Self-checkout has changed the way people shop. It has also changed the way retail theft cases are investigated and prosecuted.
One issue I am seeing with increasing frequency in my criminal practice is commonly referred to as “skip scanning.” A person goes through a self-checkout line but intentionally fails to scan one or more items, improperly enters an item, or otherwise leaves the store without paying the full price for everything in the cart.
Sometimes nothing happens.
The person pays for the scanned items, walks out of the store, gets into a car and drives away. No employee confronts the person. No police officer is waiting outside. There is no immediate indication that anyone noticed.
That can create a very dangerous assumption:
“I got away with it.”
The reality can be very different.
Retailers today have access to extensive transaction records, surveillance video and other technology that can allow loss-prevention investigators to examine not only what happened during one shopping trip, but what may have happened during earlier visits as well.
In some cases, the incident in which a person is finally stopped is not the beginning of the investigation.
It may be the end of an investigation that has already been developing for weeks or months.
Jump to: What skip scanning is · How retailers build a file · Flock cameras · Aggregation · Actual cases · What must be proven · Treatment · If you’re contacted · FAQ
What Is Skip Scanning?
“Skip scanning” is not a separate criminal offense under Maryland law. It is a term commonly used to describe conduct at a self-checkout register in which merchandise allegedly passes through the checkout process without being properly scanned or paid for.
An important distinction exists between an accidental missed scan and an intentional theft.
Maryland’s general theft statute requires proof of knowing or willful conduct and the required intent to deprive the owner of the property. A mistake at a busy self-checkout station is therefore not automatically the same thing as an intentional theft.
The problem becomes substantially more complicated when a retailer claims that the same behavior occurred repeatedly.
One missed item may have an innocent explanation.
Ten similar transactions on different dates may give the prosecutor a very different argument.
And that is exactly why these cases require careful analysis of each individual transaction, rather than simply accepting the retailer’s overall characterization of what occurred.
Retailers May Be Building a History Before Anyone Is Stopped
People sometimes assume that if store security believed a theft occurred, the person would be stopped immediately.
That is not necessarily how every investigation develops.
In cases I have handled, retailers have assembled substantial files concerning multiple alleged incidents. Depending upon the particular case, that evidence may include:
- self-checkout transaction records;
- surveillance footage showing the checkout process;
- photographs of the person entering or leaving the store;
- dates, times and store locations;
- vehicle descriptions and license-plate information;
- records attempting to connect multiple visits involving the same person;
- evidence from different stores belonging to the same retail chain; and
- in some investigations, image-matching or other technology used in an effort to connect a person to multiple events.
That means someone who allegedly skip scans at one Target and later shops at another Target, or who visits multiple Walmart locations, should not assume that every location necessarily exists in an evidentiary vacuum.
The ability to organize information across transactions and locations has changed the nature of these cases.
What Do Flock Cameras Have to Do With Retail Theft Cases?
Another increasingly important component of modern investigations is the use of automated license plate reader technology, commonly referred to as ALPR technology.
Flock Safety is one company that provides this type of system. According to Flock’s own description of its technology, its license-plate-reader cameras can capture a license plate, vehicle image, certain vehicle characteristics, and information concerning the date, time and camera location.
It is important to understand what that does—and does not—prove.
- That a particular vehicle was present at a particular location
- A license plate, a vehicle image and certain vehicle characteristics
- The date, time and camera location
- Who was driving the vehicle
- Who entered the store
License-plate readers are not facial recognition. If an investigator claims facial recognition or image matching was used, its basis and reliability should be examined separately.
A license-plate reader may help establish that a particular vehicle was present at a particular location. It does not, by itself, establish who was driving the vehicle or who entered a store.
But when vehicle information is combined with store surveillance footage, photographs, checkout records and other evidence, investigators may attempt to connect numerous pieces of information into a larger circumstantial case.
The technology should not simply be accepted at face value by the defense. Questions can include whether the vehicle was accurately identified, who had access to it, whether timestamps correspond, how the information was retained, and whether the person depicted in the store can actually be reliably identified.
Similarly, license-plate-reader technology should not be confused with facial recognition. They are different technologies. If a retailer or investigator claims that facial recognition, image matching or another automated identification system was used, the basis and reliability of that identification should be examined separately.
Maryland Can Aggregate Multiple Theft Allegations
This is where repeated skip-scanning allegations can become particularly serious.
Under Maryland Criminal Law § 7-103(f), thefts committed under “one scheme or continuing course of conduct” may be considered one crime, and the value of the property may be aggregated when determining whether the theft constitutes a misdemeanor or felony.
Maryland law also now expressly provides that multiple thefts committed by the same person in multiple counties under one scheme or continuing course of conduct may be joined and prosecuted in a county in which one of the thefts occurred.
That can dramatically change the exposure.
Under the current general Maryland theft statute, theft involving property valued at $1,500 or more but less than $25,000 is a felony carrying a maximum potential sentence of five years, along with a potential fine and restitution. Lower-value theft offenses are generally misdemeanors, although prior theft convictions can affect exposure.
Maryland also enacted an Organized Retail Theft Act, effective October 1, 2025, addressing a series of retail thefts over a 90-day period where the statutory requirements are met and the aggregate value exceeds $1,500.
The takeaway is important: a series of relatively small allegations can potentially become a much more serious case when they are put together.
What I Am Seeing in Actual Cases
This is not theoretical.
I have represented several people recently in cases involving allegations of repeated skip scanning.
In one matter, the allegations centered on repeated transactions at Walmart.
In another, the allegations involved Target.
In a more serious matter, the investigative materials involved activity associated with Walmart and Safeway locations. By the time the case was prosecuted, the evidence was not limited to a single transaction. There was a substantial collection of information attempting to establish a continuing pattern, including photographs, transaction information, video and vehicle-related information.
The lesson from these cases is that the transaction that finally results in charges may be only one small part of the prosecution’s evidence.
A person may believe the case concerns what happened last Saturday.
The discovery may reveal that investigators intend to make the case about what allegedly happened during the preceding several months.
A Strong Retailer File Still Has to Be Proven
None of this means that a retailer’s investigation is automatically correct.
Every alleged transaction must still be examined.
Was an item actually unpaid?
Was the person depicted in the video correctly identified?
Does the video show intentional conduct or something that could reasonably have been accidental?
Are the retailer’s calculations correct?
Does the transaction history actually correspond with the person accused?
Who was driving the vehicle identified by a license-plate reader?
Can the State establish the alleged transactions sufficiently to aggregate them?
And most importantly, can the prosecution prove the required criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt?
Technology may create evidence.
It does not eliminate the State’s burden of proof.
When Treatment and Rehabilitation Become Part of the Case
There is another side to these cases that is sometimes overlooked.
Repeated retail theft behavior can become habitual, and in some cases the individual recognizes that something much larger is happening in his or her life.
Where appropriate, we have encouraged clients to address those issues rather than simply waiting for the criminal case to resolve.
That can include legitimate mental-health treatment, counseling, and structured self-help or peer-support programs directed toward compulsive stealing or similar behavior.
These efforts are not a legal defense to conduct that the State can otherwise prove.
They can, however, become meaningful mitigation.
In one particularly serious matter I handled, the evidentiary case against the client was substantial. Rather than ignoring that reality, we also focused heavily on rehabilitation. The client began attending self-help meetings addressing shoplifting behavior and obtained mental-health treatment.
Those efforts allowed us to present the court with a much fuller picture of the individual, including concrete steps she had taken to address the behavior and reduce the likelihood that it would happen again. That mitigation became an important component of resolving a case in which significant incarceration was a legitimate concern.
Every case is different, and no particular result can ever be promised. But when treatment is genuinely appropriate, beginning rehabilitation early can matter for reasons that extend well beyond the courtroom.
What Should You Do If You Are Contacted About Skip Scanning?
If a loss-prevention investigator, police officer or detective contacts you about alleged thefts, do not assume that the conversation relates only to the most recent store visit.
Before making a statement, it is important to understand the scope of the investigation.
You should also preserve information that may assist your attorney, including receipts, bank or credit-card records, relevant communications and other records concerning the transactions at issue.
An attorney evaluating one of these cases should determine not only what happened during the incident that resulted in the charge, but whether the retailer is attempting to connect the client to other transactions, other locations or an alleged continuing course of conduct.
Frequently asked questions
Is skip scanning a crime in Maryland?
“Skip scanning” is not the name of a separate Maryland crime. Depending upon the evidence and the person’s intent, intentionally leaving a store with merchandise that was not paid for can result in a theft charge under Maryland law.
What if I accidentally forgot to scan something at self-checkout?
Intent matters. Maryland theft law generally requires knowing or willful conduct and the required intent to deprive the owner. An accidental scanning mistake should therefore be analyzed differently from deliberate conduct, although the surrounding circumstances and evidence will matter.
Can Walmart, Target or another retailer charge me for earlier incidents?
The retailer does not file the criminal charge—the State does—but a retailer can provide investigators with evidence concerning prior alleged incidents. If prosecutors believe multiple thefts were part of one scheme or continuing course of conduct, Maryland law may permit those allegations and their values to be aggregated.
Can thefts from different stores be combined?
Potentially. Maryland law allows aggregation of theft occurring under one scheme or continuing course of conduct whether the property came from the same or several sources. Current Maryland law also permits qualifying thefts committed in multiple counties to be joined in one prosecution.
Can several small skip-scanning incidents turn into a felony?
Yes, depending upon the circumstances. When Maryland’s aggregation provisions apply, the value of multiple alleged thefts may be combined. The felony threshold for general theft currently begins at $1,500.
What is a Flock camera?
Flock Safety manufactures automated license-plate-reader systems. These systems can capture vehicle and license-plate information along with certain time and location information. A license-plate reader can potentially help place a vehicle at a location, but it does not by itself establish who was driving or who entered a particular store.
Can stores use video to connect visits to different locations?
Retailers may maintain surveillance and transaction records and may attempt to connect alleged incidents across locations. The precise evidence available in any particular case—and how reliable that evidence is—should be carefully examined.
Do stores use facial recognition in shoplifting investigations?
Technology varies by retailer and location. Some investigations may involve claims of image matching, facial recognition or other video analytics. Those technologies are distinct from license-plate readers, and any automated identification used in a criminal case should be independently examined.
Does going to therapy or a shoplifting support group make the charge disappear?
No. Treatment is not a substitute for a legal defense and does not erase the underlying allegation. However, when behavioral-health treatment or structured support is genuinely appropriate, documented rehabilitation may become important mitigation when an attorney is presenting the client’s circumstances to a prosecutor or court.
Should I talk to store security or the police if they call me?
A person facing a potential criminal investigation should consider obtaining legal advice before making statements about alleged prior incidents. What sounds like a question about one transaction may be part of a considerably broader investigation.
Mandeep S. Chhabra
Mandeep S. Chhabra is the managing member of Cochran & Chhabra Law Group and has practiced law in Maryland since 2000. He is a trial attorney whose practice centers on criminal defense, including theft and property crime cases across Anne Arundel County and Maryland. He has been recognized by Super Lawyers, Avvo and Martindale-Hubbell, and is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum.
Sources
- Md. Code, Criminal Law § 7-103 — value; one scheme or continuing course of conduct; multi-county joinder
- Criminal Law § 7-104 — theft; penalties by value
- Criminal Law § 7-104.1 — organized retail theft
- Organized Retail Theft Act of 2025 (SB 11), effective October 1, 2025
- Flock Safety — license plate readers
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every criminal case depends upon its particular facts and evidence. Prior results do not guarantee or predict the outcome of any other matter.