As stated beforehand, the District Court of Howard County, Maryland relied upon the requirement surrounding intent as the means to convict Sam Kant of Shoplifting. However, the Court made a serious error in judgment in terms of accepting the State 's version of Kant 's actions. Of course, the State focused upon Kant 's lack of patience when he left the customer service line and refusal to return the unpurchased Handell 's beans back to its shelf. However, in Kant 's mind which is directly related to intent, he believed that placing his purchased Hoover beans in a cart which happened to hold canned donations served as a proper exchange of merchandise. This action which Kant would admit was a mistake in judgment, but a mistake does not amount
…show more content…
Kant, while visiting Bilmart on two occasions, did not exhibit any of these behaviors. He purchased a case of Hoover beans on the first occasion but of course, his wife wanted Handell 's beans instead. Because of this first mistake, he returned to Bilmart and planned to exchange it for Handell 's beans. While he conducted an unauthorized exchange, his intent overrode whether he wielded legal possession of Handel 's beans. He believed that in placing the Hoover 's beans in the donation cart, with the belief that the cart was a re-stocking cart, he believed that Bilmart would not have been deprived since the Hoover and Handell 's beans are similar if not equal in cost. Thus, Mr. Kant did not share the intent to deprive as stated from the first element of Md. Code, Crim. Law § …show more content…
Nevertheless, if security witnessed Kant at the point in which he stood in line, it would have recognized that Kant possessed two cases of cans. Security also had ample opportunity to question Kant regarding his actions of bringing a Hoover 's case of beaked beans into Bilmart, holding a case of Handell 's beans soon after, visiting the customer service line, walking to the donation cart, and then to the store exits. Regarding probable cause, security has the responsibility to conduct "reasonable investigation" which is a "significant factor in determining the existence of probable cause" (47 A. L. R. 3d 998 (1973)). At no point did security attempt to corroborate Kant 's story, examine the Hoover 's beans which he placed in the donation cart and determine whether he truly purchased it or
Kant, while visiting Bilmart on two occasions, did not exhibit any of these behaviors. He purchased a case of Hoover beans on the first occasion but of course, his wife wanted Handell 's beans instead. Because of this first mistake, he returned to Bilmart and planned to exchange it for Handell 's beans. While he conducted an unauthorized exchange, his intent overrode whether he wielded legal possession of Handel 's beans. He believed that in placing the Hoover 's beans in the donation cart, with the belief that the cart was a re-stocking cart, he believed that Bilmart would not have been deprived since the Hoover and Handell 's beans are similar if not equal in cost. Thus, Mr. Kant did not share the intent to deprive as stated from the first element of Md. Code, Crim. Law § …show more content…
Nevertheless, if security witnessed Kant at the point in which he stood in line, it would have recognized that Kant possessed two cases of cans. Security also had ample opportunity to question Kant regarding his actions of bringing a Hoover 's case of beaked beans into Bilmart, holding a case of Handell 's beans soon after, visiting the customer service line, walking to the donation cart, and then to the store exits. Regarding probable cause, security has the responsibility to conduct "reasonable investigation" which is a "significant factor in determining the existence of probable cause" (47 A. L. R. 3d 998 (1973)). At no point did security attempt to corroborate Kant 's story, examine the Hoover 's beans which he placed in the donation cart and determine whether he truly purchased it or