Target Security Guard fired for Calling police on Shoplifter

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
This really is disheartening. I hope this guy gets a good lawyer.

----------------------------------------------

Washington Post News Article

Dallas Northington spent nearly eight years working for Target in loss prevention, roaming the stores and scanning the surveillance cameras. In an episode at the Leesburg Target store in May that he said was typical, a man was allegedly captured twice on video shoplifting, and Northington responded as he said he always did: He called the Leesburg police, made a report and provided them the videos of the two incidents.

But the man in the video may have been a Fairfax County sheriff’s deputy, Northington said he soon learned. And within days, two things happened: The deputy retired from the sheriff’s office and Target fired Northington, 29, a married father of two with a third child on the way.

Northington said Target officials told him that he had violated procedure by not filling out the proper paperwork before contacting the police, though he said his office had operated the same way for years. He said he also was told that he had been insubordinate for not seeking approval before calling police, though he said the standard practice was for him to act as needed.

But the man Northington said he and his supervisors identified as a deputy has not yet been charged with a crime though Northington said he had provided the man’s name and two color videos of him in action, his face clearly visible, to Leesburg police on May 27, the date of the second incident.

A Leesburg police spokesman said investigators were still trying to confirm the suspect’s identity. Northington said Leesburg police typically filed similar cases against shoplifters within a few days. He also said a Leesburg police sergeant investigating the case said while watching the surveillance video on May 27 that he recognized the man from a local gym where the two worked out. Store supervisors also knew the man, Northington said.

Northington said he is considering his legal options. “I’m confused and don’t understand why,” Northington said. “I’ve been there for eight years, no issues. I’m just trying to provide for my family, and I just really want to get back to work.”

Molly Snyder, a corporate spokeswoman for Target, said in an e-mail that she would not discuss the details of the case for privacy reasons. But in Northington’s case, she said, “we have conducted a full investigation and don’t believe there is any merit to this individual’s claims.”

Declan Leonard, Northington’s attorney, said he typically represents employers in such disputes, but “when we heard how he was treated by Target, we decided to step in.”

Leonard said Northington “intends to fight Target on this for as long as it takes.”

Northington said that in his role as an assets-protection specialist for Target, he had summoned the Leesburg police numerous times in recent years to investigate shoplifters and had done so without filling out any paperwork or seeking permission from a supervisor.

In the first alleged shoplifting, on May 16, Northington said, he arrived at work and his supervisor said he had noticed the man stick a tube of toothpaste into a bag after already paying for other items. He said the supervisor “didn’t feel comfortable” confronting the man, who the supervisor “thought was some sort of law enforcement.”

Northington said the store manager was contacted and the manager said he knew the man because they had participated in an NCAA March Madness pool together. The staff watched the surveillance video and decided, as they often did, Northington said, to wait for the man to return.

The man who Northington said appeared to be the deputy did not return a call seeking comment. The Washington Post is withholding his name because he has not been charged.

Northington said that when he clocked in on May 27, the supervisor told him the man had returned. That time, according to Northington, video appeared to show the man with a cart full of items at the pharmacy register inside the store but paying just for about half of them while concealing the cart from the cashier. After checking out, Northington said, the man wheeled away and stashed the rest of his merchandise, which Northington could not see, into the bags of purchased items and left.

Again, Northington said, the supervisor said he “didn’t feel comfortable” confronting the man, so the supervisor called Leesburg police and Northington went to the police station to file a report. A Leesburg sergeant then returned to the store, watched the video and said, “I know who that is,” Northington said. He said the sergeant also told him, “This is pretty serious” because the man was allegedly in law enforcement. Leesburg police confirmed that Northington had filed a police report on May 27. The Post did not independently review the video.

Soon after, Northington said, the supervisor told him the man’s full name. Northington said he phoned it in to the Leesburg police. It is unclear how the supervisor knew the man’s name.

On May 30, Northington said, he was called into the store’s personnel office and suspended for two days. The next week, he said, he was terminated for “gross misconduct.” He said he was told he had violated a policy on confidentiality by contacting police without approval, providing the surveillance video to police and not filling out internal paperwork before doing so.

“In my eight years, I've never had to call anyone to give out the video or to call police,” Northington said. “I have never seen any policy about contacting law enforcement.”

Lt. Jeff Dube of the Leesburg police confirmed that Northington had served as the complainant in an unknown number of cases with Leesburg police in the past. He said investigators “haven’t positively identified this guy. They’re still doing follow-up investigation.” He said he did not know why the case had taken so long to resolve but said “there might be some extenuating circumstances.”
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
This is very relevant to what I do and a new manager's recent policy change.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
This is very relevant to what I do and a new manager's recent policy change.

Well then I am very interested in hearing your opinion about what they did to this security guard. By all accounts he did his job. As it was stated he did his job for years the same way as he had always done his job and it seems like he got canned because someone "knew" someone in the P.D. and wanted to keep it quite about what happened. But I think in the end that back fired, because he went public about this.

I think he should find a good attorney honestly and I am sure since this came out in the news he just might.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I obviously don't want to share too much about what I officially can and can't do to limit exploitation, but I am frequently asked to do certain things anyway and could get caught in a similar situation (note: voluntary policy restrictions in writing, not legal restrictions). It is very disturbing for me as I always felt that I could end up being the one left holding the bag if things didn't go right, but it is what management wants. My coworker actually did this work at Target before coming to work with me where I am now (a high-end retail chain), so it hits even closer to what we do.

Management expects me to share evidence with police and make reports without their involvement as well, though a new manager did impose a new restriction on a certain aspect of that (after a press leak incident involving a different store).
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
cops are not people they are above everything so dont narc on them...

geez when are people going to learn.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I obviously don't want to share too much about what I officially can and can't do to limit exploitation, but I am frequently asked to do certain things anyway and could get caught in a similar situation (note: voluntary policy restrictions in writing, not legal restrictions). It is very disturbing for me as I always felt that I could end up being the one left holding the bag if things didn't go right, but it is what management wants. My coworker actually did this work at Target before coming to work with me where I am now (a high-end retail chain), so it hits even closer to what we do.

Management expects me to share evidence with police and make reports without their involvement as well, though a new manager did impose a new restriction on a certain aspect of that (after a press leak incident involving a different store).
I understand that you don't want to be specific about what you actually do or don't do, but your post is still very confusing. If - as you state - there are written policy restrictions and you follow those written restrictions, then how can you possibly be left "holding the bag" with your employer?

Or are you saying that the written policy restrictions are actually the store's method of covering its own ass, but the store actually expects that you will need to go beyond those restrictions to properly do your job?
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I understand that you don't want to be specific about what you actually do or don't do, but your post is still very confusing. If - as you state - there are written policy restrictions and you follow those written restrictions, then how can you possibly be left "holding the bag" with your employer?

Or are you saying that the written policy restrictions are actually the store's method of covering its own ass, but the store actually expects that you will need to go beyond those restrictions to properly do your job?
"I am frequently asked to do certain things anyway."

Once again, these restrictions are self-imposed by the company to limit potential for liability, but they aren't legal requirements. If my bosses asked me to do something "anyway" and I did it, there's not going to be anything I can show to prove that I was following their instructions. Something very similar could happen to me.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This story reminds of the line from the classic movie Blade Runner..."you're either a cop or little people"
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Reading between the lines: What happened is that the police department complained to the store's management that they were very upset that the case hadn't been handled "unofficially." But because the theft was formally reported to the police by Northington, the shoplifter cop - who was having some sort of personal crisis - had to resign his position. So Target, which wants a good relationship with the police for "normal" cases, was forced to do something to appease the police.

If true, this is a pretty sad story all around. On the other hand, when non-police are in crisis, I doubt very much the police cut THEM any slack when they're caught shoplifting.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
You cannot arrest someone based on just a video tape anyways. It is required that you catch them with the stolen merchandise after they've left the store. Nothing here would have held up and no charges would have been pressed, cop or not.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
You cannot arrest someone based on just a video tape anyways. It is required that you catch them with the stolen merchandise after they've left the store. Nothing here would have held up and no charges would have been pressed, cop or not.
Completely incorrect.
I have arrest warrants issued for people who are not in the store and not yet arrested from whom the merchandise has not yet been recovered (and likely never will be) right now.
 
Last edited:

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Completely incorrect.
I have arrest warrants issued for people who are not in the store and not yet arrested from whom the merchandise has not yet been recovered (and likely never will be) right now.


Good luck with those cases. You won't win.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
You cannot arrest someone based on just a video tape anyways. It is required that you catch them with the stolen merchandise after they've left the store. Nothing here would have held up and no charges would have been pressed, cop or not.

So if there's a video tape in which a completely recognizable man is seen seen repeatedly stabbing a completely recognizable woman in the chest, and then dragging her limp body to his car (license plate visible) and driving away, you're claiming that this man cannot be arrested for murder or any other crime if the woman is never seen again and there's no forensic evidence to connect the man to the woman?
 
Last edited:

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
So if there's a video tape in which a completely recognizable man is seen seen repeatedly stabbing a completely recognizable woman in the chest, and then dragging her limp body to his car (license plate visible) and driving away, you're claiming that this man cannot be arrested for murder or any other crime if the woman is never seen again and there's no forensic evidence to connect the man to the woman?

This is not a good analogy. If a murder is caught on tape then the entire crime is on tape, that's clear cut. Shoplifting is different, just seeing someone put something in a bag is not enough, you need to also observe them leaving the store with that bag, and you better have a clear line of sight the entire time, because otherwise they'll say they put it back. Store videos are low res, are you sure you saw them put that thing in the bag? Very difficult to prosecute on a video alone. Would be surprised if many agencies would even pursue warrants for this. As for identity, of course you give an example of getting a license number on video, that's completely different from trying to positively ID someone from a low res video. Even if you find the person, they're just gonna claim it's not them. Good luck proving it is in a court of law.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
This is not a good analogy. If a murder is caught on tape then the entire crime is on tape, that's clear cut. Shoplifting is different, just seeing someone put something in a bag is not enough, you need to also observe them leaving the store with that bag, and you better have a clear line of sight the entire time, because otherwise they'll say they put it back. Store videos are low res, are you sure you saw them put that thing in the bag? Very difficult to prosecute on a video alone. Would be surprised if many agencies would even pursue warrants for this. As for identity, of course you give an example of getting a license number on video, that's completely different from trying to positively ID someone from a low res video. The person is just gonna claim it's not them. Good luck proving it is in a court of law.
And what makes you so sure those requirements are difficult? I have my own checklist that applies to us, but even by your measure, I have it in the bag. :cool:

And just so you know: my checklist is only for avoiding liabilities that do not apply to the police. When I can't act on reasonable suspicion, I simply call someone who CAN. As long as they make the decision to act, we have no liabilty for a bad stop.

And even though you aren't entirely correct, you are making my job harder by giving people bad ideas. Please stop.
 
Last edited:

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Reading between the lines: What happened is that the police department complained to the store's management that they were very upset that the case hadn't been handled "unofficially." But because the theft was formally reported to the police by Northington, the shoplifter cop - who was having some sort of personal crisis - had to resign his position. So Target, which wants a good relationship with the police for "normal" cases, was forced to do something to appease the police.

If true, this is a pretty sad story all around. On the other hand, when non-police are in crisis, I doubt very much the police cut THEM any slack when they're caught shoplifting.

that's most certainly what it sounds like.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I feel like there is more to this story. I find it hard to believe Target would fire a security guy for calling the police on a shoplifter.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,050
1,143
126
How was the guy to know it was a cop? Cops should at least flash their badge at the camera before they shoplift, to protect others that might get caught in the crossfire.

Did this take place in Virgina?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I feel like there is more to this story. I find it hard to believe Target would fire a security guy for calling the police on a shoplifter.

I think it's probably some scenario like shira laid out in his post..... The guy surely did the same thing numerous times before and it was fine, but this time the perp happened to be a cop.

I hope the guy successfully sues target.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,922
4,493
136
"I am frequently asked to do certain things anyway."

Once again, these restrictions are self-imposed by the company to limit potential for liability, but they aren't legal requirements. If my bosses asked me to do something "anyway" and I did it, there's not going to be anything I can show to prove that I was following their instructions. Something very similar could happen to me.

Record EVERYTHING :) If bosses tell you to do something you have it on tape if they try and deny it later :)
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
"I am frequently asked to do certain things anyway."

Once again, these restrictions are self-imposed by the company to limit potential for liability, but they aren't legal requirements. If my bosses asked me to do something "anyway" and I did it, there's not going to be anything I can show to prove that I was following their instructions. Something very similar could happen to me.

So several layers of managerial CYA to induce plausible deniability for store management just in case something ever happens to go horribly wrong with the loss prevention department?

Sounds like the perfect way for management to get away with proverbial murder.