Maplewood woman charged with ID theft after purses rifled

A Maplewood woman rifled through teachers' purses in schools in Mahtomedi, Lake Elmo, Maplewood and Roseville, as well as churches in Roseville and a Maplewood business, according to criminal complaints.

[Rockin John Pt 2]

No bail for Mrs. Scott, she seems like the type to keep stealing until she is behind bars.

[Huh]

Lock up your valuables! It's simple.

[johnny on the spot]

Sounds like this will add up to be quite a bit of money, she should definitely see some time behind bars...hopefully!

[S from Roseville]

Huh wrote:

Lock up your valuables! It's simple.

I am one of the women whose purses were stolen from North Heights Lutheran Church during my cousin's wedding. I was a bridesmaid and had left my purse (containing my wallet, day planner, cell phone and digital camera) in the basement room where the girls had dressed that day. The purse was underneath a large shawl which was, in turn, under a large silk flower arrangement. It's sad that we should have to worry about our personal property being taken from these "safe" places like churches and schools. But this commenter is absolutely correct. We must absolutely, always lock up our valuables. I will never again leave my purse unattended.

[Lil]

Didn't these stores ask for ID? I guess now I am not going to feel bothered when they ask for picture ID.

[sock]

Lil wrote:

Didn't these stores ask for ID? I guess now I am not going to feel bothered when they ask for picture ID.

It's actually a violation of the merchant account agreement to ask for ID. Strange but true.

[Just wondering in SSP]

sock wrote:

<quoted text>
It's actually a violation of the merchant account agreement to ask for ID. Strange but true.

But...you can write on the signature line of your credit cards "check ID" which allows merchants to ask without being in violation.

[sock]

Just wondering in SSP wrote:

<quoted text>
But...you can write on the signature line of your credit cards "check ID" which allows merchants to ask without being in violation.

A credit card is not valid without a signature. "See ID" or "Check ID" are not valid signatures. The merchant agreement stipulates that merchants treat a credit card as if it were cash. You don't ID for cash. A merchant can lose their account for such a violation, but in reality complaints are rare

[Oh Danny Boy]

Rockin John Pt 2 wrote:

No bail for Mrs. Scott, she seems like the type to keep stealing until she is behind bars.

love the pic..........welcome aboard Rockin John!!!!!!!!!!

[Just wondering in SSP]

sock wrote:

<quoted text>
A credit card is not valid without a signature. "See ID" or "Check ID" are not valid signatures. The merchant agreement stipulates that merchants treat a credit card as if it were cash. You don't ID for cash. A merchant can lose their account for such a violation, but in reality complaints are rare

One can do both...my cards have signature and "see ID" on them.

[sock]

Just wondering in SSP wrote:

<quoted text>
One can do both...my cards have signature and "see ID" on them.

Technically you are not supposed to do that. One thing I can tell you for sure is that merchants do NOT ask for ID to protect you. If they tell you it is for your protection, I guarantee you that person is either lying or is completely ignorant of how merchant accounts work. The cardholder does not need protection, the merchant does. This is because if the charge turns out to be fraudulent, it is the merchant who loses, not the cardholder.. Naturally the cardholders card will be canceled and a new one issued. It is ALWAYS up to the merchant to make sure a charge is not fraudulent. However, asking for ID is NOT one of the tools they are permitted to use. Consider internet sales, or paying at the pump - you can't show ID in these cases. The fact that you are standing there does not permit the merchant to apply stricter rules to credit card use.

Also, merchants are prohibited from charging more to us a cc, or having a minimum charge to use a cc.

[Al Franensteinn]

A store can ask for verification if the store has that as their policy. The acceptor of the card determines under Mastercard and Visa rules and regulations.("Prior to accepting Card for payment, Merchant shall use due diligence to verify that Cardholder is authorized to use the Card") Target, who as far as I am concerned as a victim of identity theft, is as great of a theif as the people using the stolen cards. Target does not require identification for purchases under $50.00 as I was told by the clerk who did not bother to read the card I offered to her. After recent theft at my daughters school, the suspects went to Target in Forest Lake, Best Buy, and other stores and used the checks and the credit cards racking up huge purchases, apparently without having to use any identification. Stores cannot sell tobacco or alcohol to underage persons. If they do and they are caught, the store and the clerk face fines. If our legislators want to, they could pass the same kind of identification laws. Of course in this state, that is "racist". I guess that stores would rather deal with powerless victims of identity theft. I am curious, what is to stop me from taking stores that accepted my stolen cards to small claims court so I can recover some of the lost time and money?

sock wrote:

<quoted text>
It's actually a violation of the merchant account agreement to ask for ID. Strange but true.

[ZenBirdist]

Al Franensteinn wrote:

I am curious, what is to stop me from taking stores that accepted my stolen cards to small claims court so I can recover some of the lost time and money?
<quoted text>

I believe that's completely within your rights, and I'd cheer you on if you took such action. A close friend of mine had checks stolen years ago, and the thief was able to clean out his account using someone else's stolen driver's license. Obviously, none of the businesses that abetted my friend's financial ruin checked ID's, either. Adding insult to injury, his bank at the time, Norwest, was trying to hold him responsible for the backlash of bounced checks and fees incurred when he put a stop on the account and reported the theft to both the bank and the Maplewood police. I wish he would have taken each of those merchants and Norwest to court, and I'm usually very non-litigious.

[sock]

Al Franensteinn wrote:

A store can ask for verification if the store has that as their policy. The acceptor of the card determines under Mastercard and Visa rules and regulations.("Prior to accepting Card for payment, Merchant shall use due diligence to verify that Cardholder is authorized to use the Card") Target, who as far as I am concerned as a victim of identity theft, is as great of a theif as the people using the stolen cards. Target does not require identification for purchases under $50.00 as I was told by the clerk who did not bother to read the card I offered to her. After recent theft at my daughters school, the suspects went to Target in Forest Lake, Best Buy, and other stores and used the checks and the credit cards racking up huge purchases, apparently without having to use any identification. Stores cannot sell tobacco or alcohol to underage persons. If they do and they are caught, the store and the clerk face fines. If our legislators want to, they could pass the same kind of identification laws. Of course in this state, that is "racist". I guess that stores would rather deal with powerless victims of identity theft. I am curious, what is to stop me from taking stores that accepted my stolen cards to small claims court so I can recover some of the lost time and money?
<quoted text>

The merchants policy is 100% IRRELEVANT. It is part of their merchant agreement that they may NOT ask for ID. Their policy cannot negate a written, signed contract(I like to say "Your policy is not my concern"). They are required to treat a credit card no different than cash.

If you believe you have fraudulent charges on your card, what you do is dispute the charges. The onus will then be on the merchant to prove the charge is legit. If they can't, by providing YOUR signature, they are out the amount of the fraudulent transaction, not you, the cardholder, and not the card issuer. That is the penalty for accepting a fraudulent charge as payment. Seems fair eenough to me. There is also a fee associated with these chargebacks - typically ~$20, that is charged to the merchant.

As far as Target accepting your card and not reading the "see id", they are under no obligation to respect that. Despite your intent, it is still a violation of their merchant agreement for them to ask for ID, no matter the amount. The checks are a different story.

FYI I have a merchant account, and have had people try to scam me many many many times. In one instance, I guy wanted to buy $5000 worth of stuff. Charge went through just fine. I was, however, skeptical and held the merchandise. Sure enough, a week or two later I got a call from First Data (my merchant account - same one target uses) and they told me the charges were fraudulent, that they were charging the $ back to me, and that I would be paying $20 in associated fees. If I had sent the merchandise, I would have just been out of luck. The guy whose card was fraudulently used was out nothing... other than the use of his card until a new one arrived (they always reissue when fraud is suspected)

[across the border]

I too was a victim and am outraged at this woman. To think of her touching my childs belongings on school premises and stealing our property. Again suppose to be a safe environment conditioned to teach our children their education to avoid situations like this uneducated woman!

[Fking thiefs]

make this thief wear a sign stating I'm a thief and I steal from churches and schools' And PP - plaster her face on the article- Embarass the hell out of her and others that continue to commit crimes. She is not new to the system, look her up!