Retail fraud and shoplifting defense in Detroit and Wayne County, including first, second, and third degree charges. Challenge intent, identification, and store evidence early.

Retail fraud cases often turn on intent and identification rather than on a simple “in the cart” narrative. Store incidents are fast-moving, and misunderstandings, scanning errors, distractions, and mistaken identifications are common fact patterns in Detroit-area cases.

Loss-prevention reports are frequently treated as definitive, but they can contain assumptions and may not match the video timeline. A careful defense review compares each claimed act to the actual camera angles, timestamps, and register data, and then tests whether the store’s theory is supported.

Michigan retail fraud degrees and penalties depend on prior history and the value involved, making documentation and valuation issues central. Defense counsel should verify whether the value is supported by admissible proof and whether aggregation or enhancement theories are legally sound.

These cases also have practical consequences beyond the courtroom, including employment and professional licensing risk. A strategy that targets dismissal, reduction, or non-conviction outcomes can be as important as the trial defenses.

Retail Fraud Cases, Evidence, and Defenses

Retail fraud cases are common in Detroit-area courts, and the decisive issues are usually intent, identity, and proof quality. Michigan’s retail fraud statutes criminalize specific conduct in a store or its immediate vicinity, with degree and penalties depending on value and prior convictions. See MCL 750.356c (first-degree retail fraud); MCL 750.356d (second- and third-degree retail fraud). In addition to criminal exposure, many defendants face civil demand pressures, which Michigan law separately addresses. See MCL 600.2953.

A defense should begin with the actual evidence rather than the store narrative. Loss-prevention reports can contain assumptions about what occurred, why it occurred, and who did it. Surveillance video can be misleading if the camera angle omits payment, scanning, returns, or later corrections. Register data and timestamps often matter as much as the video, and the combination can reveal that the store’s theory rests on an incomplete view of the transaction.

Intent is frequently the fulcrum. Mistakes at self-checkout, distraction, language barriers, and ordinary shopping behavior can be misinterpreted as concealment or switching. Where the prosecution’s proof of intent is circumstantial, the defense can emphasize alternative explanations and insist on evidence that is consistent with the charged mental state. If the charge is enhanced by alleged prior convictions or aggregated value, those predicates should be verified carefully rather than assumed.

Procedure can change outcomes quickly. If police obtained statements without proper safeguards, or if the stop, detention, or search exceeded legal limits, suppression motions can narrow the evidence. Early motion practice also helps control restitution and property-return issues. When a negotiated resolution is appropriate, it should be structured to minimize collateral consequences, particularly employment, licensing, and immigration risk, and to avoid unnecessary admissions that expand civil exposure. In short, a disciplined retail fraud defense treats the case as an evidence problem first, a valuation problem second, and only then a negotiation problem.

Why Choose William Maze As Your Criminal Defense Attorney?

As a Detroit criminal defense attorney, I provide specialized expertise in Detroit's court systems. I understand the specific procedures, judges, and prosecutors in Detroit courts, giving my clients a distinct advantage in their criminal defense cases.

Local Expertise:

• Knowledge of Detroit judges' preferences
• Experience with Detroit prosecutors
• Understanding of local court procedures
• Relationships with court personnel

Attorney Credentials:

• 28+ years Detroit experience
• Expert witness qualified
• Former CDAM President
• SFST certified instructor

William J. Maze, Esq.

Detroit Criminal Defense Attorney

Expert Witness 28+ Years