Self-checkout glitches range from smudged barcodes to double-bagged items that never pass the scanner. Distractions (text alerts, restless kids, crowded lanes, etc.) compound the problem. Retailers see growing losses and increasingly flag discrepancies for investigation.
Section 812.014 of the Florida Statutes says a person commits theft when they knowingly take another’s property with the aim of permanently denying the owner its use or enjoyment. An honest scanning error lacks that intent, which is why prosecutors rarely file charges over a lone mis-scan. Patterns of conduct, not isolated mistakes, drive criminal filings.
Store practices and zero-tolerance policies
Some chains use loss-prevention teams and artificial intelligence to spot “skip-scanning.” Even minor shortages can trigger detention until managers review footage. Stores sometimes press charges when shoppers fail to address errors pointed out by attendants.
Proving versus perceiving theft at the kiosk
Surveillance video, electronic transaction records and the shopper’s immediate reaction weigh heavily. Cooperating, apologizing and paying for missed items usually resolves the matter at store level. Repeated shortages, high-value goods or concealment attempts, however, can sway police toward arrest.
Fort Lauderdale courts view self-checkout theft through the lens of intent, statutory ranges and proof via direct and circumstantial evidence. Our state’s retail-theft statute criminalizes only intentional deprivation. Value under $750 is petit theft and anything above that becomes felony grand theft.
Defenses
Two defenses commonly end self-checkout cases before trial. The first is no intent. Register data, damaged barcodes and store videos can show a genuine scanning mistake. The second defense is immediate correction: if the shopper settles the unpaid item or notifies an employee before leaving the checkout area, prosecutors often treat the lapse as accidental and first-time defendants may be routed into Broward County’s Misdemeanor Diversion Program, avoiding a traditional criminal case. Even when criminal exposure fades, retailers may still send civil demand letters under Section 772.11 seeking $200 or triple damages plus fees.
A single scanning slip typically remains a civil matter, but patterns that suggest intent can invite criminal scrutiny. Understanding how Florida theft statutes hinge on intent, and how store policies interpret scanner data, helps shoppers navigate self-checkout with confidence while minimizing legal risk.