It's in the store's shopping cart. Does it matter if Alice is currently touching the cart? What if she has walked 20 foot away from the cart? – James Mar 20 '20 at 13:31
  • @James What matters is just that Alice has put the items in her cart. They're no longer on the shelf for anyone to pick up but exclusively for her to check out — unless she changes her mind and puts them back on the shelf. – Greendrake Mar 20 '20 at 14:12
  • Which jurisdictions does this apply to? – Paul Johnson Mar 20 '20 at 18:05
  • @PaulJohnson I would actually struggle to name a jurisdiction where this answer does not apply to. There could be variations in crime semantics/definitions but the fact that Bob commits theft/robbery (or similar) stands. – Greendrake Mar 21 '20 at 05:27