Potter says lifetime bans from stores not enforceable
A lifetime ban from Wal-Mart or any other store may be unenforceable, according to District Attorney General Dale Potter, who said while the intent is good, the legal footing may be shaky.
Lifetime bans for repeat shoplifters from various retail stores have become more common as of late, both in the local court system and around the country. The bans go beyond the traditional one- or two-year banishment and are aimed at people who persist in stealing from certain retailers.
Given the upswing in bans, the question has been posed as to whether the ban covers just the local store or any store in the chain.
“I believe it’s only enforceable in the jurisdiction the judge has,” Potter said. “It would be hard for a court to ban someone from Wal-Marts nationwide.”
Bans themselves, Potter said, are a good tool for keeping repeat shoplifters out of stores for the most part. People who are ordered to stay out of certain stores, but fail to comply, face a multitude of potential charges including contempt of court, violation of probation, and the most common charge of criminal trespass.
“There are a few who will ignore the orders and get caught going into places again,” Potter said. “If they are caught, then we can take action.”
However, the long-term bans, Potter said, are unenforceable.
“In sessions court, a year is as long as it can go because that’s the maximum sentence a person can be on probation,” Potter said. “Now in other courts, there could be longer bans because it can be a term of their probation for as long as they are on probation. Once they are off probation, it would be tough to enforce such a ban.”
While saying there are limitations on court bans, Potter said the retailers themselves can take steps outside the criminal court to keep career shoplifters out of their stores by seeking court injunctions and restraining orders against the people. However, just as in the case of orders of protection, they would have to be renewed by the court periodically.