Retail theft continues to be a huge issue across Canada. How retailers and loss prevention professionals (LPPs) are responding to it has seen significant changes in recent years. As criminals become more sophisticated, so too have the tools used by loss prevention to combat retail theft. Something else that has been increasing in popularity is a shift towards non-contact apprehension policies for loss prevention staff.
The shift to a hand-off approach to apprehensions is being driven by a number of factors including concerns around safety, legal liability, and changing public opinion. While adopting a non-contact approach to apprehending offenders does address these issues, it’s not without its drawbacks.
In this post, we will discuss what a non-contact apprehension is, why they’re quickly becoming the new standard in many retail environments, and the pros and cons of the strategy.
What is a Non-Contact Apprehension?
A non-contact apprehension is when an LPP detains a suspected thief using only verbal instructions, without using physical contact of any kind.
This approach is useful when the suspect appears calm, cooperative, and the situation is low risk. Rather than advising the suspect that they are under arrest and then grabbing them and putting them into handcuffs, the LPP may approach as say, “You are under arrest for shoplifting. Please follow me to the security office so that we can discuss the next steps.”
The LPP follows at a safe distance, maintains non-threatening body language, and directs the suspect to the security office using clear instructions. Once in the office, the LPP utilizes their strong communication skills to keep the suspect in custody until the police arrive.
Why are More Companies Adopting This Approach?
There are several factors motivating retailers to move towards non-contact apprehensions.
Staff and Customer Safety
Physically preventing someone from escaping, applying handcuffs, and maintaining detention while awaiting police carries an inherent and significant safety risk. There have been many instances where employees, customers and suspects have been injured during hands-on apprehensions.
Legal Risks and Liability Exposure
In Canada, private citizens (including LPPs) can make arrests under Section 494 of the Criminal Code. Section 25 authorizes the use of reasonable force when doing it. While these authorities exist, the scope of their application is very narrow. Any use of force must be limited to just enough to manage the situation safely, and complete the arrest. Any excess force used can lead to criminal charges against the LPP, and/or civil lawsuits against both the LPP and the retailer.
The simplest way to reduce that liability exposure is to utilize non-contact apprehension methods.
Public Image and Brand Reputation
With the proliferation of smartphones and social media, interactions between LPPs and the public are often captured on video. Those videos can then be shared with a wide audience, who have no problem stating their opinions on what they see, often with little context or understanding of the situation. The more “exciting” or controversial the video, the more views it gets and the more comments it receives.
There are plenty of video clips online of LPPs and security guards using force against suspects. Recently, an arrest outside of a Calgary Co-op grocery store made headlines. The public backlash and potential harm to their brand put the organization into damage control mode. Unfortunately, whether the LPP acted within his legal authorities is irrelevant in the court of public opinion.
Gaps in Training and Skills
Assessing, selecting and applying force appropriately requires significant training. This requires an investment on the part of security companies and retailers. As businesses struggle to remain profitable, investments in training are often reduced or eliminated altogether. The result can be a security workforce improperly trained for contact apprehensions.
How Non-Contact Apprehensions Work
Verbal Arrest: The LPP identifies themselves and informs the suspect that they are under arrest. For example: “I am with store security, you are under arrest for theft. I need you to stay where you are and follow my instructions.”
Provide Clear Direction: Inform them that they are required to cooperate, and will need to accompany you to the security office (or other appropriate location). Advise them of the consequences of non-compliance, aka additional criminal charges for evading lawful arrest.
Maintain Distance: Direct them verbally which way to go, and follow from a distance of at least 6-feet. This is known as a reactionary gap.
Observe Their Behaviour: Monitor the suspect’s verbal and non-verbal behaviour for signs of escalation, agitation, or intent to flee custody. Use strong communication skills to maintain compliance and control of the situation.
Contact and Wait for Police: Place the suspect in a safe space to await the arrival of police. Ensure that you do not physically block the suspects exit path, and do not attempt to physically engage with or stop them if they attempt to run or become aggressive.
Limitations of a Non-Contact Apprehension
While there are clear benefits to this approach, being completely hands-off does come with some downsides from an asset protection perspective.
Higher Risk for Escape
Without the use of physical control and handcuffs, a suspect can simply choose to walk away. If they do, there is little that the LPP can do to stop them.
If the suspect already knows that if they are caught stealing, no one will physically detain them, they may not be deterred from stealing from that store.
Limited Options for Dealing With Escalating Behaviour
If the suspect becomes aggressive or violent towards the LPPs, there are very few options available other than to move to a hands-on response. This creates safety risks for the LPPs.
Requires High Level Communication Skills
Since this approach relies solely on voluntary compliance, LPPs must possess exceptional conflict management and persuasion skills. This requires significant training. Even with the training, not all LPPs will develop the communication skills necessary to succeed.
Ineffective Deterrent
Repeat offenders and “professional” thieves know the system. If they are aware that LPPs will not lay a hand on them or physically block their exit, they may not perceive them as a threat. In their mind, the only obstacle will be getting away before the police arrive.
How Retailers Are Making This Work
Enhanced Training: Online and in-person training in conflict management, tactical communication, de-escalation, and situational awareness.
Investing in Technology: Cutting edge camera systems with face recognition, and artificial intelligence support to monitor the store in real-time, while building strong evidence for police follow-up.
Partnerships with Local Law Enforcement: Creating relationships and agreements with local police for frequent patrols, faster response times and information sharing.
Conclusion
In the past, contact-based apprehensions were the norm. They provided a real deterrent to theft, and reduced loss for retailers. Unfortunately, they also resulted in injuries, criminal charges, civil lawsuits and brand damage. Hence the shift towards non-contact approaches to arrests.
While not without its challenges and drawbacks, non-contact apprehensions can be an effective way for retailers to safely manage theft in their stores. Provided there are clear policies and appropriate training for the LPP staff of course.
If you are a loss prevention professional looking for exactly the type of training discussed in this post, please browse our library of training programs here.
References:
CityNews Staff. (2025, February 28). Takedown by security guard at Calgary Co-op sparks investigation. CityNews Calgary. https://calgary.citynews.ca/2025/02/28/takedown-security-guard-calgary-coop-video/
Department of Justice Canada. (1985). Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), § 25. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-3.html#h-115622
Department of Justice Canada. (1985). Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), § 494. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-494.html