Green Party
politics
See Page 3
Oregon daily
emerald
Tuesday, March 12, 1985
Eugene, Oregon
Volume 86, Number 117
Shoplifting procedures questioned
Market charged with violating rights
By Julie Shippen
Of the Emerald
A local supermarket’s pro
cedure of prosecuting
shoplifters violates customers’
civil rights and borders on false
imprisonment and extortion,
says Bill Kittredge, director of
the student advocacy office.
The store’s security director,
however, says the process used
by security personnel at the
Franklin Boulevard McKay's
store is within Oregon law and
is fairly applied.
Tracy Ladlow, who has work
ed for McKay’s statewide
security for more than five
years, says her division usually
calls the Eugene Police Depart
ment in the event of shoplifting.
But in more minor cases —
when less than $1 is stolen, for
example — the procedure
changes, she says.
The suspects of such cases are
instead taken to the store's of
fice and informed of their
Miranda rights, Ladlow. says.
Information on the suspect is
'collected and then a ‘‘subject
statement"'is prepared for the
person to review and sign, she
says. This statement is a simple
account of what the security of
ficer witnessed, written as if by
the suspect, she adds.
At this point, Ladlow’s office
then discusses ‘‘civil restitu
tion” of the matter, or payment
of a $150 penalty fine plus the
amount of the item(s) stolen,
she says. ‘‘We ask everybody to
pay that,” she says.
Ladlow adds that Oregon
statutes hold the shoplifter
liable to the store for $100 to
$250, plus up to $500 for repay
ment of merchandise, which the
store rightfully can seek on its
own.
But Kittredge. who says he
has closely watched the super
market’s security activities for
the past two years, says the
cases his office has handled —
particularly three recent ones —
cause him to believe the store is
acting unfairly and definitely
outside the law's boundaries.
One case Kittredge cites in
volved a student who went to
McKay’s to get beer and was ap
prehended for shoplifting as he
passed the register, arms load
ed, with two single bottles of
beer in his-coat pockets. Kit
tredge says that even though the
student had bought $30 of beer,
had $20 in his wallet and of
Walt
McKay’s Market is underfire from the University's student advocacy office, which claims that the
store's shoplifting prosecution procedures entail false imprisonment and extortion.
fered immediately to pay the
$1.09 for the “pocketed” bot
tles, McKay’s still insisted on
pressing charges.
The student ended up paying
$300 in court,, $150 .to McKay’s
and ultimately left school
because of financial problems,
Kittredge says. “That $300 was
absolutely necessary to his con
tinued .survivdiv”; he says.
“That was obviousjy malicious
prosecution on McKay’s part.”
. \ln another incident, a student
and her roommate went tri
McKay’s and wjjre Separated in
the store, Kittredge says. The
woman stepped beyond- the
register, her basket in full view, •
to look for her friend .and .was :
stopped by the stride’s security
for shoplifting, he4says.: :
Since her cheese block was
worth more than $1, she was ar
rested by Eugene police and
also was forced to pay the same
fines to the court and store, he
says.
Kittredge believes the third
case in question, which was
resolved out of court last
month, should put an end to the
store’s “in-house” form of pro
secution; he says.
Heidi Reiling, also a Univer
sity student, went to McKay’s
with her roommate last
September and,: while shop
ping, opened a can of pop and
began to drink it', she says.
. When she.came to the "grind-it
yourself” coffee, area, Reiling
put the can down on a nearby
shelf so she could use both of
her hands, she says.
She continued shopping,
leaving the forgotten can aisles
behind, she says. Apparently
security persons saw her do this
and stopped her at the door.
after she’d paid $30 for
groceries, she adds.
These officers told her she’d
have to stay an hour, and she
was taken upstairs where they
briefed her on her rights and
proceeded in their usual man
ner, she says.
Reiling was told then and in
following letters to send the
store $150 in monthly in
stallments or she would be
taken to court, she says. After
consulting Kittredge^s office,
she and a student defender in^
formed McKay’s she wouldn’t •
pay, and the store ultimately
dropped the charges, she says.
What sticks in her mind most
about the incident, Reiling says,
is that security officers told her
“she was lucky” that they
weren’t involving the police.
Continued on Page 3
One ‘final’
reminder
Now that dead week is upon us,
students and faculty should be
reminded once again of the
policies in effect this week. In
1982, the University Assembly
legislated guidelines that state:
•No examination worth more
than 20 percent of the final grade
will be given with the exception of
makeup exams.
•No final exam will be given
under any guise.
•No project will be due unless it
was clearly specified on the
syllabus within the first two weeks
of the term.
•No take-home final will be due
earlier than the day of the formal
assigned final date for the class.
Anyone who knows of any viola
tion of this policy should contact
SUAB members at 686-3720 or the
Information and Grievance Center
in the EMU lobby.
Bowling pins or silicon chips?
EMU computer center sought
By Dave Bems
Of the Emerald
Patrons of the EMU’s east bowling
alley will have to trade in their bowling
balls for binary bytes if officials approve
conversion of the facility into a new stu
dent computer center.
The plan, as finalized by an EMU
Board subcommittee, would convert the
older bowling alley — across from
Sooter’s Hair Co. in the EMU basement
— into a “Student Activities Center”
equipped with video machines, word
processors and a variety of computer
software.
“Students could write term papers,
learn how to operate computers and gain
hands-on experience with various com
puter systems," says ASUO Finance
Coordinator Kevin Lewis, a subcommit
tee member who supports the proposal.
The facility would be composed of
15-20 computer rooms, with a larger
room to house videotape machines,
Lewis says.
Students would be charged a user fee
based on the amount of time they spend
on an individual computer system, he
says.
The initial phase of the conversion
would cost about $90,000, EMU assis
tant director Frank Geltner says.
“This could be funded through a one
or two-term dollar increase in student
fees or through the use of the Building
Reserve Fund,” Geltner says. “The cost
of acquiring the computer software
would be open to bids.”
The EMU administration is required
by state law to maintain a reserve fund
for EMU projects. The most money
available for use on any one project is
$99,999, EMU business manager Jan
Hosmar says.
The EMU administration must ap
prove projects this large, she says.
During the past five years, the old
bowling alley has suffered from a lack of
use, says Dexter Simmons, EMU recrea
tion center manager.
“The space is hardly used because
bowling popularity is down on cam
pus,” Simmons says.
The recreation center at Stanford
University recently was converted into a
computer center, Simmons says.
EMU Board member Dave Rusk,
another subcommittee member, believes
the creation of a student computer center
is long overdue.
“Students can use the computing
center next to the law school, but they
can’t write term papers there,” Rusk
says. “We’re trying to meet a need that is
currently going unfilled.”
Lewis is optimistic that if both the
EMU Board and building administration
accept the proposal, conversion could
begin in the summer, and the center
could open early in 1986.
Subcommittee members will staff a
table in the EMU lobby Wednesday to
receive public comment on the plan. The
full EMU Board will hear the proposal
during its 3:30 p.m. Thursday meeting at
a location to be announced. Public com
ment will be welcome.