B) The Nordstrom security guard did not have constructive possession of Marshall’s property because he did not have the special relationship required to establish constructive possession.
One of the ways constructive possession is satisfied is if one has a special relationship with the employer. See, e.g., People v. Galoia, 31 Cal. App. 4th, 595 (1994) (finding no special relationship when a “Good Samaritan” lacked sufficient interest in the property being taken). Constructive possession is not met if one lacks a special relationship with the employer. In Sykes v. Super. Ct., 30 Cal. App. 4th, 479, 484 (1994), the court held that a security guard who worked for a different store did not have constructive possession of the saxophone because no special …show more content…
Bradford, 187 Cal. App. 4th, 1345 (2010), two mall security guards hired by an outside agency, had constructive possession due to the special relationship they had with the stores in the mall. In Bradford, the defendant stole six bottles of perfume from Victoria’s Secret, and the shift manager saw the defendant walking out with the bottles. Id. at 1348. The shift manager proceeded to report the theft to the mall security, whose job was to provide security services to the businesses in the mall. Id. at 1348, 1350. Since the mall security guards were employed by an outside agency to protect all of the stores in the mall, including Victoria’s Secret, they had a special relationship with each of the employers/employees of those stores, giving them constructive possession. Further, this case also distinguished that since the shift manager asked the security guards for their help, the request shows that she “granted the security guards the authority to recover the store’s property when she reported the theft to them.” Id. at 1351. Having a special relationship with the store and having been granted authority by the store’s employee gave the security guards constructive
One of the ways constructive possession is satisfied is if one has a special relationship with the employer. See, e.g., People v. Galoia, 31 Cal. App. 4th, 595 (1994) (finding no special relationship when a “Good Samaritan” lacked sufficient interest in the property being taken). Constructive possession is not met if one lacks a special relationship with the employer. In Sykes v. Super. Ct., 30 Cal. App. 4th, 479, 484 (1994), the court held that a security guard who worked for a different store did not have constructive possession of the saxophone because no special …show more content…
Bradford, 187 Cal. App. 4th, 1345 (2010), two mall security guards hired by an outside agency, had constructive possession due to the special relationship they had with the stores in the mall. In Bradford, the defendant stole six bottles of perfume from Victoria’s Secret, and the shift manager saw the defendant walking out with the bottles. Id. at 1348. The shift manager proceeded to report the theft to the mall security, whose job was to provide security services to the businesses in the mall. Id. at 1348, 1350. Since the mall security guards were employed by an outside agency to protect all of the stores in the mall, including Victoria’s Secret, they had a special relationship with each of the employers/employees of those stores, giving them constructive possession. Further, this case also distinguished that since the shift manager asked the security guards for their help, the request shows that she “granted the security guards the authority to recover the store’s property when she reported the theft to them.” Id. at 1351. Having a special relationship with the store and having been granted authority by the store’s employee gave the security guards constructive